HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-15; City Council; ; Housing Element Update site selection process and contract amendment (General Plan Amendment 2019-0003, PUB 2019-0009)Meeting Date:Feb.15,2022
To:Mayor and City Council
From:Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Staff Contact:Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
scott.donnell carlsbadca.gov, 760-602-4618
Subject:Housing Element Update site selection process and contract amendment
(General Plan Amendment 2019-0003, PUB 2019-0009)
District:All
Recommended Action
That the City Council:
1.Receive and consider the public input summary report on potential housing sites
2.Provide direction to staff on the potential housing sites to study for rezoning through the
environmental review and public hearing process, including what sites to consider as the
proposed projects and alternatives
3.Adopt a resolution amending the contract with Rincon Consultants Inc. for assistance in
completing the rezoning effort and Housing Element program implementation, drafting
the Environmental Impact Report, and preparing miscellaneous amendments to the
General Plan to comply with state law
4.Consider adopting a resolution to authorize the transfer of funds from the City Council’s
contingency budget to the Community Development Department’s operating budget to
fully study one or more alternatives in the environmental impact report on the selected
sites
Ex ecutive Summary
Based on state forecasts and a regional formula, the City of Carlsbad must identify sites that
could accommodate 3,873 new housing units in the next eight years, 54% of which must be
affordable to lower income households. The city’s updated Housing Element, adopted in April
2021, provides a strategy to accomplish this requirement.
The city already had sites and projects identified to meet part, but not all of the housing need
required by the state. To address the shortfall of about 2,600 units, which includes a state
recommended buffer of 30 , or 854 units, the city is proposing to rezone various properties
throughout the city to either allow housing where it is not allowed today or to allow more units
on property where housing is already allowed.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 1 of 162
The potential sites were selected based on criteria developed with input from the community
and a City Council-created citizens committee. The City Council also identified potential sites
during previous public meetings. The city then sought input from the community on the specific
sites proposed.
Staff are now prepared to share the community’s input on the proposed sites with the City
Council as the City Council directed at its August 17,2021 meeting. In addition, staff are
requesting that the council select the final sites and direct staff to proceed to the next step of
the process, which is to complete an environmental review of the impact if the selected sites
were to be developed.This review will include analyses of potential impacts on traffic as well as
aesthetics, air quality and other potential environmental impacts of adding housing to the
proposed sites.This environmental review will occur through the completion of a single
environmental impact report for this rezoning process. At a future meeting, the City Council will
then be asked to approve the environmental impact report and the final list of sites to be
rezoned.
Before this environmental impact report is prepared, it is important for the City Council to
determine what will be considered as the “proposed project” that will be the basis for studying
the environmental impacts in keeping with the California Environmental Quality Act. It’s also
important to outline what will be studied as “alternatives” to the proposed project, and the
level of detail at which the alternatives will be studied.
Staff are also seeking the City Council’s approval of an amendment to a consulting contract with
the company that has been assisting with the Housing Element update and other tasks.
Additional time and funding are required to complete remaining tasks. The City Council’s
approval of this amendment is required pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
3.28.060.D.5 because the cost of the amendment is more than $100,000 per agreement year.
Discussion
Prior actions
The Housing Element1 is one of seven state-mandated
elements of the city’s General Plan. Carlsbad’s was adopted
by the City Council on April 6, 2021, and certified by the
state on July 14, 2021. The state’s certification found that
the document addresses all statutory requirements and
substantially complies with state housing element law.
Program 1.1 of the adopted Housing Element requires the
city to make land use changes, that is, to rezone property,
as necessary to accommodate the city’s share of the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment by April of 2024. This
assessment is a state-mandated estimate of how much
new housing will be needed to accommodate forecasted
growth through 2029.
1 The adopted, certified Housing Element can be found at
carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/7213/637629115272470000
The update of the housing plan is explained on this page carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-
development/planning/housing-plan-update
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 2 of 162
These land use changes are necessary to provide sites that can be developed at the densities,
including high densities, that the state deems suitable to meet estimated lower and moderate-
income housing needs in Carlsbad.
On Aug. 17, 2021, the City Council endorsed maps identifying potential sites for rezoning as well
as an accompanying public engagement plan. The council also directed staff to release the
maps for public review and return to the City Council with a summary of the public input. Most
of the sites on the maps had been identified in Appendix C of the approved element. At a public
meeting in August 2021, the City Council added four site alternatives for the community’s
consideration, all in the Southwest Quadrant, for a total of 18 potential sites.2
Following the meeting, staff initiated the public engagement plan, enabling people to
participate and comment in different forms on the potential housing sites from Sept. 2 - Oct.
22, 2021. Details on the engagement conducted, including the comments received, are
presented below and in the public input summary report (Exhibit 5). One of the more effective
outreach tools was an online interactive map that identified all of the 18 potential sites and
enabled users to click on each site to receive more information, such as a description of the
property and the number of housing units possible. The map also provided both aerial and
topographic imagery to help identify surrounding features. A still image of the online interactive
map is provided in the potential housing sites discussion below.3
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
This assessment, known as RHNA, is required by state law to accommodate forecasted
residential growth and is expressed as housing units by income group.4 The state determines
the affordability of units based on density. In Carlsbad, units at high densities – 26.5 units per
acre or more – are considered affordable to low-income families. At these densities, three to
four-story apartments are common. Table 1 identifies the total number of housing units that
Carlsbad must find sites to accommodate as part of Housing Element Program 1.1, the program
to rezone potential development sites to satisfy the city’s RHNA obligations.
Table 1 – Carlsbad’s RHNA housing unit target
Income group Lower Moderate Total
Total units for rezone program 2,026 552 2,578
The state strongly advises that jurisdictions incorporate a buffer in their original RHNA
allocation of Housing Element sites inventory of at least 15% to 30% more capacity than is
required. The total figure in Table 1 includes a 30% buffer, based on the city’s total RHNA
allocation. The buffer equals 854 units, 629 lower and 225 moderate income units.
The city’s existing inventory of residential land is inadequate to accommodate the nearly 2,600
units identified in Table 1. Program 1.1 was established to rezone properties as necessary to
2 For further information on the City Council’s actions, please refer to the Aug. 17, 2021, City Council staff report
(Exhibit 3) and minutes (Exhibit 4).
3 The online interactive map can be found at
carlsbad.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a5a710965bd4e6da387aa3183fd5ae2
4 For more information on income groups, refer to the information bulletin on Carlsbad’s Housing Plan at
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/8276/637709245097070000.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 3 of 162
make up the shortfall.Because most of the needed units are in the lower income category,
most sites must be rezoned at densities of 26.5 units per acre or more.5
Regulatory constraints affecting site selection
Recent state laws affect the amount and location of housing in Carlsbad:
•Senate Bill 330 - Housing Crisis Act of 2019 – Prohibited the city from applying the caps
on dwelling units and building moratoriums contained in its Growth Management Plan.
•SB 166 - Residential Density and Affordability Act – Requires the city to accommodate its
RHNA share at all times during the 2021-2029, the period used in the RHNA process
•AB 686 - Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing – Directs the city to locate affordable
housing throughout the community
Exhibit 6 provides more information about these laws and their effect on housing in the city
and the Growth Management Plan.
The potential housing sites
5 For further information on RHNA and how the city determined its RHNA housing unit target, please refer to the
Aug. 17, 2021, City Council staff report (Exhibit 3).
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 4 of 162
Ten of the 18 potential sites are north of Palomar Airport Road and eight are south. Most are
privately owned, three are owned by the city and two by the North County Transit District. Sites
are in each quadrant and each of the four City Council Districts,and they are currently
designated for commercial, industrial, public, and residential uses. Two of the sites have active
development applications. If the residential potential of all sites were realized, 3,261 homes
could be built at densities considered affordable to lower and moderate-income households.
For individual and summary information on the sites, please see Exhibit 7.
Owners of most of the sites have expressed
interest in having their properties rezoned
to allow for this development, but the
interest of five property owners is not
known after repeated inquiries. In addition,
one property owner expressed opposition
to the rezoning. As a result, staff have
withdrawn this property (the “Kelly” parcel,
a portion of Site 4) as a potential housing
site, and it does not factor into calculations
for meeting the RHNA target, as discussed
under the Options section below.
The North County Transit District is
exploring redevelopment of its Carlsbad
Village and Poinsettia Coaster stations. The
district has a redevelopment objective that includes contributing to regional housing needs.
NCTD has indicated that any plan to redevelop the stations must continue to prioritize transit
use, maintain transit user parking and foster increased ridership.
Based on discussions with district staff, city staff believe a conservative increase in the units
that could be built on both Coaster station sites over what city staff estimated in the Housing
Element is reasonable. To recognize the possibility of multiple uses (e.g., transit, commercial,
residential)on the sites, staff projected a minimum unit yield – the number of units that could
be built in a site – based on only a percentage of each site’s acreage. While this approach
continues to be appropriate for helping to determine minimum yields, NCTD’s estimates are
greater than the city’s because they are based on redevelopment of the entirety of each site.
An increase in potential units on NCTD or other properties can impact the sites chosen to help
the city meet its RHNA target. For example, increasing or decreasing units on one or more sites
can possibly reduce reliance on or the need for other sites. Please see the Options discussion
below and related Exhibit 12 for details on the different unit estimates.
Site 4 consists of three parcels; the Kelly parcel is No 1.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 5 of 162
Public comments on potential housing sites
The public outreach efforts generated overall comments on housing as well as remarks specific
to each site. Table 3 below provides highlights of the feedback.
Table 3 – Highlights of feedback received
General comments Site-specific comments
Traffic and school crowding are
concerns
Sites 3, 4, 8: Many emails and letters do not support rezoning of
these sites.
Sites 3, 4, 14, 18: Many online survey responses do not support
rezoning of these sites.
Site 1 (North County Plaza) and 2 (The Shoppes at Carlsbad parking
lot) also generated parking and traffic congestion concerns.
Too much housing is planned for north
Carlsbad, including in the Village
City-owned sites 2, 6 and 15 and sites 1, 3, 5, 7 and 14 are in the
Northwest Quadrant.
Sites 14 (NCTD Carlsbad Village Station) and 15 (city’s Oak Yard) are
in the Village.
Locate affordable housing away from
the coast
Sites 8 and 9: Concern about concentration of housing in the Aviara
Parkway/Palomar Airport Road area.
Housing in industrial and commercial
areas generally acceptable
City-owned site 6 and site 7: Concern expressed about proximity of
residential to industrial areas.
Housing should be convenient to
amenities
Site 4 (Walmart property): Loss of potential for retail a concern
Sites 14 and 17 (NCTD stations) loss of transit user parking a concern.
In addition, two charts from the public input summary report record the “like,” “dislike” and “total”
responses received on each of the 18 sites from the online survey and from the emails and letters. These
charts are provided as Exhibits 8and 9. Survey participants provided 950 responses and the public sent
approximately 95 emails and letters. Please refer to the Housing Element Update Public Input Report
(Exhibit 5) for a complete discussion of the public input received.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 6 of 162
Distribution of affordable housing and high-density housing and sites
The city uses quadrants in managing city services. Table 4 breaks down by quadrant the units that could
be generated from existing, approved but unbuilt as well as potential affordable housing sites (meaning
units that are restricted to lower and moderate-income households), including from the 18 potential
housing sites.
Table 4 – Existing, approved, and potential affordable housing
Quadrant Existing
affordable
units1
Approved,
unbuilt
affordable
units1
Units resulting
from vacant
sites with
densities
suitable for
lower and
moderate
income units2, 3
Affordable
units possible
on the 18
potential
housing sites
Total
Northwest 524 200 23 1,6674 2,414
Northeast 359 0 226 6685 1,253
Southwest 681 123 0 5446 1,348
Southeast 645 31 8 248 932
Total 2,209 354 257 3,127 5,947
1Includes deed restricted rental and ownership units only; affordable units may be part of larger projects with market-
rate units.
2Based on densities of 11.5, 19 and 26.5 units per acre, in accordance with Housing Element Program 1.1.
3Excludes the Ponto property (11-acre property at the northeast corner of Carlsbad Blvd. and Avenida Encinas, also
known as “Planning Area F”) in keeping with Aug. 17, 2021, City Council direction.
4 60% (993 units) of the potential units in the Northwest quadrant are from Site 2 – The Shoppes at Carlsbad parking lot.
Also, units reported here do not include potential unit increases on either Site 2 or Site 14 as presented in Exhibit 12.
5Excludes the Kelly parcel, part of Site 4, due to parcel owner opposition.
6 Excludes Site 13 – Zone 20 cluster in keeping with Aug. 17, 2021, City Council direction. Also, units reported here do not
include potential unit increases on site 17 as presented in Exhibit 12.
Exhibit 10 is a map of affordable housing and medium and high-density housing sites in
Carlsbad. Exhibit 7 identifies the distribution of the potential housing sites and units by
quadrant and City Council District.
Implementation of Housing Element programs other than Program 1.1
The Housing Element contains 38 programs. As with Program 1.1, many programs contain
specific objectives, such as to amend the city’s Zoning Ordinance. Amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance required by the programs include changes to implement objective design standards
and update standards for mixed-use projects. Many of the changes are required by state law
and require completion by April 2024 or sooner. Staff will process amendments to the Housing
Element as needed to comply with the program objectives while implementing the rezoning of
the housing sites. These amendments will also be considered in the environmental impact
report for this project.
Miscellaneous General Plan amendments
Concurrent with rezoning, staff will also process various text and graphic changes to the
General Plan as necessary to comply with recent state requirements on subjects such as climate
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 7 of 162
resiliency, wildfire hazard and evacuation routes. Some of these requirements were triggered
by the adoption of the Housing Element. Staff expect most changes will affect the Public Safety
Element. To assist in this effort, Community Development staff will review the recent Local
Coastal Program Update, including the 2017 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, and the
city’s Emergency Operations Plan and coordinate with the city’s Fire Department, including
Emergency Services.
Miscellaneous text and graphic changes to elements of the General Plan as necessary to comply
with state law have always been a contemplated companion of the update to the Housing
Element. This work was identified in the request for proposals issued by the city in 2019 and
within the original scope and budget prepared by Rincon Consultants Inc. and approved by City
Council on Jan. 28, 2020, It was anticipated both components would be processed together as
the “Housing Element Update and General Plan Maintenance” project. However, complexities
with updating the Housing Element, including challenges with public outreach caused by the
pandemic, site selection and state review and processing mandates made it necessary to delay
work on the General Plan maintenance part of the project, as well as the rezoning of sites, until
after the Housing Element was approved. This splitting of the project has impacted project
efficiencies and the schedule, scope, and budget that was originally approved. Accordingly, staff
and Rincon Consultants, Inc., have revised these items, which are provided as Exhibit 11.
Relationship to the Real Estate Strategic Plan
The three city-owned properties identified as potential housing sites include a large portion of
the parking lot surrounding the mall (Site 2), vacant industrial/office parcel along College
Boulevard (Lot 5) created as part of The Crossings Golf Course (Site 6) and the city’s Oak Yard in
the Village (Site 15). The sites could provide a combined 276 moderate and 922 lower income
units, or 1,198 units total, which is approximately 46% of the RHNA target of 2,578 units, with
993 of these units at Site 2, The Shoppes parking lot.
The city’s Real Estate Strategic Plan, adopted in 2017, provides a strategic approach to how the
city’s major real estate assets, including the three sites, are managed, both to maximize the
return on the investment of public dollars and to leverage properties for the greatest public
benefit, including addressing future city facility needs. The plan does not identify any of the
three sites for residential development. Regarding Site 6, for example, the plan’s
recommendation is for the city to enter a long-term ground lease for either a hotel or class A
office building.6 Because partial or complete residential development of city properties may
have fiscal or other implications, Housing Element Program 1.1 acknowledges that an
amendment to the Real Estate Strategic Plan may be necessary to enable these sites to be
designated as residential. Exhibit 12 provides further discussion on the city-owned sites.
Relationship to the Regional Transportation Plan and the City’s Climate Action Plan update
In December 2021, the San Diego Association of Governments) approved an update to the
Regional Transportation Plan. The Regional Transportation Plan is updated every four years,
and, includes a model that Carlsbad and other cities use for long range planning projects.
However, because there were assumptions in the growth forecast that placed approximately
3,600 units in locations that were inconsistent with the city’s General Plan, this model must be
customized l before it can be used to accurately estimate the vehicle miles travelled and
greenhouse gas emissions of the current General Plan and the proposed Housing Element sites.
6 Class A refers to the highest classification of commercial buildings as determined by price, quality and amenities.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 8 of 162
The city raised these issues in comments on the Regional Transportation Plan and associated
Environmental Impact Report. While SANDAG declined to make changes, its staff indicated they
would allow member agencies to make this type of customization to the model.
The city is undertaking an update to the city’s Climate Action
Plan concurrently with the rezoning effort. On Nov. 23, 2021,
the City Council authorized a professional services agreement
with the Energy Policy Initiatives Center to begin estimating
greenhouse gas impacts of the measures and current reduction
targets. An accurate estimate of vehicle miles travelled in the
SANDAG model is critical to accurately project greenhouse gas
emissions and required mitigation efforts as part of the Climate
Action Plan Update. City staff will work with SANDAG as quickly
as possible following the council’s direction on this item to
complete customization and running of this model. The
schedule of this portion of work will take approximately three
to six months. It will be dependent upon the availability of
SANDAG staff and the amount of other similar work other
agencies are requesting at the same time.
California Environmental Q uality Act req uirements
It is important to remember that the requested action at this hearing does not commit the city
to adopt any one map or site. Rather, the requested action is to direct staff to conduct
environmental analysis on the selected map in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act. The City Council is, however, obligated under Housing Element Program 1.1 and
Government Code 65583.3 (c) to adopt a rezoning program that would allow for remaining
number of units required by April 15, 2024.
Under CEQA, the city must select a “proposed project,” which in this case will be one of the
mapping options. The proposed project, the map, is then analyzed in detail to evaluate a
number of potential environmental impacts associated with transportation and mobility,
biology, noise, cultural resources and water and air quality, just to name a few. Additionally,
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that the city study a “reasonable range of project
alternatives,” which would again be maps. Two or three maps are a reasonable number of
maps that will need to be reviewed as alternatives under CEQA.
While the environmental document must allow for a “meaningful evaluation, analysis, and
comparison with the proposed project,6” CEQA does not require that the alternatives be
analyzed at the same level of detail as the proposed project. This limits the City Council’s ability
to adopt an alternative map once the environmental review has been completed.
Should the City Council want to reserve the option to approve an alternative map, the map, or
maps, will need to be analyzed at the same detailed level as the proposed project.The cost for
this additional detailed environmental review is $97,169 per map, which has not been included
in the project’s current budget.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 9 of 162
Options
Staff provide the following mapping options for rezoning for the City Council’s consideration.
Each option includes enough sites to meet the city’s RHNA obligations, along with the 30%
buffer recommended by the state.
Exhibit 12 provides information to support each option and the modifications and alternatives
described in Option 3.
Option 1: All sites
If City Council directs this option, staff would study all 18 potential housing sites for rezoning
through the environmental review and public hearing process.
Pros
•Provides the most options and flexibility for meeting the RHNA target
•Exceeds the RHNA target in both the lower and moderate-income categories
•Provides the most diversity of housing sites
•Avoids study of other site options, which could save costs associated with the
environmental analysis of alternatives
Cons
•Includes sites (Sites 3, 4, 8, 14 and 18) that have received the most community
opposition, based on online survey responses and mailed and emailed comments)
•If it is rezoned, eliminates the commercial designation of the property at the corner
of El Camino Real and College Boulevard, (part of Site 4) which could provide close-
by shopping and reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled for nearby residents
and employees. Several comments supported maintaining the commercial
designation.
Option 2: Sites, 3, 4 and 8 removed
This option removes the sites with the most community opposition (based on mailed and
emailed comments only) and leaves the remaining
sites as the proposed project. If the City Council selects
this option, staff would study most of the potential
housing sites for rezoning through the environmental
review and public hearing process except for sites 3, 4
and 8.
Pros
•Removes sites generating the most
community opposition, as determined from
mailed and emailed comments
•Maintains the commercial designation for
the property at the corner of El Camino Real and College Boulevard (part of Site 4),
which several public comments support
Cons
•While removing the sites still enables the city to exceed the RHNA target, doing so
means it must rely on excess units in the lower income category to make up for the
deficit in the moderate-income category
•Decreases options and flexibility because number and location of sites are reduced
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 10 of 162
Note that this option proposes removing only sites 3, 4, and 8. Based on online survey results in
particular, sites 14 and 18 generated a greater negative response than sites 3 and 4, and several
additional sites also received more negative feedback than Site 8. Despite this, other sites were
not highlighted in this option for the following reasons:
• Sites 3, 4, and 8 are near or adjacent to established residential areas, and more than
half the emails and letters received during the public input period were from residents
voicing opinions about sites in their areas, such as Rancho Carlsbad residents sharing
comments about nearby Site 4 at the corner of El Camino Real and College Boulevard.
Of the 18 sites, sites 3, 4 and 8 garnered the most emails and letters in opposition to
rezoning.7
• Site 14 (Carlsbad Village Train Station parking lot), due to its location in the Village an
already developed area close to transit and other services, represents “smart growth,”
and redevelopment of a large underutilized parcel in the heart of downtown. Some
comments opposed to its identification as a potential housing site focused on a
potential loss of transit user parking, but NCTD says no needed parking would be lost in
the redevelopment of either this site or Site 17 (the Poinsettia Station).
• As indicated in the public input summary report, some commenters may have confused
Site 18 (North Ponto parcels) with property to the south that was the subject of
community input recommending a park. (Note: Removal of Site 18 is part of Option 3c.)
Option 3: Site variations
This option takes Option 1 and 2 and suggests modifications to some sites, such as increasing
density and unit yield, that could provide an additional unit buffer or flexibility to consider
other site changes. Option 3 includes five different mapping options for the City Council to
consider, each one meets the city’s RHNA requirements, along with the recommended buffer of
30%. If this is the direction taken by the City Council, staff will be able to advise the City Council
at the hearing whether the map will accomplish state housing requirements.
Pros
• Enables greater responsiveness to community or City Council concerns
• Provides flexibility in choosing sites
Cons
• Possibly increases reliance on certain sites to help meet the RHNA target
• Possibly increases project budget and scope as each alternative beyond the
Proposed Project, to be fully “actionable,” would cost $97,169
The City Council can also choose to deviate and create a mapping option that is not provided in
these options.
7 The negative comments about these three sites are generally consistent with the feedback obtained via an online community survey conducted by the city in August 2020 in which people were asked to rank the best areas
for locating new housing; the survey results favored placing housing near commercial locations and industrial
areas.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 11 of 162
Fiscal Analysis
On Jan. 28, 2020, the City Council awarded a professional services agreement with Rincon
Consultants Inc., for the Housing Element Update and General Plan Maintenance Project. The
amount awarded was $698,085; most funds have been spent as the city has completed the
Housing Element Update portion of the project. The table below identifies the proposed project
budget and available project balance. The remaining contract balance, combined with existing
Community Development Department funding, is available and sufficient to cover project cost
increases.
Table 5 - Project budget information
Existing professional services contract with Rincon
(remaining balance, as of 2/1/22)
$190,837
City Council allocation $170,000
To be funded with current department budget $291,009
TOTAL (proposed project budget) $651,846
The City Council allocated $200,000 from the General Fund for public engagement and
environmental analysis related to the rezone effort as part of its action to approve the Housing
Element on April 6, 2021. The public engagement portion of this allocation, $30,000, was spent
supporting implementation of the public outreach plan approved at that meeting.
The city was awarded as much as $220,000 in Local Early Action Planning Grant Program
funding from the state, so staff will seek reimbursement up to that amount, which will be
returned to the city’s General Fund.
If the City Council directs one or more alternatives to be fully studied in the environmental
impact report, this total cost will increase by $97,169 per alternative studied.
If so directed, staff would request the City Council authorize a transfer from the City Council’s
contingency budget to the Community Development Department’s operating budget in the
amount of $97,169 for each alternative requested. A proposed resolution (Exhibit 2) is provided
to enable this action.
Next Steps
Once the City Council directs which potential housing sites to study for rezoning, staff will begin
preparing the environmental document and the necessary land use amendments. Folded into
this effort will be the work on implementation of Housing Element programs in addition to
Program 1.1, as well as state-required revisions to the General Plan’s Public Safety Element.
The changes and draft environmental impact report will be reviewed first by the Planning
Commission for its recommendation, and then by the City Council for potential adoption. The
City Council can direct modification of the alternatives presented, but additional environmental
review may be necessary before the city could adopt a modified alternative.
Program 1.1 is required to be completed by April 2024. Important upcoming steps and public
input participation opportunities include the following:
• Environmental impact report public scoping meeting (to gather community input on the
anticipated environmental issues to address) – Summer 2022
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 12 of 162
•Public engagement on Public Safety Element changes – Spring-summer 2022
•Release of the draft environmental impact report for public review – Winter 2022-2023
•Planning Commission and City Council public hearings – Spring 2023
•California Coastal Commission public hearings (for rezoning and land use document
changes that affect properties in the Coastal Zone) – 2023-2024
Staff will closely coordinate with the Climate Action Plan Update to ensure consistency and
timeliness. The Climate Action Plan Update has a similar time frame, with completion estimated
in early 2023.
Environmental Evaluation
The City Planner has determined that the recommended actions are exempt from
environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 - Feasibility and Planning Studies.
This guideline covers a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future
actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded and
does not require the preparation of an environmental impact report or negative declaration but
does require consideration of environmental factors.
Environmental factors will be considered following receipt of City Council direction on which
sites to formally process for environmental review and for rezoning. Staff anticipate preparing a
supplemental environmental impact report for this purpose. The report would analyze not only
impacts associated with the land use changes but also those resulting from related
amendments to the General Plan, such as to the Public Safety Element and Zoning Ordinance.
Public Notification and Outreach
Outreach to the community
The Aug. 17, 2021, City Council action included approval of a public engagement work plan on
the potential housing sites (Exhibit 4). Consistent with the plan, the city maintained an updated
project webpage with interactive map, conducted an online survey, held virtual meetings, made
presentations to community groups and city boards and commissions, and solicited and
received mail and email feedback.These activities occurred Sept. 2 through Oct. 22, 2021,
though some presentations extended into November and December due in part to scheduling
challenges.
To ensure broad participation, city staff notified community
members about the various opportunities to get involved
through advertising, fliers, news releases, social media and
email. Regular updates and information were provided on
the project webpage at carlsbadca.gov/housingplan.
A thorough discussion of the public engagement process and
comments received is contained in the Housing Element
Update Public Input Summary Report (Exhibit 5). Besides
identifying key themes that emerged from feedback
received through the workshops, survey, and public
comments, the report also provides specific feedback
provided on each of the 18 potential housing sites.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 13 of 162
Outreach to owners of potential housing sites and residents surrounding those sites
As identified in the approved public engagement work plan, staff mailed notices of this City
Council meeting to all owners of properties in each of the 18 housing sites (some sites contain
multiple properties) and all property owners and occupants within a 600-foot radius of those
sites. This mailing is similar to the mailing done before the Aug. 17, 2021, City Council meeting
to alert community members to the discussion on potential housing sites.
Outreach to schools
Public and City Council member comments have expressed concerns about the impact of
additional residents on school districts. In September 2021, staff notified all Carlsbad-serving
districts, including Mira Costa College, of the city’s need to identify locations for about 2,600
new homes. While no responses to the notifications have been received, staff will again send
notices with information on how to review and provide feedback during the environmental
review process. The environmental document will also include an evaluation of public facilities
for potential rezoning, including an evaluation of potential new students and school district
capacities.
Notification
Public notice of this item was posted in keeping with the state's Ralph M. Brown Act and it was
available for public viewing and review at least 72 hours before the scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1. City Council resolution – Revisions to project budget and scope
2. City Council resolution – Contingency budget transfer for alternatives
3. Aug. 17, 2021, City Council staff report (item 6) (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
4. Aug. 17, 2021, City Council minutes (item 6) (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
5. Housing Element Update Public Input Summary Report
6. State law and its impacts on housing location, provision, and the Growth Management Plan
7. Individual and summary information on the 18 potential housing sites
8. Chart of site rankings - online survey responses
9. Chart of site rankings - mailed and emailed comments
10. Map of affordable housing and medium and high-density housing sites in Carlsbad
11. Revised project scope, budget, and schedule prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc.
12. Information to support options presented in the staff report
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 14 of 162
Exhibit 1
RESOLUTION NO, 2022-043
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC., TO REVISE THE
PROJECT SCOPE, BUDGET, AND SCHEDULE TO ASSIST IN REZONING OF
POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES AS REQUIRED BY HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM
1.1; PREPARING MISCELLANEOUS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS TO
COMPLY WITH STATE LAW, INCLUDING THE PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
("GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE"); IMPLEMENTING HOUSING ELEMENT
PROGRAMS IN ADDITION TO PROGRAM 1.1, AND COMPLETING RELATED
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CASE NAME: HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN
MAINTENANCE
CASE WI: GPA 2019-0003 (PUB2019-0009)
WHEREAS, on Jan. 28, 2020, the City Council approved a professional services agreement with
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Consultant) to help prepare the Housing Element Update (including rezoning
of sites) and General Plan Maintenance projects and appropriated funds from the City Council's General
Fund contingency account for consultant and related costs; and
WHEREAS, on April 6, 2021, the City Council approved the Housing Element Update; and
WHEREAS, complexities with preparing the Housing Element Update, including challenges with
public outreach caused by the pandemic, site selection, and state review and processing mandates,
made it necessary to delay work on rezoning of sites and General Plan Maintenance to after the
Housing Element was approved, which has impacted project efficiencies and the schedule, scope, and
budget originally approved; and
WHEREAS, Housing Element programs, including Program 1.1 to rezone sites, require
amendments to city standards and programs, including to the Zoning Ordinance, that must be
completed by 2024 or sooner; and
WHEREAS, because of schedule delays and to complete the site rezoning, the General Plan
Maintenance project, and implementation of Housing Element programs, and related environmental
review in a coordinated manner, the city and Consultant have revised the overall project scope, budget,
and schedule and the original term expired on February 6, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the amended professional services agreement with Consultant, including the revised
project scope, budget, and schedule, is provided as Attachment A for ratification and approval.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 15 of 162
MATT HALL, Maypr -
FAVIOLA ME INA, City Clerk Services Manager
(SEAL)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1.That the above recitations are true and correct.
2.That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the amended
professional services agreement with Consultant (Attachment A) to assist in rezoning
of potential housing sites as required by Housing Element Program 1.1; preparing
miscellaneous General Plan amendments to comply with state law, including the public
Safety Element ("General Plan IVIaintenance"); implementing Housing Element
programs besides Program 1.1, and performing related environmental review.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 15th day of February 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Hall, Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Acosta, Norby.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: None.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 16 of 162
DocuSign Envelope ID: 68808568-9314-448F-A5A1-2243AA26AB3B
RATIFICATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EXTEND AND AMEND AGREEMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES
RINCON CONSULTING, INC.
This Ratification of Amendment No. 1 is entered into as of the 14th of March ,
2022, but effective as of the February 6, 2022, extending and amending the agreement dated
February 6, 2020 (the "Agreement") by and between the City of Carlsbad, a municipal corporation,
("City"), and Rincon Consultants, Inc. ("Contractor") (collectively, the "Parties") for professional
consulting services.
RECITALS
A.The Agreement, as amended from time to time expired on February 6, 2022 and
Contractor continued to work on the services specified therein without the benefit of an
agreement; and
B.The Parties desire to alter the scope of work of the Agreement to planning and
environmental consulting services for the Carlsbad General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update;
and
C.The Parties desire to extend the Agreement for a period of two (2) years; and
D.The Parties have negotiated and agreed to a supplemental scope of work and fee
schedule, which is attached to and incorporated in by this reference as Exhibit "A", Scope of
Services and Fee.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and the mutual covenants
contained herein, City and Contractor agree as follows:
1.The retroactive extension and amendment of the Agreement is ratified.
2.The original contract was for $698,085 and Contractor has received $507,248 to
date, leaving a balance of $190,837.
3.In addition to those services contained in the Agreement, as may have been
amended from time to time, Contractor will provide those services described in Exhibit "A". With
this ratification to extend and amend, the total Agreement amount shall not exceed one million
two hundred fifty-six thousand two hundred sixty-three dollars ($1,256,263).
4.City will pay Contractor for all work associated with those services described in
Exhibit "A" on a time and materials basis not-to-exceed seven hundred forty-nine thousand fifteen
dollars ($749,015). Contractor will provide City, on a monthly basis, copies of invoices sufficiently
detailed to include hours performed, hourly rates, and related activities and costs for approval by
City.
5.Contractor will complete all work described in Exhibit "A" by February 6, 2024.
6.All other provisions of the Agreement, as may have been amended from time to
time, will remain in full force and effect.
City Attorney Approved Version 1/30/13
1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6880B568-9314-448F-A5A1-2243AA26AB3B
7. All requisite insurance policies to be maintained by the Contractor pursuant to the
Agreement, as may have been amended from time to time, will include coverage for this
Amendment.
City Attorney Approved Version 1/30/13
2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6880B568-9314-448F-A5A1-2243AA26AB3B
8. The individuals executing this Amendment and the instruments referenced in it on
behalf of Contractor each represent and warrant that they have the legal power, right and actual
authority to bind Contractor to the terms and conditions of this mendment.
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC., a
California corporation
By: WASS& Vcoo(S
(sign here)
Lacrissa Davis/CFO
(print name/title)
By:
Vt.AVUAA (ka•Vt,St-tn,
(sign here)
Deanna Hansen/ Vice President
(print name/title)
Cl OF C RLSBAD, a municipal
corpo ion of the State of California
By:
Scott Chadwick
City Manager
ATTEST:
FAVIOLA MEDINA
City Clerk Services Manager
If required by City, proper notarial acknowledgment of execution by contractor must be attached.
If a corporation, Agreement must be signed by one corporate officer from each of the following
two groups.
Group A Group B
Chairman, Secretary,
President, or Assistant Secretary,
Vice-President CFO or Assistant Treasurer
Otherwise, the corporation must attach a resolution certified by the secretary or assistant
secretary under corporate seal empowering the officer(s) signing to bind the corporation.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CELIA A. BREWER, City Attorney
c20A, V-4.Ax? By:
Assistant City Attorney
City Attorney Approved Version 1/30/13
3
Scope of Work
Task 1 Safety Element Update
There have been a number of pieces of legislation approved over the past five years that require cities
to update Safety elements. This is a selection of key legislation:
▪SB 1035 requires a jurisdiction’s safety element to be revised to identify new information on fire
hazards, flood hazards, and climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to the city and
county that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element.
▪SB 379 requires all cities and counties to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in the
safety elements of their general plans beginning January 1, 2017. The bill requires the climate
adaptation update to include a set of goals, policies, and objectives for their communities based on
the vulnerability assessment, as well as implementation measures.
▪SB 99 requires a local government to review and update the safety element during the next revision
of the housing element (on or after January 1, 2020) to identify residential developments in hazard
areas that do not have at least two emergency routes.
▪AB 747 and AB 1409 require a local jurisdiction to evaluate evacuation routes for their capacity,
safety, and viability and evacuation locations under a range of emergency scenarios in the safety
element upon the next revision of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Task 1.1 Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment
Rincon will conduct a vulnerability assessment consistent with the requirements of SB 379 and the
California Adaptation Planning Guide to provide an overview of climate hazards and risks specific to
Carlsbad. At a qualitative level, Rincon will identify the community assets that are most vulnerable to
the potential impacts of climate change across sensitive community areas, including infrastructure,
buildings, natural systems, economic assets, and vulnerable populations. The City’s critical facilities
(such as government buildings, hospitals, evacuation routes) will be mapped in relation to potential
climate change impacts based on readily available data (e.g., FEMA flood hazard zones, wildfire severity
zones, Appendix 5 of the Emergency Operations Plan, Wildland Urban Interface planning documents).
Key findings associated with the City’s Sea-level Rise Vulnerability Assessment (2017) will be
incorporated, assuming no further analysis would be necessary. Rincon will utilize maps and figures from
existing plans and available GIS data sources. Up to 10 new maps will be created, as appropriate.
Deliverable(s): One (1) electronic copy of the proposed Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment in
both PDF and Microsoft Word Format. Rincon will respond to and address one (1) set of consolidated
comments on the vulnerability assessment.
Task 1.2 Administrative Draft Safety Element Update
Rincon will prepare and update the Safety Element to address recent legislation highlighted above, with
the exception of AB 747 and AB 1409 which the City has not requested consultant services for at this
time. In keeping with SB 1035, Rincon will summarize the latest FEMA floodplain mapping to illustrate
potential safety and development constraints. Rincon will summarize wildfire hazard risk areas and fire
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES AND FEE
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 20 of 162
protection resources, and incorporate additional wildfire information, policies and implementation
programs consistent with CAL FIRE requirements.
To best identify residential neighborhoods that have less than two evacuation routes pursuant to SB 99,
Rincon will meet with the City’s emergency providers and planning department to facilitate the
identification of roadways that serve as evacuation routes, residential neighborhood boundaries, and
evacuation shelters. The discussion will include confirmation of evacuation routes and evacuation
constraints identified in the City’s Wildland Urban Interface planning documents, including 2011
Evacuation Plans and 2022 Carlsbad EOP Annex Q (Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place). Rincon will conduct
a GIS mapping exercise to identify the location of neighborhoods, as applicable, that have less than two
evacuation routes. Rincon will provide a map for inclusion in the Safety Element that displays
established evacuation routes, single-access residential neighborhoods, and evacuation shelters. Rincon
will include policies and implementation programs to mitigate risk associated with limited evacuation
options.
Rincon will identify climate change adaptation policies and implementation programs to address key
vulnerabilities identified in Task 1.1. Adaptation policies related to sea-level rise will align with the City’s
adopted Local Coastal Program.
Rincon will draft an Administrative Draft Safety Element. Rincon’s primary objective will be to develop
policies and programs that not only comply with State law but are also actionable, with information
aimed at implementation of hazard and risk abatement provisions to guide local decisions.
Rincon will present the background information and policies in a clear, informative way. Strategies for
specific areas of Carlsbad will be shown with maps for context and the Vulnerability Assessment report
produced in Task 1.1 will be designed to be integrated into the Element as a discrete technical appendix.
The update to the Safety Element will focus on ensuring alignment with and/or integration of other City
plans such as the local Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Local Coastal Program Update. Rincon assumes
that the update will a be technical update to the existing element and that no redesign of the element
will be required. Rincon does understand that the document is currently available as an InDesign file.
Our cost estimate does account for conversion of the document to Word before any edits are made.
Deliverable(s): One (1) electronic copy of the Administrative Draft Safety Element in both PDF and
Microsoft Word Format.
Task 1.3 Public Review Draft Safety Element
Rincon will respond to two rounds of consolidated City comments on the Administrative Draft Element
to then develop the Public Review Draft Element. The Public Review Draft Element will be posted to the
City’s website and sent to external agencies, such as San Diego County Fire, CalFire, and FEMA to review
and comment. Rincon has budgeted for attendance at two (2) meetings with external agencies.
Deliverable(s): One (1) electronic copy of the Public Review Draft Safety Element in both PDF and
Microsoft Word Format. Rincon will respond to and address two (2) sets of consolidated comments on
the public review draft. Participation in two (2) meetings with external agencies by up to two Rincon
staff members.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 21 of 162
Task 1.4 Final Safety Element
Rincon will inventory all public comments on a comment/proposed response sheet for
review/concurrence by the City’s project lead. We will flag conflicting comments and consult with City
staff to rectify them. We will seek sign-off on the comment/response sheet before incorporating
changes into the final Safety Element Update.
Deliverable(s): One (1) electronic copy of the comment tracking form in Microsoft Excel; One (1) Final
Safety Element in both PDF and Microsoft Word Format. Rincon will respond to and address two (2) sets
of consolidated comments on the final safety element.
Task 1.6 Safety Element Community Engagement
Rincon will coordinate with the City’s Communications Department, prepare for, and participate in one
community workshop and one Planning Commission workshop to present information and gather
feedback on the Safety Element. Rincon will join meetings with City staff, prepare materials needed for
the workshops such as PowerPoint slides or brief survey questionnaires, and attend these meetings with
up to two (2) Rincon staff. Rincon assumes the City will be responsible for creating additional outreach
materials and convening additional community meetings.
Deliverable(s): Participation in one (1) community outreach meeting and one (1) City Council workshop
by up to two Rincon staff members including preparation of up to two (2) PowerPoint presentations.
Task 2 Land Use Element Update
Task 2.1 Administrative Draft Land Use Element Update
Rincon will draft the Administrative Draft Land Use Element. Rincon’s primary objective will be to amend
the policy document to maintain consistency with the recently updated and adopted Housing Element.
Amendments to the document are anticipated to be limited to land use designation and related graphic
changes, including:
▪Creation of new R-35 and R-40 land use designations
▪Updates to maps and tables to reflect new land use designations and minimum densities
▪Reflection of densities used for Housing Element site inventory assumptions (Table 2-3 of Land
Use and Community Development Element)
▪Revisions to reflect Growth Management Plan changes, including policies
▪Edits to policies for the Westfield and Sunny Creek properties
Rincon assumes that the update will a be technical update to the existing element and that no redesign
or formatting of the element will be required. Rincon does understand that the document is currently
available as an InDesign file. Our cost estimate does account for conversion of the document to Word
before any edits are made.
Deliverable(s): One (1) electronic copy of the Administrative Draft Land Use Element in both PDF and
Microsoft Word Format.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 22 of 162
Task 2.2 Public Review Draft Land Use Element
Rincon will respond to two rounds of consolidated City comments on the Administrative Draft Element
to then develop the Public Review Draft Element. The Public Review Draft Element will be posted to the
City’s website for public review and comment.
Deliverable(s): One (1) electronic copy of the Public Review Draft Land Use Element in both PDF and
Microsoft Word Format. Rincon will respond to and address two (2) sets of consolidated comments on
the public review draft.
Task 2.3 Final Land Use Element
Rincon will inventory all public comments on a comment/proposed response sheet for
review/concurrence by the City’s project lead. We will flag conflicting comments and consult with City
staff to rectify them. We will seek sign-off on the comment/response sheet before incorporating
changes into the final Land Use Element Update. Rincon will create an Executive Summary, that can be
used by the public, City staff, and elected officials, to quickly understand the issues and potential actions
needed during the implementation period.
Deliverable(s): One (1) electronic copy of the comment tracking form in Microsoft Excel; One (1) Final
Safety Element in both PDF and Microsoft Word Format. Rincon will respond to and address two (2) sets
of consolidated comments on the final safety element.
Task 3 Zone Ordinance Update
Task 3.1 Document Review
Rincon will review all City documents relevant to the Zoning Ordinance Amendments, including the 2035
General Plan, adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element, existing Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and
Local Coastal Plan. Rincon will also review the draft Objective Design Standards currently being prepared
by another consultant, to determine if the document will require any additional changes to the Zoning
Ordinance. If so, these changes will be incorporated. Rincon will also work with City staff to review the
overall Municipal Code to identify other provisions that should be included in the Zoning Ordinance
Amendments, or that will at least need to be understood and possibly referenced so that no conflicts
occur through updates to Zoning Ordinance provisions.
Task 3.2 Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Rincon will prepare the Administrative Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments to be reviewed by City Staff
including the Planning Department, the City Attorney, and any desired City departments such as
Building, Engineering, and Code Enforcement. In order to simplify and speed review times for staff, each
component of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments and associated documents will be provided
separately to staff for review. Following internal city staff comments on the Administrative Draft
Supplemental EIR (up to two rounds of review), the team will incorporate appropriate revisions to the
Administrative Draft Zoning Ordinance Revisions and prepare the Draft Zoning Ordinance Revisions. We
assume all comments and revision requests will be consolidated and submitted in a compiled and
tracked changes Word format.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 23 of 162
Deliverables:
▪Administrative Draft Zoning Ordinance (electronic delivery)
▪Draft Zoning Ordinance (electronic delivery)
Task 3.3 Final Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Rincon will revise the contents of the Administrative Draft sections based on staff discussion and input
and will prepare the Final Draft Zoning Ordinance to be provided to the City for review by the Planning
Commission and the community and approval by the City Council.
Deliverables: Final Zoning Ordinance (one digital version in both Microsoft Word and Adobe PDF)
Task 4 Environmental Review
We understand that Carlsbad would like to prepare a supplement to the previous General Plan and
Climate Action Plan EIR, certified in 2015, rather than a subsequent or new EIR. In accordance with
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may prepare a supplement to a previously certified
EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162
calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The conditions described in Section 15162,
include the following:
1.Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2.Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3.New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a.The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
b.Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous EIR;
c.Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d.Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in
the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
Based on our understanding of the project, Rincon agrees that this is the correct approach to address
environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. Our approach in preparing the
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 24 of 162
Supplemental EIR is to develop a user-friendly document that identifies potentially new CEQA impacts
that need to be addressed, including Wildfire and Energy, and to address transportation impacts using
VMT as a significance criterion replacing the traditional Level of Service (LOS) standard (requirement
beginning in July of 2020).
Rincon understands that the City will be simultaneously updating their Climate Action Plan but that the
analysis of environmental impacts associated with that plan will be analyzed in a separate CEQA
document.
Task 4.1 Preparation of Project Description
Rincon will prepare a preliminary Project Description, and develop project objectives, after receiving
City-provided data mapping the preferred sites to be rezoned and the potential residential density of
those sites (dwelling units per acre), as well as other proposed strategies and programs to meet the
RHNA allocation. GIS shapefiles are preferred for use in mapping the sites. This scope of work assumes
that City staff will conduct one round of review of the Project Description and provide consolidated,
non-contradictory comments and edits.
Deliverables: Preliminary Project Description (electronic delivery)
Task 4.2 Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Scoping Meeting
Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15163(c), a Supplemental EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and
public review as is given to a draft EIR under CEQA Guidelines 15087. The NOP is intended to alert other
public agencies about the undertaking, and to solicit their input on the scope of the Draft Supplemental
EIR. Rincon will draft the NOP, address one round of consolidated comments on the draft, and submit a
final PDF copy of the NOP to city staff for posting on its website and for distribution to public agencies. It
is assumed that the city will distribute the NOP using the city’s distribution list. Rincon will review and
make suggestions regarding the list, as requested, and be responsible for filing the NOP with the County
Clerk and State Clearinghouse/OPR. As required by CEQA, the NOP will circulate to responsible and
trustee agencies for 30 days.
During the 30-day NOP review process, the team will assist the city with facilitating a public scoping
meeting to inform the public on the environmental issues they should expect to see addressed in the EIR
as well as gather public input. This assistance including coordination with City staff, including the
Communications Department, on Scoping Meeting particulars. Rincon will make a brief presentation on
the Draft General Plan and Zoning Ordinance update, and environmental review process, then record all
public comments received. These comments will be summarized in a memorandum to be included as a
Supplemental EIR appendix.
Deliverables: Notice of Preparation (electronic delivery)
Task 4.3 Administrative Draft Supplemental EIR
The supplement to a certified EIR only needs to contain the information necessary to make the previous
EIR adequate for the project as revised. Therefore, the format of the Administrative Draft Supplemental
EIR will follow that of a focused EIR, concentrating on only those topics found to require minor additions
or changes as a result of the proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance updates. Our general report
structure will include all the required sections of an EIR: Introduction; Executive Summary; Project
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 25 of 162
Description and Environmental Setting; Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures; Alternatives
Analysis; Cumulative Impacts, and Other CEQA Sections.
New potential impacts will be identified, and mitigation measures will be prepared or modified to
reduce significant impacts to a less-than-significant level, when feasible. For each potentially significant
impact identified, the team will develop, in coordination with city staff and the broader consultant team,
goals and/or policies to avoid or reduce identified impacts as self-mitigating policies. If goals and/or
policies are developed, Rincon will include them in the final versions of the Land Use and Safety
Elements. New or modified mitigation measures will be developed only if self-mitigating policies are
determined not feasible or reasonable.
Environmental Assessments
Rincon will conduct focused assessments of the following environmental topics of concern. The analyses
described herein will be summarized in the corresponding Supplemental EIR section and separate
technical reports will not be prepared (except for the Traffic Impact Analysis included in the Operational
LOS Analysis described below). All data used in the technical analyses will be included as appendices to
the primary environmental document.
Air Quality
Rincon will conduct air quality analyses for proposed project to determine if the predicted emissions
during construction or operation of development envisioned under the changes to the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance would result in significant impacts beyond those assessed in the General Plan &
Climate Action Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, certified June 2015 (2015 FEIR). Construction
emissions estimates would be generated from generalized construction data (e.g., assumed duration of
construction, phasing, amount of disturbed soil, types of equipment to be used, number of construction
workers, etc.) developed in conjunction with the city. Mobile source emissions will be estimated based
primarily on trip generation data from traffic reports prepared for the General Plan update. The
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) will be used to estimate emissions of criteria
pollutants associated with the project. Rincon will also determine if project traffic may result in local
carbon monoxide hotspots. It is not anticipated a detailed hot spot analysis would be required.
The analysis will address the project’s conformance with the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy and
whether the project would result in emissions that violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The analysis will also determine if the
project will expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or create
objectionable odors. It is assumed that the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project will
provide all necessary traffic information to complete an air quality analysis of mobile sources.
Biological Resources
A Rincon biologist will review the preferred land use scenario and other city supplied data for biological
resource constraints. The biologist will review biological resource data including but not limited to query
of relevant databases such as California Natural Diversity Database, National Wetlands Inventory, San
GIS and literature (e.g., San Diego County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan and the City of
Carlsbad’s Subarea Plan), for information pertaining to biological resources occurring in the city. Based
on this review, Rincon will prepare a map indicating areas with low, medium or high biological
constraints. Reconnaissance level field surveys will be conducted for a subset of the sites that are
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 26 of 162
proposed for re-zoning where existing data is lacking and may contain some natural habitat. Many of the
sites are assumed to be disturbed/developed and will not require a field verification but rather can be
assessed via review of current aerial photos and desktop analyses.
Rincon will present the findings of the literature review and field survey in the Biological Resources
section of the Supplemental EIR and will include an impact analysis and recommended measures to
address potential impacts to protected biological resources resulting from the proposed activities.
Rincon will review relevant city Subarea Plan policies or consideration of applicable mitigation measures
in accordance with CEQA. The discussion will function as a summary of the biological (i.e., wildlife,
vegetation) resources surveys, with the goal of providing a summary of the technical analysis designed
for the layperson to easily understand. These policies will be adapted into appropriate minimization
and/or mitigation measures for use within the Supplemental EIR.
Cultural Resources Evaluation
Rincon will prepare a programmatic cultural resources analysis to address potential impacts to
archaeological and historic built environment resources. The cultural resources analysis will review
historic resources and archaeological resources within the potential housing locations and the potential
impacts to those resources as a result of the project. The study will include research on the prehistory
and history of Carlsbad, as well as a review of historic maps, aerial photographs and data included in the
California Historic Resources Inventory. Rincon assumes that no fieldwork or project level analyses will
be required.
In the Geology and Soils section of the Supplemental EIR, Rincon will discuss the existing geologic
setting, determine the paleontological sensitivity of geologic units within the Plan area, identify
potential impacts to paleontological resources from development within the Plan area, discuss
significance thresholds, and propose mitigation to avoid or mitigate impacts to scientifically significant
paleontological resources. To the extent possible, Rincon will incorporate information from existing
environmental and planning documents that are applicable to the project. Therefore, no formal
museum records search will be performed, and the analysis will consist of an online search of available
fossil locality records, review of existing geologic maps, and a review of primary literature regarding
fossiliferous geologic units within the Plan area and region.
Greenhouse Gases
Rincon will conduct greenhouse gas (GHG) analyses for proposed plans to determine if the predicted
emissions during construction or operation of development proposed under proposed project would
result in substantial increase in GHG emissions beyond those assessed in the 2015 FEIR. Projected
construction emissions would be generated from construction data developed with the city as part of
the air quality analysis scope. Mobile source emissions will be estimated based primarily on trip
generation data from traffic reports for proposed plans. CalEEMod will be used to estimate GHG
emissions associated with the proposed project and to the extent feasible based on the
timing/schedule, Rincon will utilize any modeling available in the soon to be updated Climate Action
Plan.
The GHG analysis will address the project’s conformance with the existing City of Carlsbad Climate
Action Plan (and if/when available, the updated Climate Action Plan), including the city’s Climate Action
Plan Ordinances, and State GHG policies and regulations.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 27 of 162
Noise and Vibration
Rincon will conduct an noise and vibration analysis to determine if the predicted noise levels during
construction or operation of land uses under the proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance update
would exceed applicable city noise standards or result in impacts not already assessed in the 2015 FEIR.
As part of the analysis, Rincon will perform long- and short-term field measurements at various potential
housing sites within a plan area and at locations with receptors that may be affected by noise resulting
from future developments and to document the existing noise environment.
The noise and vibration analysis will address potential construction-related noise and vibration impacts
from typical construction scenarios and potential impacts or conflicts on, or due to, the location of
future land uses associated with the proposed project. Project construction noise impacts would be
generated from construction data (e.g., assumed duration of construction, phasing, types of equipment
to be used, number of construction workers, etc.) developed in conjunction with the city. Construction
traffic noise levels affecting existing land uses will be modeled to determine the potential traffic noise
increases.
The analysis of long-term operational noise impacts associated with the land use changes will include
noise increases generated by vehicle traffic on area roadways and noise from typical onsite noise
sources, e.g. mechanical ventilation. Rincon will calculate traffic noise levels based on existing, existing
plus project, and cumulative plus project scenarios of forecasted traffic volumes as identified in traffic
reports prepared proposed project. Rincon will use this information to determine if increases to
roadway noise levels would adversely affect existing or future land uses along affected roadways. On-
site noise sources will be evaluated based on typical requirements for mechanical ventilation based on
building size and other published noise reference data for activities.
For purposes of this scope and budget estimate, we have assumed that the City’s Noise Contour maps
will not need to be updated. If it is determined that the maps will need to be updated, Rincon will
contact the City to discuss scope and budget options for this separate work effort.
Transportation/Traffic
For all transportation planning work associated with this project, Rincon has augmented our in-house
services. Fehr & Peers has been retained to provide VMT Analysis and modelling services, while STC
Traffic has been retained to provide an operational LOS analysis (Traffic Impact Analysis). The following
is a summary of services to be provided by these firms.
VMT Analysis
Fehr & Peers will conduct a VMT analysis for the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance update consistent
with the latest CEQA practices, including implementation of Senate Bill 743. Rincon and Fehr & Peers
understand the need for close coordination on the VMT analysis as the City is simultaneously updating
its Climate Action Plan. The modeling scope of work described herein can be used for a future
environmental analysis of the Climate Action Plan baseline inventory. However, if future environmental
analysis for the Climate Action Plan includes alternatives that are outside this scope of work and require
additional VMT modeling, a cost amendment will be required.
LAND USE ASSUMPTION REVIEW
Fehr & Peers will review transportation analysis zone (TAZ) data, including land use assumptions and
socioeconomic data, number of housing units, and network assumptions included in the “off the shelf”
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 28 of 162
version of most recent version of the SANDAG’s Activity Based Model (ABM), known as ABM2+, for the
base year (2016) and 2035.
This data will be compared to the current General Plan. It is expected that City staff will be providing
Fehr & Peers with the summary of General Plan Update land use assumptions by a geographic level (e.g.,
TAZ, MGRA) in an excel table to assist with the land use review.
Fehr & Peers will prepare updated land use and socioeconomic data assumptions to reflect the Housing
Element. The land use assumptions identified in the step with constitute the “with-project” conditions
for the impact assessment. Fehr & Peers will coordinate with City staff on the land use assumptions
prior to running the ABM2+ model.
UPDATE “OFF THE SHELF” MODEL
The output of these model runs will be used as the “no project” conditions.
COORDINATION WITH SANDAG MODELING TEAM
SANDAG ABM2+ will be used to evaluate VMT, vehicle trip length, traffic volumes, and local and regional
growth in transportation demand based on the land use forecasts identified in Task 2.1. Fehr & Peers
will prepare a work order for the SANDAG Service Bureau requesting model runs for 2035 model year
that reflect the land use assumptions developed in Task 2.1. SANDAG standard model output will be
provided by Fehr & Peers to the team for their use in other analyses. Since the consistency of General
Plan Update assumptions and the ABM2+ model will be confirmed, the “no project” conditions will be
assumed as the “off the shelf” model results. We will coordinate with the SANDAG service bureau on the
model runs to ensure that we are receiving the appropriate data from the model.
POST-PROCESSING MODEL OUTPUT
Fehr & Peers will receive the raw model output from the SANDAG Service Bureau and will post-process
it to determine the total VMT and VMT/Capita. The City of Carlsbad uses a specific metric to estimate
VMT. We will follow the City’s methodology that includes post-processing the model run outputs and
running the City’s VMT script to estimate the project generated VMT for the no-project base year, no-
project 2035, and with-project 2035.
Transportation impacts will be assessed based on the VMT impact thresholds consistent with the City’s
VMT Guidelines and confirmed with the City during the kick-off meeting for this project. We anticipate
comparing the 2035 VMT/Capita and total VMT with the project to base year model run. In addition, we
will also compare 2035 no-project to 2035-with project total VMT and VMT/Capita. This information will
be used to identify a significant transportation VMT impact. If an impact is disclosed, mitigation
measures will be identified to lessen the impact. Mitigation measures will be suggested based on the
locational context. We will determine the context of various sections of the City and indicate which
measures should be applied in those contexts.
We understand that one outcome that the City desires is to have the VMT analysis performed for this
project disclose any VMT impacts for residential projects that are consistent with the General Plan and
Housing Element, ultimately allowing for tiering from the EIR produced for the Housing Element. We will
work with the project team and City to strive to achieve this goal and understand any pitfalls with this
approach.
DOCUMENTATION
Fehr & Peers will summarize the methods, data, and results of the VMT analysis in a draft memorandum
for review by the project team and City of Carlsbad staff. We will respond to two rounds of comments
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 29 of 162
prior to finalizing the memorandum (up to 12 hours of staff time). Fehr & Peers will review the
transportation section of the Draft EIR (up to two rounds of review) and provide electronic comments
within the Word document to Rincon. In addition, Fehr & Peers will assist the environmental team
address transportation-related comments received on the Draft EIR or during public meetings (up to 40
staff hours. This cost has been distributed across Task 4.5 (Response to Comments) and Project
Coordination and Management. If additional time is needed, due to the magnitude or complexity of the
transportation-related comments, an additional scope and fee will be developed.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Fehr & Peers will prepare monthly invoices and progress reports throughout the duration of this project.
In addition, Fehr & Peers will prepare for and attend the following meetings as part of this scope of
work:
•Kick-off Meeting: Fehr & Peers will facilitate a kick-off meeting with City of Carlsbad staff to discuss
scope and VMT analysis methodology.
•On-going Project Management Check-ins: Fehr & Peers will facilitate up to six (6) project
management calls over the course of this project to discuss project progress, schedule, and
deliverables.
•Public Meetings: Fehr & Peers will prepare for and attend up to three (3) public meetings as part
of this scope of work.
Additional meetings can be attended by Fehr & Peers on a time and materials basis with prior approval
from the client.
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
TIA SCOPING LETTER
Prior to preparation of the TIA report, a scoping letter will be prepared which will include the study area,
analysis methodology and assumptions.
ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
Based on the potential housing sites shown on the City’s online map and the criteria outlined in the TIA
guidelines, roadway segments proposed to be included in the TIA are shown in Table 1.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 30 of 162
Table 1: Study Roadway Segments
Roadway Segment Limits # of
Segments Project Site
El Camino Real SR-78 EB Ramp to
South City Limit 11 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12,
19
College Blvd City limits to Cannon
Rd 2 4, 6, 7
College Blvd Cannon Rd to El
Camino Real 1 4, 6, 7
College Blvd
El Camino Real to
Palomar Airport
Rd
2 4, 6, 7
Cannon Rd Carlsbad Blvd to
Avenida Encinas 1 4, 5
Cannon Rd Avenida Encinas to
Paseo Del Norte 1 4, 5
Cannon Rd Paseo Del Norte to El
Camino Real 4 4
Salk Ave El Camino Real to
College Blvd 1 7
Aviara Pkwy Palomar Airport Rd to
Poinsettia Ln 1 8
Palomar Airport
Rd
Avenida Encinas to East
City limit 8 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
16
La Costa Avenue Piraeus St to El Camino
Real 1 10,11,12
Poinsettia Ln Carlsbad Blvd to Aviara
Pkwy 2 17, 18
Total Roadway
Segments 35
Note: Exempt roadway segments are also included in the above list.
DATA COLLECTION
STC will request count data from the City. For locations where count data is not available, data will be
collected on a typical weekday when schools are in session.
ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
The following scenarios will be included in the traffic study:
•Existing Conditions: The existing roadway conditions will be evaluated based on the existing traffic
volumes and roadway geometry.
•Year 2035 with adopted General Plan conditions: Roadway conditions for the year 2035 will be
evaluated with the general plan traffic volumes and roadway geometry.
•Year 2035 General Plan with Housing Element Update: Roadway conditions for the year 2035 with
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 31 of 162
the housing element update will be evaluated with the general plan roadway geometry and
increase in traffic volumes due to increase in density and/or rezoning.
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECAST
The following methodology will be used to estimate the future forecast volumes. It is assumed that the
City will be sharing with STC, the SANDAG model plots being developed as part of the Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) analysis. Both the year 2035 Adopted GP and year 2035 GP with Housing Element
update model plots will be requested from the City.
•Year 2035 Adopted General Plan: SANDAG base year and future year models will be used to derive
growth rates on each study roadway segments, which will be applied to the existing volumes to
derive the future year 2035 adopted General Plan volumes. It is assumed that the future SANDAG
model includes the adopted general plan land use and roadway condition.
•Year 2035 General Plan Housing Element Update: SANDAG model plots with the housing element
update will be requested from the City. The difference in the volume between the adopted and
the housing element update will be calculated and applied to the year 2035 Adopted General Plan
volumes, to derive the year 2035 General Plan Housing Element Update volumes.
Roadway Segment Analysis Methodology
Roadway subject to Auto MMLOS will be analyzed for each direction of travel for the morning and
afternoon peak hours. STC will request the service volume tables from the City. The peak hour
directional volumes will be compared to the service volume thresholds to determine the roadway
conditions.
Note: As the housing element update is a high level (program level) analysis, facilities operating at level
of service (LOS) D are not required to be split into segments for a more detailed segment level analysis.
If the City requires a segment level analysis, STC will work with the client to amend the scope and fee.
REPORTING
Findings of the transportation impact analysis will be summarized in a TIA report. The report will consist
of graphics and analysis result tables. This scope of work includes addressing one round of comment
from the client, one round of comment from the public, and two rounds of comment from the City.
Should comments be received that modify the scope of the project, STC will work with the client to
amend our scope of work to address out of scope items. Submittals will be made electronically (PDF).
EXCLUSIONS
•Existing + Proposed Project and Cumulative without and with project scenarios
•MMLOS Analysis
•SANDAG model runs
•Intersection Analysis
•Significant Impact Determination
•Mitigation Measure Recommendations
•Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Recommendations
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 32 of 162
•Trip Generation and distribution for site specific housing element locations
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STC traffic, Inc. (STC) will attend project team meetings at the request of the Client, either in
person or via teleconference, as necessary throughout the project. STC will meet with the City of
Carlsbad to discuss scope of work and to review comments on the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA).
STC will attend the Planning Commission and City Council meetings.
Alternatives
The alternatives analysis will focus on a maximum of three land use scenarios, to be developed prior to
the preparation of the Administrative Draft Supplemental EIR. The no project alternative will also be
included in the analysis. The environmental impacts resulting from each alternative would then be
assessed as to their ability to reach the city’s identified project objectives and if these alternatives would
have additional or other impacts beyond the proposed project, or preferred site inventory. As needed,
an alternatives matrix will be developed to provide an easy way to compare each of the alternatives to
one another and the project for each impact area.
We understand the City may choose to prepare a robust analysis, similar to what would typically be
prepared for the preferred project, for one or more alternatives. This approach does require the
preparation of additional technical analyses for the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Noise, and
Transportation sections of the alternative’s discussion, as well as preparation of additional analysis
associated with the TIA. The cost estimate for the project includes an option for the preparation of
additional environmental assessments.
Following internal city staff comments on the Administrative Draft Supplemental EIR (up to two rounds
of review), the team will incorporate appropriate revisions to the Administrative Draft Supplemental EIR
and prepare a Public Review Draft Supplemental EIR for final internal review. Both submissions of the
Administrative Draft Supplement EIR will be provided in an editable, electronic Word format only. We
assume all comments and revision requests will be submitted in a compiled and tracked changes Word
format.
Task 4.4 Public Review Draft Supplemental EIR
Upon authorization from city staff, the team will prepare the Public Review Draft Supplemental EIR for
public circulation and distribute the Draft Supplemental EIR to the State Clearinghouse, responsible
agencies, and interested agencies, organizations, and persons as part of the 45-day public circulation
and review period per CEQA regulations. Rincon has not assumed the production of hard copies in this
cost estimate. Hard copies can be produced for an additional expense that could be accommodated as
part of a request for release of contingency funds.
Task 4.5 Final Supplemental EIR
Response to Comments
The team will prepare draft Response to Comments. As part of preparing the responses, we will use the
bi-weekly conference calls to discuss comment responses. Following internal comments on the draft
responses, the team will prepare the final Responses to Comments. For the purposes of this proposal,
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 33 of 162
we have assumed that up to 80 hours of Rincon professional staff time will be sufficient to address the
volume of comments received on the Draft EIR, and that no additional analyses will be required. 80
hours of Rincon staff time is equivalent to 11-13 large comment letters. If the volume or complexity of
public comments exceeds this estimate, additional budget may be required; in this event, we will
prepare a proposal to add services. Rincon assumes that the City will distribute responses to those who
have commented.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Concurrent with the Responses to Comments report, Rincon will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan to be included in the Final Supplemental EIR.
CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Rincon will prepare the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project based
on the impact conclusions of the EIR, if necessary. The Draft CEQA Findings will be submitted alongside
the Final EIR, and will contain a discussion of alternatives, including the rationale for rejecting any of the
analyzed project alternatives, using in part the project objectives. Rincon will submit drafts of these
documents to City staff and will revise the documents following receipt of comments so that they can be
incorporated into the Staff Report for the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance adoption public hearings.
Final Supplemental EIR
The team will prepare the Final Supplemental EIR after receipt of all written comments received during
the review period. The Final Supplemental EIR will consist of the comments, responses, and corrections
to the Draft Supplemental EIR, if any are warranted and be subject to up two rounds of review. Rincon
will prepare a Screencheck Final Supplemental EIR for one round of internal city staff review and
confirmation. The city will be responsible for submitting the Notice of Determination (NOD) to the
County Clerk per CEQA regulations.
Rincon has not assumed the production of hard copies in this cost estimate. Hard copies can be
produced for an additional expense that could be accommodated as part of a request for release of
contingency funds.
Task 4.6 Public Hearings
The Rincon team will prepare for and attend three (3) public hearings to present the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance updates, Supplemental EIR, and elicit feedback. Representatives from Rincon, Fehr &
Peers, and STC will attend all public hearings.
Optional Task SB 18/AB 52 Assistance
In order to comply with AB 52 and SB 18 and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 and 5097.995, the
City of Carlsbad, as the CEQA lead agency, is required to consultation with California Native American
Tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area prior to the release of the
CEQA document. Rincon will assist the City with Native American consultation by providing the City with
letter templates as defined below and detailed instructions to ensure meaningful consultation with
interested Tribal groups can be completed in accordance with AB 52 and SB 18. Rincon assumes that the
City will initiate consultation by requesting a Sacred Lands File Search from the NAHC. Rincon will
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 34 of 162
provide the City with a one letter template for this initial request. The City will then provide Rincon with
a list results of Tribal groups to contact. Rincon will create letters on the behalf of the City to the
appropriate Tribes and upon approval after one round of comments from the City, Rincon will send the
letters via email and certified mail.
If California Native American Tribes request consultation within the 90-day legal timeframe, Rincon will
assist the City with Native American government-to-government consultation in accordance with AB 52
and SB 18. Rincon will provide one generic response letter template to guide the City on official requests
for Tribal consultation. Rincon assumes that all communication with any interested Tribe will be directly
between the City and the Tribe. If needed, Rincon will provide up to six (6) hours of additionally aid for
Tribal consultation issues via phone and email.
Due to COVID-19, Rincon assumes no in-person meetings will take place. Rincon has also scoped for
participation in up to six, 1-hour conference calls during the SB 18 and AB 52 process. Rincon assumes
that the City will be responsible for scheduling meeting dates. Upon conclusion of SB 18 and AB 52
consultation, Rincon will prepare one technical memorandum documenting the results of consultation
efforts to provide to the City.
Deliverables: SB 18 and AB 52 Assistance
NAHC request letter (electronic delivery)
Initial consultation letter based on NAHC list (certified mail and electronic delivery)
Reply to Tribal request for consultation (electronic delivery)
Optional Task: Accessible Documentation
As an optional task, Rincon can format any of the large deliverables described in this scope of work to
comply with current Americans with Disabilities (ADA) requirements for accessibility. There are types of
disabilities that can impact the use of documents posted online. Per the State of California’s Accessibility
Standards, the State Clearinghouse/OPR are now requesting the submittal of any documents that will be
posted on their website, in an accessible format.
Deliverable: ADA-accessible document
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 35 of 162
Cost Estimate
There are two approaches described in this proposal and the differences pertain to the Alternatives
analysis presented in Task 4.4. The following is a description of the costs associated with each approach.
A breakdown of costs by task is shown in the following table.
Please note that the rates shown are for budgetary purposes. Actual rates may vary slightly depending
on staff availability, but overall costs will not exceed the total shown herein. Any additional tasks not
identified herein will be completed only upon authorization and in accordance with the rates shown in
the table and in the fee schedule on the following pages.
Preferred Land Use Scenario
Under the Preferred Land Use Scenario, Rincon will analyze the project on a citywide basis. It is our
understanding that this is the preferred method of analysis. Rincon will not conduct additional technical
analyses in support of any alternative scenarios, beyond what is required by CEQA guidelines. Rincon
will complete the work program described herein for a cost not to exceed $592,587. In addition, we are
requesting a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $59,259, for a not to exceed total cost of
$651,846.
As of February 1, 2022, $190,837 remains in the budget for the Carlsbad Housing Element project. It
should be noted that this amount is likely to decrease as we continue to refine the project scope for the
General Plan/Zoning Ordinance update. When allocating this budget to the General Plan/Rezoning
project, an additional $461,009 ($401,750 without requested contingency) will be needed to complete
the work plan described herein.
Original Budget (1/20) $ 600,872
Contingency Additions $49,948
Budget Remaining (1/19/2022) $ 190,837
General Plan / Rezoning Budget
(2/1/2022) $ 592,587
Contingency Request (2/1/2022) $59,259
Additional Budget Required to
Complete General Plan / Rezoning
Project
$ 461,009
If staff determines that additional technical analyses are warranted, Rincon can provide expanded
alternative analyses at a cost of $97,169 per alternative. This includes additional air quality, greenhouse
gas, and noise modelling and analysis to be performed by Rincon, VMT modelling and analysis to be
performed by Fehr & Peers, and LOS operational analysis to be prepared by STC. This approach will
create a robust environmental document that will avoid additional costs and timing delays associated
with recirculation of the EIR should the City Council ultimately choose a land use scenario that is
presented as an alternative. Costs associated with each additional analysis are detailed further in the
cost estimate breakdown
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 36 of 162
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.Carlsbad General Plan and Zone Code Update
Cost Estimate
Rincon Labor Classification →Principal II Director ISenior Supervisor IISenior Professional IISenior Professional IProfessional IVProfessional IIIProfessional IISenior GIS SpecialistGIS/CADD Specialist IITechnical EditorProduction SpecialistClericalTasks Labor Cost Direct Expense Hours $295 $280 $245 $212 $197 $174 $161 $145 $160 $140 $130 $105 $95
Task 1: General Plan Update - Safety Element UpdateTask 1.1 Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment $18,195 $88 97 12 20 40 24 1Task 1.2 Administrative Draft Element $19,266 106 2 8 20 46 16 4 10Task 1.3 Public Review Draft Element $12,316 60 2 6 20 26 6Task 1.4 Final Safety Element $7,062 33 2 4 12 12 3Task 1.5 Safety Element Outreach $5,720 28 8 20Task Subtotal $62,559 $88 324 18 26 52 20 60 84 25 24 4 10 1
Task 2: General Plan Amendment - Land Use Element Update
Task 2.1 Administrative Draft Element $17,296 102 2 10 10 36 30 4 10
Task 2.2 Public Review Draft Element $7,254 36 2 10 24Task 2.3 Final Land Use Element $3,642 18 2 4 12
Task Subtotal $28,192 156 6 24 10 72 30 4 10
Task 3: Zone Code AmendmentTask 3.1 Zoning Ordinance Review $4,440 26 2 4 20Task 3.2 Draft Zoning Ordinance Update $16,750 90 6 4 24 50 4 2Task 3.3 Final Zoning Ordinance Update $13,380 66 4 6 24 32Task Subtotal $34,570 182 10 12 52 102 4 2
Task 4: Environmental ReviewTask 4.1 Preparation of Project Description $7,699 42 2 10 24 4 1 1Task 4.2 Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Scoping Meeting $4,369 $176 22 1 6 14 1
Task 4.3 Administrative Draft EIR
Executive Summary $2,469 14 1 2 2 8 1
Environmental Setting $2,469 14 1 2 2 8 1 Aesthetics $8,278 43 1 2 34 4 1 1 Agriculture $2,952 17 1 2 12 1 1 Air Quality $11,169 60 2 6 8 32 10 1 1 Biological Resources $17,106 $396 97 3 10 6 46 30 1 1 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources $16,281 $3,996 88 2 6 18 36 16 8 1 1 Energy $4,522 27 1 2 6 16 1 1 Geology and Soils $6,388 37 1 2 6 26 1 1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions $12,815 74 2 6 6 32 26 1 1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials $3,596 21 1 2 16 1 1
Hydrology and Water Quality $5,952 35 1 2 4 24 2 1 1
Land Use and Planning $4,520 27 1 2 20 2 1 1
Mineral Resources $2,308 13 1 2 8 1 1 Noise $16,225 $198 90 2 10 8 36 30 2 1 1 Population and Housing $6,172 37 1 2 32 1 1 Public Services and Recreation $6,832 43 1 2 6 30 2 1 1 Transportation and Circulation $4,520 $161,524 27 1 2 20 2 1 1 Utilities and Service Systems $7,460 45 1 2 40 1 1 Wildfire $5,922 35 1 2 2 28 1 1 Alternatives $11,785 64 4 8 10 40 1 1 Air Quality Modeling (full analysis; each additional land use scenarios)$7,179 40 1 2 36 1 Greenhouse Gas Modeling (full analysis; each additional land use scenarios)$7,179 40 1 2 36 1 Noise and Vibration Modeling (full analysis; each additional land use scenarios)$8,929 $198 48 1 8 36 2 1
Transportation/Traffic (full analysis; each additional land use scenarios)$1,959 $62,590 10 1 2 6 1
Additional Alternatives Analysis (full analysis; each additional land use scenarios)$9,025 54 3 5 5 40 1
Other CEQA Required Sections $2,760 17 1 2 12 1 1 Administrative Record $1,455 9 1 8Task 4.4 Draft EIR $9,330 $88 56 2 6 4 32 2 10Task 4.5 Final EIR Responses to Comments $15,020 $14,718 88 6 16 60 6 MMRP $1,945 11 1 2 8 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations $5,060 28 4 4 20 Final EIR $5,590 $88 36 2 4 20 2 8Task 4.6 Public Hearings $5,818 $340 26 2 12 8 4Project Coordination and Management $37,795 $27,434 161 20 100 41Task Subtotal $290,853 $271,746 1596 79 124 133 26 101 296 400 290 33 28 45 41
Subtotal Cost 416,174$ 271,834$ 1,920 28,615$ 42,000$ 45,325$ 9,752$ 19,897$ 61,944$ 77,924$ 42,050$ 4,000$ 7,980$ 4,160$ 5,775$ 3,990$
Direct Cost Detail - Preferred Land Use Scenario
Vehicle Costs 1,056$
CHRIS Records Search 3,000$
Locality Search 600$
Sound Level Field Metering Package 110$
Standard Field Package 440$ Annual Escalation – Standard rates subject to 3% escalation annually
Fehr & Peers 114,442$ STC 91,036$
Subtotal Additional Costs 210,684$ Updated:01.01.2022
Summary - Preferred Land Use ScenarioProfessional Fees Subtotal $381,903Direct Costs Subtotal $210,684
Total Project Budget 592,587$ Contingency $59,259
Total Project Budget + Contingency 651,846$
Direct Cost Detail - Expanded Alternatives Analysis (Per Alternative)
Vehicle Costs 88$
Sound Level Field Metering Package 110$
Standard Field Package 110$
Fehr & Peers 32,890$
STC 29,700$
Subtotal Additional Costs 62,898$
Summary - Expanded Alternatives Analysis (Per Alternative)Professional Fees Subtotal $34,271Direct Costs Subtotal $62,898
Budget 97,169$
Optional TasksSB 18/AB 52 Assistance $6,100Accessible Documentation (per document)$15,000
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 37 of 162
ID Task
Mode
Task Name Start Finish
1 Project Kickoff MeetingThu 3/3/22 Thu 3/3/22
2 Prepare Draft Land
Use and Safety
Element, and Zoning
Code Updates
Fri 3/4/22 Thu 4/28/22
3 City Review of GP
Elements and Zoning
Code
Fri 4/29/22 Thu 5/26/22
4 Revise GP Elements
and Zoning Code
Fri 5/27/22 Thu 6/23/22
5 City Review of GP
Elements and Zoning
Code
Fri 6/24/22 Thu 7/21/22
6 Final GP and Zoning
Code Update
Fri 7/22/22 Thu 8/4/22
7
8 NOP Preparation Fri 6/3/22 Thu 6/16/22
9 Release NOP Fri 6/17/22 Fri 6/17/22
10 NOP Review Mon 6/20/22Wed 7/20/22
11 Scoping Meeting Thu 7/21/22 Thu 7/21/22
12 Transportation
Modeling
Fri 6/3/22 Thu 8/25/22
13 Prepare Admin Draft
Supplemental EIR
Fri 8/5/22 Thu 10/6/22
14 City Review of
Admin Draft
Fri 10/7/22 Thu 11/3/22
15 Prepare Draft
Supplemental EIR
Fri 11/4/22 Thu
11/24/22
16 City Review of Draft Fri 11/25/22 Thu 12/15/22
17 Edits to Draft Fri 12/16/22 Thu 12/22/22
18 Public Review of
Supplemental EIR
Fri 12/23/22 Tue 2/7/23
19 Final EIR Prep Wed 2/1/23 Tue 3/7/23
20 City Review of Final Wed 3/8/23 Tue 3/28/23
21 Edits to Final Wed 3/29/23Tue 4/4/23
22 Planning
Commission Hearing
Wed 5/3/23 Wed 5/3/23
23 City Council Hearing Tue 6/6/23 Tue 6/6/23
27 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4
Mar '22 Apr '22 May '22 Jun '22 Jul '22 Aug '22 Sep '22 Oct '22 Nov '22 Dec '22 Jan '23 Feb '23 Mar '23 Apr '23 May '23 Jun '23
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Progress
Manual Progress
Page 1
Project: Rezoning Project_Draft
Date: Thu 2/3/22
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 38 of 162
Exhibit 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-044
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE CITY
COUNCIL'S CONTIGENCY BUDGET TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT'S OPERATING BUDGET TO FULLY STUDY ONE OR MORE
ALTERNATIVES IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO BE PREPARED
FOR THE REZONING OF POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES AS NECESSARY TO
COMPLY WITH HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM 1.1
CASE NAME: HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN
MAINTENANCE
CASE NO.: GPA 2019-0003 (PUB2019-0009)
WHEREAS, on April 6, 2021, the City Council approved the Housing Element Update; and
WHEREAS, Housing Element Program 1.1 requires the city to rezone sites as necessary to meet
the Regional Housing Needs Assessment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has directed staff on the potential housing sites to study for rezoning
through the environmental review and public hearing process; and
WHEREAS, in addition to identifying the "proposed project" that will be the basis for studying
the environmental impacts under the state law known as the California Environmental Quality Act, or
CEQA, the City Council has also identified one or more alternatives to the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, so the City Council can adopt either the proposed project or an alternative at a public
hearing, the alternative must be analyzed at the same detailed level of CEQA review as the proposed
project; and
WHEREAS, Rincon Consultants, Inc., the city's consultant assisting in the rezoning of the
potential housing sites, has identified in the amended professional services agreement (Attachment A)
that the cost to study an alternative at the same detailed level of review as the proposed project is
$97,169; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it is in the best interest of the community and the decision-
making process to have the benefit of the proposed project and one or more fully studied alternatives.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1.That the above recitations are true and correct.
2.That the City Council directs the study of 1 a Iternative(s).
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 39 of 162
MATT HAL
FAVIO DINA, City Clerk Services Manager
emtiliattottoo
‘f CA04
1.349/.
EC)
3. That the Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services is hereby authorized to transfer
$97,169 ($97,169 multiplied by the number of alternatives directed by the City Council)
from the City Council's contingency budget to the Community Development
Department operating budget to pay consultant costs associated with the preparation
of alternative(s).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 15th day of February 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Hall, Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Acosta, Norby.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: None.
(SEAL)
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 40 of 162
Exhibit 3
Aug. 17, 2021 City Council Staff Report (Item 6)
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 41 of 162
Aug.17,2021 Carlsbad City Council Regular Meeting Page2
3. AGREEMENT WITH SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE SAVINGS BY
DESIGN PROGRAM FOR THE FIRE STATION NO. 2 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CIP PROJECT
NO. 4060 -Adoption of Resolution No. 2021-188 authorizing the Deputy City Manager of
Public Works to execute an agreement for participation in the San Diego Gas & Electric
Savings by Design Program for the Fire Station No. 2 Reconstruction Project, CIP No. 4060.
(Staff contact: Steven Stewart, Public Works and Michael Calderwood, Fire)
4. AGREEMENT WITH CHEN RYAN ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE COLLEGE BOULEVARD REACH A
PROJECT. CIP PROJECT NO. 3636 -Adoption of Resolution No. 2021-189 authorizing
execution of a professional services agreement with Chen Ryan Associates, Inc. for
Preliminary Engineering Design and Environmental Assessment of College Boulevard Reach
A, CIP No. 3636, in an amount not to exceed $1,919,294. (Staff Contact: Scott Lyle, Public
Works)
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION:
5. ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 18.22 (ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS) TO
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE -Introduction of Ordinance No. CS-399 adding a
new Chapter 18.22 (Electric Vehicle Charging Stations) to the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code
pursuant to state law. (Staff contact: Jeff Murphy, Community Development)
City Manager's Recommendation: Introduce the ordinance.
Community Development Director Jeff Murphy presented the report and reviewed a
PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk).
City Attorney Celia Brewer titled the ordinance.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Blackburn, seconded by Council Member Bhat-Patel, to introduce
Ordinance No. CS-399. Motion carried unanimously, 4/0.
ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION: None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
The following individual called into the City Council Meeting and voiced their comment for the
record:
Michael McMahon expressed his concern with climate change and requested City Council declare
a climate emergency.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 43 of 162
L
Aug. 17, 2021 Carlsbad City Council Regular Meeting Page3
DEPARTMENTAL AND CITY MANAGER REPORTS:
6. TWO CONCEPTUAL HOUSING ELEMENT REZONING MAPS FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND PUBLIC
OUTREACH PLAN -Consider the information contained in this report and take the following
actions by minute motion:
1) Approve the two conceptual rezoning maps for public review, which are intended to meet
the Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirements, in accordance with Program 1.1 of
the Carlsbad Housing Element; and
2) Approve the public engagement·plan; and
3) Direct staff to release the conceptual rezoning maps for public review and input as
detailed in the public engagement plan and return to the City Council with the results. (Staff
contact: Scott Donnell, Community Development)
City Manager's Recommendation: Receive the report, approve the actions by minute motion
and provide direction as appropriate.
Senior Planner Scott Donnell presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk).
The following individuals calJed into the City Council Meeting and voiced their comments for
the record:
Charles l~hr expressed his support of the maps presented by stdff.
Allison Vredenburgh expressed her support for removing Zone 3 cap from the proposal .
. Joe Vredenburgh expressed his support for removing Zone 3 cap from the proposal.
Elizabeth Edmonston expressed her support for removing Zone 3 cap from the proposal.
In response to an inquiry from Council Member Bhat-Patel, Senior Planner Donnell explained
that staff could provide information on how many additional units could be built based on
current management caps in each quadrant at a later time. He also confirmed that if Cottage
Row is selected as a potential site, the current units could be demolished, however, that could
also occur under current zoning if the land use designation changes under the current land
use plan.
In response to an inquiry from Council Member Acosta, Senior Planner Donnell explained the
sites identified include a 30% buffer based on the original Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) estimate. Deputy City Manager Gary Barberio explained adding
• alternative sites from.the list could add to the buffer and could lead to removing a different
site off the list.
In response to an inquiry from Mayor Hall, Senior Planner Donnell explained industrial sites
may not be appropriate locations to consider due to potential restrictions that could be
imposed as well as other health and safety concerns.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 44 of 162
Aug.17,2021 Carlsbad City Council Regular Meeting Page4
In response to an· inquiry from Mayor Hall, Principal Planner Eric Lardy explained that
community outreach will be conducted to all impacted school districts.
Community Development Director Jeff Murphy explained that not all of the site alternatives
are necessary to include to cover loss of the Ponto Site and Site 13.
In response to an inquiry from Mayor Pro Tern Blackburn, Community Development Director
Murphy explained that the message to the community is that this is a proposal to receive
feedback and not up-zone the properties.
Council Member Bhat-Patel expressed her concern with including the properties at Ambrosia
Lane, Blue Herron, and Hummingbird Road and was most interested in indudiog the
properties at Caitrans Pacific Sales, North County Transit District (NCTD) Poinsettia Coaster
Station, La Costa Glen/Forum, and the North Ponto Parcel.
Council Member Acosta expressed her support for including the NCTD Poinsettia Coaster
Station and the La Costa Glen/Forum as additional site alternatives.
In response to Council Member Acosta's suggestions, Community Development Director
Murphy explained that while the recommended maps include enough buffer, should the City
Council choose to remove any sites, the buffer will be eroded.
In response to an inquiry from Council Member Bhat-Patel, Principal Planner Lardy explained
that the State of California looks at equal distribution of housing in an.effort to affirmatively
further fair housing.
Mayor Pro Tern Blackburn expressed his support for including the _NCTD Poinsettia Coaster
Station as a potential site due to its proximity to public transportation.
In response to an inquiry from Council Member Bhat-Patel, Mayor Hall explained he would
prefer not to eliminate sites for consideration.
Motion by Council Member Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Acosta, to approve the
two conceptual rezoning maps for public review, the public engagement plan, and include
the Caltrans Pacific Sales, NCTD Poin~ettia Coaster Station, La Costa Glen/Forum, and North
Ponto Parcel as site alternatives for consideration.
In response to an inquiry from Council Member Acosta, Community Development Director
Murphy explained that the proposal is for feedback from the community and that staff will
return with maps based on their input.
Council Member Acosta explained she would not be s,upportive of including Ambrosia Lane,
Blue Heron Place (Aviara), nor Hummingbird Road (Murphy) as low priorities.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 45 of 162
Aug. 17,2021 Carlsbad City Council Regular Meeting Pages
Substitute Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Blackburn, seconded by Council Member Bhat-Patel, to
consider Ambrosia Lane, Blue Heron Place (Aviara}, and Hummingbird Road (Murphy) as low
priorities.
In response to an inquiry from Mayor Pro Tern Blackbum, Senior Planner Donnell explained
the unit yield for Hummingbird Road {Murphy property) is dependent on the acreage.
Substitute Motion withdrawn by Mayor Pro Tern Blackburn.
Substitute Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Blackburn to consider Hummingbird Road {Murphy
property) as a low priority. Motion failed due to a lack of a second.
Motion by Council Member Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Acosta, to approve the
two conceptual rezoning maps for public review, the public engagement plan, and include
the Caltrans Pacific Sales, NCTD Poinsettia Coaster Station, La Costa Glen/Forum, and North
Ponto Parcel as site alternatives for consideration. Motion carried, 4/0.
Council received the report.
Mayor Hall called a recess at 4:57 p.m.
Mayor Hall reconvened the meeting at 5:08 p.m.
7. DISTRICT 1 CITY COUNCIL VACANCY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS & APPOINTMENT PROCEDURE -
By ll'!Otion:
1) Select interview questions to be asked of District 1 City Council applicants at the Aug. 24,
2021 City Council meeting; and
2} Approve the interview and appointment process. (Staff contact: Sheila Cobian, City
Manager Department and Faviola Medina, City Clerk Department)
City Manager's Recommendation: By minute motion, select interview questions and
approve the interview and appointment process.
Director of Legislative & Constituent Services Sheila Cobian and City Clerk Services Manager
Faviola Medina presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the
Office of the City Clerk).
In response to an inquiry from Council Member Bhat-Patel, Director of Legislative &
Constituent Services Cobian explained that the City Council could. potentially give their
rankings on the top applicants and not all 13. Director of Legislative & Constituent Services
Cobian added that City Clerk staff can ask the applicants the interview questions.
Mayor Hall expressed interest in extending the introductory time to three or five minutes.
Council concurrence established to give each applicant three minutes.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 46 of 162
Aug. 17,2021 Carlsbad City Council Regular Meeting Page6
Council Member Bhat-Patel expressed interest in adding a one-minute closing statement.
Council concurrence established.
Council Member discussion ensued regarding setting a meeting time limit of four hours and
then continuing to another date.
In response to an inquiry from City Manager Chadwick, City Attorney Brewer explained the
meeting could be adjourned after approximately four hours and continued to a date certain
of Aug. 26, 2021. Council concurrence established on the continuation date of Aug. 26, 2021.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Blackburn, seconded by Council Member Bhat-Patel, to approve
the following interview and appointment process guidelines:
• Rank the top three candidates
• Allow three minutes for opening comments
• Ask five questions total to include the hypothetical question at the end
• Candidates will be given two minutes to answer each question
• Allow one minute for closing comments
• Meeting duration of four to four and a half hours with adjournment to Aug. 26, 2021
if needed
• City Clerk staff will ask the applicants the interview questions
Motion carried unanimously, 4/0.
8. DISTRICT 2 AND DISTRICT 4 APPOINTMENTS OF TWO MEMBERS TO THE TRAFFIC & MOBILITY
COMMISSION -1) Adoption of Resolution No. 2021-190 appointing one member to the
Traffic & Mobility Commission; and
2) Adoption of Resolution No. 2021-191 appointing one member to the Traffic & Mobility
Commission. (Staff contact: Tammy McMinn, City Clerk Department)
City Manager's Recommendation: Adopt the resolutions.
The following individuals called into the City Council Meeting and voiced their comments for
the record rega rding their interest and qualifications to serve on the Traffic & Mobility
Commission: Josh Coelho and William Fowler.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Blackburn, seconded by Council Member Acosta, to adopt
Resolution No. 2021-190 re-appointing William Fowler. Motion carried unanimously, 4/0.
Motion by Council Member Acosta, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Blackburn, to adopt
Resolution No. 2021-191 appointing Josh Coelho. Motion carried unanimously, 4/0.
9. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT OF ONE MEMBER TO THE HOUSING COMMISSION -Adoption of
Resolution No. 2021-19iappointing one member to the Housing Commission. (Staff contact:
Tammy McMinn, City Clerk Department)
City Manager's Recommendation: Adopt the resolution.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 47 of 162
Aug.17,2021 Carlsbad City Council Regular Meeting Page?
Motion by Mayor Hall, seconded ~Y Mayor Pro Tern Blackburn, to adopt Resolution No'. 2021-
192 re-appointing Allen Manzano. Motion carried unanimously, 4/0.
10. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT OF ONE MEMBER TO THE ARTS COMMISSION -Adoption of
Resolution No. 2021-193 appointing one member to the Arts Commission. (Staff contact:
Tammy McMinn, City Clerk Department)
The following individual called into the City Council Meeting and voiced their comment for
the record regarding their interest and qualifications to serve on the Arts Commission: Torrey
Cook.
City Manager's Recommendation: Adopt the resolution.
Motion by Mayor Hall, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Blackburn, to adopt Resolution No. 2021-
193 appointing Nora George. Motion carried unanimously, 4/0.
11. CARLSBAD GOLF LODGING BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD
APPOINTMENT Adoption of Resolution No. 2021-194 appointing one member to the Carlsbad
Golf Lodging Business Improvement District Advisory Board. (Staff contact: Tammy McMinn,
City Clerk Department)
City Manager's Recommendation: Adopt the resolution.
Motion by Mayor Hall, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Blackburn, to adopt Resolution No. 2021-
194 appointing Bill Canepa. Motion carried unanimously, 4/0.
COUNCIL REPORTS AND COMMENTS: Mayor Hall and the City Council Members reported on
activities and meetings of some committees and subcommittees of which they are members.
Mayor Hall and the City Council Members also thanked City Clerk Engleson for her service.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Hall announced that the City Council may be participating in
upcoming events on the following dates and times:
• Wed., Aug. 18, 2021 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at Blue Ribbon City Launch at GelatoLove,
300 Carlsbad Village Dr., #104, Carlsbad, CA
• Wed., Aug. 18, 2021 from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at City of Carlsbad Police Chief Williams
Meet & Greet -District 3 at Poinsettia Community Park, 6600 Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad,
California
• Fri., Aug. 20, 2021 from 11:00 a.m . to 1:00 p.m. at Carlsbad Chamber's State of the
Community-VIP Viewing Only at Gnarlywood, 2081 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, California
• Fri., Aug. 20, 2021 from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at City of Carlsbad Police Chief Williams
Meet & Greet-District 1 at Pine Community Park at 3209 Harding St., Carlsbad, California
• Mon., Aug. 23, 2021 from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. at City of Carlsbad Police Chief Williams Meet
& Greet-District 4 at Stagecoach Community Park, 3420 Camino de los Coches, Carlsbad,
California
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 48 of 162
1 .H o u s i n g E l e m e n t U p d a t e P u b l i c I n p u t S u m m a r y R e p o r t
Housing Element Update
P BLIC INPUT
SUMMARY REPORT
December 2021
1 .H o u s i n g E l e m e n t U p d a t e P u b l i c I n p u t S u m m a r y R e p o r t
Exhibit 5
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 50 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 2
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
How we engaged 4
What we heard 11
Site specific feedback 14
Next steps 77
Appendix 78
A. Workshop scribe notes
B. Workshop chat log
C. Survey results - all responses (English)
D. Survey results - 92008 residents
E. Survey results - 92009 residents
F. Survey results - 92010 residents
G. Survey results - 92011 residents
H. Survey results - non residents
I. Survey results (Spanish)
J. Public comments
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 51 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 3
Introduction
Since 1969, California law has required that all cities and counties demonstrate how they will
meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. The state forecasts the need for
housing based on population projections, and then each region must show how it will
accommodate that need. When these forecasts are updated, housing plans, known as housing
elements, must be updated too.
In the fall of 2021, the city gathered input on where new housing units could be built in
Carlsbad to satisfy the state requirement that cities accommodate their fair share of the
region’s housing needs, including homes for people of all income levels and stages of life.
Eighteen proposed locations were chosen based on public input gathered in 2020, input from a
citizens advisory committee and direction from the City Council.
Over the next eight years, the state-mandated growth forecasts estimate Carlsbad needs to
provide sites for 3,900 new housing units. The city can meet some of this number through
existing locations and approved projects, but the city still needs to identify locations for about
2,600 new homes. Most of those need to be affordable for people with moderate to low
incomes, according to state formulas for household income levels.
In August 2021, a draft housing site map was presented to City Council, and City Council
approved an outreach plan to share it with community members. To help prioritize the listing of
18 potential sites for future affordable housing projects, the city held a robust engagement
process to gather input from a wide array of diverse community voices. This report provides a
summary of feedback received from community members on where future housing should be
located in Carlsbad. City staff will present options related to the proposed sites based on this
community input with the City Council in early 2022 for approval to move forward with the
environmental review of those sites for one or more options (or alternatives). This will be
ultimately presented as part of formal land use changes at public hearings in spring 2023.
About the findings
By providing multiple ways for the public to provide input, decision makers can hear from a
large and diverse group of community members. However, unlike a scientific survey, the
findings of this process cannot be generalized to the entire Carlsbad population within a
defined margin of error.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 52 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 4
That’s why the input in this report should be considered with a similar weight as other
qualitative forms of feedback that have always been part of the city’s decision-making process,
such as comments made at City Council meeting or emails sent to the city expressing an
opinion.
How we engaged
City of Carlsbad staff designed and implemented a public involvement strategy to engage City
of Carlsbad community members and gather their input on potential locations for future
housing in Carlsbad to meet state requirements.
Due to COVID-19 conditions, the city chose not to hold in-person meetings. Instead, interested
community members shared their perspectives and feedback through virtual online workshops,
an online survey, via email and mail.
Details on each engagement opportunity are provided below.
Workshops
City staff held two virtual workshops that included a short presentation about the city’s Housing
Element Update process, the locations of potential sites and how they were chosen.
Community members provided input by responding to questions and providing comments
during an open comment session. Participants also provided feedback on the 18 potential
housing locations during small group breakout discussions, which were then summarized for all
meeting participants.
► Two online public workshops
o Sept. 15, 2021
o Sept. 22, 2021
► 71 people attended the community workshops
o 30 people attended the Sept. 15 workshop
o 41 people attended the Sept. 22 workshop
o 7 people attended both workshops
Each workshop was recorded and is available online at www.carlsbadca.gov/housingplan.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 53 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 5
Survey
To encourage broad participation, the City of Carlsbad also invited community members to
share their thoughts about each site for potential housing through an online survey offered in
English and Spanish.
► Online survey in English and Spanish: Sept. 2 - Oct. 1, 2021
► 950 participants completed in the online survey
Mailed/emailed comments
Community members were also invited to submit their feedback via mail or email on the
potential housing sites.
► Submittal of public comments via email or mail: Sept. 2 - Oct. 22, 2021
► 95 public comments were received via email or mail
ZIP code representation
92008 92009 92010 92011 92018 92024 92056 Other/
NA
Meeting participants 29 3 14 20 0 1 0 4
Survey participants 317 121 212 266 4 3 4 23
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 54 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 6
Additional demographic information was gathered from those who participated in the online survey:
Age
Income
Own/rent
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 55 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 7
Informational materials
City staff notified community members about the various opportunities to get involved through
advertising, fliers, news releases, social media and email. Regular updates and information was
made on the project webpage at www.carlsbadca.gov/housingplan.
►9 newsletter updates with an open rate of 40% or higher were emailed to approximately
1,500 community members interested in housing issues and approximately 9,600 on the
city’s general email list
►21 social media posts on the city’s Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and Nextdoor accounts
with a total reach of more than 55,000 individuals
►1 news release on the home page of the city website
►300+ fliers distributed to libraries and community centers throughout the city
►4,010 letters sent to owners of identified sties and neighboring community members
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 56 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 8
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 57 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 9
An interactive map was created showing the 18 potential sites, including links to a
comprehensive fact sheet for each site.
Presentations
City staff also made presentations to several community groups and city boards and
commissions, including:
•Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
•San Diego Building Industry Association
•Carlsbad Village Association
•Carlsbad Hi-Noon Rotary Club
•Rotary Club of Carlsbad
•City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
•City of Carlsbad Independent Redistricting Commission
Outreach to diverse groups
Direct outreach was completed to more than 45 community organizations that serve residents
with low incomes. Some of those organizations included:
•Carlsbad Young Professionals
•Community Interface Services
•Community Resource Center North County
•Legal Aid Society
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 58 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 1 0
•Center for Social Advocacy
•Meals on Wheels
•Women’s Resource Center
•Solutions for Change
•Interfaith Community Services
•MAAC Project
•North County Lifeline
•Oceanside Kitchen Collaborative
•Catholic Charities
•Carlsbad Unified School District
The online survey and informational materials were made available in Spanish and a Spanish
speaking project team member contacted and met with Spanish speaking community members
directly to gather their feedback. Fliers in Spanish were made available at city facilities in the
Village and Barrio where members of the Spanish community frequent. Visits were also made
to school meetings and other events for Spanish speaking community members.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 59 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 11
What we heard
Following is a summary of key themes that emerged from feedback received through all
engagement opportunities. This summary reflects feedback that was most commonly shared,
although it’s important to note that this was not a representative sample of Carlsbad residents,
nor can we know to what extent the views of participants represent the views of residents
overall. Verbatim responses are included in the Appendix.
Where housing should go
• Build new developments to replace run-down homes/businesses and vacant properties
• Combine business uses with housing (mixed use)
• Concerns about potential conflicts between residential and business areas
• Maintain coastal areas, historic areas, open areas and make sure there are enough parks
for the housing being built
• Residential neighborhoods should not be rezoned, and affordable housing should not be
built near single family homes
• Sites should be government-owned
• Convert commercial and industrial properties, such as those near Palomar Airport Road
• Promote a sense of community; industrial areas might not be well-suited to this and
could also be difficult for transportation
• Concerns about building homes near power lines
• Sites should be accessible to people with disabilities and who have low incomes.
• Sites should be safe, close to jobs and walkable and provide access to natural spaces and
transit.
• Do not building more housing in North Carlsbad, the Barrio, Old Carlsbad or the Village
Affordable housing support
• All sites are needed and should be built, and the city should plan for more affordable
housing than what is required by the regional housing needs assessment
• This is a critical issue for Carlsbad and the city has previously been a leader in well-
developed and designed affordable housing
• People from all socio-economic backgrounds should be able to live in the city and limit
wealth segregation
• Sites should include condos in addition to rental properties so there could be an
opportunity for low to moderate income residents to purchase housing in order to build
wealth
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 60 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 12
• Housing development should keep pace with the growth in the job and economic
sectors the city has seen
• Spread the word about available affordable housing opportunities and create a waiting
list
Sustainability opportunities and environmental concerns
• Sites should be near public transit and jobs in order to reduce vehicle miles traveled and
reduce traffic
• Don’t replace parking near transit stations because it may inhibit commuters from using
these services
• Protect open spaces and environmentally sensitive areas, such as Buena Vista Lagoon
• All units should have electric charging garages
• Consider impacts of climate change on the city, including that some sites may be
affected by sea level rise, additional housing could further water scarcity and statewide
drought, and the city should be focused on climate impact mitigation methods rather
than more housing
Affordable housing concerns
• Carlsbad could become overbuilt leading to a “cement city,” which could damage its
“positive atmosphere” and potentially “destroy another piece of paradise”
• Don’t force additional units where there is already limited space
• Too much development would strain local infrastructure, bring an increase of crime into
the area, diminish surrounding home values and cause overcrowding in schools
• Carlsbad should not be forced to add more housing by the state. City officials should
fight this law or cities should band together to fight the mandate collectively
• Make sure affordable units actually go to income-eligible residents and, if needed, help
bridge the income gap for those who are in need
• More density will not necessarily result in affordable housing in Carlsbad because it is a
coastal community and prices are higher
Supporting all ages
• Build more housing for seniors and those experiencing homelessness
• Locate housing to be walkable and close to shops and amenities for seniors
• Young people make too much money to get assistance but not enough to afford a home
in Carlsbad, and this will result in losing young professionals to other areas
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 61 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 13
Issues of fairness
• Distribute sites evenly throughout the city. The north, northwest and downtown areas
are already saturated or have developments in process, while others, such as the
southeast and Robertson Ranch and Faraday areas, are not being discussed
• Affordable sites should be built in the east, away from the waterfront, or east of I-5,
because current residents pay a premium to live in these locations
• Carlsbad doesn’t need affordable housing because nearby communities like Oceanside,
Vista and San Marcos have a lower cost of living
• Changing areas planned for shopping to housing is like a “bait and switch”
• The city is advocating for more housing so it will get more money from development
The development process
• Carlsbad’s land use approach would increase developer profit and give them a “density
bonus” while driving up land costs and actually reducing affordability
• Require developers to increase the number of affordable housing units built, offering
additional incentives to encourage the development of more affordable housing,
curtailing Airbnb and vacation rentals, and prohibiting developments where investors
can purchase properties and rent them out
• City workers should receive priority for housing
• Focus on sites for low-income units rather than moderate income units
• Plan for more single-family homes rather than multi-unit complexes
Traffic and parking concerns
• Housing development will have a negative effect on local traffic congestion and parking
availability
• The community profile near Oceanside’s transit station has changed as a result of
affordable housing nearby
• Housing located directly on the parking sites for the train could take away parking from
those who commute to the train, potentially encouraging people to just drive instead
• Don’t put more housing in areas that already have traffic congestion, such as around
schools
The outreach process
• Not everyone could provide input because the opportunities were all online due to
COVID-19
• The city should send mailers to reach people who aren’t online
• The city’s outreach process was thorough and provided multiple ways to provide input
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 62 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 1 4
•The initial Housing Element sites survey, which was used to develop criteria for choosing
sites, was not representative/scientific
•Community members cannot trust the city to be truthful
Common q uestions
Members of the public had the following questions about the Housing Element Update
(responses have been provided on the project website):
•Is more housing required because the City of Carlsbad receives state funding?
•Is every city in California is required to accommodate more housing?
•What will happen with government-owned property if it is designated for a housing
site?
•How are water supply, traffic, parking and schools affected by new developments?
•What percent of units would be sold at market price vs. reduced rent?
•Do developers restrict tenants based on income levels?
•How does existing planned housing affects the number of units needed?
•How do new state laws Senate Bill 9 and Senate Bill 10 affect Carlsbad?
Site specific feedback
Community members were given the opportunity
to provide feedback on 18 potential sites for
future housing. The online map available
throughout the public comment period identified
and provided information about each site.
As a reminder, because people self-selected to
provide input on housing sites, their input cannot
be considered representative of the entire
Carlsbad community. Instead, the feedback on the
following pages reflects the views of about 1,000
people who were aware of the opportunity to get
involved and chose to provide input.
Mix ed comments (positive and negative)
Sites 1, 2 and 19
Mostly negative comments
Sites 3, 4, 8, 14, 18
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 63 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 1 5
Fewer comments overall
Sites 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 19.
Volume and nature of comments
The charts below shows the number and nature of comments received for each potential
housing site through the online survey and comments received via mail or email.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 64 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 1 6
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 65 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 1 7
Site 1 – North County Plaza
Site 1, the current North County Plaza shopping center, is located along Marron Road near
Jefferson Street. An application to develop a portion of the site with approximately 240
apartments has been received by the city.Site 1 is approximately 19 acres.
Survey responses
The charts below provide a summary of why survey respondents said they liked or disliked Site
1 as a location for future housing.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 66 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 1 8
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 67 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 1 9
Summary of open ended comments in support
•Proximity to shops, jobs, and transit
•City-owned
•Currently underutilized commercial property
•Large capacity for high density housing
•Walkability
•Good for mobility, as traffic goes in both directions off Jefferson and it features a major
bus transfer site
•Provides access to the Scripps facility at Jefferson and Vista
Summary of open ended comments in opposition
•Need for rezoning
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 68 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 20
• Increase in traffic, particularly close to transit
• Increase in traffic at intersections around Jefferson and El Camino Real, as well as SR-78
and the I-5
• Demands on infrastructure
• Access to public transit could be difficult
• Proximity to the freeway and El Camino Real could lead to an increase in crime with
bored youth
• Decrease in quality of life for residents in surrounding area
• Some felt development at this site should incorporate a restored wetlands area
• Impacts of eliminating businesses
• Some felt this site should be left as a retail area, and noted that if retail is removed
other sites nearby would be developed into a retail space to make this accommodation
• This site is already too busy
• Harm to the existing environment
• Strain on schools and traffic
• Northwest quadrant is already crowded
• Distribution of housing should be spread more equally
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 69 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 2 1
Site 2
Site 2 consists of several parcels that make up the parking lot surrounding The Shoppes at
Carlsbad mall. The 57-acre parking lot is owned by the City of Carlsbad.The site is west of El
Camino Real and between California State Route 78 highway and Marron Road.
Survey responses
The charts below provide a summary of why survey respondents said they liked or disliked Site
2 as a location for future housing.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 70 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 2 2
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 71 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 2 3
Support
•The space is currently underutilized, particularly part of the parking area
•Possibility of mixed-use development
•Proximity to transportation and shops
•High number of units possible
•Walkability
•City-owned
•Access to the Scripps facility at Jefferson and Vista
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 72 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 24
Concerns
• Loss of parking for the mall
• Teenagers living in these units would have too much opportunity to get in trouble at the
mall
• Increased traffic congestion
• Impacts to people experiencing homelessness
• Hosp Grove Park is not an area to develop
• This area in general is not suitable for housing
• Eliminating stores to create housing would negatively impact tax revenue for the city,
potentially leading to a tax increase in the future, if retail was removed here, it would
just be built at a different location nearby
• Traffic congestion, particularly at the intersection of 78 and the 5
• A plan for 1,000+ units could be too dense and strain existing infrastructure
• How sea level rise would affect this site
• Potential impacts to the lagoon
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 73 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 2 5
Site 3
Site 3 is a group of three vacant and adjacent residential properties at the southwest corner of
El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue.Together, the properties total 2.5 acres.
Survey responses
The charts below provide a summary of why survey respondents said they liked or disliked Site
3 as a location for future housing.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 74 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 2 6
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 75 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 2 7
Support
•Proximity to schools
•Fits in with the surrounding neighborhood
•Site is underutilized today
Concerns
•Affordable housing development was incompatible in the pre-existing neighborhood,
e.g. aesthetically, affordable housing would stick out against existing homes
•Limitation of views
•Negative affects to neighborhood character
•Preference for more markets, commercial development rather than housing
•Limited parking
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 76 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 28
• Increase in traffic
• Accessibility issues given location on El Camino Real
• Traffic at intersections like El Camino and Chestnut
• Safety for drivers, pedestrians and kids walking and biking to schools
• Overcrowding at schools
• Biologically sensitive zone with many plants like eucalyptus trees, birds, reptiles and
mammals
• Lack of safe streets for children living in affordable housing sites to play
• Not close to shops or services
• Not close to public transportation except buses
• High cost of developing and maintaining site
• Connections to sewer systems
• Proximity to an aviation fuel line
• Presence of indigenous Indian human remains and relics adjacent to this site, which
caused construction to halt for several months on the El Camino widening project
Area is already well-developed, and that with Marja Acres 1approved and the density of
El Camino Real, it will be too dense if additional housing is added
• Doubt this site could meet the El Camino Real development standards approved by
council resolution 7642 Feb. 8, 19842
• Worsening of homeless situation given proximity to beach
1 The City Council approved the Marja Acres project in November 2020. The project features 294 units
including 46 apartments rent restricted to seniors with lower incomes. Marja Acres also features a
commercial component. The project location is south of the intersection of El Camino Real and Kelly
Road. More information is available in the Nov. 3, 2020, City Council staff report.
2 This refers to City Council Resolution 7642 and the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 77 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 2 9
Site 4
Consisting of three separate properties totaling nearly 40 acres, Site 4 is at the corner of El
Camino Real and College Boulevard, which terminates along the site.The properties are
currently designated for residential, commercial and open space uses.
Survey responses
The charts below provide a summary of why survey respondents said they liked or disliked Site
4 as a location for future housing.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 78 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 3 0
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 79 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 3 1
Support
•Possibility of mixed-use development, which could support home desirability and value
•Increased density can improve success of retail
•Site could support bus service
•Site is currently underutilized today
•Ability to fit in with surrounding neighborhood
Concerns
•What would happen to existing shopping center site
•Proximity of existing and planned developments, including low-income apartments, a
new senior community, mobile homes, section 8 apartment buildings, and the large
project south of Sage Creek high school, and further increases to traffic congestion
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 80 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 32
• Need to be mindful of underground gas line on the east side of El Camino Real
• This site houses the Adobe ranch house for the Rancho Agua Hedionda, which is a
valuable historic site
• Loss of open space and natural resources such as one of Carlsbad’s few year-round
creeks and giant oaks, sycamores and more
• Diminished opportunities for small-scale local retail and shopping by making this site all
residential rather than mixed-use
• Low walkability
• Need for shopping centers support the population currently there
• Plans to build Walmart not carried through
• Traffic during rush hour commute times
• Lack of parking
• Diminished home values
• Lack of nearby parks
• Area is a flood zone
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 81 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 3 3
Site 5
A 2-acre parcel presently used for car storage and designated for industrial use, Site 5 is located
at the southwest corner of Cannon Road and Avenida Encinas.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 82 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 3 4
Survey responses
The charts below provide a summary of why survey respondents said they liked or disliked Site
5 as a location for future housing.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 83 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 3 5
Support
•Potential to handle more traffic
•Not as big of impact on nearby neighborhoods
•This area is underutilized today
•This area needs more affordable housing
Concerns
•Affordable housing development could contribute to increase in crime and drug related
crime
•Surrounding area is incompatible with housing
•Intensifying traffic/crowding currently brought about by beachgoers
•The Canon family donated part of this site to be used as parks and open space
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 84 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 3 6
Site 6
Site 6 is a city-owned vacant parcel. It is approximately 11 acres and is along the north side of
College Boulevard above The Crossings golf course.It has a split office/industrial designation.
Survey responses
The charts below provide a summary of why survey respondents said they liked or disliked Site
6 as a location for future housing.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 85 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 3 7
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 86 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 3 8
Support
•Potential to handle more traffic
•Not as big of impact on nearby neighborhoods
•This area is underutilized today
•This area needs more affordable housing
Concerns
•Loss of open space
•Infrastructure strain
•Traffic increases
•School crowding
•Surrounding development does not seem compatible with housing
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 87 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 3 9
•Harm to the surrounding environment
•The Carlsbad Research Center Owners Association, an adjacent 540-acre business park,
expressed concern about incompatibility
Site 7
A nearly 10-acre property in one of the city’s business parks, Site 7 is vacant and situated along
Salk Avenue between El Camino Real and College Boulevard.It is designated for office use.
Survey responses
The charts below provide a summary of why survey respondents said they liked or disliked Site
7 as a location for future housing.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 88 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 4 0
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 89 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 4 1
Support
•Proximity to jobs
•Minimal impacts on traffic and nearby neighborhoods
•Currently underutilized
•This area needs more affordable housing
Concerns
•Combines a business park with residential properties
•Surrounding development does not seem compatible with housing
•Not close enough to jobs and services
•Potential need for a traffic signal to be installed at Salk and El Camino
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 90 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 4 2
•The Carlsbad Research Center Owners Association, an adjacent 540-acre business park,
expressed concern about incompatibility
Site 8
Site 8 is the location of the current Cottage Row Carlsbad, a 24-unit apartment community. The
approximately 12-acre residential property is along the west side of Aviara Parkway, south of
Palomar Airport Road.
Survey responses
The charts below provide a summary of why survey respondents said they liked or disliked Site
8 as a location for future housing.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 91 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 4 3
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 92 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 4 4
Support
•Transportation options, including access to the bus and freeway
•Proximity to Poinsettia Park and the coast
•Quiet, nice community in which new units could blend in with existing
•Proximity to services and shops like Costco
•Ability to support additional traffic
•This area needs more affordable housing and there is land available
Concerns
•Development at this site would change the surrounding “modest” neighborhood, which
is relatively close to the ocean and surrounded by single family homes
•Increase in noise and traffic
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 93 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 45
• Access to the site and that it may go through and directly impact the adjacent
neighborhood to the south
• Decrease in privacy and visual appeal from surrounding homes
• Negative impacts to safety, school capacity and property value
• Presence of several low-income housing developments near this site and a preference
for low-income housing to be spread out more evenly across the city
• Fear of displacement of current residents
• There is already an approved plan to put in the 300+ Aviara Apartments3 north and east
of the site; preference to see impacts of this new project, particularly in regards to
traffic, pollution and crime, before building more.
• Challenges with building on hillside
• Small size of site, construction impacts to surrounding area
• Environmental impacts to surrounding area and wildlife
• Residents near Cottage Row expressed concerns about additional housing near their
neighborhood and had a desire to see more greenspace in this location instead
3 The Aviara Apartments project, approved by the City Planning Commission in December 2020, features
329 apartments, 81 of which will be rent restricted to households with lower and moderate incomes.
The project is located on either side of Aviara Parkway at its intersection with Laurel Tree Lane. More
information is available in the Dec. 16, 2020, Planning Commission staff report.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 94 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 4 6
Site 9
A group of nine adjacent lots that were graded in the 1980s for industrial use but never
developed,Site 9 is located along the south side of Palomar Airport Road at West Oaks Way. In
May 2021, the City Council approved the West Oaks project on this site, a 192-unit
apartment complex.The project is now pending review and approval by the California Coastal
Commission.
Survey responses
The charts below provide a summary of why survey respondents said they liked or disliked Site
9 as a location for future housing.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 95 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 4 7
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 96 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 4 8
Support
•This site is underutilized today and needs more affordable housing
•Proximity to services and shops like Home Depot and Panera
Concerns
•Small size of site, construction impacts to surrounding area
•Increase in traffic
•Presence of numerous power lines in the area under Palomar Oaks Road
•Desire to maintain open land rather than develop it
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 97 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 4 9
Site 10
This site consists of a vacant 2.6-acre industrial lot at the end of Colt Place in Bressi Ranch. The
property borders Palomar Airport Road and is west of Kensington at the Square condominiums
and Sprouts Farmers Market.
Survey responses
The charts below provide a summary of why survey respondents said they liked or disliked Site
10 as a location for future housing.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 98 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 5 0
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 99 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 5 1
Support
•Proximity to shops and services
•Access to jobs
•This area needs more affordable housing
Concerns
•Additional traffic and limited parking
•Site too small to support number of units proposed
•Not close to transit
•Preference for commercial/business development at this location instead
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 100 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 5 2
Site 11
Site 11 is in Bressi Ranch west of El Fuerte Street and along Gateway Road.It consists of two
vacant parcels designated for industrial use and totaling about 5.3 acres.West of the site is
Pizza Port and to the north is Palomar Airport Road.
Survey responses
The charts below provide a summary of why survey respondents said they liked or disliked Site
11 as a location for future housing.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 101 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 5 3
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 102 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 5 4
Support
•Proximity to local businesses and job opportunities
•Property is currently underutilized today and could use more affordable housing
•Palomar Airport Road could accommodate additional traffic
Concerns
•Not close to transit
•Increase in traffic
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 103 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 5 5
Site 12
Site 12 features two vacant industrial parcels total 14 acres in the Palomar Forum business
park. The parcels are located north of Palomar Airport Road on either side of Eagle Drive.
Survey responses
The charts below provide a summary of why survey respondents said they liked or disliked Site
12 as a location for future housing.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 104 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 5 6
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 105 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 5 7
Support
•Property is currently underutilized today and this area needs more affordable housing
•Proximity to job opportunities
Concerns
•Not close to transit
•Too much traffic in this area already
•Surrounding area does not seem compatible with housing
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 106 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 5 8
Site 14
The site consists of most of the parking lot serving the Carlsbad Village Train
Station and vacant, graded land to the north. It is in the city’s downtown Village, west of State
Street and north of Grand Avenue.The approximately 7.7-acre site is owned by the North
County Transit District.
Survey responses
The charts below provide a summary of why survey respondents said they liked or disliked Site
14 as a location for future housing.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 107 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 5 9
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 108 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 6 0
Support
•Proximity services, schools and the Coaster, which would benefit commuters
•Walkable area
•Village is planned for high density
Concerns
•Decrease in surrounding property values
•Development would negatively impact views
•Increase in safety issues
•This area already has traffic, particularly off State Street
•Lack of shops and services catering to families
•The Village will be overdeveloped
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 109 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 61
• Lack of appeal for visitors with higher density
• Loss of parking, particularly at the train station
• Parking reduction having negative impacts on Village businesses
• Preference for this site to become a multi-level parking structure instead
• High density housing is already being built on Grand Ave.
• Limited grocery store access
• Seagrove Condo residents noted there are already low-income units in their
development and that low-income housing should be more spread out throughout the
city
• Existing issues of homelessness in the area
• This is a valuable part of Carlsbad which attracts high income earners, and it would not
be preferred to put affordable housing on valuable land
• Cost of implementing low-to-moderate housing at this site
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 110 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 6 2
Site 15
An approximately 1.3-acre site serving as a city public works maintenance and operations yard,
Site 15 consists of two parcels.The yard is east of and alongside the railroad corridor in the
city’s downtown Village and just south of where State Street terminates at Oak Avenue.
Survey responses
The charts below provide a summary of why survey respondents said they liked or disliked Site
15 as a location for future housing.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 111 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 6 3
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 112 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 6 4
Support
•Proximity to shops, services and transit
•Walkability
•Opportunity to reduce vehicle miles traveled
Concerns
•Development would negatively impact views
•Furthering the impact of recent developments in the Village
•There is already too much congestion
•Lack of parking
•Proximity to Holiday Park and Pine Park
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 113 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 6 5
Site 16
Site 16 features two properties, one a commercial property occupied by Pacific Sales kitchen
and home store and the other a Caltrans maintenance station.About 7 acres in size, the
properties are contiguous and accessed from Paseo Del Norte,south of Palomar Airport Road
and west and north of Costco.
Survey responses
The charts below provide a summary of why survey respondents said they liked or disliked Site
16 as a location for future housing.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 114 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 6 6
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 115 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 6 7
Support
•Proximity to jobs, services, transit and the highway
Concerns
•Proximity to the Village
•Plans for other projects near this site
•Lack of open space in this area
•Site is small and construction could have large impact on surrounding area
•Congestion, particularly given proximity to Costco
•Surrounding area does not seem compatible with housing
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 116 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 6 8
Site 17
This site encompasses the North County Transit District’s Poinsettia Coaster Station.Consisting
of two parcels totaling about 6 acres, Site 17 is along Avenida Encinas about a half mile north of
Poinsettia Lane.
Survey responses
The charts below provide a summary of why survey respondents said they liked or disliked Site
17 as a location for future housing.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 117 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 6 9
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 118 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 7 0
Support
•Site is on public land
•Utilization of vacant commercial buildings
•Walkability
•Proximity to transit, good for Coaster commuters
Concerns
•There is already too much traffic in this location
•School crowding
•Diminished parking would negatively impact commuters and beachgoers
•Site is small
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 119 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 7 1
•There are already projects in development in this area in addition to existing low-
income housing
•Property to north of site could not be developed
Site 18
Consisting of two separate clusters of properties,Site 18 is generally south and east of the Cape
Rey hotel and east of Carlsbad Boulevard in the Ponto Area.Eight properties make up the
site,five of which are vacant and three underutilized.The properties are designated for
commercial and/or residential purposes and total about six acres.
Survey responses
The charts below provide a summary of why survey respondents said they liked or disliked Site
18 as a location for future housing.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 120 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 7 2
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 121 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 7 3
Support
•Some community members were in support if the development were mixed-use and not
just housing
•This site is underutilized today and this area needs more affordable housing
Concerns
•Preference for this site to be turned into a park rather than housing4
4 Site 18 is in the Ponto area but is north of the 11-acre vacant parcel that was the subject of community
input recommending a park.As part of its approval of the Housing Element Update on April 6, 2021,the
City Council voted to remove the 11-acre parcel from the Housing Element Update and look for an
acceptable and suitable replacement site within the same quadrant.Site 18 is one of the proposed
replacement sites.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 122 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 7 4
•Coastal land use issues at Ponto
•Too much traffic congestion in this area already, especially with hotels and other
planned developments
•High cost due to mitigation and sewer expenses
•Development would harm the surrounding environment
•Negative impacts to neighborhood area
Site 19
Site 19 is an elongated parcel currently designated for open space and commercial purposes.It
is across Calle Barcelona from The Forum Carlsbad shopping center and backs up to
steep hillsides.The approximately 8-acre site features a parking lot but is otherwise
undeveloped.
Survey responses
The charts below provide a summary of why survey respondents said they liked or disliked Site
19 as a location for future housing.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 123 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 7 5
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 124 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 7 6
Support
•Some community members were in support if the development were mixed-use and not
just housing
•Proximity to services, retail employers and facilities
•Balances out location of sites throughout city by being in southern part
Concerns
•Proximity of the La Costa Glen retirement community would be incompatible with this
development
•Cost to develop site given slopes in landscape
•Too much traffic in this area already
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 125 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 77
Next Steps
All public input gathered through the virtual workshops, online survey and public comments
will be used by city staff to develop updated maps with housing site options. The updated maps
will be presented to the City Council in early 2022 for approval to move forward with the
environmental review of those sites for one or more options (or alternatives). This will be
ultimately presented as part of formal land use changes at public hearings in spring 2023.
The city will continue to keep those who participated in this public involvement process
informed of how their input was used, what progress is being made to finalize future sites for
housing, when formal land use changes would occur and additional opportunities to get
involved.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 126 of 162
Housing Element Public Input Report
December 2021 78
Appendix
View the Appendix for verbatim responses gathered through all the engagement opportunities.
Table of Contents
Appendix
A. Workshop scribe notes
B. Workshop chat log
C. Survey results - all responses (English)
D. Survey results - 92008 residents
E. Survey results - 92009 residents
F. Survey results - 92010 residents
G. Survey results - 92011 residents
H. Survey results - non residents
I. Survey results (Spanish)
J. Public comments
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 127 of 162
Exhibit 6
State law and its impacts on housing location, provision, and
the Growth Management Plan
Recent state legislation
•SB 166 – Residential Density and Affordability Act
Senate Bill 166 changed state housing law (Government Code §65863) to require that a
jurisdiction’s housing element must accommodate, at all times throughout the planning
period, its share of the state’s regional housing need (Government Code §65584).
SB 166 includes provisions that could require additional units be made available as
changes occur during the planning period to sites in a jurisdiction’s inventory either
through a loss of potential units by density or income category. While the Housing
Element is only required to rezone 1,724 units to meet the requirements for a rezone
program, the city is required to maintain this capacity throughout the entire eight-year
planning cycle (The 1,724 unit figure does not factor in a state recommended buffer; see
below). It is highly likely that through the planning cycle, units assumed to be lower
income due to density, a requirement of California law, will be constructed at market
rate. For this case, the city must either have additional sites in the inventory to provide
for a ‘buffer’, or concurrently identify or rezone adequate sites and amend the sites
inventory. Any development limitations or downzone will also need to be monitored for
this requirement.
To assist with the “no net loss” requirements of SB 166, staff has recommended a buffer
of 30% more capacity than required based on guidance from the state.1 SB 166 has no
expiration, or sunset, provision.
•SB 330 – Housing Crisis Act of 2019
This bill prohibits the city from applying control limits on residential development (unit
caps, bank allocation, moratorium). Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019,
states that where housing is an allowable use, the City is prohibited from enacting a
“development policy, standard or condition” that would have the effect of “imposing a
moratorium or similar restriction or limitation (caps) on housing development…other
than to specifically protect against an imminent threat to the health and safety of
persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the
moratorium…,” and any moratorium adopted pursuant to such an exemption would
require approval from HCD (Government Code Section 66300(b)(1)(B)(i) and (ii)). This
1 State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) site inventory guidelines advise jurisdictions to
incorporate a buffer as part of their housing element sites inventory of at least 15% to 30% more capacity than
required, especially for capacity to accommodate the lower income RHNA. The guidelines are available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-
element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 128 of 162
bill, originally set to expire on Jan. 1, 2025, was extended to January 1, 2030, by SB 8,
approved by the governor on Sept. 16, 2021. This extension causes the provisions of SB
330 to apply throughout the city’s 2021-2029 housing period.
• AB 686 – Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Passed in 2017, this state legislation requires the Housing Element to include an
assessment of fair housing practices, an examination of the relationship of available
sites to areas of high opportunity, and actions to affirmatively further fair housing. The
location of affordable housing is key to overcoming potential patterns of segregation,
promoting fair housing choice, and providing access to opportunities, including
education, recreation, and employment. Consistent with AB 686, the adopted Housing
Element contains policies and programs to ensure, encourage, and direct affordable
housing throughout the city.
The city’s Growth Management Plan and the impacts of state law
The GMP (CMC §21.90), which was passed by voters in 1986 as Proposition E, sets forth
standards and requirements for how growth is to occur in the city. Among other things, the
GMP establishes the maximum number of homes that can be built in the city, referred to as
the “growth cap.” As part of the growth management plan, the city was divided into
quadrants with each quadrant assigned a portion of the city’s growth cap, referred to as
“quadrant caps.” Under the plan, once a quadrant reaches its assigned cap, the city is
precluded from approving any further housing development in that quadrant. While some
components of the GMP are no longer enforceable, these quadrants can also be a measure
of distribution of the new housing sites throughout the city.
As part of its April 6, 2021, actions on the Housing Element, the City Council passed
Resolution 2021-074, finding the dwelling unit limitations established by the Growth
Management Program are preempted by SB 166 and SB 330 and are unenforceable.2
On Sept. 28, 2021, City Council approved the charter for the Growth Management Plan
Update Advisory Committee. The purpose of the committee is to identify the key elements
of a new plan to manage growth and maintain excellent quality of life in Carlsbad. Creation
of a new plan to manage growth that is in compliance with state housing law is necessary to
ensure Carlsbad’s quality of life in and to avoid state enforcement activities and penalties
that may result from noncompliance. Upon appointment, it is expected the committee will
meet beginning in 2022.
2 The April 6 City Council staff report is available at 2021-04-06; City Council; ; General Plan Housing Element
Update–2021-2029 Housing Cycle (carlsbadca.gov). City Council Resolution 2021-074 is also available at 2021-04-
06; City Council; Resolution 2021-074 (carlsbadca.gov).
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 129 of 162
Table A – Listing of all potential housing sites
No. Name Council
district
Quadrant Proposed units
by income group
Total
units
Proposed
density4 Owner interest Present
designation
Lower Moderate
1 North County Plaza1 1 NW 36 36 R-40 Yes Commercial
2 The Shoppes 1 NW 741 252 993 R-23/R-40 City-owned Commercial
3 Chestnut @ El Camino Real 2 NW 28 28 R-15 Yes Residential
4.1 Zone 15 (Kelly) 2 NE 134 134 R-30 No Residential
4.2 Zone 15 (West) 2 NE 0 0 0 R-30 Not known Residential
4.3 Zone 15 (Walmart) 2 NE 212 212 R-30 Yes Res/Comm
5 Avenida Encinas 2 NW 53 53 R-30 Not known Industrial
6 Crossings Lot 5 2 NW 181 181 R-30 City-owned Ind/Office
7 Salk Avenue 2 NW 259 259 R-30 Yes Office
8 Cottage Row 3 SW 126 126 R-23 Yes Residential
9 West Oaks1 2 SW 42 42 R-30 Yes Industrial
10 Colt Place ind. parcel 3 SE 49 49 R-23 Yes Industrial
11 Gateway Road parcels 2 SE 199 199 R-40 Yes Industrial
12 Ind. sites east of Melrose 2 NE 456 456 R-30 Yes/Not known Industrial
14 NCTD Village Station 1 NW 93 93 VC5 Yes Village-Barrio
15 Oak Yard 1 NW 24 24 P-T5 City-owned Village-Barrio
16 Caltrans/Pacific Sales3 3 SW 183 183 R-30 Not known Public/Comm
17 NCTD Poinsettia3 3 SW 27 27 R-23 Yes Public
18 North Ponto parcels3 4 SW 90 90 R-23 Yes/Not known Res/Comm
19 Calle Barcelona3 4 SW 76 76 R-23 Yes Comm/Open
Space
TOTALS 2,589 672 3,261
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 130 of 162
Potential Housing Sites — Individual and Summary Information Exhibit 7
NOTES ON TABLE A
1. The number of units listed for North County Plaza and West Oak reflect the development applications the city has received.
The West Oaks development was approved by the City Council on May 4, 2021, and is pending California Coastal Commission review.
2. Site 4 has 3 parcels, parcels 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. The owner of Parcel 4.1 (Kelly) opposes having the property rezoned.
No units are proposed for Parcel 4.2 due to flood constraints.
3. Sites 16 - 19 were added as potential housing sites by the City Council on Aug. 17, 2021.
4. Designation Units per acre
R-15 11.5 - 15
R-23 19 - 23
R-30 26.5 - 30
R-35 32.5 - 35
R-40 37.5 - 40
VC 28 - 35
P-T 18 - 23
5.
VC and P-T are existing Village and Barrio Master Plan designations; no changes are proposed to them.
Table B – Location of potential housing sites and units by quadrant
Quadrant Sites Total number of sites Total number of units
Northwest 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15 8 1,667
Northeast 4, 12 2 668*
Southwest 8,9, 16, 17, 18, 19 6 544
Southeast 10, 11 2 248
TOTALS 18 3,127
*Excludes parcel 4.1 (Kelly) of Site 4 due to parcel owner opposition.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 131 of 162
Table C – Location of potential housing sites and units by City Council district
City Council District Sites Total number of sites Total number of units
1 1,2, 14, and 15 4 1,146
2 3 - 7, 9, 11, 12 8 1,430*
3 8, 10, 16, 17 4 385
4 18, 19 2 166
TOTALS 18 3,127
*Excludes parcel 4.1 (Kelly) of Site 4 due to parcel owner opposition.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 132 of 162
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 133 of 162
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 134 of 162
")
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
")")
!!
!
!
")
!
")
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!^
L A CO S T AAVJEFFERSONSTCARLSBADVILLAGEDR PALMERWYPA LO M A R AIR P O R T R D
C A N N O N R D
POINSETTIA LN
POINSETTIALN
LACOSTA
AVCARLSBADBLBATIQUITOSDR E
L
CAM
INO
R
EA
L
CARLSBADBLR A N CHOSANTAFERDCHESTNU
T
A
V
TAMARACK AV
AVI
A
R
A
P
Y
ALGA RD
M
EL
R
OS
E
DRCA LL E B ARCELONAMONROEST ALIC
ANTE
R
D
V
A
L
L
E
Y
STELFUERTESTRANCHOSANTAFERD
FARADAYAVCARCOUNTRYDR
AVENIDAENCINASPA
S
E
O
DELNORTECA
MINODEL O S C OCHESCAMINOJUNIPEROOLIVENHAI
N
R
DCOLLE GEBLSALKAVPARK DRKELLYDRC O L L E G E B LARMADADR
SE
NW
NE
SW
!
2
!2
!
9!10
!12!16
!
16
!
19
!
20
!
28!24
!24
!24
!
25!28!29!36
!42!46
!
23
!49!50!50
!53
!56
!
56
!
64
!75
!78
!
81
!
92
!100!101
!
106
!111
!116
!126 !127
!138
!155
!
168!180!181
!
199!259
!344
!
212
!456
!25 !993
!
5
!2
!
2
!3
!3!1
!1
!1
!5
!3
!87
!182
!27
!
90
!
15
!5
!76
J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0023032_21\Existing Affordable Housing and Potential HE Sites - Aerial11x17.mxd!I
Existing, Approved and Potential Affordable Housing
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!2
!23
!6
!11
11
!12
!93
!1
!2
!1
!1!1
GRAND AVCARLSBADBLLAGUNA
D
R
JEFFERSON ST
BEECH AV
WASHINGTON
STSTATE STROOSEVELT ST
See Inset Map
Inset Map
Housing Sites
Existing affordable housing
Approved (unbuilt) affordable housing
Vacant sites with medium and high densities
Potential housing sites*
XX = number of affordable units
*Excludes Site 13- Zone 20 cluster
Exhibit 10
(units may be part of larger projects with market-rate units)
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 135 of 162
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
180 North Ashwood AvenueVentura, California 93003
805 644 4455 OFFICE AND FAX
info@rinconconsultants.com
www.rinconconsultants.com
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
February 1, 2022
Project No: 19-08711
Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Via email:Scott.Donnell@carlsbadca.gov
Subject: Proposal for Planning and Environmental Consulting Services for the Carlsbad General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Dear Mr. Donnell:
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is pleased to submit this bid to assist the City of Carlsbad’s (City)
Community Development Department, Planning Division with the preparation of focused updates to the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) consistent
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). We are very enthusiastic about the opportunity to
work with the City and have assembled a team of highly skilled environmental science and planning
professionals who combine extensive planning qualifications and knowledge of CEQA with many years of
experience working on similar projects.
Leading the team will be Brenna Weatherby, serving as Project Manager in charge of day-to-day
oversight and as the City’s primary contact. She has over 20 years of experience in land use planning,
CEQA analysis, and project management. Assisting Brenna will be Jenna Shaw, who will serve as the
Assistant Project Manager. Jenna recently played a large role in the City’s Housing Element update
project and is familiar with this work effort.Matt Maddox, AICP will be serving as Principal-in-Charge
and contract administrator. He has 15 years of experience directing urban planning projects, including
planning and policy document preparation and CEQA analyses. To augment Rincon’s in-house expertise,
we have retained Fehr & Peers and STC Traffic, Inc.(STC)to assist with the analysis of transportation
impacts, including vehicle miles travelled (VMT).
The composition of our team and team member roles and responsibilities are described in the following
scope of work.
Exhibit 11
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 136 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 2
Scope of Work
Task 1 Safety Element Update
There have been a number of pieces of legislation approved over the past five years that require cities
to update Safety elements. This is a selection of key legislation:
▪SB 1035 requires a jurisdiction’s safety element to be revised to identify new information on fire
hazards, flood hazards, and climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to the city and
county that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element.
▪SB 379 requires all cities and counties to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in the
safety elements of their general plans beginning January 1, 2017. The bill requires the climate
adaptation update to include a set of goals, policies, and objectives for their communities based on
the vulnerability assessment, as well as implementation measures.
▪SB 99 requires a local government to review and update the safety element during the next revision
of the housing element (on or after January 1, 2020) to identify residential developments in hazard
areas that do not have at least two emergency routes.
▪AB 747 and AB 1409 require a local jurisdiction to evaluate evacuation routes for their capacity,
safety, and viability and evacuation locations under a range of emergency scenarios in the safety
element upon the next revision of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Task 1.1 Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment
Rincon will conduct a vulnerability assessment consistent with the requirements of SB 379 and the
California Adaptation Planning Guide to provide an overview of climate hazards and risks specific to
Carlsbad. At a qualitative level, Rincon will identify the community assets that are most vulnerable to
the potential impacts of climate change across sensitive community areas, including infrastructure,
buildings, natural systems, economic assets, and vulnerable populations. The City’s critical facilities
(such as government buildings, hospitals, evacuation routes)will be mapped in relation to potential
climate change impacts based on readily available data (e.g., FEMA flood hazard zones, wildfire severity
zones, Appendix 5 of the Emergency Operations Plan, Wildland Urban Interface planning documents).
Key findings associated with the City’s Sea-level Rise Vulnerability Assessment (2017) will be
incorporated, assuming no further analysis would be necessary. Rincon will utilize maps and figures from
existing plans and available GIS data sources. Up to 10 new maps will be created, as appropriate.
Deliverable(s):One (1) electronic copy of the proposed Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment in
both PDF and Microsoft Word Format. Rincon will respond to and address one (1) set of consolidated
comments on the vulnerability assessment.
Task 1.2 Administrative Draft Safety Element Update
Rincon will prepare and update the Safety Element to address recent legislation highlighted above, with
the exception of AB 747 and AB 1409 which the City has not requested consultant services for at this
time. In keeping with SB 1035, Rincon will summarize the latest FEMA floodplain mapping to illustrate
potential safety and development constraints.Rincon will summarize wildfire hazard risk areas and fire
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 137 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 3
protection resources, and incorporate additional wildfire information, policies and implementation
programs consistent with CAL FIRE requirements.
To best identify residential neighborhoods that have less than two evacuation routes pursuant to SB 99,
Rincon will meet with the City’s emergency providers and planning department to facilitate the
identification of roadways that serve as evacuation routes, residential neighborhood boundaries, and
evacuation shelters.The discussion will include confirmation of evacuation routes and evacuation
constraints identified in the City’s Wildland Urban Interface planning documents, including 2011
Evacuation Plans and 2022 Carlsbad EOP Annex Q (Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place). Rincon will conduct
a GIS mapping exercise to identify the location of neighborhoods, as applicable, that have less than two
evacuation routes. Rincon will provide a map for inclusion in the Safety Element that displays
established evacuation routes, single-access residential neighborhoods, and evacuation shelters. Rincon
will include policies and implementation programs to mitigate risk associated with limited evacuation
options.
Rincon will identify climate change adaptation policies and implementation programs to address key
vulnerabilities identified in Task 1.1. Adaptation policies related to sea-level rise will align with the City’s
adopted Local Coastal Program.
Rincon will draft an Administrative Draft Safety Element. Rincon’s primary objective will be to develop
policies and programs that not only comply with State law but are also actionable, with information
aimed at implementation of hazard and risk abatement provisions to guide local decisions.
Rincon will present the background information and policies in a clear, informative way. Strategies for
specific areas of Carlsbad will be shown with maps for context and the Vulnerability Assessment report
produced in Task 1.1 will be designed to be integrated into the Element as a discrete technical appendix.
The update to the Safety Element will focus on ensuring alignment with and/or integration of other City
plans such as the local Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Local Coastal Program Update. Rincon assumes
that the update will a be technical update to the existing element and that no redesign of the element
will be required. Rincon does understand that the document is currently available as an InDesign file.
Our cost estimate does account for conversion of the document to Word before any edits are made.
Deliverable(s):One (1) electronic copy of the Administrative Draft Safety Element in both PDF and
Microsoft Word Format.
Task 1.3 Public Review Draft Safety Element
Rincon will respond to two rounds of consolidated City comments on the Administrative Draft Element
to then develop the Public Review Draft Element. The Public Review Draft Element will be posted to the
City’s website and sent to external agencies, such as San Diego County Fire, CalFire, and FEMA to review
and comment. Rincon has budgeted for attendance at two (2) meetings with external agencies.
Deliverable(s):One (1) electronic copy of the Public Review Draft Safety Element in both PDF and
Microsoft Word Format. Rincon will respond to and address two (2) sets of consolidated comments on
the public review draft. Participation in two (2) meetings with external agencies by up to two Rincon
staff members.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 138 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 4
Task 1.4 Final Safety Element
Rincon will inventory all public comments on a comment/proposed response sheet for
review/concurrence by the City’s project lead. We will flag conflicting comments and consult with City
staff to rectify them. We will seek sign-off on the comment/response sheet before incorporating
changes into the final Safety Element Update.
Deliverable(s): One (1) electronic copy of the comment tracking form in Microsoft Excel; One (1) Final
Safety Element in both PDF and Microsoft Word Format. Rincon will respond to and address two (2) sets
of consolidated comments on the final safety element.
Task 1.6 Safety Element Community Engagement
Rincon will coordinate with the City’s Communications Department, prepare for,and participate in one
community workshop and one Planning Commission workshop to present information and gather
feedback on the Safety Element. Rincon will join meetings with City staff, prepare materials needed for
the workshops such as PowerPoint slides or brief survey questionnaires, and attend these meetings with
up to two (2) Rincon staff. Rincon assumes the City will be responsible for creating additional outreach
materials and convening additional community meetings.
Deliverable(s): Participation in one (1) community outreach meeting and one (1) City Council workshop
by up to two Rincon staff members including preparation of up to two (2) PowerPoint presentations.
Task 2 Land Use Element Update
Task 2.1 Administrative Draft Land Use Element Update
Rincon will draft the Administrative Draft Land Use Element. Rincon’s primary objective will be to amend
the policy document to maintain consistency with the recently updated and adopted Housing Element.
Amendments to the document are anticipated to be limited to land use designation and related graphic
changes, including:
▪Creation of new R-35 and R-40 land use designations
▪Updates to maps and tables to reflect new land use designations and minimum densities
▪Reflection of densities used for Housing Element site inventory assumptions (Table 2-3 of Land
Use and Community Development Element)
▪Revisions to reflect Growth Management Plan changes, including policies
▪Edits to policies for the Westfield and Sunny Creek properties
Rincon assumes that the update will a be technical update to the existing element and that no redesign
or formatting of the element will be required. Rincon does understand that the document is currently
available as an InDesign file. Our cost estimate does account for conversion of the document to Word
before any edits are made.
Deliverable(s):One (1) electronic copy of the Administrative Draft Land Use Element in both PDF and
Microsoft Word Format.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 139 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 5
Task 2.2 Public Review Draft Land Use Element
Rincon will respond to two rounds of consolidated City comments on the Administrative Draft Element
to then develop the Public Review Draft Element. The Public Review Draft Element will be posted to the
City’s website for public review and comment.
Deliverable(s):One (1) electronic copy of the Public Review Draft Land Use Element in both PDF and
Microsoft Word Format. Rincon will respond to and address two (2) sets of consolidated comments on
the public review draft.
Task 2.3 Final Land Use Element
Rincon will inventory all public comments on a comment/proposed response sheet for
review/concurrence by the City’s project lead. We will flag conflicting comments and consult with City
staff to rectify them. We will seek sign-off on the comment/response sheet before incorporating
changes into the final Land Use Element Update. Rincon will create an Executive Summary, that can be
used by the public, City staff, and elected officials, to quickly understand the issues and potential actions
needed during the implementation period.
Deliverable(s):One (1) electronic copy of the comment tracking form in Microsoft Excel; One (1) Final
Safety Element in both PDF and Microsoft Word Format. Rincon will respond to and address two (2) sets
of consolidated comments on the final safety element.
Task 3 Zone Ordinance Update
Task 3.1 Document Review
Rincon will review all City documents relevant to the Zoning Ordinance Amendments, including the 2035
General Plan, adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element, existing Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and
Local Coastal Plan. Rincon will also review the draft Objective Design Standards currently being prepared
by another consultant, to determine if the document will require any additional changes to the Zoning
Ordinance. If so, these changes will be incorporated. Rincon will also work with City staff to review the
overall Municipal Code to identify other provisions that should be included in the Zoning Ordinance
Amendments, or that will at least need to be understood and possibly referenced so that no conflicts
occur through updates to Zoning Ordinance provisions.
Task 3.2 Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Rincon will prepare the Administrative Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments to be reviewed by City Staff
including the Planning Department, the City Attorney, and any desired City departments such as
Building, Engineering, and Code Enforcement. In order to simplify and speed review times for staff, each
component of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments and associated documents will be provided
separately to staff for review. Following internal city staff comments on the Administrative Draft
Supplemental EIR (up to two rounds of review), the team will incorporate appropriate revisions to the
Administrative Draft Zoning Ordinance Revisions and prepare the Draft Zoning Ordinance Revisions. We
assume all comments and revision requests will be consolidated and submitted in a compiled and
tracked changes Word format.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 140 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 6
Deliverables:
▪Administrative Draft Zoning Ordinance (electronic delivery)
▪Draft Zoning Ordinance (electronic delivery)
Task 3.3 Final Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Rincon will revise the contents of the Administrative Draft sections based on staff discussion and input
and will prepare the Final Draft Zoning Ordinance to be provided to the City for review by the Planning
Commission and the community and approval by the City Council.
Deliverables: Final Zoning Ordinance (one digital version in both Microsoft Word and Adobe PDF)
Task 4 Environmental Review
We understand that Carlsbad would like to prepare a supplement to the previous General Plan and
Climate Action Plan EIR, certified in 2015, rather than a subsequent or new EIR. In accordance with
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may prepare a supplement to a previously certified
EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162
calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The conditions described in Section 15162,
include the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in
the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
Based on our understanding of the project, Rincon agrees that this is the correct approach to address
environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. Our approach in preparing the
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 141 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 7
Supplemental EIR is to develop a user-friendly document that identifies potentially new CEQA impacts
that need to be addressed, including Wildfire and Energy, and to address transportation impacts using
VMT as a significance criterion replacing the traditional Level of Service (LOS) standard (requirement
beginning in July of 2020).
Rincon understands that the City will be simultaneously updating their Climate Action Plan but that the
analysis of environmental impacts associated with that plan will be analyzed in a separate CEQA
document.
Task 4.1 Preparation of Project Description
Rincon will prepare a preliminary Project Description, and develop project objectives, after receiving
City-provided data mapping the preferred sites to be rezoned and the potential residential density of
those sites (dwelling units per acre), as well as other proposed strategies and programs to meet the
RHNA allocation. GIS shapefiles are preferred for use in mapping the sites. This scope of work assumes
that City staff will conduct one round of review of the Project Description and provide consolidated,
non-contradictory comments and edits.
Deliverables:Preliminary Project Description (electronic delivery)
Task 4.2 Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Scoping Meeting
Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15163(c), a Supplemental EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and
public review as is given to a draft EIR under CEQA Guidelines 15087. The NOP is intended to alert other
public agencies about the undertaking, and to solicit their input on the scope of the Draft Supplemental
EIR. Rincon will draft the NOP, address one round of consolidated comments on the draft, and submit a
final PDF copy of the NOP to city staff for posting on its website and for distribution to public agencies. It
is assumed that the city will distribute the NOP using the city’s distribution list. Rincon will review and
make suggestions regarding the list, as requested, and be responsible for filing the NOP with the County
Clerk and State Clearinghouse/OPR. As required by CEQA, the NOP will circulate to responsible and
trustee agencies for 30 days.
During the 30-day NOP review process, the team will assist the city with facilitating a public scoping
meeting to inform the public on the environmental issues they should expect to see addressed in the EIR
as well as gather public input. This assistance including coordination with City staff, including the
Communications Department, on Scoping Meeting particulars. Rincon will make a brief presentation on
the Draft General Plan and Zoning Ordinance update, and environmental review process, then record all
public comments received. These comments will be summarized in a memorandum to be included as a
Supplemental EIR appendix.
Deliverables:Notice of Preparation (electronic delivery)
Task 4.3 Administrative Draft Supplemental EIR
The supplement to a certified EIR only needs to contain the information necessary to make the previous
EIR adequate for the project as revised. Therefore, the format of the Administrative Draft Supplemental
EIR will follow that of a focused EIR, concentrating on only those topics found to require minor additions
or changes as a result of the proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance updates. Our general report
structure will include all the required sections of an EIR: Introduction; Executive Summary; Project
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 142 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 8
Description and Environmental Setting; Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures; Alternatives
Analysis; Cumulative Impacts, and Other CEQA Sections.
New potential impacts will be identified, and mitigation measures will be prepared or modified to
reduce significant impacts to a less-than-significant level, when feasible. For each potentially significant
impact identified, the team will develop, in coordination with city staff and the broader consultant team,
goals and/or policies to avoid or reduce identified impacts as self-mitigating policies. If goals and/or
policies are developed, Rincon will include them in the final versions of the Land Use and Safety
Elements. New or modified mitigation measures will be developed only if self-mitigating policies are
determined not feasible or reasonable.
Environmental Assessments
Rincon will conduct focused assessments of the following environmental topics of concern. The analyses
described herein will be summarized in the corresponding Supplemental EIR section and separate
technical reports will not be prepared (except for the Traffic Impact Analysis included in the Operational
LOS Analysis described below). All data used in the technical analyses will be included as appendices to
the primary environmental document.
Air Quality
Rincon will conduct air quality analyses for proposed project to determine if the predicted emissions
during construction or operation of development envisioned under the changes to the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance would result in significant impacts beyond those assessed in the General Plan &
Climate Action Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, certified June 2015 (2015 FEIR). Construction
emissions estimates would be generated from generalized construction data (e.g., assumed duration of
construction, phasing, amount of disturbed soil, types of equipment to be used, number of construction
workers, etc.) developed in conjunction with the city. Mobile source emissions will be estimated based
primarily on trip generation data from traffic reports prepared for the General Plan update. The
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) will be used to estimate emissions of criteria
pollutants associated with the project. Rincon will also determine if project traffic may result in local
carbon monoxide hotspots. It is not anticipated a detailed hot spot analysis would be required.
The analysis will address the project’s conformance with the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy and
whether the project would result in emissions that violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The analysis will also determine if the
project will expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or create
objectionable odors. It is assumed that the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project will
provide all necessary traffic information to complete an air quality analysis of mobile sources.
Biological Resources
A Rincon biologist will review the preferred land use scenario and other city supplied data for biological
resource constraints. The biologist will review biological resource data including but not limited to query
of relevant databases such as California Natural Diversity Database, National Wetlands Inventory, San
GIS and literature (e.g., San Diego County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan and the City of
Carlsbad’s Subarea Plan), for information pertaining to biological resources occurring in the city. Based
on this review, Rincon will prepare a map indicating areas with low, medium or high biological
constraints. Reconnaissance level field surveys will be conducted for a subset of the sites that are
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 143 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 9
proposed for re-zoning where existing data is lacking and may contain some natural habitat. Many of the
sites are assumed to be disturbed/developed and will not require a field verification but rather can be
assessed via review of current aerial photos and desktop analyses.
Rincon will present the findings of the literature review and field survey in the Biological Resources
section of the Supplemental EIR and will include an impact analysis and recommended measures to
address potential impacts to protected biological resources resulting from the proposed activities.
Rincon will review relevant city Subarea Plan policies or consideration of applicable mitigation measures
in accordance with CEQA. The discussion will function as a summary of the biological (i.e., wildlife,
vegetation) resources surveys, with the goal of providing a summary of the technical analysis designed
for the layperson to easily understand.These policies will be adapted into appropriate minimization
and/or mitigation measures for use within the Supplemental EIR.
Cultural Resources Evaluation
Rincon will prepare a programmatic cultural resources analysis to address potential impacts to
archaeological and historic built environment resources. The cultural resources analysis will review
historic resources and archaeological resources within the potential housing locations and the potential
impacts to those resources as a result of the project. The study will include research on the prehistory
and history of Carlsbad, as well as a review of historic maps, aerial photographs and data included in the
California Historic Resources Inventory. Rincon assumes that no fieldwork or project level analyses will
be required.
In the Geology and Soils section of the Supplemental EIR, Rincon will discuss the existing geologic
setting, determine the paleontological sensitivity of geologic units within the Plan area, identify
potential impacts to paleontological resources from development within the Plan area, discuss
significance thresholds, and propose mitigation to avoid or mitigate impacts to scientifically significant
paleontological resources. To the extent possible, Rincon will incorporate information from existing
environmental and planning documents that are applicable to the project. Therefore, no formal
museum records search will be performed, and the analysis will consist of an online search of available
fossil locality records, review of existing geologic maps, and a review of primary literature regarding
fossiliferous geologic units within the Plan area and region.
Greenhouse Gases
Rincon will conduct greenhouse gas (GHG) analyses for proposed plans to determine if the predicted
emissions during construction or operation of development proposed under proposed project would
result in substantial increase in GHG emissions beyond those assessed in the 2015 FEIR. Projected
construction emissions would be generated from construction data developed with the city as part of
the air quality analysis scope. Mobile source emissions will be estimated based primarily on trip
generation data from traffic reports for proposed plans. CalEEMod will be used to estimate GHG
emissions associated with the proposed project and to the extent feasible based on the
timing/schedule, Rincon will utilize any modeling available in the soon to be updated Climate Action
Plan.
The GHG analysis will address the project’s conformance with the existing City of Carlsbad Climate
Action Plan (and if/when available, the updated Climate Action Plan), including the city’s Climate Action
Plan Ordinances, and State GHG policies and regulations.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 144 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 10
Noise and Vibration
Rincon will conduct an noise and vibration analysis to determine if the predicted noise levels during
construction or operation of land uses under the proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance update
would exceed applicable city noise standards or result in impacts not already assessed in the 2015 FEIR.
As part of the analysis, Rincon will perform long-and short-term field measurements at various potential
housing sites within a plan area and at locations with receptors that may be affected by noise resulting
from future developments and to document the existing noise environment.
The noise and vibration analysis will address potential construction-related noise and vibration impacts
from typical construction scenarios and potential impacts or conflicts on, or due to, the location of
future land uses associated with the proposed project. Project construction noise impacts would be
generated from construction data (e.g., assumed duration of construction, phasing, types of equipment
to be used, number of construction workers, etc.) developed in conjunction with the city. Construction
traffic noise levels affecting existing land uses will be modeled to determine the potential traffic noise
increases.
The analysis of long-term operational noise impacts associated with the land use changes will include
noise increases generated by vehicle traffic on area roadways and noise from typical onsite noise
sources, e.g. mechanical ventilation. Rincon will calculate traffic noise levels based on existing, existing
plus project, and cumulative plus project scenarios of forecasted traffic volumes as identified in traffic
reports prepared proposed project. Rincon will use this information to determine if increases to
roadway noise levels would adversely affect existing or future land uses along affected roadways. On-
site noise sources will be evaluated based on typical requirements for mechanical ventilation based on
building size and other published noise reference data for activities.
For purposes of this scope and budget estimate, we have assumed that the City’s Noise Contour maps
will not need to be updated. If it is determined that the maps will need to be updated, Rincon will
contact the City to discuss scope and budget options for this separate work effort.
Transportation/Traffic
For all transportation planning work associated with this project, Rincon has augmented our in-house
services. Fehr & Peers has been retained to provide VMT Analysis and modelling services, while STC
Traffic has been retained to provide an operational LOS analysis (Traffic Impact Analysis). The following
is a summary of services to be provided by these firms.
VMT Analysis
Fehr & Peers will conduct a VMT analysis for the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance update consistent
with the latest CEQA practices, including implementation of Senate Bill 743. Rincon and Fehr & Peers
understand the need for close coordination on the VMT analysis as the City is simultaneously updating
its Climate Action Plan. The modeling scope of work described herein can be used for a future
environmental analysis of the Climate Action Plan baseline inventory. However, if future environmental
analysis for the Climate Action Plan includes alternatives that are outside this scope of work and require
additional VMT modeling, a cost amendment will be required.
LAND USE ASSUMPTION REVIEW
Fehr & Peers will review transportation analysis zone (TAZ) data, including land use assumptions and
socioeconomic data, number of housing units, and network assumptions included in the “off the shelf”
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 145 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 11
version of most recent version of the SANDAG’s Activity Based Model (ABM), known as ABM2+, for the
base year (2016) and 2035.
This data will be compared to the current General Plan. It is expected that City staff will be providing
Fehr & Peers with the summary of General Plan Update land use assumptions by a geographic level (e.g.,
TAZ, MGRA) in an excel table to assist with the land use review.
Fehr & Peers will prepare updated land use and socioeconomic data assumptions to reflect the Housing
Element. The land use assumptions identified in the step with constitute the “with-project” conditions
for the impact assessment. Fehr & Peers will coordinate with City staff on the land use assumptions
prior to running the ABM2+ model.
UPDATE “OFF THE SHELF” MODEL
The output of these model runs will be used as the “no project” conditions.
COORDINATION WITH SANDAG MODELING TEAM
SANDAG ABM2+ will be used to evaluate VMT, vehicle trip length, traffic volumes, and local and regional
growth in transportation demand based on the land use forecasts identified in Task 2.1. Fehr & Peers
will prepare a work order for the SANDAG Service Bureau requesting model runs for 2035 model year
that reflect the land use assumptions developed in Task 2.1. SANDAG standard model output will be
provided by Fehr & Peers to the team for their use in other analyses. Since the consistency of General
Plan Update assumptions and the ABM2+ model will be confirmed, the “no project” conditions will be
assumed as the “off the shelf” model results. We will coordinate with the SANDAG service bureau on the
model runs to ensure that we are receiving the appropriate data from the model.
POST-PROCESSING MODEL OUTPUT
Fehr & Peers will receive the raw model output from the SANDAG Service Bureau and will post-process
it to determine the total VMT and VMT/Capita. The City of Carlsbad uses a specific metric to estimate
VMT. We will follow the City’s methodology that includes post-processing the model run outputs and
running the City’s VMT script to estimate the project generated VMT for the no-project base year, no-
project 2035, and with-project 2035.
Transportation impacts will be assessed based on the VMT impact thresholds consistent with the City’s
VMT Guidelines and confirmed with the City during the kick-off meeting for this project. We anticipate
comparing the 2035 VMT/Capita and total VMT with the project to base year model run. In addition, we
will also compare 2035 no-project to 2035-with project total VMT and VMT/Capita. This information will
be used to identify a significant transportation VMT impact. If an impact is disclosed, mitigation
measures will be identified to lessen the impact. Mitigation measures will be suggested based on the
locational context. We will determine the context of various sections of the City and indicate which
measures should be applied in those contexts.
We understand that one outcome that the City desires is to have the VMT analysis performed for this
project disclose any VMT impacts for residential projects that are consistent with the General Plan and
Housing Element, ultimately allowing for tiering from the EIR produced for the Housing Element. We will
work with the project team and City to strive to achieve this goal and understand any pitfalls with this
approach.
DOCUMENTATION
Fehr & Peers will summarize the methods, data, and results of the VMT analysis in a draft memorandum
for review by the project team and City of Carlsbad staff. We will respond to two rounds of comments
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 146 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 12
prior to finalizing the memorandum (up to 12 hours of staff time). Fehr & Peers will review the
transportation section of the Draft EIR (up to two rounds of review) and provide electronic comments
within the Word document to Rincon. In addition, Fehr & Peers will assist the environmental team
address transportation-related comments received on the Draft EIR or during public meetings (up to 40
staff hours. This cost has been distributed across Task 4.5 (Response to Comments) and Project
Coordination and Management. If additional time is needed, due to the magnitude or complexity of the
transportation-related comments, an additional scope and fee will be developed.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Fehr & Peers will prepare monthly invoices and progress reports throughout the duration of this project.
In addition, Fehr & Peers will prepare for and attend the following meetings as part of this scope of
work:
•Kick-off Meeting: Fehr & Peers will facilitate a kick-off meeting with City of Carlsbad staff to discuss
scope and VMT analysis methodology.
•On-going Project Management Check-ins: Fehr & Peers will facilitate up to six (6) project
management calls over the course of this project to discuss project progress, schedule, and
deliverables.
• Public Meetings: Fehr & Peers will prepare for and attend up to three (3) public meetings as part
of this scope of work.
Additional meetings can be attended by Fehr & Peers on a time and materials basis with prior approval
from the client.
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
TIA SCOPING LETTER
Prior to preparation of the TIA report, a scoping letter will be prepared which will include the study area,
analysis methodology and assumptions.
ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
Based on the potential housing sites shown on the City’s online map and the criteria outlined in the TIA
guidelines, roadway segments proposed to be included in the TIA are shown in Table 1.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 147 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 13
Table 1: Study Roadway Segments
Roadway Segment Limits # of
Segments Project Site
El Camino Real SR-78 EB Ramp to
South City Limit 11 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12,
19
College Blvd City limits to Cannon
Rd 2 4, 6, 7
College Blvd Cannon Rd to El
Camino Real 1 4, 6, 7
College Blvd
El Camino Real to
Palomar Airport
Rd
2 4, 6, 7
Cannon Rd Carlsbad Blvd to
Avenida Encinas 1 4, 5
Cannon Rd Avenida Encinas to
Paseo Del Norte 1 4, 5
Cannon Rd Paseo Del Norte to El
Camino Real 4 4
Salk Ave El Camino Real to
College Blvd 1 7
Aviara Pkwy Palomar Airport Rd to
Poinsettia Ln 1 8
Palomar Airport
Rd
Avenida Encinas to East
City limit 8 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
16
La Costa Avenue Piraeus St to El Camino
Real 1 10,11,12
Poinsettia Ln Carlsbad Blvd to Aviara
Pkwy 2 17, 18
Total Roadway
Segments 35
Note: Exempt roadway segments are also included in the above list.
DATA COLLECTION
STC will request count data from the City. For locations where count data is not available, data will be
collected on a typical weekday when schools are in session.
ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
The following scenarios will be included in the traffic study:
• Existing Conditions: The existing roadway conditions will be evaluated based on the existing traffic
volumes and roadway geometry.
• Year 2035 with adopted General Plan conditions: Roadway conditions for the year 2035 will be
evaluated with the general plan traffic volumes and roadway geometry.
• Year 2035 General Plan with Housing Element Update: Roadway conditions for the year 2035 with
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 148 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 14
the housing element update will be evaluated with the general plan roadway geometry and
increase in traffic volumes due to increase in density and/or rezoning.
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECAST
The following methodology will be used to estimate the future forecast volumes. It is assumed that the
City will be sharing with STC, the SANDAG model plots being developed as part of the Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) analysis. Both the year 2035 Adopted GP and year 2035 GP with Housing Element
update model plots will be requested from the City.
•Year 2035 Adopted General Plan: SANDAG base year and future year models will be used to derive
growth rates on each study roadway segments, which will be applied to the existing volumes to
derive the future year 2035 adopted General Plan volumes. It is assumed that the future SANDAG
model includes the adopted general plan land use and roadway condition.
•Year 2035 General Plan Housing Element Update: SANDAG model plots with the housing element
update will be requested from the City. The difference in the volume between the adopted and
the housing element update will be calculated and applied to the year 2035 Adopted General Plan
volumes, to derive the year 2035 General Plan Housing Element Update volumes.
Roadway Segment Analysis Methodology
Roadway subject to Auto MMLOS will be analyzed for each direction of travel for the morning and
afternoon peak hours. STC will request the service volume tables from the City. The peak hour
directional volumes will be compared to the service volume thresholds to determine the roadway
conditions.
Note: As the housing element update is a high level (program level) analysis, facilities operating at level
of service (LOS) D are not required to be split into segments for a more detailed segment level analysis.
If the City requires a segment level analysis, STC will work with the client to amend the scope and fee.
REPORTING
Findings of the transportation impact analysis will be summarized in a TIA report. The report will consist
of graphics and analysis result tables. This scope of work includes addressing one round of comment
from the client, one round of comment from the public, and two rounds of comment from the City.
Should comments be received that modify the scope of the project, STC will work with the client to
amend our scope of work to address out of scope items. Submittals will be made electronically (PDF).
EXCLUSIONS
•Existing + Proposed Project and Cumulative without and with project scenarios
•MMLOS Analysis
•SANDAG model runs
•Intersection Analysis
•Significant Impact Determination
•Mitigation Measure Recommendations
•Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Recommendations
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 149 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 15
•Trip Generation and distribution for site specific housing element locations
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STC traffic, Inc. (STC) will attend project team meetings at the request of the Client, either in
person or via teleconference, as necessary throughout the project. STC will meet with the City of
Carlsbad to discuss scope of work and to review comments on the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA).
STC will attend the Planning Commission and City Council meetings.
Alternatives
The alternatives analysis will focus on a maximum of three land use scenarios, to be developed prior to
the preparation of the Administrative Draft Supplemental EIR. The no project alternative will also be
included in the analysis. The environmental impacts resulting from each alternative would then be
assessed as to their ability to reach the city’s identified project objectives and if these alternatives would
have additional or other impacts beyond the proposed project, or preferred site inventory. As needed,
an alternatives matrix will be developed to provide an easy way to compare each of the alternatives to
one another and the project for each impact area.
We understand the City may choose to prepare a robust analysis, similar to what would typically be
prepared for the preferred project, for one or more alternatives. This approach does require the
preparation of additional technical analyses for the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Noise, and
Transportation sections of the alternative’s discussion, as well as preparation of additional analysis
associated with the TIA. The cost estimate for the project includes an option for the preparation of
additional environmental assessments.
Following internal city staff comments on the Administrative Draft Supplemental EIR (up to two rounds
of review), the team will incorporate appropriate revisions to the Administrative Draft Supplemental EIR
and prepare a Public Review Draft Supplemental EIR for final internal review.Both submissions of the
Administrative Draft Supplement EIR will be provided in an editable, electronic Word format only. We
assume all comments and revision requests will be submitted in a compiled and tracked changes Word
format.
Task 4.4 Public Review Draft Supplemental EIR
Upon authorization from city staff, the team will prepare the Public Review Draft Supplemental EIR for
public circulation and distribute the Draft Supplemental EIR to the State Clearinghouse, responsible
agencies, and interested agencies, organizations, and persons as part of the 45-day public circulation
and review period per CEQA regulations. Rincon has not assumed the production of hard copies in this
cost estimate. Hard copies can be produced for an additional expense that could be accommodated as
part of a request for release of contingency funds.
Task 4.5 Final Supplemental EIR
Response to Comments
The team will prepare draft Response to Comments. As part of preparing the responses, we will use the
bi-weekly conference calls to discuss comment responses. Following internal comments on the draft
responses, the team will prepare the final Responses to Comments. For the purposes of this proposal,
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 150 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 16
we have assumed that up to 80 hours of Rincon professional staff time will be sufficient to address the
volume of comments received on the Draft EIR, and that no additional analyses will be required. 80
hours of Rincon staff time is equivalent to 11-13 large comment letters. If the volume or complexity of
public comments exceeds this estimate, additional budget may be required; in this event, we will
prepare a proposal to add services. Rincon assumes that the City will distribute responses to those who
have commented.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Concurrent with the Responses to Comments report, Rincon will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan to be included in the Final Supplemental EIR.
CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Rincon will prepare the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project based
on the impact conclusions of the EIR, if necessary. The Draft CEQA Findings will be submitted alongside
the Final EIR, and will contain a discussion of alternatives, including the rationale for rejecting any of the
analyzed project alternatives, using in part the project objectives. Rincon will submit drafts of these
documents to City staff and will revise the documents following receipt of comments so that they can be
incorporated into the Staff Report for the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance adoption public hearings.
Final Supplemental EIR
The team will prepare the Final Supplemental EIR after receipt of all written comments received during
the review period. The Final Supplemental EIR will consist of the comments, responses, and corrections
to the Draft Supplemental EIR, if any are warranted and be subject to up two rounds of review. Rincon
will prepare a Screencheck Final Supplemental EIR for one round of internal city staff review and
confirmation. The city will be responsible for submitting the Notice of Determination (NOD) to the
County Clerk per CEQA regulations.
Rincon has not assumed the production of hard copies in this cost estimate. Hard copies can be
produced for an additional expense that could be accommodated as part of a request for release of
contingency funds.
Task 4.6 Public Hearings
The Rincon team will prepare for and attend three (3) public hearings to present the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance updates, Supplemental EIR, and elicit feedback. Representatives from Rincon, Fehr &
Peers, and STC will attend all public hearings.
Optional Task SB 18/AB 52 Assistance
In order to comply with AB 52 and SB 18 and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 and 5097.995, the
City of Carlsbad, as the CEQA lead agency, is required to consultation with California Native American
Tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area prior to the release of the
CEQA document. Rincon will assist the City with Native American consultation by providing the City with
letter templates as defined below and detailed instructions to ensure meaningful consultation with
interested Tribal groups can be completed in accordance with AB 52 and SB 18. Rincon assumes that the
City will initiate consultation by requesting a Sacred Lands File Search from the NAHC. Rincon will
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 151 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 17
provide the City with a one letter template for this initial request. The City will then provide Rincon with
a list results of Tribal groups to contact. Rincon will create letters on the behalf of the City to the
appropriate Tribes and upon approval after one round of comments from the City, Rincon will send the
letters via email and certified mail.
If California Native American Tribes request consultation within the 90-day legal timeframe, Rincon will
assist the City with Native American government-to-government consultation in accordance with AB 52
and SB 18. Rincon will provide one generic response letter template to guide the City on official requests
for Tribal consultation. Rincon assumes that all communication with any interested Tribe will be directly
between the City and the Tribe. If needed, Rincon will provide up to six (6) hours of additionally aid for
Tribal consultation issues via phone and email.
Due to COVID-19, Rincon assumes no in-person meetings will take place.Rincon has also scoped for
participation in up to six, 1-hour conference calls during the SB 18 and AB 52 process. Rincon assumes
that the City will be responsible for scheduling meeting dates. Upon conclusion of SB 18 and AB 52
consultation, Rincon will prepare one technical memorandum documenting the results of consultation
efforts to provide to the City.
Deliverables: SB 18 and AB 52 Assistance
NAHC request letter (electronic delivery)
Initial consultation letter based on NAHC list (certified mail and electronic delivery)
Reply to Tribal request for consultation (electronic delivery)
Optional Task: Accessible Documentation
As an optional task, Rincon can format any of the large deliverables described in this scope of work to
comply with current Americans with Disabilities (ADA) requirements for accessibility. There are types of
disabilities that can impact the use of documents posted online. Per the State of California’s Accessibility
Standards, the State Clearinghouse/OPR are now requesting the submittal of any documents that will be
posted on their website, in an accessible format.
Deliverable: ADA-accessible document
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 152 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 18
Cost Estimate
There are two approaches described in this proposal and the differences pertain to the Alternatives
analysis presented in Task 4.4. The following is a description of the costs associated with each approach.
A breakdown of costs by task is shown in the following table.
Please note that the rates shown are for budgetary purposes. Actual rates may vary slightly depending
on staff availability, but overall costs will not exceed the total shown herein. Any additional tasks not
identified herein will be completed only upon authorization and in accordance with the rates shown in
the table and in the fee schedule on the following pages.
Preferred Land Use Scenario
Under the Preferred Land Use Scenario, Rincon will analyze the project on a citywide basis. It is our
understanding that this is the preferred method of analysis. Rincon will not conduct additional technical
analyses in support of any alternative scenarios, beyond what is required by CEQA guidelines. Rincon
will complete the work program described herein for a cost not to exceed $592,587. In addition, we are
requesting a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $59,259, for a not to exceed total cost of
$651,846.
As of February 1, 2022, $190,837 remains in the budget for the Carlsbad Housing Element project. It
should be noted that this amount is likely to decrease as we continue to refine the project scope for the
General Plan/Zoning Ordinance update. When allocating this budget to the General Plan/Rezoning
project, an additional $461,009 ($401,750 without requested contingency) will be needed to complete
the work plan described herein.
Original Budget (1/20)$600,872
Contingency Additions $49,948
Budget Remaining (1/19/2022)$ 190,837
General Plan / Rezoning Budget
(2/1/2022)$ 592,587
Contingency Request (2/1/2022)$59,259
Additional Budget Required to
Complete General Plan / Rezoning
Project
$ 461,009
If staff determines that additional technical analyses are warranted, Rincon can provide expanded
alternative analyses at a cost of $97,169 per alternative. This includes additional air quality, greenhouse
gas, and noise modelling and analysis to be performed by Rincon, VMT modelling and analysis to be
performed by Fehr & Peers, and LOS operational analysis to be prepared by STC. This approach will
create a robust environmental document that will avoid additional costs and timing delays associated
with recirculation of the EIR should the City Council ultimately choose a land use scenario that is
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 153 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 19
presented as an alternative. Costs associated with each additional analysis are detailed further in the
cost estimate breakdown.
Thank you for considering Rincon for this assignment. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have
questions about this proposal or need additional information.
Sincerely,Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Brenna Weatherby
Director, Environmental and Long-Range Planning
Phone: 760-205-2097
Email: bweatherby@rinconconsultants.com
Contact for Clarification
Matt Maddox, AICP
Principal
Phone: 916-204-9142
Email: mmaddox@rinconconsultants.com
Authorized to contractually obligate and
negotiate on behalf of Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 154 of 162
City of CarlsbadGeneral Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 20
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.Carlsbad General Plan and Zone Code Update
Cost Estimate
Rincon Labor Classification →Principal II Director ISenior Supervisor IISenior Professional IISenior Professional IProfessional IVProfessional IIIProfessional IISenior GIS SpecialistGIS/CADD Specialist IITechnical EditorProduction SpecialistClericalTasks Labor Cost Direct Expense Hours $295 $280 $245 $212 $197 $174 $161 $145 $160 $140 $130 $105 $95
Task 1: General Plan Update - Safety Element UpdateTask 1.1 Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment $18,195 $88 97 12 20 40 24 1Task 1.2 Administrative Draft Element $19,266 106 2 8 20 46 16 4 10Task 1.3 Public Review Draft Element $12,316 60 2 6 20 26 6Task 1.4 Final Safety Element $7,062 33 2 4 12 12 3Task 1.5 Safety Element Outreach $5,720 28 8 20Task Subtotal $62,559 $88 324 18 26 52 20 60 84 25 24 4 10 1
Task 2: General Plan Amendment - Land Use Element Update
Task 2.1 Administrative Draft Element $17,296 102 2 10 10 36 30 4 10
Task 2.2 Public Review Draft Element $7,254 36 2 10 24Task 2.3 Final Land Use Element $3,642 18 2 4 12
Task Subtotal $28,192 156 6 24 10 72 30 4 10
Task 3: Zone Code AmendmentTask 3.1 Zoning Ordinance Review $4,440 26 2 4 20Task 3.2 Draft Zoning Ordinance Update $16,750 90 6 4 24 50 4 2Task 3.3 Final Zoning Ordinance Update $13,380 66 4 6 24 32Task Subtotal $34,570 182 10 12 52 102 4 2
Task 4: Environmental ReviewTask 4.1 Preparation of Project Description $7,699 42 2 10 24 4 1 1Task 4.2 Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Scoping Meeting $4,369 $176 22 1 6 14 1
Task 4.3 Administrative Draft EIR
Executive Summary $2,469 14 1 2 2 8 1
Environmental Setting $2,469 14 1 2 2 8 1 Aesthetics $8,278 43 1 2 34 4 1 1 Agriculture $2,952 17 1 2 12 1 1 Air Quality $11,169 60 2 6 8 32 10 1 1 Biological Resources $17,106 $396 97 3 10 6 46 30 1 1 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources $16,281 $3,996 88 2 6 18 36 16 8 1 1 Energy $4,522 27 1 2 6 16 1 1 Geology and Soils $6,388 37 1 2 6 26 1 1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions $12,815 74 2 6 6 32 26 1 1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials $3,596 21 1 2 16 1 1
Hydrology and Water Quality $5,952 35 1 2 4 24 2 1 1
Land Use and Planning $4,520 27 1 2 20 2 1 1
Mineral Resources $2,308 13 1 2 8 1 1 Noise $16,225 $198 90 2 10 8 36 30 2 1 1 Population and Housing $6,172 37 1 2 32 1 1 Public Services and Recreation $6,832 43 1 2 6 30 2 1 1 Transportation and Circulation $4,520 $161,524 27 1 2 20 2 1 1 Utilities and Service Systems $7,460 45 1 2 40 1 1 Wildfire $5,922 35 1 2 2 28 1 1 Alternatives $11,785 64 4 8 10 40 1 1 Air Quality Modeling (full analysis; each additional land use scenarios)$7,179 40 1 2 36 1 Greenhouse Gas Modeling (full analysis; each additional land use scenarios)$7,179 40 1 2 36 1 Noise and Vibration Modeling (full analysis; each additional land use scenarios)$8,929 $198 48 1 8 36 2 1
Transportation/Traffic (full analysis; each additional land use scenarios)$1,959 $62,590 10 1 2 6 1
Additional Alternatives Analysis (full analysis; each additional land use scenarios)$9,025 54 3 5 5 40 1
Other CEQA Required Sections $2,760 17 1 2 12 1 1 Administrative Record $1,455 9 1 8Task 4.4 Draft EIR $9,330 $88 56 2 6 4 32 2 10Task 4.5 Final EIR Responses to Comments $15,020 $14,718 88 6 16 60 6 MMRP $1,945 11 1 2 8 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations $5,060 28 4 4 20 Final EIR $5,590 $88 36 2 4 20 2 8Task 4.6 Public Hearings $5,818 $340 26 2 12 8 4Project Coordination and Management $37,795 $27,434 161 20 100 41Task Subtotal $290,853 $271,746 1596 79 124 133 26 101 296 400 290 33 28 45 41
Subtotal Cost 416,174$ 271,834$ 1,920 28,615$ 42,000$ 45,325$ 9,752$ 19,897$ 61,944$ 77,924$ 42,050$ 4,000$ 7,980$ 4,160$ 5,775$ 3,990$
Direct Cost Detail - Preferred Land Use Scenario
Vehicle Costs 1,056$
CHRIS Records Search 3,000$
Locality Search 600$
Sound Level Field Metering Package 110$
Standard Field Package 440$ Annual Escalation – Standard rates subject to 3% escalation annually
Fehr & Peers 114,442$ STC 91,036$
Subtotal Additional Costs 210,684$ Updated:01.01.2022
Summary - Preferred Land Use ScenarioProfessional Fees Subtotal $381,903Direct Costs Subtotal $210,684
Total Project Budget 592,587$ Contingency $59,259
Total Project Budget + Contingency 651,846$
Direct Cost Detail - Expanded Alternatives Analysis (Per Alternative)
Vehicle Costs 88$
Sound Level Field Metering Package 110$
Standard Field Package 110$
Fehr & Peers 32,890$
STC 29,700$
Subtotal Additional Costs 62,898$
Summary - Expanded Alternatives Analysis (Per Alternative)Professional Fees Subtotal $34,271Direct Costs Subtotal $62,898
Budget 97,169$
Optional TasksSB 18/AB 52 Assistance $6,100Accessible Documentation (per document)$15,000
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 155 of 162
ID Task
Mode
Task Name Start Finish
1 Project Kickoff MeetingThu 3/3/22 Thu 3/3/22
2 Prepare Draft Land
Use and Safety
Element, and Zoning
Code Updates
Fri 3/4/22 Thu 4/28/22
3 City Review of GP
Elements and Zoning
Code
Fri 4/29/22 Thu 5/26/22
4 Revise GP Elements
and Zoning Code
Fri 5/27/22 Thu 6/23/22
5 City Review of GP
Elements and Zoning
Code
Fri 6/24/22 Thu 7/21/22
6 Final GP and Zoning
Code Update
Fri 7/22/22 Thu 8/4/22
7
8 NOP Preparation Fri 6/3/22 Thu 6/16/22
9 Release NOP Fri 6/17/22 Fri 6/17/22
10 NOP Review Mon 6/20/22Wed 7/20/22
11 Scoping Meeting Thu 7/21/22 Thu 7/21/22
12 Transportation
Modeling
Fri 6/3/22 Thu 8/25/22
13 Prepare Admin Draft
Supplemental EIR
Fri 8/5/22 Thu 10/6/22
14 City Review of
Admin Draft
Fri 10/7/22 Thu 11/3/22
15 Prepare Draft
Supplemental EIR
Fri 11/4/22 Thu
11/24/22
16 City Review of Draft Fri 11/25/22 Thu 12/15/22
17 Edits to Draft Fri 12/16/22 Thu 12/22/22
18 Public Review of
Supplemental EIR
Fri 12/23/22 Tue 2/7/23
19 Final EIR Prep Wed 2/1/23 Tue 3/7/23
20 City Review of Final Wed 3/8/23 Tue 3/28/23
21 Edits to Final Wed 3/29/23Tue 4/4/23
22 Planning
Commission Hearing
Wed 5/3/23 Wed 5/3/23
23 City Council Hearing Tue 6/6/23 Tue 6/6/23
27 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4
Mar '22 Apr '22 May '22 Jun '22 Jul '22 Aug '22 Sep '22 Oct '22 Nov '22 Dec '22 Jan '23 Feb '23 Mar '23 Apr '23 May '23 Jun '23
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Progress
Manual Progress
Page 1
Project: Rezoning Project_Draft
Date: Thu 2/3/22
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 156 of 162
Exhibit 12
Information to support options in the Feb. 15, 2021 City Council staff report
Carlsbad’s RHNA Housing Unit Target for Rezone Program
This table includes the target units for each rezone program, which each option is based upon.
This includes the 30 percent “buffer” recommended by the California Department of Housing
and Community Development to accommodate changes during the 8-year housing cycle.
Income group Lower Moderate Total
Total units for
rezone program 2,026 552 2,578
Site numbers referenced are shown on the map of all 18 potential housing sites (contained in
the staff report) and on the interactive online map of potential housing sites available at
https://carlsbad.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a5a710965bd4e6da387
aa3183fd5ae2. Site details, including current estimated unit yields, are accessible through the
online map.
Individual Proposed Project options
Options 1 and 2 are the same options reflected in the staff report, either could be used as the
Proposed Project, or modified either as part of the proposed project or to be analyzed as a
different alternative.
Option 1: Pursue rezone of all 18 sites as the Proposed Project
Rezone all 18 sites Housing Units per income category Comply with
RHNA target? Lower Moderate Total
2,455 672 3,127 Yes (exceeds
target) Compared to RHNA Target +429 +120
*Excludes the Kelly parcel of Site 4 - Zone 15 cluster due to lack of owner support.
Option 2: Eliminate sites with the most community opposition as the Proposed Project
Eliminate sites with the
most community
opposition*
Housing Units per income category Comply with
RHNA target? Lower Moderate Total
2,243 518 2,761 Yes (lower
surplus can be
applied to
moderate
deficit)
Compared to RHNA
Target
+217 -154
*Based on mailed and emailed comments received during the Sept. 2 to Oct. 22, 2021, public input period.
Excludes sites 3, 4 (all parcels), and 8.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 157 of 162
Option 3: Consider modifications to site assumptions and/or alternatives to options 1 or 2
Option 3a. (Modification): Increase density and unit yield at The Shoppes at Carlsbad Parking
Lot (Site 2)
On the city-owned, 57-acre parking lot surrounding The Shoppes at Carlsbad, approximately 20
acres are proposed to be designated at a minimum density of 37.5 units per acre (proposed “R-
40” land use designation per Housing Element Program 1.1). This would yield about 741 lower
income units. If the minimum density were increased to 47.5 units per acre (potential new “R-
50” designation), the unit yield would increase to approximately 940 units, a nearly 200-unit
increase in lower income units (and a potential total of 1,191 units at the “The Shoppes” site).
While amending the Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan would be necessary to accommodate
residential, revisions to the plan’s height standards may be necessary as well to accommodate
high density residential, especially if it approaches 50 units per acre.
The Shoppes at Carlsbad
parking lot (Site 2)
Housing units per income category Units over current
estimate Lower Moderate Total
Current estimated unit yield 741 252 993 -
Revised estimated unit yield 939 252 1,191 198
Total potential additional
units
198
Pros
• Puts additional high-density housing where transit, shopping, services, and recreation
(Hosp Grove Park) already exist
• By increasing potential number of units, adds options and flexibility for meeting the
RHNA target for any option or alternative
• Potentially supports a greater yield of affordable units due to public agency ownership
Cons
• Counter to community concerns about more housing in the north part of the city
• Increases city’s dependence on Site 2 to help meet the RHNA target, particularly if other
sites are removed
• Counter to comments about an increase in congestion around the mall
Option 3b. (Modification): Increase density and unit yield at The Carlsbad Village and Poinsettia
Coaster Stations (sites 14 and 17)
North County Transit District is exploring redevelopment of its Carlsbad Village and Poinsettia
Coaster stations. A district redevelopment objective includes contributing to regional housing
needs. NCTD has indicated under any redevelopment plan, transit use would continue to be
prioritized, transit user parking maintained, and increased ridership sought. Based on
discussions with the district, city staff believe a conservative increase in the units possible on
both sites is reasonable.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 158 of 162
Carlsbad Village Train Station
parking lot
(Site 14)
Housing units per income category Units over current
estimate Lower Moderate Total
Current estimated unit yield 93 0 93 -
Revised estimated unit yield 200 0 200 107
Total potential additional
units
107
NCTD Poinsettia Coaster
Station
(Site 17)
Housing units per income category Units over current
estimate Lower Moderate Total
Current estimated unit yield 0 27 27 -
Revised estimated unit yield 100 0 100 73
Total potential additional
units
73
Pros
• Puts additional high-density housing where transit and recreation already are close by
(both sites) and where shopping and services already exist (Site 14)
• By increasing potential number of units, adds options and flexibility for meeting the
RHNA target for any option or alternative
• Potentially supports a greater yield of affordable units due to public agency ownership
• NCTD is supportive of redevelopment and housing at the stations
Cons
• Counter to community concerns about more housing in the north part of the city and
more development in the Village (Site 14) and loss of parking at Coaster stations (both
sites)
Option 3c. (Alternative): Eliminate additional sites that generated public opposition
If City Council directs this alternative, staff would study several of the potential housing sites for
rezoning through the environmental and public hearing process except for the following:
• Sites identified in Option 2 (sites 3, 4, 8); and
• Sites 6 (Crossings Golf Course Lot 5), 7 (Salk Avenue Parcel) and 18 (North Ponto Parcels)
If City Council removed all six sites, the RHNA target would not be met. A solution to achieve
the target would be to increase density and estimated unit yields at The Shoppes (Site 2) and
Coaster stations (sites 14 and 17) discussed in Options 3a. and 3b. and as the table below
demonstrates.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 159 of 162
Option 3c.: Eliminate addition
sites generating opposition1
Housing Units per income category Comply with RHNA
target? Lower Moderate Total
1,803 401 2,231
No, as this alternative
would fall 347 units
short
Alternative compared to
RHNA target
-223 -151
Alternative with unit
increases at sites 2, 14, and 17
compared to RHNA target2
+182 -178 Yes (lower income
surplus can be applied
to moderate income
deficit)
1This alternative adds sites to Option 2. It excludes sites 3, 4 (all parcels), 6, 7, 8 and 18.
2Adds 198 units from Site 2 and 180 units from sites 14 and 17 (Site 17’s presently identified moderate income
units (27) are also moved to lower income category).
Pros
• Potentially enables greater responsiveness to community concerns
• Responds to Carlsbad Research Center Owners Association opposition to sites 6 and 7,
which are adjacent to the boundaries of the 540-acre Carlsbad Research Center business
park
• Puts additional high-density housing where transit, shopping, services, and recreation
already exist
Cons
• Decreases diversity and location of sites
• Decreases options and flexibility for meeting the RHNA target
• Counter to community concerns about more housing in the north part of the city and
congestion around The Shoppes
• If studied as an alternative, increases project budget and scope as each alternative
beyond the Proposed Project, to be fully “actionable,” would cost $97,169
Option 3d. (Alternative): Eliminate outlying industrial sites and the Caltrans site
If City Council directs this option, staff would study several of the potential housing sites for
rezoning through the environmental and public hearing process except for four vacant
industrial properties designated or partially designated as industrial as well as the portion of
Site 16 that is a current Caltrans Maintenance Station.
Due to elimination of these sites, the RHNA target would not be met. A solution to achieve the
target would be to increase density and estimated unit yields at The Shoppes (Site 2) and
Coaster stations (sites 14 and 17) discussed in Options 3a. and 3b. and as the table below
demonstrates.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 160 of 162
Option 3d.: Eliminate
outlying industrial sites and
the Caltrans site1, 2
Housing Units per income category Comply with
RHNA target? Lower Moderate Total
1,888 672 2,560
No, this
alternative would
fall 372 units
short (moderate
income surplus
cannot be applied
to lower income
deficit)
Alternative compared to
RHNA target
-372 +120
Alternative with unit
increases at sites 2, 14, and
17 compared to RHNA
target3
+33 +93 Yes
1Excludes sites 4 (Kelly parcel only, due to lack of owner support), 5, 6, 12 (both parcels), and 16 (Caltrans parcel).
Does not exclude Site 9 (West Oaks) as this project was approved by City Council and is now pending California
Coastal Commission review.
2Site 6 (Crossings Golf Course Lot 5) has a split planned industrial/office designation.
3Adds 198 units from Site 2 and 180 units from sites 14 and 17 (Site 17’s presently identified moderate income
units (27) are also moved to lower income category).
Pros
• Removes three of five properties for which owner interest is not known (Site 5, Site 12
(parcel west of Eagle Dr. only) and 16 (Caltrans parcel)
• Partially addresses Carlsbad Research Center Owners Association opposition through
removal of Site 6
• Maintains industrial parcels close to goods and services (Sites 10 and 11 in Bressi Ranch)
Cons
• Includes sites generating most opposition (Sites 3, 4, and 8)
• Decreases diversity and location of sites
• Counter to community comments that are generally supportive of residential in
industrial areas
• If studied as an alternative, increases project budget and scope as each alternative
beyond the Proposed Project, to be fully “actionable,” would cost $97,169
Option 3e. (Alternative): Eliminate city-owned sites 6 and 15
If City Council directs this option, staff would study all the potential housing sites for rezoning
through the environmental and public hearing process except the Crossings Golf Course Lot 5
(Site 6) and the city’s Oak Yard (Site 15).
This option does not remove Site 2, the city-owned parking lot parcels surrounding The
Shoppes at Carlsbad. Site 2 cannot be eliminated as its 993 units are needed to meet the RHNA
target.
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 161 of 162
Option 3e.: Eliminate city-
owned sites 6 and 15
Housing Units per income category Comply with RHNA
target? Lower Moderate Total
2,274 648 2,231
Yes, exceeds target Alternative compared to
RHNA target
+248 +96
1This alternative excludes site 4 (Kelly parcel only, due to lack of owner support) and sites 6 (181 units) and 15 (24
units).
Pros
• Responds partially to community concerns about more housing in the north part of the
city, including the Village
• Partially addresses Carlsbad Research Center Owners Association opposition through
removal of Site 6
• Exceeds RHNA target
• Maintains consistency with the city’s Real Estate Strategic on each of the two city-
owned sites excluded
Cons
• Decreases diversity and location of sites
• Eliminates sites that are close to services and transit (Site 15) and jobs (Site 6)
• If studied as an alternative, increases project budget and scope as each alternative
beyond the Proposed Project, to be fully “actionable,” would cost $97,169
Feb. 15, 2022 Item #3 Page 162 of 162
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello,
Dominique Combs <dominiqueturk1@gmail.com>
Friday, February 4, 2022 12:59 PM
City Clerk
Tyler
Why Site 8 is a terrible selection for affordable housing
All Receive -Agenda Item # ..3.
For the Information of the:
. f'TX_ COUNCIL
Dat~'J..CA v cc _::::-
CM 2'.'.:,ACM ti" DCM (3) L
I've reviewed the report summarizing feedback received for the proposed affordable housing
in Carlsbad. I wanted to take the opportunity to express my sincere concern with respect to
site 8. One of the access points for this site is through a current neighborhood of single family
homes just south of site 8. As a homeowner in this neighborhood with small children, the
traffic and addition of a significant number of units in a small neighborhood (where the home
values are around 1.5-2 million) would be catastrophic to those of us that live here. Adding
more than double or nearly triple the number of cars (there are currently 75-100 homes that
use Mariposa Rd to access their home) to a small residential street would be a safety hazard,
noise nuisance, and significantly decrease property values for the families that live here. For
example, most kids that go to Pacific Rim Elementary in our neighborhood walk there. Adding
so significantly to the traffic would put those children at risk every single day. Increasing the
neighborhood size would also significantly over burden (at least) Pacific Rim elementary which
is a smaller school. Finally, I don't think majority of the survey respondents realized site 8
opens and exits into a small neighborhood (given the only other entrance is up a very steep
hill). By describing site 8 as replacing an apartment complex, it sounds like it might be okay -
however the scale of the proposed affordable housing and the existing apartment community
is incomparable. The cottage row apartments are very small community that fits with the
small community of single family homes along Mariposa Rd. The large affordable housing
complex would be entirely out of place and Mariposa Rd. cannot sustain this scale.
Thank you,
Dominique Combs
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Lance Schulte < meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.net>
Friday, February 4, 2022 2:07 PM
Council Internet Email; City Clerk
Boyle, Carrie@Coastal; Erin.Prahler@coastal.ca.gov; Ross, Toni@Coastal;
info@peopleforponto.com
Citizen input to Our Home our Future -Why a park is needed within walking distance to
multifamily housing & why a meaningful Coastal Park is needed for Ponto/South
Carlsbad -public input to DLCPA, Housing and Park planning
RE: Carlsbad Citizen Questions and request to Carlsbad City Council-Planning-Parks-
Housing Commissions for Carlsbad Staff proposed Draft LCP-LUPA-Housing Element &
Parks Master Plan Updates -11-30-2020
Dear Council & CA Coastal Commission:
Please review and consider the information and Citizen input in the Monday, September 27, 2021 3:13 PM email below
for the upcoming City Council on Feb 15th meeting. This input primarily relates to Site 18 at Ponto that is proposing to
change Coastal land from Visitor Serving to Residential, and to increase residential density to higher levels.
However, this input has applicability in other area of the City that are currently developed at relatively higher than
Citywide average density, that currently provide higher than citywide average affordable housing, and that have
relatively lower, or in the case of Ponto NO City Park, reasonably accessible to meet the population density demands in
the area.
For key Coastal areas additional Coastal Parkland is needed for inland residents and visitors. As mentioned to you since
2017 South Carlsbad and Ponto has no Coastal City Park land to provide needed Coastal Park land for inland Carlsbad
Residents (62% of which are in South Carlsbad) that have no Coastal Park. Good City Planning and the CA Coastal Act
call for a balanced distribution of land uses, to avoid over concentration and overcrowding on critical high-priority
Coastal Land uses such as Coastal Recreation.
As noted in the 9/27 /21 email, I am not against higher density and affordable housing. I am for common sense city
planning and CA Coastal Act Policy that sensibly calls for land use balance, and providing Park supply that accessibly
meets park demands. For key Coastal Areas, there is the added requirement to provide additional Coastal Parks to
address the external and increased demand from large inland populations and visitors that need Coastal Parks. Please
formally account for, read and consider this and the 9/27 /21 email below on Feb 15th•
Respectfully,
Lance Schulte
1
To: 'Scott Donnell'
Cc: 'Mandy.Mills@carlsbadca.org'; 'info@peopleforponto.com'
Subject: RE: Our Home Our Future citizen input -Why a park is needed within walking distance to multifamily housing &
why a meaningful Coastal Park is needed for Ponto/South Carlsbad -public input to DLCPA, Housing and Park planning
Thanks Scott. Much appreciated
If you could also please consider in your process:
1. US Census data that shows that Ponto, even with some of the remaining vacant Coastal land, has already been
developed at a 39% greater residential density that the City.
Given there is no Coastal Park in all of South Carlsbad the City should doubly consider the higher
residential density and populations in South Carlsbad Quadrants relative to citywide averages. Denser
residential development created by Carlsbad's General Plan and GMP 1.0 basically means on-average in
South Carlsbad Quadrants there are a combination of smaller backyards, less City parkland, and less
open space. Common sense and good planning should provide more City Parkland for denser residential
development, not less (or none). This is however not what Carlsbad's General Plan and GMP 1.0
provided in South Carlsbad as clearly documented by City data. The following census data reconfirms
South Carlsbad park inequity data/concerns People for Ponto has sent to Council:
% Population Population
Council ZIP Square of %of Density Density relative to
District Quad Code Miles SM population Pop. {pop[SM) Citywide average
1,2 NW 92008 11 28% 27,429 24% 2,494 84%
2,1 NE 92010 8 21% 16,565 14% 2,071 70%
3,4,2 SW 92011 7 18% 24,405 21% 3,486 118%
4,3,2 SE 92009 13 33% 47,003 41% 3,616 122%
City total= 39 100% 115,401 100% 2,959 100%
Ponto= 0.397 1,632 4,111 139%
Key Census data points: 1) 62% of Carlsbad's population are in South Quadrants. 2) South Quadrants are
18% and 22% more Dense than the Citywide average, thus have relatively more City Park and open
space needs. 3) Ponto's 936 dwellings have a residential density of 4,111 pop/SM that is 39% more
dense than the Citywide average. This makes sense when one looks at the attached Open Space data;
People for Ponto Open Space map/analysis documenting missing GMP open space. This Ponto GMP
Open Space shortfall is made worse by the projected/planned loss of 32+ acres Ponto Coastal Open
Space Land Use due to sea level rise. The Council should know about and consider the residential
density and Parks/Open Space disparities in this data and reflected by the thousands of Citizen Emails
referencing this disparity.
2. the attached public input and data that you received on 11/30/20, with a particular focus on comments related
to page 10-169 in the Housing Element that relate to the Ponto area:
a. "Of Ponto's 1,025 current homes, 202 in the San Pacifico Community Association were built to be
affordable condominium homes with very small 'exclusive use' lots, zero-side yards/building setbacks
and only 10-15' wide 'back yards'; and 384 Lakeshore Gardens homes are affordable age-restricted
manufactured homes. So 586 of Ponto's 1,025 current homes or 57% of Ponto's housing were planned
and built to be affordable. At 57% Ponto has and was developed with a consideration of affordable
housing, but also was denied needed City Park facilities of at least 8-acres to meet minimum City Park
Standards.
Consistent with Policy 10-P.7 Ponto Planning Area F should be used to address Ponto's 'Park Inequity'
being 'unserved', and not used to increase the "over concentration" of affordable housing that was
already planned and built at Ponto."
4
I am not against affordable housing and high density to 'actually achieve affordable housing', and have PMed several
Housing Elements and high-density TOD land use plans and high-density projects. However, as development goes up
and is more dense it is critical that Parks be provided for these dense areas and urban design requirements provide
significant ground level open spaces to manage and make livable higher densities. This is the biggest issue I have in how
the City is exploring densification. The City does not even mention or ask about access to Parks in your survey. Yet this
is one of the most obvious and clear land use nexus with high-density residential development. The City does not
appear to be presenting, discussing and addressing 3 fundamental principles of urban planning -the key requirement to
require and provide sufficient Parkland within walking distance to higher density residential, provide adequate walkable
parkland access to all residential neighborhoods, and for all our inland residents provide significant and sufficiently
sized/dimensioned Coastal Parks to make sure inland residents, particularly those in high-density developments, have a
Coastal Park to go to.
Thanks,
Lance
From: Scott Donnell [mailto:Scott.Donnell@carlsbadca.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 10:30 AM
To: Lance Schulte
Subject: FW: Our Home Our Future citizen input -Why a park is needed within walking distance to multifamily housing
& why a meaningful Coastal Park is needed for Ponto/South Carlsbad -public input to DLCPA, Housing and Park planning
Importance: High
Good morning,
Thank you for your comments. They will be included in the public input summary report presented to the City
Council early next year. You can also provide additional input through October 1 via our on line survey,
available at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/housingsites and continue to provide mail and email
comments through October 22.
You are also welcome to keep apprised of the project by visiting the housing plan webpage,
www.carlsbadca.gov/housingplan. Further, at the bottom of this web page is a link to sign up for email updates
on the housing plan should you know other people who may want to keep tabs on the project.
Last, I have forwarded your email to Mandy Mills, Housing and Homeless Services Director, as she is the
current liaison to the Housing Commission. If you wish to send correspondence to the Housing commission,
please copy her.
Thank you.
Scott Donnell
Senior Planner
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
www.carlsbadca.gov
760-602-4618 I 760-602-8560 fax I scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov
DURING THE CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGE NCY:
5
FOR ONGOING PROJECTS, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR PROJECT PLANf\JER TO SCHEDULE A RESUBMITTAL DROP-OFF
APPOINTM ENT.
FOR NEW PROJECT SUBMITTALS AND LANDSCAPE SUBMITTALS/RESUBMITTALS/ASBUILTS, PLEASE CALL OR EMAIL YOUR
REQUEST FOR A SUBMITTAL DROP-OFF AP PO INTMENT:
Phone: 760-602-4610
Email: planning@carlsbadca.gov
From: Lance Schulte <meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:20 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>; City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov>; Don Neu
<Don.Neu@carlsbadca.gov>; Kyle Lancaster <Kyle.Lancaster@carlsbadca.gov>; Erin.Prahler@coastal.ca.gov; 'Ross,
Toni@Coastal' <Toni.Ross@coastal.ca.gov>; Boyle, Carrie@Coastal <carrie.boyle@coastal.ca.gov>; Scott Donnell
<Scott.Donnell@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: info@peopleforponto.com; 'Mehmood, Sohab@HCD' <Sohab.Mehmood@hcd.ca.gov>; 'McDougall, Paul@HCD'
<Paul.McDougall@hcd.ca.gov>; 'McDonell, Glenn' <Glenn.McDonell@asm.ca .gov>; 'Moran, Gina@Parks'
<Gina.Moran@parks.ca.gov>; 'Smith, Darren@Parks' <Darren.Smith@parks.ca.gov>; 'Homer, Sean@Parks'
<Sean.Homer@parks.ca.gov>
Subject: Our Home Our Future citizen input -Why a park is needed within walking distance to multifamily housing &
why a meaningful Coastal Park is needed for Ponto/South Carlsbad -public input to DLCPA, Housing and Park planning
Importance: High
Dear Carlsbad City Council, Housing Commission, Planning Commission, and Park Commission; and CA Coastal
Commission and HCD:
The following is citizen feedback on Carlsbad's 9-13-21 email to 'Give input on locations for future housing'. It is also for
consideration in Carlsbad's Draft LCP and Parks Master Plan Amendment Processes.
At the very heart of these comments is: There is finite vacant land in Carlsbad and an even smaller figment of Vacant
Coastal Land in Carlsbad. This small amount of is getting smaller due to documented coastal erosion and sea level
rise. Over 32 acres of high-priority Coastal Open Space Lance Use will be lost at Ponto/South Carlsbad. This very small
finite vacant Coastal land is all we have to provide for the "infinite" demands for high-priority Coastal Recreation and
Low-cost access to the Coast land uses from this "infinite" amount of future generations of Carlsbad and inland cities
residents; and of outside Visitors to Carlsbad's Coast. How Carlsbad, and the CA Coastal Commission and HCD, uses
those precious finite fragments of vacant Coastal Land is the vital question. Since 2017 Carlsbad citizens have been
asking the Council for a true, honest, open and comprehensive consideration of these issues at Ponto. Over 4,500
emails have been sent to the Council, many City Budget Workshop requests, Hours of public testimony, and hundreds of
pages of documents facts gained via official Carlsbad Public Records Requests.
The proposed land use changes to high density R-23 for the 8 properties of Site 18, seem to be being operating in a
'incomplete policy silo' that only looks at affordable housing and is not considering needed City Park and wider Coastal
Land Use issues at Ponto. This 'policy silo process' seems to be counter to the wise consideration and use of the last
remaining vacant and redevelopable Coastal land -particularly at Ponto/South Carlsbad.
Having managed creation of a Coastal City General Plan and several Housing Elements I understand and sympathize with
t he challenges City Staff and Council face in trying to provide for unlimited high-density residentia l development growth,
but we need to look at preserving vacant land to provide needed City Parks to balance these high-density developments
and provide needed Parks for these homes that have no/little yards. But it seems, as citizens have asked since 2017,
there is better way to address those challenges.
6
The 9/13/21 City email states:
• "The city needs to identify locations for about 2,600 new homes to fulfill the state's requirement that all cities in the
region provide enough housing to meet anticipated needs. Most of these homes need to be affordable for people
with moderate to low incomes, according to state formulas for household income levels."
Input: Per pages 33-34 of 3/23/21 2020 Housing Element Annual Progress Report to the Carlsbad City Council
stated that:
"Prices of Affordable Housing -Generally, the federal and state rule is that housing is affordable to a given family if the
family pays no more than 30% of its monthly income for housing expenses that include the rent or mortgage payment,
property taxes, insurance, utilities, and the like."
The staff report then documents that a home in Carlsbad to be affordable to Low and Moderate Incomes, requires the
following home sale or rental prices:
"Table 3: CY 2020 qualifying rent and utility expenses by number of bedrooms
Number of bedrooms
Income Group 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms
Very Low $1,155 $1,444 $1,675 $1,906
Low $1,849 $2,310 $2,680 $3,050
Moderate $2,225 $2,781 $3,226 $3,671
Above Moderate > $2,225 > $ 2,781 > $3,226 > $3,671
Source: "Household Income Limits 2020", City of Carlsbad (effective April 30, 2020)"
And the "for Sale Prices that are Affordable" for each income group:
"Area Median Income
Very Low {30% to 50%)
Low (50% to 80%)
Moderate {80% to 120%}
Above Moderate
2020 Annual Income
$34,651 to $57,750
$57,751 to $92,400
$92,401 to $111,250
$111,251 or above
Affordable Purchase Price
$82,001 to $186,000
$186,001 to $342,000
$342,001 to $510,000
$510,001 and above"
However, Carlsbad developers seeking to justify increase residential density site in the name of 'Affordability'
to Low or Moderate incomes are not providing homes that meet these affordable rents or purchase
prices. Carlsbad's land use regulations that promote larger unit sizes and building height and bulk work in the
opposite direction and instead promote Above Moderate housing as clearly evidenced in Carlsbad's Village
where housing developed at 28-35 dwelling units per acre (that should be affordable to Low Incomes -i.e. 1-4
bedroom rent at $1,849 -$3,050, and at sales or purchase prices from $186,001 to $342,000} are instead
being sold for $1.8 to $3 million as seen in the following:
7
commitment or City requirement to create the numbers of Moderate Income housing identified in City Staff's
Site 18 documentation.
There is no accessible City Park in the area to provide the needed City Park and open space needed for higher
density development -the 'Veterans Park solution is 6-miles away and is effectively unusable for citizens at
Ponto.
• "We'd like your input on 18 proposed locations for future housing chosen based on public input gathered
last year."
Input: Site 18, was not a site 'chosen based on public input gathered last year', but was just recently
chosen by a speculative developers of Site 18. As staff documents: "Staff has received a letter from
one property owner expressing support for higher density." Site 18 consists of 8 properties, so it is
unclear if all 8 properties are requesting higher density. Site 18 is being proposed as a "Moderate
Income housing site" (i.e. a site that will provide 90 dwelling units [DU] affordable to Moderate
Incomes as noted in the City Staff's analysis:
"Potential Housing: Site 18
Site Description: Vacant
Property Name: North Ponto Parcels
Site Group Acres: 5.9
Potential units site can accommodate (all parcels): 90
Income Category: Moderate (based on proposed minimum density)"
There is no copy of the 'letter' showing an accountable Affordable rational or developer commitment,
or a requirement by the City that Site 18 will be developed and rented or sold to provide the 90
dwellings Affordable to Moderate Income as noted above. If the Site 18 developers would commit to
recording providing that affordability it would be a responsible and accountable Affordability quid pro
quo for consideration.
• The City Staff report also does not discuss the various land uses changes to increase density in a properly
holistic or fully comprehensive planning way. All sites should be compared on all the key metrics for
suitability. For high density housing, the most fundamental metric is walkability to a meaningful City Park
for outdoor recreation and breathing room. This is fundamental in that high density housing, by definition
has little/no park and recreational open space -high density means many people living on a small area of
land. High density without significant large and usable City Parks within walking distance simply creates
dense urban environments that over time will not sustain quality of life.
In addition for Site 18 and other at the Coast locations there are other land use demands of large inland
populations or families and visitors come to the Coast and increase even more demands for City Parks. A
comprehensibly considered Coastal Land Use Plan needs to assure vacant and redevelopable lands along
the Coast provide sufficient Park land acreage for local Park needs (i.e. high density development requires
9
more Park acreage), but also to provide extra Park acreage to address the Park needs of hundreds of
thousands of inland residents and visitors to the Coast. Densifying the Coast with high density residential
development runs counter to this need for Coastal Parks.
The following email and attached images were submitted on 9/8/21 that illustrate the City Parks needs
generated by R-23 higher density and why it is important to provide meaningful City Parks within walking
distance to higher density development.
Thank you for your consideration. You say it is Our Home Our Future. We hope you do the right thing for
present and future generations of Carlsbad and CA citizens and visitors. Please do not let short-term and short
sighted silo thinking lead to a bad decisions on the use of the last bit of vacant coastal land.
Respectfully,
Lance Schulte
From: Lance Schulte [mailto:meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 202111:55 AM
To: 'CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov'; 'City Clerk'; 'Don.Neu@carlsbadca.gov'; 'Kyle.Lancaster@carlsbadca.gov';
'Erin.Prahler@coastal.ca.gov'; Ross, Toni@Coastal (Toni.Ross@coastal.ca.gov); Carrie Boyle
( carrie. boyle@coastal.ca .gov); 'scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov'
Cc: 'info@peopleforponto.com'; Mehmood, Sohab@HCD (Sohab.Mehmood@hcd.ca.gov); McDougall, Paul@HCD
(Paul.McDougall@hcd.ca.gov); 'McDonell, Glenn'; Moran, Gina@Parks (Gina.Moran@parks.ca.gov); Smith, Darren@Parks
(Darren.Smith@parks.ca.gov); Homer, Sean@Parks (Sean.Homer@parks.ca.gov)
Subject: Why a park is needed within walking distance to multifamily housing & why a meaningful Coastal Park is
needed for Ponto/South Carlsbad -public input to DLCPA, Housing and Park planning
Dear Carlsbad City Council, Planning Commission, Parks Commission and Housing Commission; and CA Coastal
Commission:
I request this email and attachments be provided as official public input to the Carlsbad's Draft Local Coastal Program
Amendment, Housing Element land use changes, Parks Master Plan Amendment, and land use activities at Ponto and
Coastal South Carlsbad.
For many years Carlsbad and People for Ponto Citizens have been trying to communicate the need for a meaningful
Coastal Park for South Carlsbad. There is NO City Coastal Park west of I-5/rail corridor in South Carlsbad (yet there are
10 such City Parks totaling over 35 acres in North Carlsbad). The Citizens and visitors to South Carlsbad have No Coastal
Park, and Ponto is the last vacant unplanned Coastal land left to provide this needed Coastal Park.
The attached images of high-density housing (R-23) in Carlsbad clearly illustrate why City Parks are needed within
walking distance to multifamily housing. It also illustrates why meaningful Coastal Parks are needed to provide Coastal
Recreation for a unlimited growing population that will primarily be housed by high-density housing that minimizes
outdoor recreation space.
High-density housing, by definition, provides minimal outdoor recreation space per dwelling unit. So City Parks are the
only meaningful sized areas where high-density housing occupants (particularly Children) can have room to play. This is
particularly critical in regards to Coastal Parks, as Coastal Parks absorb the Coastal Park demands/needs from significant
large inland and visitor populations. This critical need is made all the more serious given sea level rise and coastal
erosion impacts to Coastal Open Space.
10
Tammy Cloud -McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To Whom It May Concern,
Beth L. Knight < bethsrb@yahoo.com>
Friday, February 4, 2022 2:29 PM
City Clerk
Sites for future housing
I just received notice of the future housing sites. Where can I find an enlarged map which shows all the sites? Even with
my reading glasses on AND a magnifying glass held over the page, it is very difficult to figure out where all the sites are.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this.
Beth Knight
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Don Burton <djb83@netzero.net>
Friday, February 4, 2022 3:02 PM
City Clerk
Housing Survey
Why do you waste our time with these surveys when we all know you're going to do whatever
the developers want anyway?
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gini Murphy <ghmurphy@att.net>
Friday, February 4, 2022 7:22 PM
City Clerk
future housing placement
Where is all the 'in lieu' money that was collected from previous housing projects that bought out of providing low income
housing? Is it sitting in a fund that will be used for the building of the needed housing?
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you reco nize the sender and know the content i
safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rene <renegherald@gmail.com>
Saturday, February 5, 2022 11 :38 AM
City Clerk
Low-income housing
As a 40 year homeowner/resident of Carlsbad, I find some of the possible locations for low-income/ subsidized
housing inconceivable. I strongly support the importance of caring for all peoples, but find the idea of an 'inate right' to
live in the most coveted areas outrageous.
My husband and I worked hard to afford the beautiful Carlsbad home we raised our children in. We are thankful for the
exceptional police and fire departments, schools, parks, libraries and bi-monthly street cleaning to name a few things
our city offers. One does not have to live on the coast to benefit from all Carlsbad has to offer. Our home is not on or
near the coast.
This sentiment is not 'sour grapes'. We appreciate those who have achieved a home closer to the lagoon and ocean,
laud them for their success and appreciate what they bring to our city. These simgle family he's allow for a more 'open
area' that we all can enjoy.
More building, in this area, will only further obscure views, impair access to the coast and increase traffic along an
already extremely busy area for all residents of Carlsbad.
Also, adding 'Granny Flats' to homes will not make any real impact on the need for low income housing but will allow
the city to meet state housing requirements while implementing little if any change.
Govenor Newsom has single-handedly caused a monumental shift in California residential life whose true impact will
only be felt in years to come. Single family, residential community life style chosen by citizens of Carlsbad is under
attack.
Let's do what we can to save the quality of life in our little hamlet as best we can. Lets choose to deny any more
'building on top of one another' than the state mandates. Let's fight to preserve the quality of life that residential single
family communities in Carlsbad offer.
Rene' G. Herald
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou recognize the sender and know the content i
safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
dianawoodside 1@gmail.com
Saturday, February 5, 2022 3:53 PM
City Clerk
Strong objection to potential housing site 2
It appears that you are considering taking out the Shoppes at Carlsbad for building housing, which is
inconceivable! As someone living west of I-5 near Poinsettia, I really don't want to drive to Fashion
Valley mall or the mall in Escondido to go to JC Penney's or Macy's in person to pick up online orders or
shop in person. There are plenty of vacant land parcels to consider for housing rather than removing the
only shopping center having major department stores in Carlsbad. Hoping you will take that site off the
housing menu, Diana Woodside, 7227 Santa Barbara St., Carlsbad 92011. 619-972-9943,
dianawoodside1@gmail.com
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Nancy Abbey <nancy.abbey@gmail.com>
Monday, February 7, 2022 9:1 7 AM
Scott Donnell
Future Housing
Why are you not going farther inland for future housing?
Good lord, leave space to breathe and go inland.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Good morning, Mr. Donnell -
Kristine Quart <kristinekq1958@gmail.com>
Monday, February 7, 2022 9:59 AM
Scott Donnell
Question about Housing Plan
I received the notice regarding updating the housing plan for Carlsbad. I have a question about Site 17 (Poinsettia
Coaster Station). If this site is chosen (hopefully not), would it eliminate the station altogether?
This seems rather insane given the fact that they JUST FINISHED updating/upgrading the station within the last year or
so.
Kristine Quart
6494 Surfside Ln, Carlsbad, CA 92011
Kristine A Quart, Pharm.D.
Principal Medical Writer
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou recognize the sender and know the content i
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mary MARLETTE <marylette@aol.com>
Tuesday, February 8, 2022 10:28 AM
Scott Donnell
Mary Marlette
Planning for future housing
I received a letter dated Jan 28 from Scott Donnell. I wanted more info on this. My letter says
because we own property within 600 feet of one or more locations that the city has identified
as a potential new site for future housing that may change zoning to accommodate the
housing such as changing residential zoning to allow more units per property. I talked with
Lakeshore Gardens which is where I live and they know nothing about this. Or at least that is
what they told me.
I called 760 602 6410 to talk with Scott but got a recording and it said if inquiries are about
zoning call 6026410. I did ... but they said they know nothing about the letter.
Please either call me at 9168030412 or email what this entails and how it would affect me. My
husband went on line and thought it was about rerouting a road to make a green belt but that
doesn't make sense as I read the letter.
I would hate ~o think more housing would be added to the Ponto Area or anywhere near our
beautiful ocean What kind of units are you considering and is this affordable housing you are
dealing with?
Please get back to me by phone as above listed or email. Thanks
Mary Marlette
Sent from Mary's iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
peggy wilson <leizplm@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:09 PM
City Clerk
Future housing
Reply to flyer sent on Jan.28th. What about the middle class and seniors. It seems like the rich and poor are the only
ones.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
MauryDe Bont <maurydebont@ymail.com>
Wednesday, February 9, 2022 9:30 AM
City Clerk; Scott Donnell
Planning for Future Housing in Carlsbad -Site 8
Thank you for opportunity to comment. Site 8 is slated for consideration to increase the number of
units where housing is already allowed.
The initial/original plan for MFH is already a significant number of units/individuals for the location.
Traffic congestion along major roadways would continue to grow worse. I am against an increase in
units, however, additional information (current number of units planned, increased number of units)
would be helpful to make an informed decision.
Best regards,
Maury De Bont
6394 Topmast Drive
760.579.2500
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Heather King <dr_heatherking@yahoo.com>
Wednesday, February 9, 2022 9:01 PM
City Clerk
Scott Donnell
Letter
Hello. I'm writing to comment on the letter I received about putting more housing at
poinsettia station. I am shocked that this would be the site that would be considered for this.
There are a lot of problems already in this area. Theft, drug use, and prostitution at the nearby
hotels. Waters End is subjected to car break ins constantly. Avenida Encinas has many car
accidents. In December a very dear friend of mine was run down from behind by a car while
cycling in the bike lane on Avenida Encinas by the car dealerships. He has a serious brain
injury, broken neck, fractured spine and his life is forever changed. His three young kids lost
their dad as they know him. Someone under the influence of drugs crashed into several cars
parked out in front of the Volvo dealership recently. The man had passed out and drove into
the parked cars. Homeless people urinate and defecate along the walking trail behind Waters
End by the train station. This area is pretty built up already. Adding more congestion and
traffic isn't going to solve any of these problems or make it safer for the residents that already
live here. Is putting densely packed housing in this area the best decision to solve these
problems and preserve the beauty of the Carlsbad coastline? Surely there are other places in
the city with more space to put additional housing. Putting it here is ridiculous. There is
already inexpensive hotels and income based housing.
Concerned Homeowner,
Heather Richardson
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Joe Gorak <jgorak46@gmail.com>
Thursday, February 10, 2022 8:42 AM
City Clerk
'"Planning for future housing in Carlsbad"
After reading your letter I learned my city doesn't have a spine or backbone because you are trying to accommodate the
dictators in Sacramento. Changing zoning laws from commercial and industrial to residential to provide subsidized
housing for "all members of the community" is WRONG! Your letter did not not state a good reason for doing
this. Please provide one in your response.
Thank You, (I think}
Joe Gorak
Delegate -Palmilla Village
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you re cognize the sender and know the content i
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
To Whom it Concerns:
Chris Barnes <cbarnes42@gmail.com>
Thursday, February 10, 2022 1 :58 PM
City Clerk .
Sherry; Caden Barnes; Jared Barnes
Strong Opposition to Site 8 -Future Housing Plan
The homeowners within the ShorePointe development strongly oppose the city's proposed housing development at
"Site 8," which is the current site of the Cottage Row Apartments.
The proposed Site 8 development would have a disastrous effect on our neighborhood, mainly because the increase in
dense housing would be in addition to the 300+ unit development that is about to break ground at AVIARA
APARTMENTS, which is NEXT DOOR to Cottage Row on Aviara Parkway and Palomar Airport Road.
Adding so much density in such a short period of time would have a terrible impact on traffic, parking, crime, pollution,
noise, privacy, and visual appeal from surrounding homes in the ShorePointe neighborhood. All together this will
negatively impact safety, schools, and property values.
With existing plans to build more than 300 units IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT to the proposed site 8, the surrounding
neighborhoods would be better served filling the need for more greenspace at the Cottage Row location instead of
building more housing.
PLEASE tell the Carlsbad City Council to Vote NO on Site 8 at its February 15 meeting.
Thank you,
Chris, Sherry, Jared {20}, and Caden {18} Barnes
6404 Calmeria Pl
858-864-8766
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Al And Sheila <alandsheila@yahoo.com>
Thursday, February 10, 2022 6:47 PM
City Clerk
Site 4 -low income housing
I am writing to express my concern regarding the low income housing proposal for Site 4 at the
corner of El Camino Real and College. This entire neighborhood has very few retail shops, in
particular those shops that provide basic necessities such as groceries. The few that are in a
short driving distance have limited parking. Not only will the increase in housing burden the
existing residents with competition for parking but will also pose such problems for the new
residents. Furthermore, for the low-income residents, there would be no possibility of
avoiding spending dollars on gas by being able to walk to any retail site. Site 4 should be
considered only if adequate nearby retail development is provided.
Sincerely,
Sheila Rodbell
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kitty Sparrow <kittysparrow.cbts@gmail.com>
Thursday, February 10, 2022 7:01 PM
City Clerk
Changing parking lots to housing. Hi
Please we need parking -especially by the station!!!
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello there,
SHARYL RAE HESS <sharylrae@aol.com>
Thursday, February 10, 2022 7:02 PM
Communications
City Clerk
Re: City Manager's Update: Feb. 10, 2022
I don't believe Carlsbad, as a city, needs to comply with the state's "suggestion" or "rule" that we need to have 3900
more "affordable" housing units.
We, as a CITY, need to stand up to this nonsense, and not succumb to the state's "suggestions".
STAND UP CARLSBAD!!! Like other cities in San Diego.
SAY NO TO "THEIR" EXTRA MONEY AND "FUNDING" they're offering!!!!
Stand up for the greater good of our city for a change!!
JUST SAY NO!!!
Please read this letter at the meeting. Thank you!
Osharyl
Sharyl Hess
(760) 275-3291
On Feb 10, 2022, at 12:47 PM, City of Carlsbad <communications@carlsbadca.gov> wrote:
View this email in your web browser
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
rita@famularejewelers.com
Friday, February 11, 2022 11 :38 AM
City Clerk
Proposed low income housing
I just read an email saying that the city council is proposing housing units in the parking lot by the Coaster station. I want
it on record that I am staunchly against this! With all of the new businesses on state street and the overall village we
depend on that parking to patronize these businesses. It's hard enough to find parking as it is. There has already been so
many multi unit housing projects in the village. Stop already!
Rita Famulare
Famulare Jewelers
Graduate Gemologist G.I.A.
760-434-7740
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hey Carlsbad,
curtisw1 <curtisw1@yahoo.com >
Friday, February 11, 2022 1: 12 PM
City Clerk
Housing Element Update
Stop all the nonsense with fake affordable housing. It will never be affordable. You are just making
voters angry. I believe that Sunny Creek is the next casualty of overbuilding and stark defiance of the
General Plan. Just up the road, the NW part of El Camino Real has already been severely impacted
by Robertson Ranch and across the street the soon-to-be-built Marja Acres ..... packing in thousands
of dwelling units, people, and cars. Parks, restrooms, playgrounds, lots of trees and a massive wave
park is what everyone wants.
Curtis W
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Councilmembers -
Kristine Quart <kristinekq1958@gmail.com >
Friday, February 11, 2022 2:50 PM
City Clerk
Future Housing Plan
I would like to comment on the proposed sites for new housing development as detailed in a letter dated 1/28/2022
from Mr. Scott Donnell.
As someone who lives in the immediate area of the Poinsettia Coaster Station, I strongly oppose the use of this
proposed site (#17) for more housing.
While I understand that it is the goal of both the city and NCTD to increase ridership, I do not think that adding housing
will automatically result in meeting that goal. The housing currently located at the Station is rarely vacant and the
surrounding neighborhoods of La Costa Downs, Lanakai Lane, and Poinsettia Cove are well-occupied. Even with ready
access to the train station, Coastal ridership is still underutilized. This is due-I believe in la rge part-to poor scheduling
options on both North and Southbound trains. Even if NCTD were to improve our options, I don't believe ridership would
increase to a significant extent.
I also oppose the use of Site 17 along Carlsbad Blvd/101. Adding more housing to an al ready traffic-congested area is
simply ridiculous. As it currently stands, it can take 45 minutes (on a good day) to drive North to Carlsbad Village from La
Costa Ave after 4 PM. During the summer, I have actually experienced drive t imes of 1 hour+ from Island Way to
Carlsbad Village! In addition, if the city wishes to promote our beautiful beaches, which already have limited parking
options, then building homes on the coastal corridor is NOT the way to go.
Thank you for your time and consideration of Carlsbad homeowners/renters opinions.
Respectfully,
Kristine Quart, Pharm.D.
6494 Surfside Lane Carlsbad CA 92011
{619) 316-7878
Sent from Mail for Windows
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you re cognize th e sender and know the content i
safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tracy Seemann <tracylingaas@sbcglobal.net>
Friday, February 11, 2022 4:12 PM
City Clerk
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
I am writing voice my opposition to rezoning the Sunny Creek property at the intersection of El
Camino Real and College.
The El Camino Real between Tamarack and College has already taken on more than it's share
of development. Between Robertson Ranch, Marja Acres and the eventual commercial
development at Robertson Ranch the traffic burden is heavy enough. Any additional mid to
high density development will unfairly burden residents that live in this quadrant of the City.
I ride my bike to work every day. On my way home I have to merge across all lanes of the
northbound ECR to make a left turn. It is already unsafe enough. We do NOT need more cars
on this section of the road.
I respectfully request that you find another location to rezone.
Sincerely,
Tracy Seemann
4907 via Arequipa
Carlsbad, CA. 92008
Sent from my iPad
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bev Marston < bevmarston@att.net>
Friday, February 11, 2022 4:55 PM
City Clerk
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
I am writing to voice my concern with the Sunny Creek property being a potential housing location to bear the burden of
increased high density housing. Just up the road, the NW part of El Camino Real has already been severely impacted by
Robertson Ranch and across the street the son to be build Marja Acres will pack in thousands of dwelling units, people
and cars.
Please protect the environment, safeguard quality of life and give current and future residents the right to live in areas with
manageable traffic.
I have lived in Evans Point off of Jackspar and El Camino for 25 years. The congestion and traffic has increased greatly
over the years and backed-up during the am and pm rush hour times. I am grateful to be retired so I can time my trips
outside of rush hour traffic. Still, it has become so congested that I at times consider moving to a less impacted area.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Beverly Marston
Evans Point
Carlsbad
bevmarston@att.net
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you reco nize the sender and know the content i
safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Bill Runyon <william9kyle@gmail.com>
Friday, February 11, 2022 5:10 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Sunny Creek Development
Sunny Creek is the next casualty of overbuilding and stark defiance of the General
Plan. Just up the road, the NW part of El Camino Real has already been severely
impacted by Robertson Ranch and across the street the soon-to-be-built Marja Acres .....
packing in thousands of dwelling units, people, and cars.
For this Sunny Creek property so close to major developments, Carlsbad must abide by
the General Plan that was updated at great expense and time in 2015.
Protect the environment, safeguard quality of life, give current and future residents the
right to live in non-congested uncrowded areas.
Pleas do not build this development.
Bill Runyon
2310 Masters Rd, Carlsbad, CA 92008
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mike Geraghty < michael.e.geraghty@gmail.com>
Sunday, February 13, 2022 8:17 AM
City Clerk
Resident feedback: Carlsbad Housing Element Report Dec 2012
For the upcoming Feb 15 City Council meeting - I wanted to share feedback about the recent housing report:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/9002/637792225009470000
I want to share my feedback regarding proposed locations called "Site 8" and "Site 9" on the report.
As a 21 year resident of Carlsbad, I want to express my opposition for specifically considering Site 8 and Site 9 for
additional affordable/ low income housing to meet state requirements.
The report did not clearly indicate where existing affordable/ low income housing exists. I support dispersing this type
of housing/development throughout the city.
Currently, the area of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway has Laurel Tree apartments (138 units) and is adding ad
additional 329 units with the construction of Aviara apartments for a total of 467 units concentrated in a tight
area. This will bring increased traffic, parking, congestion and associated issues to an already busy intersection. Using
Site 8 or Site 9 will put additional strain on this area of the city. My concern has always been the number of
vehicles/parking availability that the proposed Aviara apartments will create -and adding additional housing in this area
will make it even worse.
Map of existing and proposed affordable, low income housing near Site 8 and Site 9.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jo Ann Sweeney <j.ocean92008@yahoo.com>
Sunday, February 13, 2022 10:49 AM
City Clerk; Council Internet Email
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE -Agenda Item #3 Meeting Tuesday February 15, 2022
To Carlsbad City Council Mayor and Council Members:
I have been a resident of Carlsbad, Ca. for 25 years. I live close to the property for the
proposed increased
housing density located at Sunny Creek, site 4. I am well aware of the state's mandate
for increased housing.
However the safety of the current and future residents of Carlsbad must be a major and
paramount consideration prior to
changing the housing plans that have been previously approved by the Carlsbad
residents/taxpayers. Therefore I am
opposed to the Mayor and City Council members approving Sunny Creek, site 4 as a site
for increased housing density as mandated by the state ..
Two of my main concerns regarding the inappropriateness of this site, are not only the
environmental pollution consequences with increased
traffic congestion and those resultant problems, but fire safety issues providing for
appropriate and safe egress and exit of properties. The El Camino Real corridor is already
problematic.
This increased in housing density will only bring a myriad of additional problems to this
already congested, problematic corridor.
Additional safety and environmental problems would occur. Take a road trip down the El
Camino Real corridor during school times and see the massive traffic impact
as motorists are attempting to get to Sage Creek High School. Around 4PM take another
road trip down the El Camino Real corridor
paying special attention to the current traffic problems at the corner of Sunny Creek and
College Blvd.
The problem of further housing at Sunny Creek, site 4 would be impacted because College
Blvd. is not complete and does not go thru. It ends at El Camino Real.
Consequently there is a major back-up when motorists are attempting to turn onto El
Camino Real from College Blvd.
This area is already a problematic area during major traffic hours already stressed
with excessive traffic, distracted drivers, and speeding motorists.
The impact of additional traffic, congestion, accidents, noise pollution, public safety and
environmental concerns still have
not yet been fully realized. The impact of the proposed Marja Acres housing development
on the El Camino Real corridor will additionally cause more problems
along this corridor. The El Camino Real corridor has yet to recover from traffic and
resulting problems impacted by the Robertson
Ranch housing development. Review reports of the increased accidents and fatal accidents
that are on the increase on the El Camino Real corridor.
1
I am opposed to the current proposal for the vacant Sunny Creek lot, site 4 as a site for
increased housing density.
I am for the prudent planning of housing at appropriate areas that aren't already impacted
by excessive traffic with resultant problems.
As expressed previously in the past by my communications to the Council, there are other
land opportunities for increased housing density such as the property owned by the city at
"The Shoppes",
the land on Faraday close to the Safety Center and Carlsbad Police Station, and land along
Rancho Santa Fe Road, east of
La Costa Town Center. The El Camino Real/College Blvd. vacant Sunny Creek lot, site
#4 is not an appropriate site
for additional housing.
Please vote against this increased housing project proposal at Sunny Creek, site #4 and
hear the voices of your Carlsbad citizens.
Respectfully,
JoAnn Sweeney
5342 Forecastle St.
Carlsbad, Ca.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you reco nize the sender and know the content i
safe.
2
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Council Internet Email
Monday, February 14, 2022 8:40 AM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Sunny Creak Development Agenda Item 3 Housing Element
From: Bill Runyon <william9kyle@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 5:11 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Sunny Creak Development
Sunny Creek is the next casualty of overbuilding and stark defiance of the General
Plan. Just up the road, the NW part of El Camino Real has already been severely
impacted by Robertson Ranch and across the street the soon-to-be-built Marja Acres .....
packing in thousands of dwelling units, people, and cars.
For this Sunny Creek property so close to major developments, Carlsbad must abide by
the General Plan that was updated at great expense and time in 2015.
Protect the environment, safeguard quality of life, give current and future residents the
right to live in non-congested uncrowded areas.
Pleas do not build this development.
Bill Runyon
2310 Masters Rd, Carlsbad, CA 92008
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Council Internet Email
Sent:
To:
Monday, February 14, 2022 8:41 AM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE-Agenda Item 3
From: Bev Marston <bevmarston@att.n et>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 5:01 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
am writing to voice my concern with the Sunny Creek property being a potential housing location to bear the burden of
increased high density housing. Just up the road, the NW part of El Camino Real has already been severely impacted by
Robertson Ranch and across the street the son to be build Marja Acres will pack in thousands of dwelling units, people
and cars.
Please protect the environment, safeguard quality of life and give current and future residents the right to live in areas with
manageable traffic.
I have lived in Evans Point off of Jackspar and El Camino for 25 years. The congestion and traffic has increased greatly
over the years and backed-up during the am and pm rush hour times. I am grateful to be retired so I can time my trips
outside of rush hour traffic. Still, it has become so congested that I at times consider moving to a less impacted area.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Beverly Marston
Evans Point
Carlsbad
bevmarston@att. net
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cherie Mclarty < cherie.mclarty@yahoo.com >
Monday, February 14, 2022 9:39 AM
City Clerk
Future housing
Priority one of the city should be that all property west of 1-5 be considered only for low
density 2 story single family or open space development .. This property is not replaceable and
we cannot reverse once development proceeds. There is substantial options to the east where
there is more space. We have one ocean and three lagoons and the protection of this must
dictate to its future.
Cherie Mclarty
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Shon Finch <sfinch2@ffres.com>
Monday, February 14, 2022 11 :22 AM
City Clerk
2/15 CC Hearing; Housing Element Update
All Receive -Agenda Item # 3_
For the Information of the: f/TY COUNCIL Date2Jy/'U,A ...,....--CC v"°
t M ~CM _...-UCM (3) .,,,-
Regarding the February 15th City Council meeting; specifically, the Housing Element Update.
Fairfield Residential agrees with staffs recommendation for redesignating site #11 from Pl to R-40. Site 11 is an excellent
location for future high-density housing because the property is vacant, graded and adjacent to existing infrastructure.
In addition, Multifamily residential makes sense here due to the property's close proximity to existing commercial and
industrial employment, as well as transit, retail and service options.
Thank you
Shon Finch
Consultant -Development
FAIRFIELD.
Creating Better Living for Better Lives
5355 Mira Sorrento Place, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92121
Office: 858.626.8263
Cell: 858.752.4122
fairfieldresidential.com «m)~00
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
1
February 14, 2022
Mayor Hall and Members of the Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Item #3 February 15, 2022 City Council Meeting
Request to Include Site 3 (Chestnut & El Camino Real) for Further Study in order to
Promote the City's Commitment to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Dear Mayor and Council,
· This comment is specific to the second recommended action Tuesday night where
staff is requesting the Council's direction on potential housing sites for inclusion in the City's
rezoning process. On page 1 O of the staff report, staff provides three options for
consideration. Option 2 considers the removal of Sites 3, 4 and 8 due to community
opposition received via mailed and email comments last year .
. I applaud staff and the Council for its work on the 5th Cycle Housing Element and
receipt pf certification by the Housing and Community Development (HCD). As you all are
aware, the 5th Cycle is fraught with challenges levied on cities across California with State
housing mandates, RHNA targets and various policies intended to tackle the State's declared
housing crisis. But with it comes difficult decisions by local communities and a reality of
change that can be hard to accept. Regardless of the sites designated for inclusion in the
City's rezoning program, community opposition is expected and warranted -it is not just a
phenomenon for Sites 3, 4 and 8.
As such, removing Site 3 solely on the basis of community opposition is understood
at face value, but a mistake for one very important reason amongst others -it will run
contrary to the City's commitment to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). To refresh,
AFFH demonstrates the City's commitment to distribute new housing opportunities
throughout the community for all population groups.
Site 3 is the only candidate site generally located in the City's northern heart and
within a well-established residential community. It is located along a fantastic north-south
transit spine for jobs/people movemer:it, has a transit stop immediately adjacent to the site,
and is not located in an existing commercial or industrial area. Use of Site 3 integrates
housing in an area where housing currently exists -it's a socially equitable move .on the
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear City Leaders,
Greg Houlgate <greghoulgate@gmail.com>
Monday, February 14, 2022 12:07 PM
City Clerk
Matt Simons; Maureen Simons; Bruce Pettibone; Grand Madison Owners; elyse
houlgate; John Sahhar; Tom Jasenovec; Chris Headings; Christine Davis
Objection to Oak Street Yard and a portion of the Coaster Station Parking Lot -are
being proposed for affordable housing units
We protest loudly that the city of Carlsbad would even consider another low income housing project anywhere near the
downtown or coastal areas of our city. Of the proposed 18 sites or so, there are at least 6 sites that land clearly on
coastal/ downtown land. The point especially rings true of the Two locations within the Village -the Oak Street
Yard and a portion of the Coaster Station Parking Lot -are being proposed for affordable housing units.
To be clear, we understand the city has a state mandate; and this exercise is not the brainchild of the leadership in
Carlsbad. If this is not true, please clarify.
The amount of low/ affordable housing slated is 3,900 units as we understand it. There are plenty of lots that can
accommodate that density of housing near and around the main police and fire stations east of El Camino Real and
north of Bressi Ranch. What considerations have been made to access that space?
As active members of this community for 30 years we have not had the opportunity to weigh in on this specific issue
recently. We have been busy with serious family matters and we may have missed previous meetings or calls to action,
but we are here today and challenge any additional development of this sort in, around or near the downtown or coastal
areas of Carlsbad.
We humbly request that the city craft a comprehensive parking and mobility plan to keep up with the residential growth
as it is today, let alone if more units (especially low/ affordable housing) are being proposed.
I have copied in other residents and fans of the city and trust you will hear from them as well.
Sincerely,
Longtime resident, business owner, taxpayer and advocate for the City of Carlsbad
Greg Houlgate
M: 760-683-4816
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council Members,
Madeleine Szabo <mbszabo@snet.net>
Monday, February 14, 2022 12:08 PM
City Clerk; Council Internet Email
Agenda Item #3; Area 4
Residents in NW El Camino Real implore you to protect the environment, safeguard Carlsbad's
quality of life, and give current and future residents the right to live in non-congested uncrowded
areas.
The Sunny Creek property (Site#4) is already close to major developments and suffers from clogged
roadways and crowded conditions. it is time for Carlsbad to abide by the General Plan that was
updated at great expense and time in 2015. Stop awarding new amendments to the General Plan
that was approved by the City Council and the residents.
In the vicinity of Site #4, traffic on El Camino Real is already choking and will worsen with the
upcoming development of Marja Acres of 296 units and a shopping center (across from the 1000+
units at Robertson Ranch). Unfortunately, the City does not count the excessive nu.mber of people in
the area's senior housing and second dwelling units attached to a single family home; hence, the
population throughout this sector is much higher than the analysis shows. The impact of more cars, of
the destruction of Carlsbad's character, and more demands on our city services is devastating.
The General Plan was updated at great time and expense in 2015. Providing amendments to the
well-crafted Plan destroys the sanctity of the document. Times have not changed. There always has
been and always will be extraordinary demand to living in Carlsbad. We should not have to ruin our
quality of life by pushing people into dense housing.
Even if you extend College Blvd and Cannon Road, the traffic, noise, and crowded living conditions
cannot and will not be abated. ·
We are told we need "fair and equal housing opportunities", certainly laudable goals, but at what cost
to the environment and to the current population? At what cost to quality of life? "Fair and equal
housing opportunities" is a catchall phrase desired in every community and has been all through the
ages. The broad unattainable goal is merely an excuse to wreak havoc on our beautiful city.
• City Housing Element objectives should not be at the expense of more traffic, congestion,
water and energy usage, and City services, especially since 1,000s of units and 1,000s of
residents already reside in this vicinity. The area already rightfully provides low and moderate
income housing: the existing Pacific View Apartments, Sunny Creek Apartments, some of the
Robertson Ranch housing/apartments, and Encinas Creek Apartments, etc.).
Madeleine Szabo
5338 Forecastle Court
Carlsbad
mbszabo@snet.net
1
Date: February 14, 2022
To: clerk@carlsbadca.gov
From: Steve and Cathy Brendel
Re: Housing Element -February 15, 2022 City Council Meeting
Our understanding is that Carlsbad is required, as a state mandate, to update their Housing
Element in regards to affordable housing. This update is to designate future affordable housing
sites for a total of 3,900 units. We also understand that housing proximity to rail and jobs is
desired.
My husband and I live in Carlsbad Village and we feel that the Village should not have to bear
the weight of additional affordable housing. Staff's proposal is for two sites in the Village and
another two just outside the Village. The Village should be a showcase for Carlsbad residents,
and tourists alike. Currently, it is a far cry from that with the number of homeless people, the
lack of proper lighting, and overall maintenance. Additionally, parking is already a problem that
more low income housing will exacerbate. It is a fact that low income/high density housing
projects require more parking than single family residential. Just drive by any low income/high
density project and note the excessive number of vehicles parked on the street. The Village
already is severely lacking in parking. Housing near public transit and rail seems like a good
idea, but in reality people are not using those services. Look in the windows of any passing
train or bus and 2/3 or more of the seats are empty.
We feel that the site at the Carlsbad Shoppes is an ideal location and will provide greater
density allowances, has access to public transportation, is close to jobs, and would turn and
an underutilized shopping mall into a work/live community with open space. An electric trolley
or ride share like Carlsbad Connect could easily take people from that site to the station if rail
access is truly needed.
In summary, Carlsbad needs to be fair to their residents by spreading out affordable housing in
all quadrants of the city. The Barrio and Village have not yet experienced the impact of the new
housing for homeless Veterans and the severely mentally ill.
Please don't ruin the heart of Carlsbad -The Village.
Sincerely,
Cathy and Steve Brendel
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
All,
labilek@roadrunner.com
Monday, February 14, 2022 2:55 PM
City Clerk
Proposed high density housing at El Camino and College
Please do not update this areal of land to high density housing. El Camino is already too crowded. Pre pandemic, it
would back up all the way to Faraday. Also, with College going through, there will be many more people coming
that way. In addition, when people first moved into Sunny Creek, that land was supposed to be a mini mall/gas
station, not housing.
Thanks,
Larry
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello,
E.J. Wheeler <wheels241 O@gmail.com >
Monday, February 14, 2022 3:03 PM
City Clerk
Future housing
I received the letter about the future housing since I am next to site 17. I see that the city
council is looking to move forward with this for review and asked to choose sites to move
forward on 2/15. I am extremely against site 17:
1. Devalues property
2. Not great for environmental area/vernal pools 3. Unsightly 2-3 story apartments/brings in
more noise.
4. More problems with tenants in an area that already has issues from the nearby hotels.
5. Potentially affecting the trials.
6. Traffic through this corridor especially along the coast increasing.
All of us in the Waters end community nearby are against this as well as a number of people in
Carlsbad community. This space is so small there are plenty of other areas that have larger
areas to build then site 17.
What is the best direction on this to voice that this is a bad idea? Looking forward to hearing
back.
-EJ
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
1
February 14, 2022
To: Mayor Matt Hall
Council Member Keith Blackburn, District 2
Council Member Priya Bhat-Patel
Council Member, Teresa Acosta
Council Member, Peter Norby
Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
From: John Fornal, Member of Chestnut Carlsbad, LLC, Owner of Site 3
RE: Item #3 -Information in Response to Neighborhood Comments and Concerns about Site 3
My wife and I were Carlsbad residents for over 23 years and my daughter Jennifer's family has
been living in Carlsbad since 2001. She currently lives near the site of the future Aviara
Apartments.
Jennifer has been an active member of the Carlsbad educational community for many years as
the Pacific Rim Elementary PTO President and a current board member of the Carlsbad
Educational Foundation. She and her husband have two daughters in CUSD schools .who have
grown up enjoying all Carlsbad has to offer. My eldest granddaughter attends Carlsbad High
School, which is located close to Site 3.
In preparation for Tuesday's City Council meeting, we all worked with our development team to
review the community concerns raised for Site 3 in the public input summary report referred to
in the February 15, 2022 Housing Element Update.
We want the City Council members to have the most accurate information upon which they
can make the best decisions.
We believe Site 3 is a very good parcel for new housing opportunities and we would like to
clarify several important aspects of our plan to develop the 2.45 acres at the Southwest corner
of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue, most of which we have owned since 1989.
Key themes raised in the 2021 surveys and our responses:
Access to the project: Access will only be available from El Camino Real. The existing driveway
cut using a right to enter and exit will direct all traffic away from the Chestnut intersection by
approximately 1,000 feet. Full improvement of the existing on site easement roadway will be
extended to a gated main drive-aisle for the project. An Emergency only access will be created
near the Chestnut intersection.
Biological concerns about living plants and animals: We have a current on-site biological
survey that concluded no endangered species or one of required conservation was found.
Eucalyptus trees once considered an asset are now a danger because of self-pruning. We will
replace as many trees as possible because our storm water management plan will also use tree
wells for mitigation.
Employment availability: The Carlsbad Industrial Park is accessed via the same bus route #309
at our front door on El Camino Real turning onto College then to Faraday and back onto El
Camino Real, all the way to the Encinitas transit center. Hundreds if not thousands of jobs are
available along the way both South and North.
Native Cultural discovery during El Camino Real widening: We have a current Cultural survey
prepared by the same consultant as the City employed, required us to search for any sensitive
remains, which may be properly repatriated onsite out of respect.
Our commitment: Over the years we have explored numerous development options investing
over $300,000 and hundreds of hours to design a project we can all be proud of at Site 3. The
project we hope to develop fits within the City's proposed R-15 zoning and includes housing
suitable for families of teachers, first responders, disabled veterans, seniors, and the like.
Planning Staff Support: Our public transit availability was a major reason behind Mr. Don
Neu's support in 2018 to join the list of potential candidate sites for housing in the 6th Cycle.
Project security will be provided by a perimeter wall and locked pedestrian and vehicle gates
addressing the concern of nearby school populations. The current risk of temporary occupants
will be resolved. Any vacant area is vulnerable to access from people and pets who take
liberties beyond reason.
Public Bus #309 is at our front door, and available every 30 minutes on weekdays and every 60
minutes on the weekend. Food and many services are less than a mile away at the Sprouts
grocery center, four minutes away by bus.
Significant topography of the site: The design of the project has taken over 18 months to
engineer for the elevation difference from North to South as well as East to West. Tiered motor
courts and large courtyards should provide a gradual grade change to allow most building
heights to remain below the height of the slope on our Western boundary, with reasonable
retaining walls.
Thirty (30) townhouses at Bel Azure are immediate neighbors to the North: We envision
about 70% of the units will be townhouses similar to the Bel Azure project and hope the
addition of about 30% of smaller units can accommodate many households at a lower housing
cost.
Traffic: At 36 units there is a parking requirement for about 75 vehicles on site. An April 2002
SAN DAG Guide of vehicular traffic generation rates, which construction lenders (my career)
used to rely upon shows the project could produce as many as 360 cars coming and going each
day. SANDAG's estimate was based on residential projects generating about 8 to 10 daily trips
during the weekday per unit.
If El Camino Real has a volume of up to 38,000 vehicles pass by the site each day, the project
would add less than one percent to that total. The old SAN DAG estimate was not reduced by
the number of residents who would use public transit.
Since the 2002 Guide was published, much has changed in the State with respect to traffic
assessments and law. For example, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is the new standard for use in
CEQA in lieu of Level of Service (LOS). It is important to note that Site 3 is immediately adjacent
to a well-established transit corridor served by public transit with a bus stop, bike lanes, and
sidewalks. From a VMT perspective, Site 3 as a housing site is a prime candidate to meet the
City's Climate Action Plan goals.
Please hear that we are willing property owners wishing to bring new housing opportunities
to the community and help the City achieve its RHNA goals.
The quality of overall design and finishes together with about 30% of lot coverage should please
all those interested in preserving natural open space. We are happy to meet with all those
concerned in the hopes of providing accurate answers to their questions. They can reach me at
jfornal@chestnutcarlsbad.com.
Here is a copy of our current site plan and a short video of the courtyard design and a basic 3D
model showing the units and topography. These are subject to change.
Please .continue to include Site 3 in the inventory and rezone program.
Thankyouforyoursupport
John Fornal, Chestnut Carlsbad, LLC.
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
Brian Ingersol GMAIL <brian.ri760@gmail.com>
Monday, February 14, 2022 4:10 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: City of Carlsbad
We already have low income housing at the bottom of our street. Adding another block of low income housing
will reduce the value of our houses.
This is a bad idea and we will fight it.
-----Forwarded Message -----
From: "Erik Runsvold" <Email Alert@calibersoftware.email>
To: "Robert Cattolica" <rjcat@yahoo.com>
Sent: Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:32 AM
Subject: City of Carlsbad
Good Morning Terraces at Sunny Creek Membership,
Below is correspondence and a link provided by one of your fellow owners wanting to make all of you aware
what the City of Carlsbad is potentially considering:
Dear Terraces at Sunny Creek Membership,
I wanted to pass along the below information to everyone so that they can comment as needed. As you may be
aware, the City of Carlsbad is considering changes to the housing codes in order to meet mandates from the
state regarding low/middle income housing needs. There is a requirement to add around 3000 units to Carlsbad
by 2030. One of the locations that the city is considering changing zoning for is the lot next to our
neighborhood at the comer of College and El Camino Real. The proposed changes are to convert the zoning
from commercial to residential and reduce the housing density requirements that are standard in Carlsbad. You
can find more information at the link below and you might have received a letter from the City as well.
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/housing-plan-update
All feedback gathered through the workshops, online survey and public comments will be
presented to the City Council on Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2022 at 3 p.m. The meeting will be
held virtually via Zoom.
During the meeting the council will be asked to choose sites to move forward with
for environmental review and rezoning.
How to participate
• Email comments to clerk@carlsbadca .gov .
• Watch online or on the city's cable channel (Charter Spectrum channel 24 and
AT&T U-Verse channel 99)
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cory Orcutt <cory.orcutt@sima.net>
Monday, February 14, 2022 5:14 PM
City Clerk
Agenda Item #3 -Housing Element Site Selections
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council,
I am writing on behalf of the Village Faire Restaurant and Shops.
I
We understand two locations within the Carlsbad Village -the Oak Street Yard and a portion of the Coaster
Station Parking Lot -are being proposed for affordable housing units.
• Our concern is this will further negatively impact the parking in Carlsbad Village and that there are more
appropriate site options that would be a better fit outside of the Village area.
• We are concerned that any larger housing sites built that are already being used for parking, such as
the coaster station parking lot, will decrease the amount of parking available, which will further impact
us on our busiest days.
Once again, it would be greatly appreciated if counsel would consider all locations carefully.
Thank you for allowing us an opportunity to share our concerns as we continue to try and make our shopping
center a place where tourists and locals alike can continue to come and enjoy a nice day in the village without
having to deal with the lack of parking. As you know, we provide a private parking lot for our customers as well
as off site parking for our employees to help with this ongoing parking issue.
Cory Orcutt
General Property Manager
Village Faire
300 Carlsbad Village Drive, #108
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Office: 760-434-3838
Fax: 760-434-3833
This message, and any attachments hereto, is confidential and is intended exclusively for the use of the individual or entity to
whom it is addressed. This communication (and any attachments hereto) may contain information that is confidential, proprietary,
privileged, subject to a confidentiality and/or non-disclosure agreement, or otherwise exempt or protected from disclosure (either
by contract or under applicable law) and, as such, is not intended for disclosure to and/or use by any other person or entity and
is not intended to be published in any manner, media or forum without the sender's express and prior written consent. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that printing, retaining, reproducing, copying, disclosing, disseminating or
using this message or any information contained herein (and/or in any of the attachments hereto) (including any reliance thereon)
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the message
(including any attachments) and any copies in their entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Nothing contained in this
e-mail shall be considered and/or is intended to constitute an offer, a legally binding agreement, and/or any amendment or
modification of any agreement with SIMA Management Corporation (SIMA) and/or with any of its affiliates or entities it manages
(each of which would require a single, fully executed writing signed (in ink) by SIMA and the other contracting party).
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou recognize the sender and know the content i
safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello,
D Lech <dilech@ymail.com >
Monday, February 14, 2022 9:03 PM
City Clerk
Item #3 for Feb 15 Council Meeting
I would like to alert the decision makers today that the map indicating the locations of the
18 Potential Housing Sites on page 4 of 162 in today's agenda packet does not include
four previously approved projects along the El Camino Real corridor, shared by both
northern quadrants, which will significantly add to the existing traffic, safety, quality of life,
environmental air quality issues as well as the ability to efficiently evacuate in case of
wildfire or other emergency. This corridor is already impacted by traffic during the
morning and evening rush hours as El Camino Real and College Blvd are currently used
as an alternative to Interstate 5, which will continue for several years due to freeway
construction. The four projects are all located on the El Camino Real corridor between
Tamarack and Cannon Rd. They are:
1) The residential development of the former Marja Acres on the west side of El Camino Real
2) The Casa Montessori El Camino preschool at the corner of Kelly Drive and El Camino Real
almost directly opposite the Marja Acres project
3) The Shops at Robertson Ranch shopping center planned for the east side of El Camino Real
4) The large vacant lot north of Cannon Rd near the corner of El Camino Real next to Fire
Station #3. I am unaware
is no longer posted.
of what is planned for this parcel as the yellow project sign
On the map in your packet, these are all located between Site 3 and Site 4 on El Camino
Real.
1
Please take into consideration the increased detrimental impact on our quality of life by these 4
already approved projects, that are not indicated on this map, while making decisions regarding future
potential housing sites in this area .
Thank you for making the right decisions while keeping in mind safety and quality of life for the
current residents, voters, and taxpayers of Carlsbad.
D. Lech
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
safe.
2
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Lennie A <lenarkans@gmail.com>
Monday, February 14, 2022 10:17 PM
City Clerk
Agenda #3-Affordable Housing Sites
Screenshot (8).png; Screenshot (9).png
Dear Mayor Hall, Mayor Protem Blackburn, and city council representatives,
Affordable Housing is a lie ... The residents of Carlsbad are not ignorant, they're pissed, as they should be! As Mr. Schulte
eloquently stated in his email to council, " Most of these homes need to be affordable for people with moderate to low
incomes, according to state formulas for household income levels."
In the two screen shots provided, allows you to study the costs and incomes needed to purchase or rent these homes
Mandy Mills claims is "affordable." For example, in Carlsbad Village, a 28-35 unit housing development that was
suppose to be affordable to low income residents: 1-4 bedrooms rented between $1849.00-$3,050, and at sales or
purchase prices between $186,000-$342,000, are instead being sold for $1.8 to $3 million displayed in screenshot 9.
"It simply shows that Carlsbad land use regulations and Affordability quid-pro-quo for increasing land use density are not
functioning as intended to promote "Affordability". Carlsbad's land use approach is simply increasing developer profit
that serves to drive up land cost and works to instead reduce "Affordability." Simply changing land use to increase
dwelling unit density to R23 or R23-R35 to provide "Affordable" housing is not true!"
Citizens are being inaccurately and consistently told that density increases are needed to provide affordability, yet
developers do not create, nor are they required to create, those affordable units.
"Please do not let short term and short sighted silo thinking lead to bad decisions on the use of the last bit of vacant
coastal land." ~Lance Schulte
Carlsbad District 4 Resident,
Ellie Arkans
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello,
Isaac Coudurier <icoudurier@yahoo.com >
Tuesday, February 15, 2022 6:45 AM
City Clerk
Comments regarding new housing in Carlsbad
My name is Isaac and I am a resident in the Sunny Creek Terraces across from site 4. I wanted to quickly weigh in on
development regarding this site.
While I understand the need for more housing, I believe it should be done slowly and very carefully to keep Carlsbad's
charm and avoid us becoming over developed as some of our neighboring cities are. There is a reason Carlsbad is a
desirable area to live. It's not just the good schools and the coast, but the immaculate parks and large open spaces
which is unique to Southern California in general.
When I moved to the Sunny Creek Terraces, I was under the assumption that the open land (site 4) was zoned for
commercial use, which I support. Makes sense considering there is no real close option for groceries, etc. I strongly
oppose not only additional housing, but especially increasing the ability to zone for more housing there. Below are a few
comments and suggestions
1) El Camino during rush hour is bad enough, I live it everyday and with new developments seemlying always being
green lit along north El Camino (Robertson Ranch and the new townhomes to be built next to Kelly) traffic will continue
to get unbearable.
2) I support up-zoning (if it's required) closer to the village. Gives you access to train and 1-5 and keeps single family
areas, single family.
3) New developments seem to_ be disproportionately built north of Palomar Airport Rd. If this is all about fairness and
equity, shouldn't we not create a nicer and more desirable part of Cbad and share in the responsibility?
4)Sunny Creek Terrace ADUs are required to be rented out to lower income individuals and we are next to a low income
apartment complex. I'd ask if you build at site 4 that it wouldn't be more low income apartments. Nice town homes_ give
people more affordable housing options without continuing to cheapen the area and pull down housing values.
5) Lastly, my own personal opinion on the matter is, I understand SD county is a pricey place to live, but there are more
affordable housing options close by in Vista, Oceanside, etc. not everyone needs to live in Carlsbad. Can we confirm
Solana Beach, Encinitas and other affluent neighborhoods are being held to the same standard too?
I love living in the city of a Carlsbad, but its because of what Carlsbad has developed into up until this point. City leaders
have done a great job creating a beautiful place to live that we can all take pride in. I lived in Seattle for 5 years recently
and saw first hand how over developing would change neighborhoods for the worse and remove the charm and
character that made them desirable in the first place.
Thank you for receiving input and applying a slow and steady approach to tackling these issues.
Isaac C
Neighbor to Site 4
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jo Ann Sweeney <j.ocean92008@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, February 15, 2022 7:51 AM
City Clerk
Agenda item# 3-Sunny Creek site #4 City Council meeting 3PM 2/15/22
Please forward my email to Mayor and City Council members:
To Carlsbad City Council Mayor and Council Members:
I have been a resident of Carlsbad, Ca. for 25 years. I live close to the property for the proposed
increased
housing density located at Sunny Creek, site 4. I am well aware of the state's mandate for increased
housing.
However the safety of the current and future residents of Carlsbad must be a major and
paramount consideration prior to
changing the housing plans that have been previously approved by the Carlsbad residents/taxpayers. Therefore
lam
opposed to the Mayor and City Council members approving Sunny Creek, site 4 as a site for increased housing
density as mandated by the state.
Two of my main concerns regarding the inappropriateness of this site, are not only
the environmental pollution consequences with increased
traffic congestion and those resultant problems, but fire safety issues providing for appropriate and
safe egress and exit of properties. The El Camino Real corridor is already problematic.
This increased in housing density will only bring a myriad of additional problems to this already congested,
problematic corridor.
Additional safety and environmental problems would occur. Take a road trip down the El Camino Real corridor
during school times and see the massive traffic impact
as motorists are attempting to get to Sage Creek High School. Around 4PM take another road trip down the El
Camino Real corridor
paying special attention to the current traffic problems at the comer of Sunny Creek and College Blvd.
The problem of further housing at Sunny Creek, site 4 would be impacted because College Blvd. is
not complete and does not go thru. It ends at El Camino Real.
Consequently there is a major back-up when motorists are attempting to tum onto El Camino Real from College
Blvd.
This area is already a problematic area during major traffic hours already stressed with excessive traffic,
distracted drivers, and speeding motorists.
The impact of additional traffic, congestion, accidents, noise pollution, public safety and environmental
concerns still have
not yet been fully realized. The impact of the proposed Marja Acres housing development
on the El Camino Real corridor will additionally cause more problems
along this corridor. The El Camino Real corridor has yet to recover from traffic and resulting problems
impacted by the Robertson
Ranch housing development. Review reports of the increased accidents and fatal accidents that are on the
increase on the El Camino Real corridor.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-----Original Message-----
Council Internet Email
Tuesday, February 15, 2022 8:00 AM
City Clerk
FW: I am interested in your keeping theSunny Creek area as small as possible! This
would be145 units maximum. Thank you, Prudence Sweeney
From: pru sweeney <pvsweeney242@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 7:53 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: I am interested in your keeping theSunny Creek area as small as possible! This would
be145 units maximum. Thank you, Prudence Sweeney
Pru
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sent from my iPad
Penny Johnson <pennyofcbad@roadrunner.com>
Tuesday, February 15, 2022 8:52 AM
City Clerk
Agenda item#3
Please stop the over building of Site 4 at Sunny Creek. Stick to the plan! How have the developers "sweetened the pot"
that you now would allow this over building?
Stick to the plan ! ! !
Penny Johnson
1360 Hillview Ct.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
He T <hemt20199@gmail.com>
Tuesday, February 15, 2022 9:17 AM
City Clerk
Agenda Item #3 -Site #4 Sunny Creek -Council Meeting Tuesday February 15, 2022
We object to the proposal . Please reconsider
Thank you
Concerned Carlsbad home owner
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i
safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Eric Lardy
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, February 15, 2022 11 :56 AM
City Clerk
Cc: Gary Barberio; Jeff Murphy; Scott Donnell
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: City of Carlsbad Locations for Future Housing
City of Carlsbad Ltr re Future Housing 02.15.22.pdf
Good Afternoon, please see the attached letter for Agenda Item #3 today.
(Cityof
Carlsbad
Eric Lardy, AICP
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
Advanced Planning & Special Projects
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www .ca rlsbadca .gov
760-602-2712 I eric.lardy@carlsbadca.gov
Face book I Twitter I You Tube I Pinterest I Enews
From: Andrea Tagle <andreat@meissnerCRES.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 11:54 AM
To: Eric Lardy <Eric.Lardy@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: jeff.murphy@carlsbadca.gove
Subject: City of Carlsbad Locations for Future Housing
Good afternoon Eric,
Please see the attached letter from the Carlsbad Research Center Owners Association Board President on
behalf of the Board and the Association as it relates to future housing in Carlsbad. We want to be sure this is
presented to the City Council and all interested parties to this matter.
Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions.
Regards,
Andrea Tagle I Senior Project Manager
, ME ISSNER
Ct1r.nmt1P~ln\ lt\"1! Fr,,,11)n ~111·1,lc
D: 858-373-2100 I F: 858-373-1222 I Andreat@meissnerCRES.com
4995 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE 100, SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 I www.meissnerCRES.com
1
. Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
laurie o weinberger < boca2ny@aol.com >
Tuesday, February 15, 2022 12:15 PM
City Clerk
City Council meeting 2/15/22, Agenda item #3
Dear City of Carlsbad Council,
We are writing to you as residents of the Village of Carlsbad in close proximity to site #14
of the potential housing sites to be discussed as agenda item #3 on your February 15
meeting.
Of the 18 potential sites this council is considering for rezoning to permit additional
housing, site #14 (Carlsbad Village train station parking lot) is possibly the worst location
on which to build any housing -low income or otherwise. You should never rezone any
property in Carlsbad Village which would reduce the existing parking spaces when there is
already an extreme shortage of parking spaces. The closing of the Department of Public
Works facilities on Oak Street to create a public parking lot will potentially add more
parking spaces, but not nearly enough to fulfill the demand for the busy and ever growing
Village commercial and residential sites.
As more buildings are built, the amount of off-street parking being required at these sites
is insufficient and results in a further demand for public parking to accommodate
them. This is partly due to the waiver of parking requirements in transit hub areas that
permit less parking than is actually required.
With a two track rail system likely to be built through Carlsbad Village, an increased
ridership will result in the need for increased parking.
Carlsbad should never consider allowing a decrease of commuter parking in exchange for
the lofty goal (and indeed obligation) of providing additional housing in our City. Such
housing, however, should be located at sites that will not suffer a loss of needed and vital
parking as is the case with site #14.
Although the parking at site #14 is presently meant for commuters, we cannot ignore the
reality that a great number of the spots are taken by patrons and employees at the shops,
businesses, and restaurants in the Village. If the parking lot was strictly limited to
commuters, it would create an even more dire parking shortage than presently exists in
the Village. If building housing at site #14 is permitted, not only will there be a loss of a
great number of existing parking spaces but the new housing will not have sufficient
parking since it is in a transit hub area.
The answer is clear: take site #14 off the list of potential housing sites and do not rezone
this property.
1
Tammy Cloud -McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Christine Davis <chris@carlsbad-village.com >
Tuesday, February 15, 2022 1 :11 PM
City Clerk
Agenda Item #3 -Resending
CityCouncil_Feb1 S_HousingElement.pdf
I am wondering if my first email regarding item #3 has not yet been registered, if the attached PDF can be registered in
its place for the record? If not, I understand.
Thank you,
CHRISTINE DAVIS I Executive Director
Carlsbad Village Association
p: 760.644.2121
Subscribe to our eNewsletter I Become a Member!
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou recognize the sender and know the content i
1
doctor and dental offices, medium sized specialty businesses, and hotels within walking
distance, further providing job opportunities.
Site 2 is close to public transportation and with an active rideshare and even a trolley
connection, the train station in the Village is just five minutes away.
Now, let's look at the two sites in Carlsbad Village as a comparison:
SITE 14: Known as the Coaster Station parking lot, site 14 has had a great amount of
opposition due to traffic congestion concerns. While deemed as an underutilized parking
lot, I would request that a parking analysis be redone on a weekend, a holiday, or in the
evening to validate that designation. Due to the general lack of employee parking in the
Village, this location is often used throughout the day by employees and the public as
more and more street parking is being removed. When a second main railroad track
(double-tracking) is built in Carlsbad Village, the demand for parking there will obviously
increase exponentially.
Job availability in Carlsbad Village does not compare to that of site 2. Carlsbad Village
is the home to small businesses, family-owned businesses, and solopreneur
enterprises. There are no nationally known or large employers in Carlsbad Village. It is
Mainstreet America. While the food industry is currently suffering from a lack of staffing,
job availability, variety, and growth are much greater elsewhere.
Carlsbad Village also does not offer a true grocery store, a gym, or a movie theater, all
which add to quality of life and convenience.
We also need to remember that the City of Carlsbad Cultural Arts Department has a
goal to expand the arts in Carlsbad and has long considered North State Street to
become an official Arts District for the public benefit soon. A million-dollar renovation is
taking place on the New Village Arts theater, who has secured a long-term lease with
the city, and will anchor this district. New Village Arts and the Arts District, both directly
adjacent to site 14, would be competing for parking due to new housing.
Access to the train station is often discussed as being a key reason for locating
affordable housing at site 14. While it is a convenient way to get to Downtown San
Diego from Oceanside, or from Carlsbad to Los Angeles, we need to ask if lower
income or even middle-income workers find the train to be an affordable and efficient
way to get to work or is it primarily used to bypass a long commute to San Diego by
tourists who are exploring Southern California.
SITE 15: The Oak Street Yard, is a small city-owned parcel that currently houses the
city's maintenance and operation center. A new facility is being constructed at the city's
Safety Center as soon as 2025 and this site will become vacant. This site would,
however, only allow for approximately 24 units, which would not help the city in any
significant way reach its obligation to add nearly 3,900 units. This small parcel is also
located right next to the railroad track, without nearby open space, close to auto shop
and car towing lots, and does not offer an attractive quality of life proposition.
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: Scott Donnell
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, February 15, 2022 1 :35 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: 2021 Housing Element to the General Plan
Regarding today's agenda item 3.
Scott Donnell
Senior Planner
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad,CA 92008-7314
www.carlsbadca.gov
760-602-4618 I 760-602-8560 fax I scott.donnell@carls badca.gov
From: McKeown, Richard J. <McKeown.Richard@scrippshealth.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 1:30 PM
To: Scott Donnell <Scott.Donnell@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: RE: 2021 Housing Element to the General Plan
Scott,
I am writing to reaffirm Scripps interest in having our property (Site 7 -Salk Ave. parcel) rezoned as residential as part of
the Housing Element Update. Further, in reference to our letter of March 3, 2021, please be advised that we are no
longer considering an alternative use of the property for healthcare purposes.
Please feel free to contact if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Rich McKeown
Corporate Vice President/Corporate Treasurer
Scripps Health
760-579-1231
~)· Scripps
From: Scott Donnell <Scott.Donnell@carlsbadca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 202110:03 AM
To: McKeown, Richard J.<McKeown.Richard@scrippshealth.org>
Subject: [External] RE: 2021 Housing Element to the General Plan
WARNING! External email. Handle links and/or attachments with caution. IS Service Desk@ 858-678-7500
1
Hello Mr. McKeown,
Thank you for your email and letter confirming your support. The Housing Element Update is tentatively set for City
Council review on April 6. Assuming City Council approves the element, we will then embark on property rezonings
consistent with any direction received as part of that approval. I would imagine as part the rezoning effort we will be in
touch with property owners again.
I've added your name to our mailing list, so you will receive project updates, including about the April 6 meeting. For
further information about the project as a whole, please visit www.carlsbadca.gov/housingplan.
You are welcome to contact me with any questions as well.
Thanks again.
Scott Donnell
Senior Planner
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad,CA 92008-7314
www.carlsbadca.gov
760-602-4618 I 760-602-8560 fax I scott.donnell@carlsba dca.gov
From: McKeown, Richard J.<McKeown.Richard@scrippshealth.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 8:55 AM
To: Scott Donnell <Scott.Donnell@carlsbadca.gov>; carolyn .luna@carlsbadca.gov
Cc: Rothberger, Richard <Rothberger.Richard@scrippshealth .org>; Stockmeyer, Diane M
<Stockmeyer.Diane@scrippshealth.org>; Robin Madaffer Esq. (robin@sdlandlaw.com) <robin@sdlandlaw.com>
Subject: 2021 Housing Element to the General Plan
Dear Ms. Luna and Mr. Donnell,
As the owner of the property on Salk Ave. ("Site 7") in the 2021 Housing Element Update to the General Plan, Scripps
Health is supportive of having this property remain on the list for future multi-family development as part of the City of
Carlsbad's Housing Needs Assessment. Attached please find a letter expressing our interest in this initiative.
Should you have any questions, please contact at your convenience.
Richard McKeown
Corporate Vice President, Corporate Treasurer
Scripps Health
Cell 760.579.1231
mckeown.richard@scrippshealth.org
0 4 Scripps
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged and confidential information and are intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the
person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or
copying of this e-mail or any of its attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
2
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Heidi Willes <heidi@willesortho.com>
Tuesday, February 15, 2022 1 :59 PM
City Clerk
Agenda Item #3
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I first want to thank you for your service to me, my family, and all of us in this great city!! And I am
grateful for the chance we citizens have to give input on items that are important to us--and know that
we will be heard and our thoughts will be considered.
I would like to express a few points regarding the high-density housing options that you are deciding
on today. I was able to participate an earlier online workshop/discussion which was super impressive
in its scope and execution, and allowed many of us to be actively involved, but at this time, I would
also like to make just a few points specific to Carlsbad Village.
My husband, Mike Willes, is an orthodontist of small practice on the corner of Oak and Madison
(which, incidentally, has two new buildings under construction on two of the corners across from us,
one mixed use and one strictly housing.)
We have been in that location for 26 years, and three years ago were also able to purchase the
property. Our son is currently in dental school, and hopes to come back to Carlsbad and continue the
tradition of excellent dental care in the Village.
We are also home owners in Olde Carlsbad and raised our four children here, in Carlsbad schools, and
we all continue to be huge fans of Carlsbad and the Village. By virtue of that adoration, we frequent
the Village, are active in community events and willing volunteers, and participate in opportunities to
give Carlsbad City feedback as often as we can.
As a wonderful byproduct of that engagement, I found myself being invited to be on the board of the
Carlsbad Village Association, a position which I have thoroughly enjoyed for the past four years.
It is from these perspectives, that I write to express concern and vigorously ask you to NOT choose
sites 14 or 15 for high-density housing. I sincerely believe this is not just me NIMBY-ing, but is a
request grounded in experience and logic.
As I'm sure you well know (and have personally experienced), parking in the Carlsbad Village area can
be nearly impossible at many times of the day and many times of the year. It's hard for residents who
live there. It's hard for residents who want to take advantage of shops and services. It's hard for
tourists. And it's hard for employees of the small businesses that are the lifeblood of the Village and its
charm.
If we take up more parking for physical buildings (or potential future parking, once the maintenance
yard is relocated) AND increase parking by adding more cars to park for the people now living in the
proposed physical high density housing, we strangle the Village. And when something can no longer
breathe, it dies. And when our Village dies, not only does part of our worldwide "image" which draws
many to us, but along with that, the businesses die--and suddenly one of the criteria which may have
1
Hector Gomez
From: redistricting
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 9:30 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Site 4
Original Message
From: Michael Kroopkin <mikek26@me.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2022 12:03 PM
To: redistricting <redistricting@CarlsbadCA.gov>
Subject: Site 4
I know I have written before but I feel very strong about NOT using site four. El Camino is one of only 3 ways to go North
and South from/to Carlsbad. The roadway is all ready becoming a mess with traffic and adding this project along with
the one down the street will create a massive traffic and noise problem.. If you don't use or live off ECR you probably do
not care BUT for those of us that do, it is a major problem. Not only a personal problem but also a problem for
emergency vehicles, things today are different then what they were a few years ago, NOW they need to use there sirens
to get through traffic often, where as in the past that was not necessary.. You MUST find a better way, Please no more
building on ECR.
Mike Kroopkin, 2322 Masters Rd 760-931-6786
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, February 16, 2022 7:43 AM
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Housing Element Update (Site 4)
From: Isaac Coudurier <icoudurier@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 8:41 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: redistricting <redistricting@CarlsbadCA.gov>
Subject: Housing Element Update (Site 4)
Hello,
I have previously sent this email to clerk(ä,carlsbadca.gov but wanted to send it here as well to ensure it got in the right
hands.
My name is Isaac and I am a resident in the Sunny Creek Terraces across from site 4. I wanted to quickly weigh in on
development regarding this site.
While I understand the need for more housing, I believe it should be done slowly and very carefully to keep Carlsbad's
charm and avoid us becoming over developed as some of our neighboring cities are. There is a reason Carlsbad is a
desirable area to live. It's not just the good schools and the coast, but the immaculate parks and large open spaces which
is unique to Southern California in general.
When I moved to the Sunny Creek Terraces, I was under the assumption that the open land (site 4) was zoned for
commercial use, which I support. Makes sense considering there is no real close option for groceries, etc. I strongly
oppose not only additional housing, but especially increasing the ability to zone for more housing there. Below are a few
comments and suggestions
1)El Camino during rush hour is bad enough, I live it everyday and with new developments seemlying always being green
lit along north El Camino (Robertson Ranch and the new townhomes to be built next to Kelly) traffic will continue to get
unbearable.
2)I support up-zoning (if it's required) closer to the village. Gives you access to train and 1-5 and keeps single family
areas, single family.
3)New developments seem to be disproportionately built north of Palomar Airport Rd. If this is all about fairness and
equity, shouldn't we not create a nicer and more desirable part of Cbad and share in the responsibility?
4)Sunny Creek Terrace ADUs are required to be rented out to lower income individuals and we are next to a low income
apartment complex. I'd ask if you build at site 4 that it wouldn't be more low income apartments. Nice townhomes give
people more affordable housing options without continuing to cheapen the area and pull down housing values.
5) Lastly, my own personal opinion on the matter is, I understand SD county is a pricey place to live, but there are more
affordable housing options close by in Vista, Oceanside, etc. not everyone needs to live in Carlsbad. Can we confirm
Solana Beach, Encinitas and other affluent neighborhoods are being held to the same standard too?
I love living in the city of a Carlsbad, but its because of what Carlsbad has developed into up until this point. City leaders
have done a great job creating a beautiful place to live that we can all take pride in. I lived in Seattle for 5 years recently
and saw first hand how over developing would change neighborhoods for the worse and remove the charm and character
that made them desirable in the first place.
Thank you for receiving input and applying a slow and steady approach to tackling these issues.
Isaac C
Neighbor to Site 4
1
Hector Gomez
From: michelle miller <Imcarlsbad@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 2:17 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Feb 15 meeting—no increase in high density for site 4
To Whom it may Concern,
Please do not increase the number of houses proposed for site 4. If the number is increased to 550 units, the traffic will
be worsened and won't be able to support that amount of drivers on the road. El Camino real is already so congested
during rush hour in the morning and evening. It will get worse when Marja acres is developed as well. The number that
is already proposed will also be challenging but increasing it to over 500 units will make this area impossible to travel
through. Our roads can't support high density housing in this area.
The commercial site may also be homes so that will be another increase. This will still hugely impact el Camino real even
when college eventually goes through and future homes are built behind sunny creek.
Please keep the original plan for lower density homes in that area.
Please consider the quality of life for Carlsbad residents. We sit in so much traffic on el Camino real as it is now.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you,
Michelle Miller
Sunny Creek Resident
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
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: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 2:45 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Housing element update - no high density for site 4
From: michelle miller <Imcarlsbad@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 2:26 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Housing element update - no high density for site 4
To Whom it may Concern,
Please do not increase the number of houses proposed for site 4. If the number is increased to 550
units, the traffic will be worsened and won't be able to support that amount of drivers on the road. El
Camino real is already so congested during rush hour in the morning and evening. It will get worse when
Marja acres is developed as well. The number that is already proposed will also be challenging but
increasing it to over 500 units will make this area impossible to travel through. Our roads can't support
high density housing in this area.
The commercial site may also be homes so that will be another increase. This will still hugely impact el
Camino real even when college eventually goes through and future homes are built behind sunny creek.
Please keep the original plan for lower density homes in that area.
Please consider the quality of life for Carlsbad residents. We sit in so much traffic on el Camino real as it
is now.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you,
Michelle Miller
Sunny Creek Resident
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
1
Housing Element site selection
and contract amendment
Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
Community Development
Feb. 15, 2022
TODAY’S PRESENTATION
•Background
•Community engagement
•Options on sites and environmental review
•Contract amendment
•Next steps and recommendation
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
PROPOSED ACTION
1.Consider public input
2.Provide direction on sites to study
3.Approve a contract amendment
4.Consider funding site alternatives
ITEM3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
PROPOSED ACTION
•Would authorize further study
•Would not rezone any property
•Would not result in any housing construction
Approval of any site rezoning would not occur until public hearings
in 2023
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
BAC GRO ND
CITY AND STATE ACTIONS
•April 6, 2021, City Council action:
Approved the Housing Element update
Approved a rezoning program
Found housing caps unenforceable
Directed staff to find alternative sites in the Southwest
Quadrant
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY AND STATE ACTIONS
•July 14, 2021, State certified the updated element
•Aug. 17, 2021, City Council action:
Identified four alternative sites in the Southwest Quadrant
Approved public engagement plan
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM 1.1:
•Establishes a rezone program to meet a “housing unit target”
•Responds to state-mandated growth forecasts (Regional
Housing Needs Assessment, or RHNA)
•Sites must be at certain densities
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
Carlsbad’s RHNA housing unit target
Income group Lower Moderate
Total
Minimum density
(units/acre)26.5 11.5
Total housing units for
rezone program 2,026 552 2,578
Program 1.1: complete all rezoning by April 2024
18 POTENTIAL HO SING
SITES
Identified to meet the housing unit target
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
JANUARY 2020
AUGUST 2020
Online survey and
City Council mtg
AUGUST 2021
City Council mtg
DECEMBER 2020 FEBR ARY 2022
City Council mtg
HEAC Meetings
NOV –APR 2021
Public review of draft
Housing Elements
APRIL 2021
City Council mtg
SEPT –0CT 2021
Public engagement
FALL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Sept. 2 to Oct. 22, 2021
SPREADING THE WORD
300+ fliers
21 social media posts
9 e-newsletter updates
7 community presentations
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
INTERACTIVE MAP
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
INTERACTIVE MAP
WHAT WE HEARD. lement Update Housing E INPUT
PUBLIC
MARY REPORT SUM
b 2021 Decem er
(city of
Carlsbad
{city of
Carlsbad
GENERAL COMMENTS
•Traffic and school crowding are concerns
•Too much housing is planned in north Carlsbad
•Locate affordable housing away from the coast
•Housing in industrial and commercial areas is generally ok
•Housing should be convenient to amenities
•950 survey
participants
•71 virtual
meeting
participants
•95 emails
and letters
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
SITE-SPECIFIC COMMENTS
•“Liked” and “Disliked” comments recorded for each site
•Most letters, emails from residents near sites
•Online survey provided broader input, more comments per site
•All sites generated some level of support and opposition
•950 survey
participants
•71 virtual
meeting
participants
•95 emails
and letters
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
Most comments:
•Site 3
•Site 4
•Site 8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 11 Site 12 Site 13 Site 14 Site 15 Site 16 Site 17 Site 18 Site 19
Site Rankings -Mailed and Emailed Comments
Like site Dislike site
SITES WITH MOST NEGATIVE
COMMENTS
(based on letters and emails)
SITE 3:
CHESTNUT @ ECR
Vacant, 2.5 acres
Increase density
(4 to 11.5 units/acre)
Potential yield: 28 units
Property owner support: Yes
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
PROS
•Proximity to
schools
•Underutilized
•Compatible with
surroundings
CONS
•Site access
•Traffic increase
•Driver, pedestrian
safety
•Incompatible with
surroundings
SITE 3:
CHESTNUT @ ECR
SITE 4:
Z ONE 15 CLUSTER
Underutilized, 40 acres
Increase density/
Convert commercial
Potential yield: 212 units*
Property owner support:
Yes/no*/unknown
*
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
PROS
•Underutilized
•Compatible with
surroundings
•Could support
transit
•Possibility of
mixed-use
CONS
•Loss of potential
shopping center
•Existing and new
projects along El
Camino Real
•Traffic increase
•Diminished home
values
•Lack of parks,
walkability
SITE 4:
Z ONE 15 CLUSTER
*
SITE 8:
COTTAG E ROW
Underutilized, 12 acres
Increase density
Potential yield: 150 units
Property owner support: Yes
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
PROS
•Proximity to parks
and services
•Transportation
options
•Can support
additional traffic
CONS
•Development would
change surrounding
neighborhood
•Noise, traffic increase
•Presence of other
large developments
nearby
•Access concerns
SITE 8:
COTTAG E ROW
EXISTING, APPROVED
AND POTENTIAL
A FORDABLE
HOUSING
Existing, approved, and potential affordable housing
Quadrant
A B C D E
Existing
affordable
units
Approved,
unbuilt
affordable
units
Units resulting from vacant
sites with densities suitable
for lower and moderate-
income units
Affordable units
possible on the
18 potential
housing sites
Total
Northwest 524 200 23 1,667 2,414
Northeast 359 0 226 668 1,253
Southwest 681 123 0 544 1,348
Southeast 645 31 8 248 932
Total 2,209 354 257 3,127 5,947
Most NW Quad units (993) are from Site 2.
OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
•Mapping (site) options
•Environmental review options
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
Provides most flexibility
Exceeds RHNA target
Provides most site diversity
Housing units per income
category
Comply with
RHNA
target?
Lower Moderate Total
2,455 672 3,127
YesCompared to RHNA
Target
+429 +120
Option 1: Pursue rezoning of all 18 sites
Includes controversial sites
Decreases flexibility
Exceeds RHNA target
Excludes most controversial
sites
Option 2: Eliminate sites with most
opposition (sites 3, 4, 8)
Housing units per income
category
Comply with
RHNA target?
Lower Moderate Total
2,243 518 2,761
YesCompared to RHNA
Target
+217 -154
Adds options, flexibility
Puts housing by transit, services
Counter to concerns about
more housing in north
Carlsbad
Option 3: Site modifications
•3a: Increase density and unit yield at The Shoppes at
Carlsbad
•3b: Increase unit yield at the two Coaster Station sites
•Doing both yields an additional 380 units
Option 3: Site alternatives
•3c: Eliminate additional sites (sites 3, 4, 8, 6, 7
and 18)
•3d: Eliminate outlying industrial sites and the
Caltrans site (sites 5, 6, 12, and 16)
•3e: Eliminate city-owned sites (sites 6 and 15
only)
Does not
meet
housing
unit target;
would
require
additional
units
elsewhere
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OPTIONS
•A supplemental environmental impact report will be
prepared
•Community Development’s budget is adequate to fully
study only one map
•The ability to approve an alternative to the map
requires the alternative to be fully studied
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OPTIONS
•Should the City Council direct the full study of one or
more alternative maps:
•Each mapping alternative costs about $97,000 to
fully study
•Funding to fully study an alternative is proposed
from the City Council’s contingency budget
•Staff report Exhibit 2 is a proposed resolution
should the City Council authorize this funding
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
PROPOSED CONTRACT AMENDMENT
•In 2020, City Council approved consultant contract to:
•Update Housing Element
•Rezone sites
•“General Plan Maintenance”
•Housing Element updated, other tasks remain
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
PROPOSED CONTRACT AMENDMENT
•Proposed amendment is necessary to recognize:
Change in project efficiencies
New project schedule
Need for additional funds to complete tasks, including
potential for fully studied alternatives
•Contract would remain with Rincon Consultants Inc.
•Current department budget can provide funding needed
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
FEBR ARY 2022
Share comments, request direction
MARCH 2022
Start environmental
review LATE 2022
Release environmental
document
SPRING/S MMER
Engagement &
scoping
SPRING 2023
Hold approval
hearings
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1.Receive and consider the public input summary report
2.Provide staff direction on the potential housing sites to study
3.Adopt a resolution amending the consultant contract
4.Consider a resolution to authorize transfer of funds from the
City Council’s contingency budget to fully study one or more
alternatives in the environmental impact report
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT
END
SITE RANKINGS BY PUBLIC
OPINION SURVEY
{city of
Carlsbad
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 11Site 12Site 14 Site 15Site 16 Site 17Site 18 Site 19
Site Rankings -Online Survey Responses
Like site Dislike site■ ■
INDIVIDUAL & SUMMARY
SITE INFORMATION
{city of
Carlsbad
7-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. i Table, A -llistin,g of all 1potential housing siites
Quadrant Proposed un irts I Total Propo sed Present
Cou ncil by in come grou p density4 Owner i nt e r,est designat ion INlo. Name units
dist rict -------------------
loviler Moderat e
1 North Co unity P11aza1 1 NW 3,6 36 R-40 Y,es Commerciall
2 Th,e Shoppes 1 NW 741 252 993 R-23/R-40 Oty"'owned Commeirciall
3 Che,st nut @ IE I Camino Real 2 NW 28 28 R-15 Yes 1Reside11tia I
4.1 Zon e 15 ( Kel lly) 2 NE 134 134 R-3,0 No 1Reside11tia II
4.2 Zon e 15 (West) 2 NE 0 0 0 R-3,0 Not k11ow11 IResidentia II
4.3, Zon e 15 (w·a1 ma rt) 2 NE 212 212 R-3,0 Yes !Res/Co mm
5 A.venida Enci11as 2 NW 53 53 R-3,0 Not k11ow11 I ndustiri' a I
6 Crossings Lot 5 2 NW 181 181 R-3,0 City"'owned l nd/Offke
7 Sa lk Avenue 2 NW 259 259 R-3,0 Y,es Office
8 Cottage Row 3 SW 126 126 R-2.3 Yes 1Reside11tia II
9 W est Oak.51 2 SW 42 42 R-3,0 Yes l11dustlri'al
10 Colt PI ace ind. parcel 3 SE 49 49 R-2 3 Y,es l11dustlri'a l
11 Gatew ay Road parcels 2 SE 199 199 R-40 Yes l11dustiri'a l
12 Ind. s,ites east of M elrose 2 NE 456 456 R-3 0 Yes/Not k11ow11 l11dustiri'a l
14 NCTID Vil I age Station 1 NW 93 93 vc'i Y,e.s Vi lllage-Banio
15 Oak Yard 1 w 2.4 24 P-T5 City"'owned Vi lllage-Barrio
16 ca It rans/Pacif ic Sa I es-3 3 SW 183 183 R-3,0 Not k11ow11 Public/Comm
17 Nern Poins,ettia1 3 SW 27 27 R-2.3 Y,es Public
18 North Ponto pa r ce ls3 4 SW 9 0 90 R-2.3 Yes/Not k11own !Res/Comm
19 ca lie Barce I 011a3 4 SW 7 6 7 6 R-2.3 Y,es Comm/Open
Space,
I I I I TOTAl S 2,589 672 3,261 I I I I I I I I I I I
HOUSING SITES BY QUADRANT
Location of potential housing sites and units by quadrant
Quadrant Sites Total number of sites Total number of
units
Northwest 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15 8 1,667
Northeast 4, 12 2 668*
Southwest 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19 6 544
Southeast 10, 11 2 248
TOTALS 18 3,127
*Excludes parcel 4.1 (Kelly) of Site 4 due to parcel owner opposition.
HOUSING SITES BY CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT
Location of potential housing sites and units by City Council district
City Council
District Sites Total number of
sites
Total number of
units
1 1, 2, 14, 15 4 1,146
2 3 -7, 9, 11, 12 8 1,430*
3 8, 10, 16, 17 4 385
4 18, 19 2 166
TOTALS 18 3,127
*Excludes parcel 4.1 (Kelly) of Site 4 due to parcel owner opposition.
EXISTING, APPROVED, AND
POTENTIAL AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
{city of
Carlsbad
Existing, approved and
Potential Affordable
Housing
Existing, approved, and potential affordable housing
Quadrant Existing
affordable
units1
Approved,
unbuilt
affordable
units1
Units resulting
from vacant sites
with densities
suitable for
lower and
moderate
income units2, 3
Affordable units
possible on the
18 potential
housing sites
Total
Northwest 524 200 23 1,6674 2,414
Northeast 359 0 226 6685 1,253
Southwest 681 123 0 5446 1,348
Southeast 645 31 8 248 932
Total 2,209 354 257 3,127 5,947
Footnotes for Table on Affordable Housing
1Includes deed restricted rental and ownership units only; affordable units may be part of larger
projects with market-rate units.
2Based on densities of 11.5, 19 and 26.5 units per acre, in accordance with Housing Element
Program 1.1.
3Excludes the Ponto property (11-acre property at the northeast corner of Carlsbad Blvd. and
Avenida Encinas, also known as “Planning Area F”) in keeping with Aug. 17, 2021, City Council
direction.
4 60% (993 units) of the potential units in the Northwest quadrant are from Site 2 –The Shoppes at
Carlsbad parking lot. Also, units reported here do not include potential unit increases on either Site
2 or Site 14 as presented in Exhibit 12.
5Excludes the Kelly parcel, part of Site 4, due to parcel owner opposition.
6 Excludes Site 13 –Zone 20 cluster in keeping with Aug. 17, 2021, City Council direction. Also, units
reported here do not include potential unit increases on site 17 as presented in Exhibit 12.
RHNA DETAILS
{city of
Carlsbad
Table 1 –Carlsbad’s initial RHNA allocation
Income group Lower Moderate Above
mod
Total
Number of
housing units
2,095 749 1,029 3,873
ITEM 6: HO SING ELEMENT
“Density” is a proxy
for affordability
Density equals the
number of homes
per acre
Table 2 –Carlsbad’s net RHNA allocation
Income
group Lower Moderate
Above
mod Total
Housing
units 1,397 327 ---1,724
ITEM 6: HO SING ELEMENT
Reducing RHNA
•Pending projects
•Approved projects
•Vacant land
•ADUs
DETAILS ON INDIVIDUAL SITES
{city of
Carlsbad
SITE 4:
Z ONE 15 CLUSTER
(K elly Parcel only)
Underutilized, 11.5 acres
Increase existing density
Current designation: R-4
(0-4 units/ acre)
K elly Parcel
Potential designation: R-4/R-30
(26.5-30 units/acre)
Walmart
W P Golf
FOUR ALTERNATIVE SITES
•Site 16 -Caltrans yard/Pacific Sales
•Site 17 -Poinsettia Coaster Station
•Site 18 -North Ponto Parcels
•Site 19 -La Costa Glen/Forum
BACKGRO ND
SITE CHARACTERISTICS ITEM 6: HO SING ELEMENT
Privately and publicly owned
7 acres
Developed
Designated for public and
commercial
16. CALTRANS/PACI IC SALES
Unit Y ield
182
(26.5 units/acre)
Council District 3
SITE CHARACTERISTICS ITEM 6: HO SING ELEMENT
Publicly owned
6 acres
Developed
Designated for public
17. NCTD POINSETTIA COASTER
STATION Unit Y ield
27
(19 units/acre)
Council District 3
SITE CHARACTERISTICS ITEM 6: HO SING ELEMENT
Privately owned
7.8 acres
Parking lot, vacant
Designated for commercial and
open space
19. LA COSTA GLEN/FOR M
Unit Y ield
76
(19 units/acre)
Council District 4
PONTO PROPERTY –PA “ ”
ITEM 6: HO SING ELEMENT
PONTO
•“Planning Area ”
•9.5 acres
•Vacant
•120 moderate income
units
CONCERNS ABO T OTHER
SITES
Sites 6 and 7:
•Proximity of
residential to
industrial
•Proximity to
services
Sites 1 and 2:
•Proximity of
residential to
industrial
•Proximity to
services
Site 17 (Poinsettia
Coaster Station):
•Concerns about
loss of parking
for transit users
•Overall increase
in congestion,
traffic
•Site size
SITES WITH MOST NEGATIVE
COMMENTS
(based on the online survey)
SITE 14:
CARLSB AD VILLAG E
TRAIN STATION
Underutilized, 7.8 acres
Convert gov’t owned property
Potential yield: 93 units
Property owner support: Yes
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
PROS
•Proximity to
services
•Walkable area
•Village has high
density
CONS
•Development would
change surrounding
neighborhood
•Noise, traffic increase
•Presence of other
large developments
nearby
•Access concerns
SITE 14:
CARLSB AD VILLAG E
TRAIN STATION
SITE 18:
NORTH PONTO PARCELS
6 acres (8 parcels),
underutilized and vacant
Property owner support:
Yes/unknown
Potential Yield: 90 units
Convert commercial/increase
density
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
PROS
•Site is
underutilized and
this area needs
more affordable
housing
•Supportive if
mixed use
CONS
•Preference to be a
park, not housing
•Too much traffic in
area already
•Negative impacts to
area
SITE 18:
NORTH PONTO
PARCELS
CITY CO NCIL DISTRICTS
OPTION DETAILS
{city of
Carlsbad
Puts more housing by services
Adds flexibility
Increases reliance on site
Option 3a: Increase density, units at The
Shoppes
•Change from R-40 to R-50
•Increases total units from 993 to 1,191
•Increases yield by 198 units
Adds housing in north
Carlsbad
SITE 2:
THE SHOPPES
Puts housing by transit
Adds flexibility
Increases reliance on both
sites
Option 3b: Increase units at Coaster
Stations
•Carlsbad Village Station:
•93 to 200 units
•Poinsettia Station:
•27 to 100 units
•Total increase (both sites): 180 units
Adds housing in north
Carlsbad (Site 14)
SITES 14, 17:
COASTER STATIONS
Must increase units on other
sites to meet RHNA target
Excludes additional
controversial sites
Option 3c: Eliminate additional sites
with opposition (sites 6, 7, 18)
Housing units per income
category
Comply with
RHNA target?
Lower Moderate Total
1,803 401 2,231
No Alternative compared
to RHNA target
-223 -151
Alternative with unit
increases at sites 2, 14,
and 17 compared to
RHNA target1
+182 -178 Yes
1Adds 198 units from Site 2 and 180 units from sites 14 and 17 (Site 17’s 27
presently identified moderate income units also moved to lower income category).
Decreases site diversity
Adds sites to Option 2
Must increase units on other
sites to meet RHNA target
Option 3d: Eliminate outlying industrial
and Caltrans sites (sites 5, 6, 12, 16)
Decreases site diversity
Housing units per income
category
Comply with
RHNA target?
Lower Moderate Total
1,888 672 2,560
NoAlternative compared
to RHNA target
-372 +120
Alternative with unit
increases at sites 2, 14,
and 17 compared to
RHNA target3
+33 +93 Yes
Keeps sites generating most
opposition
Exceeds RHNA target
Option 3e: Eliminate city-owned sites 6
and 15
Decreases site diversity
Option 3e.:
Eliminate city-
owned sites 6 and
15
Housing units per income
category
Comply with
RHNA target?
Lower Moder
ate
Total
2,274 648 2,231
Yes, exceeds
target
Alternative
compared to RHNA
target
+248 +96
Responds partially to concerns
about housing in north Carlsbad
FEB. 15 CITY COUNCIL NOTI ICATION
•Letters and maps mailed to all site owners and those who live
and own property within 600’ of the sites
•E-newsletters sent to all who provided input on sites or
expressed interest in the Housing Element Update
ITEM 3: HO SING ELEMENT UPDATE
•5,000+ letters
mailed