Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020-11-17; City Council; ; Consider an Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision to Approve a Site Development Plan and State Density Bonus Allowing the Construction of a Four-Story, 23-unit Residen (2)
\ ( GEOTECHNICAL RESPONSE TO CONCERNS RAISED AT THE JUNE 11, 2019 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL MEETING PERTAINING TO THE GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS AT THE ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS PROJECT SITE AND NEAR VICINITY, 7527 ROMERIA STREET CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 92009 ASSESS9.!3.:S-P1tRGE UMB.Pffs-(APNS� 21,.S--�ts-,& -13 Cl OF C SBA P 6JECT 0.: S · P2018-000� • W.O. 7297-A3-SC NOVEMBER 20, 2019 EXHIBIT 10 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 375 of 612 ... EVELOPMENf3 LLC 28 '(IA Dn--'RIO ( , BA=A, CAblf.ORNt~887- ( ( ( Geotechnical •Geologic• Coastal• Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com November 20, 2019 BNR Investment and Development, LLC 28000 Via Del Rio Yorba Linda, California 92887 Attention: Mr. Ram Setya W.O. 7297-A3-SC Subject: Geotechnical Response to Issues Raised at the June 11, 2019 City of Carlsbad City Council Meeting Pertaining to the Geotechnical Conditions at the Romeria Pointe Apartments Project Site and Near Vicinity, 7527 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California 92009, Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 216-300-12 & -13, City of Carlsbad Project No.: SDP2018-0004 Dear Mr. Setya: In accordance with your recent request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI), is providing this geotechnical response to issues raised by project appellants, public commentators, and City of Carlsbad City Council Members during the June 11, 2019 City Council hearing. A list of the concerns brought up at said hearing were provided to GSI by Mr. John Allen of Streamline Development Group (Project Construction Manager). Pertinent project references are provided in Appendix A. For ease of reference, the minutes from the City Council hearing and Mr. Allen's notes summarizing the concerns voiced by project appellants, public commentators, and City Council Members are provided in Appendix B. In order for the reviewers of this document to develop an understanding of the geotechnical conditions within the Romeria Pointe property and the southerly adjacent Villa Romeria property, we have summarized the geotechnical background information thereon in Appendices C and D, respectively. GSl's responses to the issues raised at the June 11, 2019 City Council hearing are provided in the Executive Summary below: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Issue No. 1 -"Land Instability" (Appellant Terminology) Some of the project appellants voiced concern about the existing land stability problems in the area. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 376 of 612 ( GSIResponse ( Land instability can manifest in several different forms including landslides (surficial and deep-seated), settlement, and seismic-induced ground deformations (liquefaction, lateral spreading, etc.). GSI has evaluated the potential for land instability within the Romeria Pointe property and near vicinity through the following investigative techniques: •Reviews of regional geologic maps (Kennedy and Tan, 2007; Eisenberg, 1983; and Tan and Giffen, 1995); •Reviews of geotechnical hazard maps prepared for the City of Carlsbad (Leightonand Associates, Inc. [L&A], 1992); •Reviews of readily available geotechnical reports for the Romeria Pointe property, prepared prior to our site-specific work (Benton Engineering, Inc. [BEi], 1969 and 1970; East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc. [ECSC&E], 2001 ; SoilPacific, Inc. [SPI], 2003); •Reviews of readily available geotechnical and engineering reports, and engineeringmitigation plans for the adjacent southerly property called "Villa Romeria" (Catlin and Company, Inc. [C&C], 1984a, 1984b, 1984c, 1984d, and 1984e; CatlinEngineering Associates, Inc. [CEA], 1996, 1998a, 1998b, and 1998c; Helfrich-Associates, 2014a, 2014b, and 2014c); •Reviews of readily available geotechnical reports for the multi-family residentialdevelopment located at 7546 Romeria Street (Vinje and Middleton Engineering, Inc. [V&ME], 1998 and 2000); •Reviews of historical stereoscopic aerial photographs (Park Aerial Surveys, Inc. 1953); and •Site-specific subsurface exploration and analyses. Based on our document and aerial photograph reviews, and our observations during field work, there is no data within the available body of information suggesting the presence of landslide deposits within the Romeria Pointe property. In addition, the Romeria Pointe property does not contain high groundwater conditions nor young, unconsolidated deposits that could contribute to earthquake-induced liquefaction and associated secondary hazards (i.e., dynamic settlement, lateral spreading, etc.). Based on our site specific work, it remains our opinion that the most significant geotechnical factors within the Romeria Pointe property that could contribute to land instability include settlement of the existing fill, placed during original grading of the encompassing La Costa South, Unit No. 5 subdivision in 1970, and the potential surficial instability of the existing 1 ½: 1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]) fill slopes within the Romeria Pointe property. However, the recommendations for foundation support using cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles and the BNR Investment and Development, LLC. Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoils, Inc. W.0. 7297-A3-SC November 20, 2019 Page 3 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 377 of 612 ( slope regrading, outlined in GSI (2017), will provide appropriate mitigation. Therefore, it is our professional opinion that the proposed Romeria Pointe development will not create an impact of land instability. The standard of care is to develop engineering mitigation to reasonably support adjacent properties during construction. Provided that our recommendations for shoring, CIDH pile foundations, and existing slope regrading are properly incorporated into the project plans and implemented during construction, it is our opinion that the Romeria Pointe project will not induce land instability on adjacent properties. Issue No. 2 -"Slippage" (Appellant Terminology) The potential for the Romeria Pointe project to induce further "slippage" on the adjacent Villa Romeria Property was an issue raised by project appellants, public commentators, and City Council Members at the City Council hearing. GSI Response Based on oral statements provided by Villa Romeria property owners at the hearing and our review of readily available existing geotechnical reports (CEA; 1996, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c), and engineering documents (Helfrich-Associates; 2014a, 2014b, 2014c), GSI understands that in 1998 and 2014, the existing condominium structure at the Villa Romeria property received foundation underpinning and re-leveling through the installation of hydraulically driven pipe piles to address adverse soil movement and associated structural distress. If properly implemented, this type of repair can mitigate structural distress if the cause is singularly related to settlement. However, it may not be an appropriate remedial measure for lateral movement or shrink/swell of expansive soils. Investigative techniques such as subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and monitoring were not conducted by CEA during their 1996 evaluation of the structural distress (CEA, 1996). However, based on site observations and a floor-level survey they concluded that the possible contributors of the observed distress features might include expansive soils, slope creep or some drift of the "curb" [crib(sic)] wall behind 7553 Romeria Street, lateral fill extension, and/or fill settlement due to differential compressibility in a cut/fill transition lot. CEA also mentioned that structural distress could be attributed to slope instability but indicated that additional exploratory work would be required to state with any certainty that this phenomena was present. GSI did not review any follow-up subsurface work by CEA to evaluate slope instability. The 2014 engineering evaluation performed by Helfrich-Associates (Helfrich-Associates, 2014c) was less comprehensive than the 1996 study performed by CEA. In addition, Helfrich-Associates offered no substantive conclusions as to the causes of the structural distress. It appears they repeated similar mitigation implemented by CEA in 1998. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoils, Inc. W.0. 7297-A3-SC November 20, 2019 Page 4 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 378 of 612 ( GSI is unaware of any post-repair monitoring studies performed within the Villa Romeria property following both of the foundation retrofit projects. Given this and the level of geotechnical subsurface evaluation prior to the twice-performed mitigation projects, the effectiveness of the repairs is currently unknown. Based on our review of the readily available background geotechnical information for the Villa Romeria property (see Appendix D), there appears to be a recurring pattern of implementing mitigation without performing subsurface studies needed to develop any understanding of the causes of distress and the adequacy of the repair. ( In summary, it is our opinion that the Romeria Pointe project will not induce "slippage" on the Villa Romeria property for the following reasons: •The Romeria Pointe property will be located down-gradient from the Villa Romeriaproperty. Therefore, it will not surcharge the Villa Romeria property nor direct surface drainage toward the Villa Romeria property that could adversely affect theperformance of the existing fill soils nor induce activity on expansive soils thereon. •Although the Romeria Pointe project requires planned excavations of approximately1 O½ feet near the northerly property line of Villa Romeria, temporary shoring and permanent retaining walls will be designed to support the adjacent fill along the VillaRomeria property boundary. The pre-construction surveys and the monitoring of excavations, and shoring, recommended in GSI (2017), would further reducepotential impacts to the Villa Romeria property. •The Romeria Pointe project involves the construction of impervious areas (i.e.,buildings, pavements, hardscape, etc.) with permanent stormwater treatment and disposal occurring in a contained system that includes impermeable membranesand piping intended to reduce the introduction of moisture into the existing, expansive fills and the descending slopes. •The Romeria Pointe project includes CIDH piles for support of the proposedbuildings and site retaining walls. The piles will transfer loads through the existingfill and into the underlying sedimentary bedrock. This will reduce loading of the existing fills and the slopes that descend from the Romeria Pointe property, as wellas the existing crib wall adjacent to the Villa Romeria condominium building, and the existing retaining wall on the westerly adjacent property. •The existing 1 ½:1 (h:v) fill slopes at the westerly, northerly, and northeasterlymargins of the Romeria Pointe property will be reconstructed at 2: 1 (h:v) gradients and reinforced with geogrids to improve surficial stability. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoils, Inc. W.0. 7297-A3-SC November 20, 2019 Page 5 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 379 of 612 Issue No. 3 -Location of the Romeria Pointe Property within an Area Prone to Land Movement (Appellant Statement) Several project appellants and public commentators, and the City Council expressed concern about past land movement in the area surrounding the Romeria Pointe property, specifically pointing out the slope failure that occurred above the Marbella property in 2005. GSI Response A direct comparison between the overall stability of the Marbella and Romeria Pointe properties cannot be made. The Marbella property is located several thousands of feet to the west of the Romeria Pointe property and is underlain by a different, and relatively weaker sedimentary unit (Kennedy and Tan, 2007). In addition, Tan and Giffen (1995) indicate that the Marbella property has higher susceptibility to landslides than the Romeria Pointe property. Moreover, L&A (1992) assign a more onerous Land-Use Capability rating to the Marbella property, as compared to the Romeria Pointe property. Lastly, GSI found no evidence of deep-seated slope instability within the Romeria Pointe property during our literature and map reviews nor during our site-specific field work. Please refer to our response to Issue No. 1 regarding other types of land movement. Issue No. 4 -Reduced Service Life of Sidewalks (Appellant Statement) There were concerns voiced by project appellants, public commentators, and some City Council Members regarding the discussion of a reduced service life of walkways and sidewalks in GSI (2017 and 201 Bb). GSI Response Sidewalks are considered ancillary site improvements, which on residential projects, are not held to the same performance standards as buildings, because distress to such from soil deformations do not constitute a site stability issue. When considering the performance of sidewalks throughout Carlsbad, an inventory of hundreds of examples of distressed sidewalks, caused by settlement, creep, expansive soils, and root intrusion, could be produced. Remedial measures could be implemented as part of any proposed sidewalk/walkway construction, associated with the Romeria Pointe project, to reasonably extend their service life, depending on the owners/developers' tolerances for distress. Curbs and sidewalks would also be built to "Greenbook"/City of Carlsbad standards within the public right-of-way. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoils, Inc. W.0. 7297-A3-SC November 20, 2019 Page 6 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 380 of 612 ( ( ( Issue No. 5 -Increased Building Height From 3 to 4 Stories Several project appellants and some City Council members expressed concern regarding a difference between the number of building stories shown on the development plans and those described in the 2017 geotechnical update report (GSI, 2017). GSI Response When GSI prepared our 2017 geotechnical update report, the Romeria Pointe apartment buildings were proposed as two-(2-) to three-(3-) story structures. Following the issuance of this report, the proposed building heights were raised up to four (4) stories. This change in building height does not fundamentally alter our conclusions and recommendations for the Romeria Pointe project, since CIDH piles have been used to support much taller buildings, including mid-rise structures as well as larger heavier structures, such as bridges and public facilities. As with all projects that incorporate CIDH piles, the structural capacity of the piles will be further evaluated during the preparation of project construction documents to ensure that the pile design is adequate to support the vertical and lateral loading conditions. Issue No. 6 -Quality of Soil Within the Romeria Pointe Property Requiring Unusual Pile Supports (Appellant Statement) Several public commentators and some City Council Members expressed their opinion that using CIDH piles for support of the proposed Romeria Pointe apartment buildings and site retaining walls was an unusual form of engineering mitigation. GSI Response Remedial earthwork, involving the removal and recompaction of low-density soils to control settlement, is commonly used for hillside development within the City of Carlsbad when there is a relatively thin cover of potentially compressible soils overlying bedrock materials, and when there is sufficient space within a property to conduct excavation and to stockpile the excavated earth materials. However, potentially compressible earth materials within the Romeria Pointe property extend to depths as great as 35 feet below the existing grade. Because of this condition and the limited space available within the Romeria Pointe property for deep remedial excavations, full-depth remedial grading would require extensive shoring with lateral restraining elements (tiebacks) that would extend onto neighboring property at some locations, and would likely not be approved by the City of Carlsbad. In addition, if there is insufficient space to temporarily stockpile the excavated materials while the remedial excavation(s) progress, the soil would need to be hauled away from the site and brought to a temporary storage yard, and then delivered back to the site when the remedial excavation is ready to receive backfill. Alternatively, the excavated materials would be exported to another construction site, requiring that the backfill soils be imported from other construction sites or quarries. Thus, full-depth remedial grading may not be practical from both logistical and financial perspectives. It also may not meet BNR Investment and Development, LLC. Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 7297-A3-SC November 20, 2019 Page 7 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 381 of 612 "Green" building standards. As such, it would be "unusual" for the owner/developer to implement this type of mitigation at the Romeria Pointe site. In-situ ground improvement techniques, such as compaction grouting and dynamic deep compaction are other forms of treatment for thick unsuitable soil conditions, but are not considered appropriate for the Romeria Pointe site. Compaction grouting of clayey or fine-graited fill soils may not be practical and may increase lateral pressures on adjacent slopes. This could damage adjacent, offsite improvements or reduce the effectiveness of the mitigation. The vibrations created by dynamic deep compaction could damage the nearby properties. CIDH piles are commonly used to transfer structural loads through potentially compressible soils and into suitable bearing earth materials when remedial grading is not practical or feasible. This type of remedial measure is less invasive than full-depth remedial grading and will provide adequate support of the proposed buildings and the site retaining walls. In summary, it is common building industry practice to use CIDH piles for building support. As such, this mitigation measure should not be viewed as unusual. In fact, the currently proposed pile foundations and pile-supported shoring are often implemented for in-fill type projects and considered appropriate for the Romeria Pointe project. LIMITATIONS Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this project. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoils, Inc. W.0. 7297-A3-SC November 20, 2019 Page 8 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 382 of 612 ( ( ( The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. GeoSoils, Inc. !�hmerProject Geologist RBB/JPF/ATG/jh Attachments: Distribution: Appendix A -References Appendix B -June 11, 2019 City of Carlsbad Council Hearing Minutes and Mr. John Allen's Notes Appendix C -Geotechnical Background Summary for Romeria Pointe Appendix D -Geotechnical Background Summary for Villa Romeria (2)Addressee (wet signed)(1)Streamline Development, Attention: Mr. John Allen (via email) BNR Investment and Development, LLC. Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoils, Inc. W.0. 7297-A3-SC November 20, 2019 Page 9 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 383 of 612 Respectfully submi M,~1.d Engineering Geologi ~l.i:£i Geotechnical Engineer, - ( ( APPENDIX A REFERENCES GeoSoils, Inc. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 384 of 612 ( APPENDIX A REFERENCES Benton Engineering, Inc., 1970, Project no. 70-1-50, County permit no. L5548, final report on compacted ground, Lots 330 to 382, inclusive, Lots 389 to 394, inclusive, Lots 400 to 410, inclusive, certain street areas of La Costa South Unit No. 5, also certain offsite areas adjacent to Lots 368 to 370, inclusive and Lots 377 to 379, inclusive, San Diego County, California, dated October 19. __ , 1969, Project no. 69-9-8C, preliminary soils investigation, La Costa South Unit Nos. 5, 6 and 7, east of the intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real, San Diego County, California, dated November 7. California Building Standards Commission, 2016, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, based on the 2015 International Building Code, 2016 California Historical Building code, Title 24, Part 8, 2016 California Existing Building Code, Title 24, Part 10, and the 2015 International Existing Building Code. Catlin and Company, Inc., 1984a, Project no. 20C6O(6), Addendum to report of compacted filled ground, proposed 5 unit condominium project, east [sic] side of Romeria Street and north of La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California, dated November 30. __ , 1984b, Project no. 20C6D(5), report of compacted filled ground, proposed 5 unit condominium project, east [sic] side of Romeria Street and north of La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California, dated August 20. __ , 1984c, Project no. 20C6O(2), second addendum to report of soils investigation, proposed 5 unit condominium, east [sic] side of Romeria Street and north of La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California, City of Carlsbad project no. PE2.8421, drawing no. 240-2, dated June 26. __ , 1984d, Project no. 20C6D(1), addendum to report of soils investigation, proposed 5 unit condominium, east [sic] side of Romeria Street and north of La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California, dated February 2. __ , Project no. 20C6D, report of soils investigation, proposed 5 unit condominium, west side of Romeria Street and north of La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California, dated December 21 Catlin Engineering Associates, Inc., 1998a, Project no. 1147H1C, relocation of small diameter piles, 7551-7559 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, California, dated July 23. GeoSoils, Inc. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 385 of 612 ( ( __ , 1984b, Project no. 1147H1C, Rehabilitation of residence, 7551-7559Romeria Street, Carlsbad, California, dated July 20. __ , 1998c, Project no. 114 7H 1 C, Rehabilitation of residence, 7551-7559 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, California, dated February 9. __ , 1996, Project no. 1147H1 C, limited site and structural investigation and manometer survey, existing residential unit site, 7551-7559 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, California, dated October 7. East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., 2001, Limited site investigation, Proposed 4-unit townhouse, Southwest corner of Gibraltar Street and Romeria Street, City of Carlsbad, California, Project no. 01-1147H1, dated May 10. Eisenberg, LI., 1983, Pleistocene marine terrace and Eocene geology of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe quadrangles, plate 3 of 3, scale: 1 inch = 2,200 feet; On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County, Abbot, P .L. ed., dated April 13, 1985, by San Diego Association of Geologists. GeoSoils, Inc., 2018a, Geotechnical response to City of Carlsbad review comments dated October 19, 2018, Romeria Pointe Apartments, 7527 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California 92009, Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 216-300-12 & -13, City of Carlsbad Project No.: SDP2018-0004, W.O. 7297-A2-SC, dated December 6. __ , 2018b, Geotechnical review of title sheet and preliminary grading plans for: Romeria Pointe, 7527 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California 92009, Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 216-300-12 & -13, W.O. 7297-A1-SC, dated September 12. __ , 2017, Geotechnical update evaluation, Romeria Pointe, multi-family residential development, Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 216-300-12 & -13, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 7297-A-SC, dated November 21. __ , 2007a, Final geotechnical reviewof foundation (drilled pier and post-tensioned slab) plans, notes, and details, Romeria Pointe Townhomes, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4460-A6-SC, dated November 14. __ , 2007b, Geotechnical review of structural plans, Romeria Pointe Townhomes, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4460-A4-SC, dated February 22. __ , 2006a, Memorandum: General discussion of recent cone penetration tests, Building A, Romeria Point, Carlsbad, California, W.O. 4460-A3-SC, dated October 13. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. • File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix A Page 2 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 386 of 612 ( __ , 2006b, Revised geotechnical review of grading, post-tension foundation, and structural plans, Romeria Pointe Townhomes, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4460-A3-SC, dated July 26. __ , 2006c, Geotechnical review of grading, post-tension foundation, and structural plans, Romeria Pointe Townhomes, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4460-A3-SC, dated July 21. __ , 2005, Geotechnical review of post-tension foundation and structural plans, Romeria Pointe Townhomes, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4460-A 1-SC, dated March 8. __ , 2004, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, Romeria Pointe, APNs 216-300-12 and -13, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4460-A-SC, dated September 27. Helfrich-Associates, 2014a, Completion report, foundation stabilization, project no. 140419, Sue Ortman property, 7551 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, CA 92009, dated June 17. __ , 2014b, Foundation repair plan, 7551 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, CA 92009, 6sheets, no scale, dated May 1. , 2014c, Foundation stabilization recommendations, Sue Ortman property, 7551 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, CA 92009, project no. 140419, dated May 1. Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, SS., 2007, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30' by 60' quadrangle, California, regional map series, scale 1: 100,000, California Geologic Survey and United States Geological Survey, www.conservation.ca.gov/ cgs/rghm/rgm/preliminary _geologic_ maps.html Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1992, City of Carlsbad geotechnical hazards analysis and mapping study, Carlsbad, California, 115 sheets, scale: 1 inch = 400 feet, dated November. Neuendorf, K.K.E., Mehl, J.P. Jr, and Jackson, J.A., eds, 2005, Glossary of geology, fifth edition, American Geological Institute, Alexandria, Virginia. MLB Engineering, 2019, Preliminary grading plan for: Romeria Pointe, 7527 Romeria Street, APN 216-300-12 & -13, 3 sheets, various scales dated January 9. Park Aerial Surveys, Inc., 1953, Stereoscopic aerial photographs, flight: AXN-8M, frame nos.: 17 and 18, dated April 11. Rick Engineering Company, 1970, Grading plans for: La Costa South, Unit No. 5, sheet 3 of 5, 40-scale, County of San Diego Grading Permit No.: L 5548, revision dated March 27. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. • File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoals, Inc. Appendix A Page 3 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 387 of 612 ( Soil Pacific Inc., 2003, Addendum report and clarification letter, proposed nine unit condominium, Lots 392 and 393 of [La] Costa South, Unit no. 5, City of Carlsbad, California, Project no. A-2452-03, dated August 25. Tan, S.S. and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide hazards in the northern part of the San Diego metropolitan area, San Diego County, California, DMG open file report 95-04, landslide hazard identification map no. 35, relative landslide susceptibility and landslide distribution map, plate 35E, 1 :24,000 scale. Vinje and Middleton Engineering, Inc., 2000, As-graded compaction report and foundation recommendations for proposed 11 unit condominium project, City of Carlsbad drawing #377-4A, project #CT 98-08, located off Romeria Street, job no.: 99-317-F, dated December 6. __ , 1998, Preliminary geotechnical investigation, proposed 11-unit condominium project, Lots 387 & 388 of La Costa South Unit No. 5, City of Carlsbad, California, job no.: 98-255-P, dated July 17. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. • File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoS01ls, Inc.Appendix A Page 4 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 388 of 612 ( ( APPENDIX B JUNE 11, 2019 CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL HEARING MINUTES AND MR. JOHN ALLEN'S NOTES GeoSoils, Inc. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 389 of 612 ( ( ( CITY COUNCIL June 11, 2019 4 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: 4:14 p.m. ROLL CALL: Hall, Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Schumacher, Hamilton. Council Chamber 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONCURRENT MEETINGS: Mayor Hall announced the City Council will be serving as the Public Financing Authority Board of Directors on Consent Calendar Item No. 7. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the Special Meeting held May 14, 2019. Minutes of the Regular Meeting held May 14, 2019. Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0. Mayor Hall announced that the City Council would be taking items out of order. At 5:40 p.m. a recess will be declared and at 6:00 p.m. the proclamations and presentations would be made. PUBLIC REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION: None. PUBLIC COMMENT: Michael Kim spoke regarding trail access and the need to pay more attention to the demographics and issues of mountain bikers and bike riders. Mary Lucid spoke regarding issues surrounding the senior center and the need to manage funds properly for the senior center. Laurie Boone spoke in appreciation of Magee Park and the Leo CarriJJo Ranch Historic Park. Laurenn Barker spoke in support of adding a full-time Public Arts Coordinator to the budget for the Library and Cultural Arts Department. Louisa & Tabitha Evans spoke regarding speeding traffic on Tamarack Avenue and the need for further traffic regulations during and outside school hours. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 390 of 612 Minutes ( ( June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 thru 11. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0. 1.PURCHASE OF EXCESS LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE -Adoption of Resolution No. 2019- 074 approving the purchase of $43 million of excess liability coverage through California Insurance Pool Authority (CIPA) for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 in an amount not to exceed $553,714. (Staff contact: Ed Garbo, Risk Management) 2.PURCHASE OF PROPERTY INSURANCE COVERAGE -Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-075 authorizing the purchase of $1 billion of property insurance coverage through Alliant Insurance Services lnc.'s Alliant Property Insurance Program (APIP) for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 in an amount not to exceed $233,014. (Staff contact: Ed Garbo, Risk Management) 3.RESCIND CITY COUNCIL OPPOSITION TO AB 392 (WEBER) PEACE OFFICERS: DEADLY FORCE - Rescinded City Council opposition to AB 392 (Weber) Peace officers: deadly force. (Staff contact: Jason Haber, City Manager Department) 4.SUMMARY VACATION OF PIPELINE EASEMENT, CT 13-03 -Adoption of Resolution No. 2019- 076 summarily vacating a pipeline easement over Lots 9, 10, 12, 14 thru 17, and 22 of Map No. 16091, located at Robertson Ranch West Village, Case Name: Robertson Ranch West Village, Case No. VAC 2019-0004. (Staff contact: Kyrenne Chua, Community & Economic Development) 5.SUMMARY VACATION OF PIPELINE EASEMENT, CT 13-03 -Adoption of Resolution No. 2019- 077 summarily vacating a pipeline easement over Lots 339 and 347 of Map No. 16092, located at Robertson Ranch West Village, Case Name: Robertson Ranch West Village, Case No. VAC 2019-0003. (Staff contact: Kyrenne Chua, Community & Economic Development) 6.SUMMARY VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT -Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-078 summarily vacating a public drainage easement over Lot 9 of CT 85-35, Aviara Phase 1 Unit A located at 7130 Kingfisher Lane, Case Name: Four Seasons Residence Club, Case No. VAC 2017-0008. (Staff contact: David Rick, Community & Economic Development) 7.REJECTION OF ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE CROSSINGS AT CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE LAKE REFURBISHMENT PROJECT -Adoption of Public Financing Authority Resolution No. 78 rejecting all bids received for the Crossings at Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Lake Refurbishment Project (Contract No. PWS 19-690 PKS). (Staff contact: Kyle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation) 8.PURCHASE OF FIVE MARKED POLICE VEHICLES -Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-079 authorizing the purchase of five fully outfitted Ford Police Interceptor vehicles from Jones West Ford, in an amount not to exceed $337,372. (Staff contact: Cindy Anderson, Police) Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 391 of 612 ( ( ( June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 3 9.AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES WITH DELTAWRX, LLC-Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-080 approving a two-year agreement for consulting services with DELTAWRX, LLC in an amount not to exceed $325,182 to aid the city in acquiring a new public safety computeraided dispatch (CAD) system. (Staff contact: Cindy Anderson, Police) 10.AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT AMBULANCE AND TWO UTILITY TRUCKS - Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-081 authorizing the purchase of one replacement ambulance for $249,060 and two replacement utility trucks for $112,910. (Staff contact: Shawn Gaskari, Public Works) 11.AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT WITH ARCADIS U.S .• INC. AND AUTHORIZE AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF VISTA-Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-082 authorizing execution of an agreement with Arcadis U.S., Inc. to provide construction management andinspection services for the Agua Hedionda Sewer Lift Station, Vista/Carlsbad interceptor sewer reaches VC118-VC15 and recycled water line, Capital Improvement Program Project Nos. 3492, 3886 and 3949, in an amount not to exceed $423,589 and appropriating $965,768 in additional funds from the Sewer Connection Fee Fund for changes to the project; and, Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-083 authorizing execution of Amendment No. 3 to theagreement between the City of Carlsbad and the City of Vista for the construction of the Agua Hedionda Sewer Lift Station, Vista/Carlsbad interceptor sewer reaches VC118-VC15 and recycled water line, Capital Improvement Program Project Nos. 3492, 3886 and 3949. (Staff contact: Babaq Taj, Public Works) ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION: None. ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION: None. PUBLIC HEARING: 12.APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS PROJECT Adoption of a Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a Site Development Plan to construct a four-story, 23-unit residential apartment project which includes three affordable, rent restricted housing units, on property generally located at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Case Name: Romeria Pointe Apartments, Case No. SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) (Staff contact: Chris Garcia, Community & Economic Development) City Manager's Recommendation: Take public input, close the public hearing, and adopt theResolution. Associate Planner Chris Garcia, City Planner Don Neu and Engineering Manager Jason Geldert presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Mayor Hall opened the duly noticed Public Hearing at 4:48 p.m. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 392 of 612 June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page4 Speakers in opposition of City Manager's recommendation: Jerry Surdy; Susan Ortman; Laura Knight; Jay Brown; Nancy Stuard; Jason Stephenson; Beth Citrano representing a group: (Chad Peck; Gabe Citrano; Samantha Miller; Kay Colvin); Quentin Citrano; Chris Shea; Thomas Citrano; Lucille Lindsey; Eileen Donovan; Carol Carrasco. Submitted speaker cards in opposition of City Mangers recommendation; however, did not speak: Tetyana Pelypenko; Heather Lindsey. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Hall closed the duly noticed Public Hearing at 5:37 p.m. RECESS: Mayor Hall declared a recess at 5:38 p.m. Mayor Hall reconvened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. for the presentations portion of the meeting. PRESENTATIONS: Proclamation in recognition of Carlsbad Historic Preservation Month Council Member Blackburn presented a proclamation to Deputy Library Director Suzanne Smithson and Chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission Chad Majer in recognition of Carlsbad Historic Preservation Month. Third Grade Art Contest Presentation Mayor Hall introduced Deputy Library Director Suzanne Smithson who acknowledged the winners of the art contest. RECESS: Mayor Hall declared a recess at 6:10 p.m. to allow the recipients of the proclamations an opportunity to exit the Council Chamber. Mayor Hall reconvened the meeting at 6:14 p.m. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 12: 12.APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS PROJECT Adoption of a Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a Site Development Plan to construct a four-story, 23-unit residential apartment project which includes three affordable, rent restricted housing units, on property generally located at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Case Name: Romeria Pointe Apartments, Case No. SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) (Staff contact: Chris Garcia, Community & Economic Development) Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 393 of 612 June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting ... Page 5 City Manager's Recommendation: Take public input, close the public hearing, and adopt the Resolution. Associate Planner Chris Garcia, City Planner Don Neu and Engineering Manager Jason Geldert presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Council Member Schumacher stated that the City Council can modify the Planning Commission's decision based on substantial evidence regarding public health concerns. She stated that she would like to put together a motion to uphold the appeal but requests that the developer go through a CEQA analysis and then bring the item back to the Planning Commission for a decision. City Attorney Celia Brewer suggested a short recess to further articulate the proper motion by Council Member Schumacher. RECESS: Mayor Hall declared a recess at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Hall reconvened �he meeting at 7:05 p.m. Minute Motion by Council Member Schumacher, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, remanding the item to the Planning Commission and requesting a CEQA analysis and an EIR focused on traffic and geotechnical be performed on the project. Motion carried, 4/1 (Hall - No) 13.PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SALE OF CITY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3701 CATALINA DRIVE - Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-084 taking final action and authorizing the execution of a purchase and sale agreement for city property located at 3701 Catalina Drive, APN 167-154- 20, commonly known as Old Fire Station No. 3, to Charles Colletti. (Staff contact: Curtis Jackson, Real Estate) City Manager's Recommendation: Take public input, close the public hearing, and adopt the Resolution. Real Estate Manager Curtis Jackson and Community Services Deputy City Manager Gary Barberio presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Mayor Hall opened the duly noticed Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Mayor Hall closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, to adopt Resolution No. 2019-084. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 394 of 612 ( ( June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page6 DEPARTMENTAL AND CITY MANAGER REPORTS: 14.CARLSBAD TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT REPORT -Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-085 approving the Report of the Carlsbad Tourism Business Improvement District (CTBID) and continuing the CTBID programs and assessments for Fiscal Year 2019-20. (Staff contact: Cheryl Gerhardt, Administrative Services) City Manager's Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution. Finance Manager Cheryl Gerhardt and Administrative Services Deputy City Manager Laura Rocha presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, to adopt Resolution No. 2019-085. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0. 15.CARLSBAD GOLF LODGING BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT REPORT -Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-086 approving the Report of the Carlsbad Golf Lodging Business Improvement District (CGLBID} and continuing the CGLBID programs and assessments for Fiscal Year 2019-20. (Staff contact: Cheryl Gerhardt, Administrative Services) City Manager's Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution. Finance Manager Cheryl Gerhardt and Administrative Services Deputy City Manager Laura Rocha presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, to adopt Resolution No. 2019-086. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0. 16.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND CONTRACT FOR FIRST-LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PILOT PROGRAM -Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-087 approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the City of Carlsbad, North County Transit District (NCTD) and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) for thepurpose of executing a first-last mile transportation pilot program and authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with RideCo, Inc. to provide first-last mile transportation services in an amount not to exceed $650,000. (Staff contact: Christie Marcella, Community & Economic Development) City Manager's Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution. Economic Development Manager Christie Marcella presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, to adopt Resolution No. 2019-087. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 395 of 612 ( ( June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 7 17.PRESENTATION ON TRAFFIC CONTROL TRAFFIC CALMING AND TRAFFIC SAFElY-Receive an informational presentation describing traffic control, traffic calming and traffic safety efforts including best practices, standards and programs, and provide direction to staff as appropriate. (Staff contact: Marshall Plantz, Public Works) City Manager's Recommendation: Receive the presentation and provide direction to staff. Transportation Director Marshall Plantz, Senior Engineer John Kim and Police Lieutenant Christie Calderwood presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Steve Linke representing a group (Kris Wright; Linda Schlesinger; Jan Neff-Sincair) requested that the City Council empower the Traffic Safety Commission to execute traffic actions or havethem recommend traffic issues directly to the City Council. Brenda Harai spoke in support of more traffic regulations on Tamarack Avenue. Quinn Bodon stated that he does not feel safe on Tamarack Avenue and that as a student he feels his safety is a concern. He also suggested having a stop sign installed. Minute Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Hamilton, to perform a comprehensive traffic calming analysis to include what types of traffic calming measures are currently used in the region, research new approaches to traffic calming and report what measures are commonly used in the City of Carlsbad. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0. Minute Motion by Council Member Blackburn, seconded by Council Member Schumacher, that staff explore other ideas for traffic calming at the intersection of Tamarack and Valley since staff determined that a stop sign was not appropriate. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0. Minute Motion by Council Member Schumacher, seconded by Council Member Hamilton, for staff to bring back an analysis of changing the physical character specifically for traffic calming on the following streets: College Boulevard from Carlsbad Village Drive to Sage Creek High School, Tamarack Avenue from Skyline Road in the east to Carlsbad Boulevard in the west, and Carlsbad Boulevard from the Agua Hedionda Trailhead to the roundabout at State Street. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0. 18.DISCUSSION OF THE COUNlY OF SAN DIEGO'S MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND CONSIDERATION OF A CllY COUNCIL POSITION ON THE SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' PREFERRED D-111 MODIFIED STANDARDS COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVE FUTURE AIRPORT CLASSIFICATION, ALLOWING A RUNWAY EXTENSION UP TO 800 FEET-1.) Engage in a public discussion of the County of San Diego's McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update; 2.) Consider taking a position on the San Diego County Board of Supervisors' preferred D-111 Modified Standards Compliance Alternative future airport Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 396 of 612 ( June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page8 classification, allowing a runway extension up to 800 feet; and 3.) Approve a motion to rescind the City Council's May 7, 2019, approval of a Minute Motion to oppose the San Diego County Board of Supervisors' selected classification for McClellan-Palomar Airport. (Staff contact: Jason Haber, City Manager Department) City Manager's Recommendation: Engage in discussion of the County of San Diego's McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update, consider taking a position on the San Diego County Board of Supervisors' preferred D-111 Modified Standards Compliance Alternative future airport classification and approve a motion to rescind the City Council's May 7, 2019 approval of a Minute Motion to oppose the San Diego County Board of Supervisors' selected classification for McClellan-Palomar Airport. Assistant to the City Manager Jason Haber presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk). RECESS: Mayor Hall declared a recess at 9:12 p.m. Mayor Hall reconvened the meeting at 9:14 p.m. Pierre Weinandt spoke in opposition to any airport expansion. Michelle Saint Germain also spoke in opposition to any airport expansion. Noel Breen, expressed concerns relating to conflicts of interests regarding the City Council and the decision on the airport expansion. Larry Posner stated that the Palomar Airport is a County of San Diego Airport and is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration. He stated that the issues at Palomar Airport should be handled by the County of San Diego. He also spoke on potential conflicts of interests regarding the City Council and the decision on the airport expansion. Kristine Wright representing a group (Jan Neff-Sinclair; Diane Rivera; Mary Lucid) also spoke in opposition to any expansion of Palomar Airport. Hope Nelson for Citizens for a Friendly Airport spoke in opposition to an airport expansion. Minute Motion by Council Member Schumacher, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, to rescind Council's Minute Motion to oppose the San Diego County Board of Supervisor's selected alternative for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0. Minute Motion by Council Member Schumacher, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, to direct staff to return to Council with a resolution opposing the County Board of Supervisor's preferred D-111 modified standards compliance alternative allowing a runway extension of up to 800-feet. Motion carried, 4/1. (Hall-No). Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 397 of 612 ( ( June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 9 Minute Motion by Council Member Schumacher, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, to direct staff to return to Council with a resolution supporting the B-11 enhanced alternative without a runway extension. -Motion carried, 3/2. (Hall, Blackburn -No). City Attorney Celia Brewer stated that a group named 'The Citizens for a Friendly Airport' filed a lawsuit against the City of Carlsbad and the County of San Diego challenging the legality of the approval of the settlement agreement between the parties. Since there is pending litigation she suggested that Items No. 19 and No. 20 be continued with the commitment that City Council will return with Item 20 with enough time to place an advisory or ballot measure on the March, 2020 ballot. 19.CITY COUNCIL INTERPRETATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 172 TO OPERATE THE EXISTING PALOMAR AIRPORT FACILITY AND CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 21.53.015 -VOTER AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED FOR AIRPORT EXPANSION -That the City Council consider articulating its explicit interpretation of Conditional Use Permit 172 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.53.015. (Staff contact: Jason Haber, City Manager Department) City Manager's Recommendation: That the City Council articulate its interpretation of Conditional Use Permit 172 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.53.015. Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, to continue Item No. 19 to a date uncertain. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0. 20.MARCH 2020 PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT: ADVISORY QUESTION REGARDING THE MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT -Discuss placing an advisory question regarding the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update and Final Environmental Impact Report, in total, on the March 2020 primary election ballot, and provide direction to staff. (Staff contact: Jason Haber, City Manager Department) City Manager's Recommendation: Discuss placing an advisory question regarding the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update and Final Environmental Impact Report on the March 2020 Primary Election ballot and provide direction to staff. Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, to continue Item No. 20 to a date uncertain. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0. COUNCIL REPORTS AND COMMENTS: Minute Motion by Council Member Hamilton, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, to place on the June 25, 2019 agenda, an item to discuss a time-bound moratorium regarding building and development in the Village and Barrio Master Plan area. -Motion carried 3/0/2 (Hall, Schumacher -Absent). Minute Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Schumacher, for the City Manager to return to Council with a proclamation declaring June of every year starting Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 398 of 612 June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 10 this year to be celebrated as Pride Month honoring the LGBTQIA community in the City of Carlsbad. -Motion carried unanimously, 5/0. Minute Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Hamilton, for the City Manager to return to City Council with information related to the contracted workforce regarding job quality standards, working conditions, and compliance requirements. -Motion carried 4/1 (Hall-No). PUBLIC COMMENT: Continuation of the Public Comments Raul Villamar spoke regarding the ineffectiveness of speed humps and recommended speed bumps instead. He also spoke about vehicle accidents and traffic concerns on Harding Street and Oak Avenue. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: City Manager Scott Chadwick announced that the June 18, 2019 City Council meeting will begin at 4:00 p.m. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS: None. CITY CLERK COMMENTS: None. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Hall adjourned the duly noticed Meeting at 10:08 p.m. Hector Gomez Deputy City Clerk Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 399 of 612 ( MR. JOHN ALLEN'S NOTES FROM THE JUNE 11, 2019 CITY COUNCIL HEARING GeoSoils, Inc. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 400 of 612 ( ( Geotechnical Concerns Appellant •Proven instability of the land of this area •Slippage and land movement to the south •This is prone to land movement •Sidewalks and driveways will have to be replaced within 3 years of development •3 stories, not 4, is stated in the report •Concerned for the building to the south will be compromised •Quality of the soil is not adequate to hold the buildings, and it is unusual to have piles supporting the buildings according to the engineer Public •Jason Stevenson, Geologist o Geologist speaker said 3 stories, not 4 stories o Adjacent to the South tenant, discussed the slippage that occurred in 2015 o Discussed Marbella disaster •Beth Citrano o 3 stories in report, not 4 stories o Periodic replacement of sidewalks and driveways, that may cause trip hazards within 1 year following installation. This is a public safety risk •Lucille Lindsay o Slippage issue •Eileen Donovan o Next door with the slippage issues o Marbella was brought up Cori Schumacher •The extent of grading and geotechnical work means it is not environmentally benign •Reports don't seem to be taking into consideration the cumulative impacts •Categorical exemption shall not be used where there is a possibility that there will be a significant effect on the environment due to "unusual circumstances" Barbara Hamilton •Discussion regarding unusual circumstances, concerned about detrimental circumstances on surrounding properties •Issues with hardscaping around the property, that should be considered an unusual circumstance Keith Blackburn •Sidewalks and driveways with a short life span is an issue? Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 401 of 612 .. .. .. ( ( Priya Bhat-Patel •Movement of neighboring land was brought up •Asked about Marbella project •Geologist report was based on 3 stories, and not 4 stories Matt Hall •None Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 402 of 612 \ ( ( ( APPENDIXC GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND SUMMARY FOR ROMERIA POINTE GeoSoils, Inc. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 403 of 612 ( ( APPENDIXC GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND SUMMARY FOR ROMERIA POINTE The Romeria Pointe property consists of Lots 392 and 393 of the La Costa South, Unit No. 5 subdivision. According to the original grading plans, prepared by Rick Engineering Company ([REC], 1970 [see Appendix A]), prior to grading, the Romeria Pointe property was situated upon a north-facing slope that descended from highlands to the south to the San Marcos Creek floodplain to the north. A relatively deeply incised, generally northwesterly trending natural, albeit slightly anthropogenically modified drainage course, transected the southwesterly corner of Lot 392 and continued through the adjacent westerly property. The up-gradient portion of this drainage course nearly bisected the adjacent southerly Lots 390 and 391 (the Villa Romeria property reported by some appellants and public commentators to have undergone "slippage" as recent as 2014). REC (1970) shows that cut and fill grading was required to bring the Romeria Pointe property to its current grades. Maximum planned cuts and fills were on the order of 5 feet and 22 feet, respectively. Grading also included the construction of manufactured slopes with heights up to approximately 20 feet and gradients of 1 ½:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]). Prior to original grading, which occurred in 1970, the geotechnical conditions within the La Costa South, Unit No. 5 subdivision were investigated by Benton Engineering, Inc. ([BEi], 1969). Based on the subsurface and laboratory data BEi compiled, it was concluded that the most significant geotechnical factors controlling site development included the occurrence of potentially compressible, loose surficial soils and porous alluvial deposits, and the presence of expansive soils. BEi made no statement regarding deep-seated instability or landslide issues associated with the subdivision. During original grading, BEi performed geotechnical observations and field density testing as the original ground was prepared and compacted fills were placed. As indicated in their "Final Report on Compacted Filled Ground" (BEi, 1970), BEi performed 1 O compaction tests on Lot 392 and 5 compaction tests on Lot 393. BEi (1970) stated that the depth of fill on Lots 392 and 393 was 33 feet and 20 feet, respectively. The differences between the planned fill thickness on the original grading plan and the as-built fill thicknesses reported in BEi (1970) suggest that up to 11 feet of the former surficial soils were removed and recompacted. GSI began investigating the Romeria Pointe project site in August 2004 for a previously proposed multi-family development project. Our initial study (GSI, 2004) included a review of a subsurface and laboratory data that was previously collected by East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc. ([ECSC&E], 2001) and by Soil Pacific, Inc. ([SPI], 2003). Due to very limited exploratory subsurface work conducted by ECSC&E and SPI, GSI performed supplemental subsurface investigation by advancing and down-hole logging two (2) large-diameter borings. The primary intent of our field work was to evaluate the approximately 34-year old fill materials, and to check for indications of ( instability. GeoSoils, Inc. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 404 of 612 ( Down-hole logging, is a subsurface investigative technique commonly performed when slope instability is a concern. It involves lowering a geologist or engineer down a large-diameter boring so that a continuous log of the geologic conditions and structures therein can be prepared. Based on our review of earlier site-specific geotechnical studies, and the subsurface and laboratory data acquired during our initial site work, it was concluded that the existing fill materials were not suitable for support of the proposed improvements; the onsite soils exhibited moderate expansion potential; and the existing 1 ½:1 (h:v) fill slopes retained a potential for surficial instability in their current condition. Remedial earthwork or supporting the proposed buildings on cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles was recommended to address concerns regarding the ·settlement potential of the existing fill materials. In addition, post-tension and mat slabs were recommended for the mitigation of the expansive soil conditions. Lastly, removing and replacing the outer 1 0 feet of the existing fill slopes with geogrid-reinforced fills were recommended to enhance surficial stability. In 2006, GSI advanced 5 cone penetration test (CPT) soundings to supplement the previous geotechnical work on the Romeria Pointe site. The purpose of this study was to further evaluate the thickness of the existing fill materials within the property to assist with construction cost estimating. GSI performed a geotechnical update evaluation of the Romeria Pointe property in 2017 relative to a formerly proposed development plan, which included the construction of two (2), three-story apartment buildings. This study included reviews of the existing, site-specific geotechnical data, updated site seismicity, and the preparation of a summary report (GSI, 2017). In GSI (2017), three (3) different alternative earthwork and foundation support scenarios were recommended, and the advantages and disadvantages of each measure were discussed. These alternatives included: 1) the complete removal and recompaction of the earth materials considered unsuitable for supporting the proposed improvements; 2) the limited removal and recompaction of the unsuitable earth materials and the utilization of CIDH piles for support of the proposed buildings and site retaining walls; and 3) the limited removal and recompaction of the unsuitable earth materials, the utilization of CIDH piles for support of portions of the proposed buildings and the site retaining walls located near the descending slopes, and the use of vibro piers for supporting the proposed improvements not subjected to lateral loads. The recommendations for enhancing the surficial stability of the descending slopes and for the mitigation of expansive soils were generally similar to those previously included in GSI (2004). Currently, GSI understands that the project team is pursuing the limited earthwork and CIDH pile foundation support alternative. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. _ File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoals, Inc. Appendix C Page 2 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 405 of 612 ( ( ( ( APPENDIX D GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND SUMMARY FOR VILLA ROMERIA GeoSoils, Inc. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 406 of 612 ( APPENDIX D GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND SUMMARY FOR VILLA ROMERIA Based on our review, the Villa Romeria property consists of Lots 391 and 392 of the La Costa South, Unit No. 5 subdivision (REC, 1970). According to REC (1970), cut and fill grading was necessary to achieve the former design grades with maximum planned cuts and fills on the order of 1 foot and 31 feet, respectively. Original rough grading of the Villa Romeria property was completed nearly simultaneous with the Romeria Pointe property (BEi, 1970). According to BEi (1970), approximately 40 to 41 feet of compacted fill was placed within the Villa Romeria Property during the original phase of site grading, with the deepest fills likely occurring within the former northerly trending, anthropogenically modified natural drainage course that transected the westerly margin of the property. A comparison of the original as-graded conditions reported in BEi (1970) versus the original planned grading shown on REC (1970) suggests that up to 10 feet of remedial excavation was performed during this phase of rough grading. Beginning in 1983, C&C investigated the Villa Romeria property for a proposed 5-unit condominium project (C&C, 1983). For this study, C&C reviewed BEi (1970), performed surficial mapping, and subsurface exploration consisting of the continuous logging of three (3) test pits excavated to depths of 9 to 12 feet below the (pre-)existing ground surface with a backhoe. C&C also performed laboratory testing of soil samples collected during their field work. Through their work, C&C found that the Villa Romeria property contained a significant amount of silty clay fill with some cobble at depth, that they concluded was properly placed and compacted, based on their laboratory tests and review of BEi (1970), with the exception of undocumented fills that extended to depths ranging between 6½ and 9 feet below the (pre-)existing ground surface. C&C also discovered erosion on some of the slopes descending from the property and a large surficial slump on the westerly facing slope, in the vicinity of the two southwesterly condominium units. In addition, expansion testing performed on collected soil samples indicated the presence of "critically expansive" soils. C&C did not encounter the presence of groundwater during their investigation. It is not clear from the C&C (1983) report if they encountered the formational earth materials underlying the existing fill soils. Based on our review of the locations and depths of C&C's test pits relative to the planned grading shown on REC (1970), it is unlikely they did. Therefore, it is unknown if the original remedial excavations, conducted under the supervision of BEi (1970), included the removal and recompaction of the pre-existing low-density soils as well as keying and benching during slope construction. Based on the their findings, C&C recommended the following: •Removal and recompaction of any undocumented fills if located below the design grades for traffic areas or buildings supported by shallow foundations; GeoSoils, Inc. Nov. 17, 2020Item #9 Page 407 of 612 , ( •Scarifying (ripping) and recompacting the natural ground within 5 horizontal feet of the building foundation lines to a minimum depth of 12 inches below the bottom of the foundations or concrete slab, where constructed partly in cut and partly in fill; •Using non-expansive soils in the upper 3 to 4 feet below proposed finish grade elevations or implementing a program that combines subgrade pre-moistening with more onerous structural design of foundations and slabs-on-grade; •Designing foundations supported by properly compacted fill or dense naturalground for settlements estimated to be on the order of ½-inch; •Constructing cut and fill slopes up to 1 O feet high at 2: 1 (h:v) gradients with additional evaluation warranted for higher or steeper slopes or systems intendedto support slopes; •Foundation setbacks from slopes equivalent to H/3 plus 5 feet (maximum 40-foot setback), where "H" equals the slope height and the use deepened footings that maintain minimum depths of 1.50 and 20 for foundations adjacent to slopes with 1.5: 1 (h:v) and 2:1 (h:v) gradients, respectively, where "D" equals the horizontal encroachment distance; •Designing deepened footings for additional lateral pressures where constructed on or near slopes; •Embedding footings constructed at the toe of slopes at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent level grade; and •Keying and benching when placing compacting fills on slopes steeper than a 1 O percent grade. In early 1984, C&C performed slope stability analysis to evaluate the factor-of-safety (FOS) against global rotational slope failure for a 20-foot high crib retaining wall (crib wall), proposed to be constructed at the westerly end of the Villa Romeria property (C&C, 1984d). Based on their analysis, C&C calculated an FOS of 2.8 against global rotational slope failure. In addition to summarizing their analysis, C&C noted that some of the proposed structures were too close to the top of the slope or property line to provide for their recommended 5-foot clearance from the foundation line to the invert of the drainage swale. To that end C&C recommended that the gradient of the swale be modified to a fall of three (3) percent with a two (2) percent gradient for all other unlined drainage swales. C&C also indicated that it may be necessary to add inlets and underground drain pipes if their recommended steeper gradient for the drainage swale made it impractical to convey runoff at the surface. In addition, C&C recommended that the toe of the crib wall be embedded at least 1 foot below the level of the existing terrace or at elevation 72.0 feet (unknown datum). BNR Investment and Development, LLC. • File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoals, Inc. Appendix D Page 2 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 408 of 612 ( In June 1984, C&C provided alternative recommendations for surface drainage at the north side of the Villa Romeria project where their previously recommended three (3) percent slope for a surface drainage swale would make construction and maintenance difficult (C&C, 1984c). These recommendations included constructing the swale at a gradient of at least one (1) percent. However, C&C warned that "normal groundskeeping practices" would probably result in ponding. To that end, C&C recommended the construction of a trench drain in the areas where a three (3) percent slope could not be maintained in the surface drainage swale. In order to reduce the potential for the migration of fines into the filter medium of the trench drain, C&C recommended the use of clean sand for filter material. In August 1984, C&C prepared a compaction report summarizing their observation and testing services during grading of the Villa Romeria property, which occurred between July 16 and August 17, 1984 (C&C, 1984b). As reported in C&C (1984b), the observations and results of compaction testing indicated that the fill soils placed within the Villa Romeria property were compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density. C&C concluded that the compacted fill soil would support the proposed condominium structure without detrimental settlement provided that the foundations and concrete slabs were setback at least 5 feet from the top of slopes or deepened such that the minimum horizontal distance between the bottom, outboard edges of the footings and concrete slabs, and the face of the descending slope was 5 feet. Because some of the fill soils placed during grading were considered "critically expansive," C&C recommended that the developer pre-moisten the upper 3 feet of subgrade soils to 1 to 4 percent above their optimum moisture content and utilize more onerous structural design for foundations and slabs-on-grade. C&C also recommended that surface drainage be controlled and maintained such that it would be directed away from foundations and tops of slopes, toward the street or drainage facilities without intermediate ponding. Lastly, in capital letters at the end of C&C (1984b), there is an admonishment regarding the lack of records pertaining to the repair of a damaged structural member within the crib wall along the westerly side of the Villa Romeria property that C&C reported and depicted in an August 3, 1984 letter (letter not available for GSI review). Accordingly, C&C expressed that they were greatly concerned about the long-term stability of this wall. C&C prepared a compaction report for a second phase of grading that occurred in late 1984 (C&C, 1984a) that chiefly involved the backfill of a site retaining wall, located west of Romeria Street and north of La Costa Avenue. As stated therein, the results of their compaction tests and observations indicated that the fill placed behind the retaining wall was compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. C&C recommended that surface drainage be controlled and maintained such that it was directed away from foundations and tops of slopes, toward the street or drainage facilities without intermediate ponding. There was no mention of any repairs of the damaged crib wall in C&C (1984a). In addition, GSI was not provided with any subsequent observation and testing documents by C&C regarding the repair of the damaged crib wall nor the implementation of their recommendations regarding foundation setbacks and the mitigation of expansive soils. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. • File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoS01ls, Inc.Appendix D Page 3 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 409 of 612 In September 1996, Catlin Engineering Associates, Inc. (CEA) conducted a limited site and structural investigation of the Villa Romeria property, including a floor-level survey with a manometer (CEA, 1996). The intent of CEA's investigation was to evaluate the structural integrity of the condominium structure, its appurtenances, and the overall site from readily observable evidence, verbal and written information they were given, and their "engineering judgement." Subsurface and geologic investigations of the property were not undertaken. Rather, CEA documented the surficial site conditions and distress features (i.e., cracks) observed in the interior walls, ceilings, and slab-on-grade floors at 7553 and 7555 Romeria Street. CEA also checked doors for operability. Their partial floor-level survey within the aforementioned addresses revealed as much as a 4-inch elevation differential across 7553 Romeria Street and an approximate 3-inch elevation differential across 7555 Romeria Street. At the exterior of 7555 Romeria Street, CEA found that the slab at the rear of the unit apparently had settled as much as 1 inch in relation to the adjacent storage sheds. Cracks were apparent at the exterior of the storage shed associated with 7555 Romeria Street. Other observations by CEA included the presence of eave gutters to drain roofs with downspouts that generally directed drainage water into the streets. Surface drainage in the yard areas appeared to be well maintained. Based on their limited review, CEA concluded that the possible contributors to the observed distress could include expansive soils, slope creep or some drift of the curb [crib] wall behind 7553 Romeria Street, lateral fill extension, and/or fill settlement due to differential compressibility in a cut/fill transition lot. Although slope instability was mentioned in their conclusions, CEA indicated that additional exploratory work would be required to state with any certainty that this phenomena was responsible for the observed distress. However, CEA indicated that the closest landslide to the Villa Romeria property was approximately ¼-mile to the west, on La Costa Avenue. CEA identified typical mitigation measures including small-diameter pipe piles or pin piles, CIDH piles, driven conventional piles, compaction grouting, and sister footings, and described the advantages and disadvantages of some of the aforementioned techniques. CEA also offered recommendations for repairing cracks in slab-on-grade floors and dry walls, and landscaping and drainage procedures. Based on our review of structural calculations and associated drawings prepared by CEA (CEA, 1998c), GSI understands that the perimeter footing along the northwesterly side of the Villa Romeria condominium building was underpinned and re-leveled using hydraulically driven small-diameter pipe piles. In their February 9, 1998 report (CEA, 1998c), CEA stated that they inspected the Villa Romeria condominium and grounds, and based on their rev�ew of available topographic and soils data, their thorough inspection, as well as reviews of their floor-level survey data and their contract proposal, it was their "judgement" that the soils beneath the Villa Romeria condominium building would not experience detrimental lateral movement. In CEA (1998c), CEA also stated that BNR Investment and Development, LLC. • File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSolls, Inc. Appendix D Page 4 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 410 of 612 ( ( ( ( they would submit another letter certifying that the piles were driven to the specified capacity, upon completion of the pile driving. On July 20, 1998, CEA prepared a letter stating that the small-diameter piles were driven to the specified capacity or greater, and that all work requiring special inspection had been completed in accordance with the permit requirements (CEA, 1998b). Shortly thereafter, CEA prepared another letter (CEA, 1998a) stating that following issuance of the permit for the foundation repair by the City of Carlsbad, they received construction drawings for the Villa Romeria property showing thatthe continuous foundations were well reinforced. To that end CEA stated that they repositioned the pile caps during repair construction to take advantage of the stronger foundation, and recommended that the City of Carlsbad accept the modified design. Based on statements provided by appellants during the June 11 , 2019 City of Carlsbad City Council hearing and in various emails entered into the public record, GSI understands that the Villa Romeria unit located at 7551 Romeria Street required foundation repair in 2014. There was mention in some of the project appellant emails entered into the public record for the Romeria Pointe project that American Geotechnical, Inc. (AGI) performed an evaluation of the Villa Romeria property prior to the repair work. GSI requested the summary report of AG l's study from the City of Carlsbad. However, it was not included in their files. According to Mr. Allen, based on his personal communication with Mr. Steve Helfrich of Helfrich-Associates, which was the consultant-of-record for the 2014 foundation retrofit, AGI conducted a very limited investigation of the Villa Romeria property. We understand from Mr. Allen that AGI researched site geology, described the distress features, performed a floor-level survey, and oversaw a leak test. Mr. Allen stated that according to Mr. Helfrich, the existing geotechnical reports by C&C and CEA were the geotechnical basis of design for the 2014 foundation retrofit. It should be acknowledged that GSI reserves the right to review any AGI document for the Villa Romeria property to evaluate the appellants' claims regarding "slippage" and/or slope instability. Plans showing the 2014 foundation repair at the Villa Romeria property were prepared by Helfrich-Associates (Helfrich-Associates, 2014b) . The plans included a floor-level survey performed at the 7551 Romeria Street address showing an elevation differential of 1. 7 feet over a horizontal distance of approximately 33 feet with an overall decrease in floor elevations toward the northeasterly corner of this unit. For the repair, Helfrich-Associates (2014b) showed the installation of seven (7) hydraulically driven, small-diameter piles along the northerly side of 7551 Romeria Street and two (2) similar piles along the northwesterly side of this residence. The intent of the piles was to transfer building loads through the existing fill soils into the underlying formational materials, while re-leveling the residential unit. Helfrich-Associates (2014b) also depicted the injection of a polyurethane foam introduced through ports drilled into the concrete floor slab to fill the voids created during the re-leveling process. Helfrich-Associates prepared a report providing recommendations and engineering calculations for the foundation retrofit (Helfrich-Associates, 2014c), and prepared a letter certifying the pile installation (Helfrich-Associates, 2014a). According to Helfrich-Associates (2014a), nine (9) resistance piles were advanced to encounter earth materials providing a minimum resistance of 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi) with final depths ranging between 7 and 37 feet. Helfrich-Associates (2014a) also indicated that the BNR Investment and Development, LLC. • File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoals, Inc. Appendix D Page 5 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 411 of 612 ( ( affected parts of the foundations were lifted a maximum of 1 ½ inches. GSI has not been provided with any geotechnical reports that include monitoring of the installed foundation retrofit at the Villa Romeria property nor conclusions regarding its effectiveness. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. • File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoS01ls, Inc. Appendix D Page 6 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 412 of 612 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS ROMERIA POINTE Carlsbad, California March 9, 2020 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Prepared by: Under the Supervision of: Roman Lopez Christopher Mendiara Transportation Planner II Associate Principal EXHIBIT 11 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 413 of 612 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 4542 Ruffner Street Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92111 858.300.8800 T 858.300.8810 F www.llgengineers.com EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Romeria Pointe project (“Project”) proposes the construction of 23 multi-family dwelling units in two buildings. The Project site located on the west side of Romeria Street, north of La Costa Avenue, in the city of Carlsbad. The Project will be served by two (2) full-access unsignalized driveways to Romeria Street. The Project study area includes four (4) intersections, including the two (2) future project driveways and three (3) street segments. The transportation analyses for the Project were conducted in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. The following scenarios are evaluated in this report: • Existing • Existing + Project • Existing + Cumulative • Existing + Cumulative + Project The gross Project trip generation was calculated using SANDAG’s Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002). The Project is calculated to generate 138 ADT with 11 total AM peak hour trips (2 inbound/ 9 outbound) and 12 total PM peak hour trips (8 inbound/ 4 outbound). This report evaluated the effect of the Project on the Existing and Existing + Cumulative baselines using the two distinct analyses needed to meet requirements for both the City of Carlsbad Growth Management and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) was also conducted for Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street based on City guidelines. No significant Project impacts to vehicular queueing at signalized intersections were identified per City TIA guidelines (Growth Management) analysis, though the Project will make improvements to address deficiencies identified in multi-modal (MMLOS) analysis. No significant Project impacts were determined via regional SANTEC/ITE significance criteria Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 414 of 612 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Impact Analyses ..................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Analysis Approach & Methodology ......................................................................................... 5 2.1 Auto Analysis per City TIA Guidelines (Growth Management Plan) ................................ 5 2.1.1 Study Area .............................................................................................................. 5 2.1.2 Signalized Intersection Methodology ..................................................................... 6 2.1.3 Roadway Segment Level of Service Methodology ................................................ 6 2.2 Auto Analysis per SANTEC/ITE Guidelines (CEQA) ....................................................... 7 2.2.1 Study Area .............................................................................................................. 7 2.2.2 Signalized Intersection Methodology ..................................................................... 7 2.2.3 Unsignalized Intersection Methodology ................................................................. 7 2.2.4 Roadway Segment Methodology ............................................................................ 8 2.3 Multimodal Level of Service Analysis ............................................................................... 8 2.3.1 Multi-Modal Facilities to be Included in Study Area ............................................. 9 2.3.2 Project Multi-Modal Study Area .......................................................................... 10 2.4 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................... 11 2.4.1 TIA Guidelines (Growth Management Plan) ........................................................ 11 2.4.2 SANTEC/ITE Guidelines (CEQA Method) ......................................................... 12 3.0 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................. 15 3.1 Existing Street Network .................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................. 15 3.3 Existing Transit Conditions .............................................................................................. 15 4.0 Proposed Project ...................................................................................................................... 18 4.1 Trip Generation ................................................................................................................. 18 4.2 Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................... 18 4.3 Trip Assignment................................................................................................................ 18 5.0 Cumulative Conditions ............................................................................................................ 23 5.1 Cumulative Projects .......................................................................................................... 23 5.2 Network Conditions .......................................................................................................... 23 6.0 Analysis Per City TIA Guidelines (Growth Management Plan) ......................................... 28 6.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 28 6.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 28 6.3 Analysis of Existing + Project Conditions ........................................................................ 28 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 415 of 612 6.4 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative Conditions ................................................................ 29 6.5 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative + Project Conditions ................................................. 29 6.6 MMLOS Analysis ............................................................................................................. 30 6.7 TIA Guidelines – Findings and Conclusions .................................................................... 31 7.0 Analysis Per SANTEC/ITE Guidelines (CEQA) .................................................................. 32 7.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 32 7.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 32 7.2.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis .............................................. 32 7.2.2 Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................................................. 32 7.3 Analysis of Existing + Project Conditions ........................................................................ 32 7.3.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis .............................................. 32 7.3.2 Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................................................. 32 7.4 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative Conditions ................................................................ 35 7.4.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis .............................................. 35 7.4.2 Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................................................. 35 7.5 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative + Project Conditions ................................................. 35 7.5.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis .............................................. 35 7.5.2 Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................................................. 35 7.6 CEQA Method – Findings and Conclusions ..................................................................... 38 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 416 of 612 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Intersection Analysis Methodology B. Existing Traffic Count Sheets C. MMLOS Results D. HCM Analysis Worksheets – Existing E. HCM Analysis Worksheets – Existing + Project F. HCM Analysis Worksheets – Existing + Cumulative G. HCM Analysis Worksheets – Existing + Cumulative + Project Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 417 of 612 LIST OF FIGURES SECTION—FIGURE # PAGE Figure 1–1 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 1–2 Project Area Map ............................................................................................................ 3 Figure 1–3 Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2–1 MMLOS Study Area ..................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3–1 Existing Conditions Diagram ........................................................................................ 16 Figure 3–2 Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 17 Figure 4–1 Project Traffic Distribution ........................................................................................... 20 Figure 4–2 Project Traffic Assignment ........................................................................................... 21 Figure 4–3 Existing + Project Traffic Volumes .............................................................................. 22 Figure 5–1 Cumulative Projects Location Map .............................................................................. 24 Figure 5–2 Cumulative Projects Assignment .................................................................................. 25 Figure 5–3 Existing + Cumulative Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 26 Figure 5–4 Existing + Cumulative + Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................... 27 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 418 of 612 LIST OF TABLES SECTION—TABLE # PAGE Table 2–1 Multimodal Level of Service Criteria .................................................................................. 8 Table 2–2 MMLOS Point System & LOS Rating ................................................................................ 9 Table 2–3 Measure of Significant Project Traffic Impacts – Roadways Subject to the Vehicle MMLOS Standard...................................................................................................................... 12 Table 2–4 Traffic Impact Significant Thresholds ............................................................................... 13 Table 4–1 Trip Generation .................................................................................................................. 19 Table 5–1 Cumulative Projects List .................................................................................................... 23 Table 6–1 Existing Signalized Intersection Analysis ......................................................................... 28 Table 6–2 Signalized Intersection Analysis – Cumulative Conditions .............................................. 29 Table 6–3 MMLOS Analysis .............................................................................................................. 30 Table 7–1 Intersection Analysis – Existing Conditions ...................................................................... 33 Table 7–2 Existing + Project Segment Analysis ................................................................................ 34 Table 7–3 Intersection Analysis – Cumulative Conditions ................................................................ 36 Table 7–4 Cumulative Conditions Segment Analysis ........................................................................ 37 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 419 of 612 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS ROMERIA POINTE Carlsbad, California March 9, 2020 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description The Project proposes to construct 23-unit multi-family residential dwelling units. The Project site is located on the west side of Romeria Street between Gibraltar Street and La Costa Avenue in the City of Carlsbad. La Costa Avenue is the major east-west arterial serving the Project vicinity. Figure 1–1 shows the vicinity map. Figure 1–2 shows a more detailed Project area map. Figure 1–3 shows the Project site plan. 1.2 Project Impact Analyses Two distinct analyses are needed to meet requirements for City of Carlsbad Growth Management and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Both analyses are included in this traffic impact analysis. The Growth Management Plan analysis is based on the City of Carlsbad Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, which outlines evaluation of facilities based on their typologies, and it defines analysis methodologies, thresholds of significance, and other necessary considerations. Roadway segment analysis, signalized intersection analysis (queuing at turn lanes), and multimodal level of service (LOS) are included in this portion of the report. The CEQA Analysis is based on the Carlsbad historic use of thresholds of significance in the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region, March 2000. Facilities are evaluated based on Table 1 of the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines. For roadway segments analysis capacity is evaluated using the City of Carlsbad Roadway Capacity Tables. Intersection LOS is evaluated based on the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. No multi-modal analysis is required for this portion of the report. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 420 of 612 S.D.COUNTY CARLSBAD CORONADO ENCINITAS SOLANABEACH CHULA VISTA OCEANSIDE VISTA SAN MARCOS POWAY SANTEE EL CAJON LA MESA LEMONGROVE NATIONALCITY SAN DIEGO S.D. COUNTYS.D. COUNTY ESCONDIDO Time: 9:38 AM Date: 10/30/2019 N:\3155\Figures Vicinity Map Figure 1-1 [ Romeria Pointe §¨8 §¨5 §¨805 §¨5 §¨15 §¨5 §¨8 "Ã54 "Ã125 "Ã94 "Ã52 "Ã163 "Ã56 "Ã78 "Ã67 §¨15 Project Site Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 421 of 612■ -HIHIIM Project Area Map Figure 1-2 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\FiguresDate: 10/28/19 Project Site Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 422 of 612 The Flower Fields Q Pnlom r Alrpo!\ ~ McClellan-Palomar A1rpo P om•• AlrJJon Rd BR SSI R NCH Poinse 1a Park Alga None Community Park u Q South Carlsbad Sta e Beach Campground Sout Ponto Beach ~ ■ . . 11:Hl:iiifi Ba iqu,ros Lagoon State Marine_ •ier Pkwy nclnltas Ranch f Golf Course ~•Blvd l:' ....,# .. l AJg fief cP la Ava i.: ~ f:_ 01/vnnh n Rd 0 0: 2 * ~ i q: ; "' e\•11 w S.,n Matc05 Lake San M rcos Son () 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 222222222 2 2 $ $ $ $ 5( $ 5 6 ( 7 % $ & . ,17(5,25/276,'( 6(7%$&. )5 2 176( 7% $ & . 35 2 3 ( 5 7 < / , 1 ( 3523(57</,1( 352 3 (5 7</,1( 3 5 2 3(57 </,1 ( '5,9(:$<(175< '5,9(:$<(175< $3352;/2&$7,212):$7(50(7(5 520(5,$675((7 * ,% 5 $ / 7 $ 5 6 7 5 ( ( 7 6,'(<$5'6(7%$&. %8,/',1*$%8,/',1*% $ 721(;7&85%&87 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (;,67,1*3$'6*5$'('721(: /(9(/635,2572 &200(1&(0(173(5&0& 3$5.,1*63$&(6:,7+,132',80 3$5.,1*6725,(62)7<3(9&216758&7,2129(57<3(,3$5.,1* /(9(/ 7+5((%('522081,76$1' 21(%('522081,76)25$727$/2) 81,76 21(%('522081,76$5($))25'$%/(6)+$%,7$%/(63$&(29(5 6)2)3$5.,1**$5$*( 3$5.,1*63$&(6:,7+,132',80 3$5.,1*7+5((6725,(62)7<3(9&216758&7,2129(57<3(,3$5.,1* /(9(/ 7+5((%('522081,76$1' 21(%('522081,76)25$727$/2) 81,76 6)+$%,7$%/(63$&(29(5 6)2)3$5.,1**$5$*( 1 5$ , 1 : $ 7 ( 5 ' ( 7 ( 1 7 , 2 1 $ 5 ( $ 5$, 1:$ 7( 5'( 7( 1 7,21 $5 ($ 3$5.,1*/(9(/%(/2:*5$'( 3$5.,1*/(9(/ (;326('6758&785(%(*,16 %8,/',1* 29(5+$1* (;326('3$5.,1* *$5$*(%(/2: 3$5.,1**$5$*( $%29(*5281'211257+6,'( 3$5.,1**$5$*(%(/2:*5$'(#&2857<$5' 721(;7&85%&87 $ $ $ $ $ 0$,/%2;/2&$7,21 02180(176((/$1'6&$3( $5&+,7(&7 63/$16)25'(7$,/672%($33529('%<$6(3$5$7(6,*13(50,7 ) ) /$1'6&$3,1*3/$166+2:1)255()(5(1&( 3/($6(5()(572 /$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&76'5$:,1*6)25'(7$,/6 721(;7 &8 5 %&87 0(7$/)(1&(7<3,&$/ +,*+ 6((&,9,/(1*'5$:,1*6)2565((7 $1'6,'(:$/.7<3,&$/ '(7$,/6 6((*5$',1*3/$16)25$'-$&(177232*5$3+< 6((&,9,/(1* '5$:,1*6)2565((7$1'6,'(:$/.7<3,&$/ '(7$,/6 67 5( (73$ 5.,1*675((73$5.,1*675((73$5.,1* 675((73$5.,1* 29(5+$1* %8,/',1*29(5+$1* $//127(6/$%(/('NOT IN PERMI3$572)7+,6$33/,&$7,21 62,/6(;&$9$7,215(&203$&7,2*5$',1*72)2//2:3$5$0(7(56*(2/2*,&$/5(325783'$7(35(*(262,/6,1&'$7('$35,/ $//1(:*5$'('6/23(66+$//%7+$1+ 9 $//685)$&(:$7(50867'5$,1%8,/',1*$0,1,0802):,7+,1 +25,=217$/ )25,03(59,286 $///226()281'$7,21(;&$9$7, 6+$//%(5(029('35,2572&202))5$0,1*6/23(6',6785%('% &216758&7,21$&7,9,7,(66+$// $//5(7$,1,1*:$//66+$//%(3568%'5$,16<67(07235(9(1732+<'5267$7,&35(6685(%(+,1'7 $//522)$1'3$''5$,1$*(6+$&21'8&7('727+(675((7,1$10$11(5,):$7(56+$//%(',63('(6&(1',1*6/23(6$&48,5(63$33529$/)5207+(*5$',1*6(&2168/7,1**(2/2*,67$1'256 $//'(&.'5$,1$*(6+$//%(&2/ &21'8&7('72$1$33529('/2&121(526,9('(9,&( &2175$&725725(9,(:%27+35'5$,1$*(&21',7,216$1'127,)<$1<',6&5(3$1&,(625&21',7,2127$//2:)25326,7,9('5$,1$*%8,/',1*$1'27+(56758&785(6&200(1&(6,7('5$,1$*(:25.',6&5(3$1&,(6$1'&21',7,216+5(9,(:('%<$5&+,7(&7 $//3,3,1*6+$//%(,1&+',$0(127,)<$5&+,7(&72)',6&5(3$1&81'(56,=('3,3,1*6<67(06 $//62/,''5$,1$*(3,3,1*6+$//0,1,0806/23(2)81/(6627 127(' '5$,1$*($5281'$:$<)520 $0,1,080',67$1&(2) $/7(56:$/(6:,7+6/23(2)6+$//:,7+,1 2)%8,/',1*)281'$7,2 $//(;,67,1*75((6725(0$,1827+(5:,6(127('3527(&7(;,6'85,1*$//&216758&7,2123(5$1(('(' $5&+,7(&7729(5,)<$//'5$,1/35,25727+(,5,167$//$7,21 $&23<2)7+(&216758&7,21'2&203$5$%/('2&80(17,1',&$7, ,1)250$7,21)520( 7+(3$1(/2568%3$1(/6+$//35 &$3$&,7<72,167$//$$03(5('(',&$7('%5$1&+&,5&8,7$1'65(6(59('723(50,7,167$//$7,2&,5&8,729(5&855(173527(&7,9 7+(6(59,&(3$1(/2568%3$1(/',5(&725<6+$//,'(17,)<7+(293527(&7,9('(9,&(63$&( 6 5(6)8785((9&+$5*,1*$6(9&$3$5$&(:$<7(50,1$7,21/2&$7,213(50$1(17$1'9,6,%/<0$5.(' 3523(57< 6(7%$&. %8,/',1*) )(1&( (;,67,1*7 +26(%,% 6,7(/(*(1' 0(7$/)(167</(7%' ),5($&&(6 (*5(66$& /2&$7,212678%2876 2876 (;,67,1*8 352326(' OO O 6KHHW7LWOH 6K&/,(17 'D W H 6L] H 5H Y L V L R Q [ FDPLQRGHHVWUHOOD VDQFOHPHQWHFDOLIRUQLD SKRQH ID[IR[OLQFRPZHE LQIR#IR[OLQFRPHPDLO -R E 352-(&7$''5(66 DUFKLWHFWXUHGHVLJQFRQVXOWLQJ '5$:,1*6(7 6'3 5 ? 5RPHULDDQG5HVRUW9LH Z?520(5,$?'?5HYLW?'(7$&+(' FXUUHQW ? 5RPHULD> @ UYW 30 & ',6&5(7,21$5<5(9,(: 30 %15'(9(/230(17 6,7(3/$1520(5,$32,17($3$570(176 ',6&5(7,21$5< 5(9,(: 520(5,$$1'*,%5$/7$5 &$5/6%$'&$ $ 6 , 7 ( 3 / $ 1 , 6 6 8 ( ' 6,7 ( 3 / $ 1 Site Plan Figure 1-3 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\FiguresDate: 10/28/19 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 423 of 612 l , . ---' ' ----------------~ ' I ~~~□--\~ ~'1=-1~~.lL__ __1_ ~ __ ~ _ __ / '.\r I~--~~ 1 1 I l ~ . ! i <D i ,'\' .1,1 ~ ••• : V-I / ~ •' (, ' .-' o' ~ '\ 0 \ ■ . 11:Hl:iiifi 2.0 ANALYSIS APPROACH & METHODOLOGY As discussed in Section 1.2 above, two distinct analyses are provided to address both the City’s Growth Management Plan and State of California CEQA requirements. Each of these approaches evaluates components of the street system, but using different methodologies. The following is a discussion of these methodologies. 2.1 Auto Analysis per City TIA Guidelines (Growth Management Plan) The following summarizes the evaluation methodologies to be used per the City of Carlsbad Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, consistent with the City’s adopted Growth Management Plan. 2.1.1 Study Area Per the City of Carlsbad TIA Guidelines, the study area shall include the following: Intersections All signalized intersections within 0.25 miles of a project access point serving vehicles will be included in the study area. Additional intersections within 0.25 to 0.5 miles from the project access points may also be added to the study area the discretion of the City Engineer / City Traffic Engineer. Unsignalized intersections located along corridors subject to Auto MMLOS within the project study area may require a traffic signal warrant analysis. A warrant analysis is required if: o The unsignalized intersection provides direct access to the project site, or o The unsignalized intersection provides direct access to a cumulative project considered in the Transportation Impact Analysis o The unsignalized intersection has been identified by the City as a potential signalized intersection. A warrant analysis is not required for right turn in/right turn out only intersections or driveways that are physically restricted by a raised center median. Street Segments Non-freeway roadway segments that are subject to Auto MMLOS Criteria and expected to experience an increase in project traffic equal to 50 or more peak hour trips in either direction of travel. Freeway Mainline Segments Freeway mainline segments where the project adds 50 or more peak hour trips in either direction of travel. Freeway Ramps Freeway entrance and exit ramps where the proposed project will add 20 or more peak-hour trips and/or cause any traffic queues to exceed ramp storage capacities. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 424 of 612 Based on these guidelines, the following auto facilities are included in the study area for Growth Management Plan analysis: Intersections Gibraltar Street / Romeria Street (unsignalized) Romeria Street / Project Driveway North (unsignalized) Romeria Street / Project Driveway South (unsignalized) La Costa Avenue / Romeria Street (signalized) 2.1.2 Signalized Intersection Methodology The City of Carlsbad’s published TIA Guidelines state that all signalized intersections within the study area are subject to the signalized intersection analysis. The analysis will address the adequacy of the signalized intersection geometry to serve the existing, forecast and project traffic through the intersection. As stated previously, all signalized intersection within 0.25 miles of the project auto access driveway or intersection shall be evaluated if the project adds trips to the left turn or right turning movements at the intersection. The signalized study area will be based on trip generation and trip assignment for the project. Analyses will be based on the following criteria: • Left turn queue assessment: Compare the left turn volume with the length of the left turn pocket(s). A general rule of thumb of one foot per left turning vehicle per lane may be used for this analysis. • Left turn volume: If the left turn volume exceeds 250 vehicles per hour, a second left turn lane is recommended. • Right turn volume: If the right turn volume exceeds 150 vehicles per hour, a dedicated right turn lane is recommended. 2.1.3 Roadway Segment Level of Service Methodology The City of Carlsbad’s published TIA Guidelines state that roadways within the Project study area subject to Auto MMLOS standards shall be evaluated using the most current version of the Highway Capacity Manual, as outlined in the City’s General Plan Mobility Element (2015). Roadway Capacity Tables derived from the Highway Capacity Manual were developed specifically for each roadway subject to MMLOS in the City of Carlsbad. The specific capacity calculated for each roadway takes into account key geometric and operational factors including number of lanes, type of facility, intersection cycle length, distance between intersections, and other factors related to lane capacity and signal operations. The capacity for each roadway segment was calculated using the ARTPLAN software, which was developed using the capacity calculations outlined in the HCM. The ARTPLAN software package is used nationally as a planning tool, but alternative methods can be used to calculate roadway segment capacity. The City of Carlsbad Roadway Capacity Tables Report provides the directional capacity for each roadway segment subject to MMLOS analysis in the General Plan Mobility Element. To evaluate the operating conditions along a study corridor, peak hour volumes are compared to the Roadway Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 425 of 612 Capacity Tables to determine the segment operating conditions. The LOS for each segment is reported for all study scenarios in the TIA. 2.2 Auto Analysis per SANTEC/ITE Guidelines (CEQA) 2.2.1 Study Area Per the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region, the study area must include: All local roadway segments (including all State surface routes), intersections, and mainline freeway locations where the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips in either direction to the existing roadway traffic. All freeway entrance and exit ramps where the proposed project will add 20 or more peak hour trips. Based on the Project’s trip generation and distribution (Section 4.0), the following locations are included in the Project study area for CEQA Analysis: Intersections Gibraltar Street / Romeria Street (unsignalized) Romeria Street / Project Driveway North (unsignalized) Romeria Street / Project Driveway South (unsignalized) La Costa Avenue / Romeria Street (signalized) Street Segments Romeria Street Gibraltar Street to La Costa Avenue La Costa Avenue Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street Romeria Street to Cadencia Street 2.2.2 Signalized Intersection Methodology Signalized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay was determined utilizing the methodology found in Chapter 19 of the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6), with the assistance of the Synchro 10 computer software. The delay values (represented in seconds) are presented for the pre-and-post Project conditions. A more detailed explanation of the methodology is attached in Appendix A. 2.2.3 Unsignalized Intersection Methodology Unsignalized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay was determined based upon the procedures found in Chapter 20 and Chapter 21 of the HCM 6 with the assistance of the Synchro 10 computer software. A more detailed explanation of the methodology is also attached in Appendix A. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 426 of 612 2.2.4 Roadway Segment Methodology The City of Carlsbad has historically evaluated street segment LOS by evaluating the volume-to- capacity ratio for peak hour traffic. The City has updated the capacity table utilized for the “Volume/Capacity”, or “V/C” method with development of the recent City of Carlsbad Segment LOS Capacity Threshold table also utilized in the Growth Management Plan roadway LOS methodology described above in Section 2.1.3. 2.3 Multimodal Level of Service Analysis The City of Carlsbad requires multimodal level of service (MMLOS) evaluation for pedestrian, bicycle and transit/rideshare users of the public roadway system. The City organizes the street network by a system of “typologies”, as defined by the City of Carlsbad Mobility Element. Depending on the typology, different streets may require different MMLOS evaluations. For each roadway user set (pedestrian, bicycle, transit), general criteria groups have been identified. Table 2–1 shows a summary of the criteria for each roadway user set. TABLE 2–1 MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA Roadway Users Pedestrian Bicycle Transit/Ridesharing Accessibility & Functionality Street Characteristics Access Street Characteristics Facility (each side of street) Connectivity Crossing Characteristics Bikeway Design Transit Priority Other Elements Connectivity/Contiguity Service – Adjacent Vehicle Parking Amenities – Other Elements. Bicycle Accommodations – – Available Mobility Services Source: City of Carlsbad. Each roadway's typography is evaluated for the particular set of roadway users based on sub-criteria, which is assigned “typology points”. The following represents examples of sub-criteria within the “Transit and Ridesharing” general criteria group with corresponding points assigned: • Access – “ADA compliant sidewalk or path to transit stops in both directions” (15 points assigned) • Connectivity – “Multiple transit routes on segment” (10 points assigned) • Transit Priority – “Dedicated right of way” (5 points assigned) • Service – “Commute shuttle service provided during the morning and afternoon commute periods” (10 points assigned) • Amenities – “Covered bus stops” (5 points assigned) • Bicycle Accommodations – “Bike parking available at the bus stop” (5 points assigned) • Available Mobility Services – “On demand rideshare services available” (10 points assigned) Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 427 of 612 The MMLOS analysis evaluates each of the sub-criteria, totals the points for the subject street typology, and compares the points to the City’s MMLOS Point System and LOS Rating, shown in Table 2–2. This table assigns a qualitative LOS to several ranges of points, similar to the application of LOS to ranges in delay for CEQA-analysis intersection operations. TABLE 2–2 MMLOS POINT SYSTEM & LOS RATING Point Score LOS 90-100 A 80-90 B 70-80 C 60-70 D 50-60 E 0-50 F Source: City of Carlsbad The City’s Mobility Element calls for each street typology to achieve LOS D or better operations for each mode subject to LOS standards. It should be noted that scores in excess of 100 points can be achieved. 2.3.1 Multi-Modal Facilities to be Included in Study Area In general, multi-modal facilities must be included in the study area based on the following criteria: Pedestrian: All pedestrian facilities that are directly connected to project access points will be included in the study area. All pedestrian facilities adjacent to the project development site that provide direct pedestrian access to the project site will be included in the study area. The analysis of each pedestrian facility will extend in each direction to the nearest intersection or connection point to a multiuse trail or path. The study area will extend from the project site until a Mobility Element Road or Class I trail is reached in each direction. Pedestrian facilities shall include all existing and proposed sidewalks, crosswalks, signalized pedestrian phases, and ADA-compliant facilities. Pedestrian analysis need only be conducted for the side of the street where the project is located, unless the project is located on both sides of the street, in which case both sides of the street should be studied. Pedestrian analysis shall be conducted for all roadway segments included in the study area that are subject to the Pedestrian MMLOS standards. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 428 of 612 Bicycle: All facilities that bicyclists can legally use shall be included in the study area from each project access point extending in each direction of travel to the nearest intersection, dedicated bicycle facility, or connection point to a multiuse trail or path. Inventory and evaluation shall include all off-street and on-street bicycle paths, lanes, and routes. Bicycle analysis shall be conducted for both directions of travel (e.g. both sides of the street) of each facility included in the study area. Bicycle analysis shall be conducted for roadway segments subject to the Bicycle MMLOS standards. Transit: All existing transit lines and transit stops within ½ mile walking distance of the project site shall be included in the study area. If the roadways within the study area are not subject to Transit MMLOS standards no further transit analysis is required. All transit lines located within ½ mile walking distance of the project site will be analyzed according to Transit MMLOS. All pedestrian routes linking the project site to a transit line within the ¼ mile walking distance boundary. If no transit lines are provided, but the roadways within the study area are identified as subject to Transit MMLOS, the project shall complete the worksheet for “No Transit Located within ½ Mile Walk from Subject Site or Roadway Segment”. Transportation Demand Management Measures shall be identified for the project, which may include on-demand transit, flex, or other measures. 2.3.2 Project Multi-Modal Study Area Based on the study area criteria shown in Section 2.3.1, the MMLOS study area includes the following: Pedestrian The Project site will provide pedestrian access to both Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. Therefore, the segments below are evaluated for Pedestrian MMLOS. Romeria Street (Local/Neighborhood Street) Gibraltar Street to La Costa Avenue (southbound only) Gibraltar Street (Local/Neighborhood Street) Romeria Street to La Costa Avenue (eastbound only) Bicycle The Project site will provide pedestrian access to both Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. Therefore, the segments below are evaluated for Bicycle MMLOS. Romeria Street (Local/Neighborhood Street) Gibraltar Street to La Costa Avenue (both directions) Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 429 of 612 Gibraltar Street (Local/Neighborhood Street) Romeria Street to La Costa Avenue (both directions) Transit None There are no transit lines or stops within ½ mile walking distance of the Project site, nor are the roadways within the study area subject to Transit MMLOS. Figure 2–1 shows the MMLOS study area. 2.4 Thresholds of Significance 2.4.1 TIA Guidelines (Growth Management Plan) The City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program “Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (last amended August 22, 2017)” states that the performance standard for the circulation system is as follows: Implement a comprehensive livable streets network that serves all users of the system – vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. Maintain LOS D or better for all modes that are subject to this multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) standard, as identified in Table 3-1 of the General Plan Mobility Element, excluding LOS exempt intersections and streets approved by the City Council. Thus, the Growth Management Plan’s standard for all non-exempt street system facilities is LOS D. To comply with the Growth Management Program, all roadway facilities identified as not meeting the performance standard (LOS D) in the existing conditions scenario must be fully mitigated regardless of the project impact to that facility, or the TIA must request an exemption from the LOS D standard according to the Mobility Element Implementing Policy 3-P.9. The project causes a significant impact to the transportation facility in the study area if one or more of the following criteria is met: • The roadway facility is projected to exceed the LOS D standard and the project’s traffic meets or exceeds the thresholds of significance listed in Table 2–3; or • A ramp meter delay exceeds 15 minutes and the project’s traffic meets or exceeds the thresholds of significance listed in Table 2–3; or • The addition of project results in a change in LOS from acceptable (LOS D or better) to deficient (LOS E or F) on a roadway segment, freeway segment or ramp; or • The project results in a change in conditions on a roadway segment, freeway segment or ramp that exceeds the allowable thresholds (outlined in Table 2–3) for locations operating at a deficient LOS without the project (baseline conditions). Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 430 of 612 TABLE 2–3 MEASURE OF SIGNIFICANT PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS – ROADWAYS SUBJECT TO THE VEHICLE MMLOS STANDARD Auto Facility Subject to MMLOS Thresholds Threshold of Significance Roadway Segment Any trip added to a segment forecast to operate at deficient LOS requires project mitigation; Project mitigation will be determined based on project contribution to the identified impact. Freeway Segment 1% increase in V/C or 1 mph decrease in speed Ramp Meter 2-minute increase Source: Table 6 – Carlsbad TIA Guidelines (FINAL), April 2018. The project can have either a direct or cumulative impact as follows: • Direct Impacts: any significant impact identified under existing conditions. Direct impacts shall be fully mitigated by the project. • Cumulative Impacts: any significant impact identified under Cumulative and Horizon Year conditions. Cumulative impacts may be mitigated through fair share contribution. Projects identified for fair share contribution should be included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) or Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. Any roadway section that is identified as having a significant impact must either: • Mitigate the traffic impact to pre-project conditions, or • Request LOS exemption from City Council for the LOS standard and identify feasible TSM & TDM mitigation Because of the qualitative nature of the MMLOS methodology, a project impact is significant if an existing pedestrian, bicycle or transit facility is determined to not meet the LOS D standard regardless of the forecasted number of project trips expected to use the facility. An impact occurs and is deemed significant if: • An existing facility in the project study area does not meet the pedestrian, bicycle or transit LOS standard, or • The project causes a standard facility to become substandard (e.g., removal of an existing bike lane or bus stop, or blocking pedestrian access), or • A gap is identified in or directly adjacent to the study area related to pedestrian, bicycle or transit service to the project site. 2.4.2 SANTEC/ITE Guidelines (CEQA Method) A project is considered to have a significant impact if the new project traffic has decreased the operations of surrounding roadways by a defined threshold. The defined thresholds shown in Table 2–4 below for freeway segments, roadway segments, intersections, and ramp meter facilities are based on published San Diego Traffic Engineers’ Council (SANTEC) guidelines. If the project Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 431 of 612 exceeds the thresholds in Table 2–4, then the project may be considered to have a significant project impact. A feasible mitigation measure will need to be identified to return the impact within the thresholds (pre-project + allowable increase) or the impact will be considered significant and unmitigated. TABLE 2–4 TRAFFIC IMPACT SIGNIFICANT THRESHOLDS Level of Service with Projecta Allowable Increase Due to Project Impactsb Freeways Roadway Segments Intersections Ramp Metering V/C Speed (mph) V/C Speed (mph) Delay (sec.) Delay (min.) D, E & F (or ramp meter delays above 15 minutes) 0.01 1 0.02 1 2 2c Footnotes: a. All level of service measurements are based upon HCM procedures for peak-hour conditions. However, V/C ratios for Roadway Segments may be estimated on an ADT/24-hour traffic volume basis (using Table 2 or a similar LOS chart for each jurisdiction). The acceptable LOS for freeways, roadways, and intersections is generally “D” (“C” for undeveloped or not densely developed locations per jurisdiction definitions). For metered freeway ramps, LOS does not apply. However, ramp meter delays above 15 minutes are considered excessive. b. If a proposed project’s traffic causes the values shown in the table to be exceeded, the impacts are deemed to be significant. These impact changes may be measured from appropriate computer programs or expanded manual spreadsheets. The project applicant shall then identify feasible mitigations (within the Traffic Impact Study [TIS] report) that will maintain the traffic facility at an acceptable LOS. If the LOS with the proposed project becomes unacceptable (see note a above), or if the project adds a significant amount of peak hour trips to cause any traffic queues to exceed on- or off-ramp storage capacities, the project applicant shall be responsible for mitigating significant impact changes. c. The impact is only considered significant if the total delay exceeds 15 minutes. General Notes: 1. V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio 2. Speed = Arterial speed measured in miles per hour 3. Delay = Average stopped delay per vehicle measured in seconds for intersections, or minutes for ramp meters. 4. LOS = Level of Service Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 432 of 612 MMLOS Study Area Figure 2-1 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\FiguresDate: 03/09/20 Gibraltar S t Ro m e r i a S t La Costa A v e Romeria St - Local / Neighborhood Street- PED MMLOS- Bike MMLOS Gibraltar St - Local / Neighborhood Street- PED MMLOS- Bike MMLOS Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 433 of 612 n ■ . . IBll:iiifi 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section presents existing transportation conditions for street system components identified for either Growth Management, CEQA, or Multi-Modal analysis. 3.1 Existing Street Network The following is a description of the major roadways within the study area. Figure 3–1 illustrates existing conditions in the study area in terms of traffic lanes and intersection controls. Romeria Street is classified as a Local/Neighborhood Street on the City of Carlsbad Mobility Element. Romeria Street is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway from La Costa Avenue to Levante Street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Bike lanes are not provided on either side of the road. On-street parking and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. Gibraltar Street is classified as a Local Neighborhood Street on the City of Carlsbad Mobility Element. Gibraltar Street is built as a two-lane undivided roadway from La Costa Avenue to its terminus northeast of Romeria Street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. On- street parking and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. No bicycle facilities are provided. La Costa Avenue in the Project vicinity is classified as a Neighborhood Connector Street in the City of Carlsbad Mobility Element. It is currently built with one vehicular travel lane in each direction and a two-way left-turn lane median in the Project vicinity Class II buffered Bike Lanes and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the road. On-street parking is permitted along some portions of the street. The posted speed limit is 40 mph within the study area. 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes AM/PM peak hour (7:00 am-9:00 am/ 4:00 pm-6:00 pm) intersection counts at all study area intersections were conducted on Thursday, October 17, 2019 while schools in the area were in session. Directional peak hour street segment volumes were derived from the peak hour turning movement counts. Figure 3–2 shows the Existing Traffic Volumes. Appendix B contains the intersection count sheets. 3.3 Existing Transit Conditions There are no transit services within ½ mile walking distance of the Project site. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 434 of 612 C A R L S B A DC A R L S B A D RomeriaSt G i b r alt a r St L a C o s t a A v e 1 2 3 4 Time: 3:12 PM Date: 10/28/2019 N:\3155\Figures Existing Conditions Diagram Figure 3-1 [ Romeria Pointe Future Proj Dwy (N . ) FutureProj Dwy (S.) !"$ ÊeeeLa Costa Ave Proj Dwy (S.) Ro m e r i a S t Ro m e r i a S t Ro m e r i a S t Proj Dwy (N.) Ro m e r i a S t Gibraltar St F HK FH K FH K DJ L G DK G 1 2 3 4 2U Study Intersection Traffic Signal Stop Sign Turning Movements Project Site Number of Travel Lanes Divided/Undivided Roadway Posted Speed Limit * Two-Way Left Turn Median # 2/4/6 U / D 35mph DJL STOP 2U 2U 2 U 2U* 2U* 40mph 40mph 2 U 25mph 2 5 m p h Future Future Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 435 of 612 0 0 0 0 ...... ---0 0 0 0 a • c:J ■ . ' -Hiiiiil C A R L S B A DC A R L S B A D Romeria St Gib r alt a r S t L a C o sta A v e 1 2 3 4 Time: 3:12 PM Date: 10/28/2019 N:\3155\Figures Existing Traffic Volumes Figure 3-2 [ Romeria Pointe Future Proj Dwy (N . ) FutureProj Dwy (S.) LL J D J D J J J J L J D D L J D LJD L J La Costa Ave Proj Dwy (S.) Ro m e r i a S t Ro m e r i a S t Ro m e r i a S t Proj Dwy (N.) Ro m e r i a S t Gibraltar St 9 / 9 26 / 21 13 / 4 15 / 8 3 / 8 11 / 1 5 49 / 2 8 17 / 4 2 49 / 2 8 17 / 4 2 13 / 1 0 6 / 1 30 / 1 7 1 / 8 10 / 28 668 / 416 19 / 4 29 / 1 0 6 / 6 97 / 4 6 44 / 48314 / 625 1 2 3 4 J J 1 7 / 4 2 4 9 / 2 8 J J697 / 448 373 / 652 J J 778 / 472 359 / 681 Study Intersections Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Peak Hour Midblock Volumes # DJL XX / XXJ Future Future Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 436 of 612 0 0 0 0 ··········O 0 0 0 ■ . ' -Hiiiiil 4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT 4.1 Trip Generation The Project site consists of 23 multi-family dwelling units in two buildings on a 0.71-acre site. Trip generation estimates for the Project were based on the SANDAG’s Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002). Table 4–1 tabulates the Project traffic generation.The project is calculated to generate 138 ADT with 11 total AM peak hour trips (2 inbound/ 9 outbound) and 12 total PM peak hour trips (8 inbound/ 4 outbound). 4.2 Trip Distribution The Project’s trip distribution was developed based on a review of existing traffic volumes at adjacent intersections. 4.3 Trip Assignment The Project traffic generation in Table 4–1 was assigned to the street system based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 4–1. The resulting assignment of net AM/PM peak hour volumes is shown on Figure 4–2. These AM/PM traffic volumes are added to the existing 2019 traffic volumes to produce the Existing + Project volumes evaluated in the analyses. Figure 4–3 shows the Existing + Project AM/PM peak hour volumes. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 437 of 612 TABLE 4–1 TRIP GENERATION Land Use Quantity Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate a ADT % of ADT In:Out Split Volume % of ADT In:Out Split Volume In Out Total In Out Total Proposed Apartment (Multi-family > 20 DU/acre) 23 DU 6/DU 138 8% 20:80 2 9 11 9% 70:30 8 4 12 Footnotes: a. Trip generation based on SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002 (“SANDAG Brief Guide”). Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 438 of 612 C A R L S B A DC A R L S B A D R o me ria StGibraltar S t L a C o s t a A v e 1 2 3 4 Time: 11:42 AM Date: 10/30/2019 N:\3155\Figures Project Trip Distribution Figure 4-1 [ Romeria Pointe Proj Dwy ( N . ) Proj Dwy (S.) 20% 70% 10% Study Intersection Regional Trip Distribution # XX % Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 439 of 612 0 -o 0 0 ■ . ' -Hiiiiil C A R L S B A DC A R L S B A D Romeria St Gib r alt a r S t L a C o sta A v e 1 2 3 4 Time: 3:16 PM Date: 10/28/2019 N:\3155\Figures Project Traffic Volumes Figure 4-2 [ Romeria Pointe Proj Dwy (N . ) Proj Dwy (S.) L D L L DD J JDL L D D L La Costa Ave Proj Dwy (S.) Ro m e r i a S t Ro m e r i a S t Ro m e r i a S t Proj Dwy (N.) Ro m e r i a S t Gibraltar St 0 / 1 1 / 0 0 / 1 4 / 2 1 / 3 1 / 0 4 / 2 1 / 3 1 / 4 4 / 2 6 / 3 2 / 1 2 / 5 0 / 2 1 2 3 4 J J 2 / 7 8 / 4 J J0 / 2 2 / 1 J J 6 / 3 2 / 5 Study Intersections Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Peak Hour Midblock Volumes # DJL XX / XXJ Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 440 of 612 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■ . ' -Hiiiiil C A R L S B A DC A R L S B A D Romeria St Gib r alt a r S t L a C o sta A v e 1 2 3 4 Time: 3:15 PM Date: 10/28/2019 N:\3155\Figures Existing + Project Traffic Volumes Figure 4-3 [ Romeria Pointe Proj Dwy (N . ) Proj Dwy (S.) LL J D J D J L DD J L J JDL L J D D L J D LJD L J La Costa Ave Proj Dwy (S.) Ro m e r i a S t Ro m e r i a S t Ro m e r i a S t Proj Dwy (N.) Ro m e r i a S t Gibraltar St 9 / 9 26 / 22 13 / 4 15 / 8 3 / 8 12 / 1 5 49 / 2 8 4 / 2 1 / 3 1 / 0 17 / 4 2 0 / 1 53 / 3 0 18 / 4 5 1 / 4 4 / 2 19 / 1 3 6 / 1 32 / 1 8 3 / 13 10 / 30 668 / 416 19 / 4 29 / 1 0 6 / 6 97 / 4 6 44 / 48 314 / 625 1 2 3 4 J J 1 9 / 4 9 5 7 / 3 2 J J697 / 450 375 / 653 J J 784 / 475 361 / 686 Study Intersections Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Peak Hour Midblock Volumes # DJL XX / XXJ Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 441 of 612 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■ . ' -Hiiiiil 5.0 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS The following describes the potential cumulative development and street network conditions in the near-term scenarios. 5.1 Cumulative Projects To determine Near-Term (Existing + Cumulative) conditions, LLG reviewed approved and pending projects within the City of Carlsbad to identify projects that will add traffic to the Project study area in the near-term condition. In coordination with the City, the following four (4) cumulative projects were identified for inclusion in Near-Term conditions. Table 5–1 lists and describes each cumulative project and Figure 5–1 depicts the cumulative project locations. Figure 5–2 shows the total cumulative projects AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes. Figure 5–3 shows the AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes for the “Existing + Cumulative” scenario. Figure 5–4 shows the peak hour traffic volumes for the “Existing + Cumulative + Project” scenario. 5.2 Network Conditions There are no known pending improvements to the study area street network or to nearby facilities that would notably affect conditions in the study area. No improvements or changes to the study area street facilities are assumed for Near-Term (Existing + Cumulative) conditions. TABLE 5–1 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST # Permit Number Project Name Description 1 CT2019-0001 La Costa Villas North 9 condominiums to be located at 400 Gibraltar Street. 2 SDP2018-0022 Resort View Apartments 26 apartment units to be located on the west side of Viejo Castilla Way, between Navarra Drive and Pirineos Way. 3 — Romeria Street single family homes 3 single family homes located on Romeria Street south of La Costa Avenue. 4 CT2017-0003 La Costa Town Square Parcel 3 95 condominiums located at La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. Source: City of Carlsbad Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 442 of 612 CumulaƟve Projects LocaƟon Map Figure 5-1 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\FiguresDate: 10/28/19 See Section 5.0 for a detailed description of each project 12 4 3 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 443 of 612 Ji, .<'•r•doy,i,e McClellan-Palomar A1rpo P om•• AlrJJon Rd The Flower Fields Q Pnlom r Alrpo!\ ~ BR SSI R NCH Poinse 1a Park Alga None Community Park Q South Carlsbad Sta e Beach Campground sout Ponto Beach ~ ■ . . 11:Hl:iiifi Ba iqu,ros Lagoon State Marine_ •ier Pkwy nclnltas Ranch f Golf Course ~•Blvd l:' ....,# .. l AJg fief cP la Ava i.: ": 01/vnnh n Rd "' 0 0: 2 ~ i q: ; "' e\•11 w S.,n Matc05 Lake San M rcos Son () C A R L S B A DC A R L S B A D Romeria St Gib r alt a r S t L a C o sta A v e 1 2 3 4 Time: 8:13 AM Date: 10/29/2019 N:\3155\Figures Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes Figure 5-2 [ Romeria Pointe L D J J J J D J L J D LDL La Costa Ave Proj Dwy (S.) Ro m e r i a S t Ro m e r i a S t Ro m e r i a S t Proj Dwy (N.) Ro m e r i a S t Gibraltar St 1 / 1 1 / 1 1 / 1 1 / 1 1 / 1 1 / 1 1 / 1 3 / 6 1 / 1 5 / 4 1 / 0 0 / 1 1 / 1 1 / 2 1 2 3 4 J J 1 / 1 1 / 1 J J7 / 5 4 / 8 J J 6 / 5 4 / 8 Study Intersections Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Peak Hour Midblock Volumes # DJL XX / XXJ Future Proj Dwy (N . ) FutureProj Dwy (S.) Future Future Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 444 of 612 0 0 0 0 ··········O 0 0 0 ■ . ' -Hiiiiil C A R L S B A DC A R L S B A D Romeria St Gib r alt a r S t L a C o sta A v e 1 2 3 4 Time: 3:23 PM Date: 10/28/2019 N:\3155\Figures Existing + Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes Figure 5-3 [ Romeria Pointe LL J D J D J J J J L J D D L J D LJD L J La Costa Ave Proj Dwy (S.) Ro m e r i a S t Ro m e r i a S t Ro m e r i a S t Proj Dwy (N.) Ro m e r i a S t Gibraltar St 9 / 9 27 / 22 13 / 4 15 / 8 3 / 8 12 / 1 6 50 / 2 9 18 / 4 3 50 / 2 9 18 / 4 3 13 / 1 0 6 / 1 31 / 1 8 1 / 8 11 / 29 673 / 420 20 / 4 29 / 1 1 6 / 6 98 / 4 7 45 / 50 317 / 631 1 2 3 4 J J 1 8 / 4 3 5 0 / 2 9 J J704 / 453 377 / 660 J J 784 / 477 363 / 689 Study Intersections Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Peak Hour Midblock Volumes # DJL XX / XXJ Future Future Future Proj Dwy (N . ) FutureProj Dwy (S.) Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 445 of 612 0 0 0 0 ··········O 0 0 0 ■ . ' -Hiiiiil C A R L S B A DC A R L S B A D Romeria St Gib r alt a r S t L a C o sta A v e 1 2 3 4 Time: 3:26 PM Date: 10/28/2019 N:\3155\Figures Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Traffic Volumes Figure 5-4 [ Romeria Pointe Proj Dwy (N . ) Proj Dwy (S.) LL J D J D J L DD J L J JDL L J D D L J D LJD L J La Costa Ave Proj Dwy (S.) Ro m e r i a S t Ro m e r i a S t Ro m e r i a S t Proj Dwy (N.) Ro m e r i a S t Gibraltar St 9 / 9 27 / 23 13 / 4 15 / 8 3 / 8 13 / 1 6 50 / 2 9 4 / 2 1 / 3 1 / 0 18 / 4 3 0 / 1 54 / 3 1 19 / 4 6 1 / 4 4 / 2 19 / 1 3 6 / 1 33 / 1 9 3 / 13 11 / 31 673 / 420 20 / 4 29 / 1 1 6 / 6 98 / 4 7 45 / 50 317 / 631 1 2 3 4 J J 2 0 / 5 0 5 8 / 3 3 J J704 / 455 379 / 661 J J 790 / 480 365 / 694 Study Intersections Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Peak Hour Midblock Volumes # DJL XX / XXJ Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 446 of 612 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■ . ' -Hiiiiil 6.0 ANALYSIS PER CITY TIA GUIDELINES (GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN) 6.1 Background Based on the approach and methodologies described in Section 2.1 for the Growth Management Plan analysis, the following is an evaluation of the one (1) signalized intersections within the study area. As the Project generates a maximum of 12 peak hour trips (see Section 4.1), there are no street segments which meet the 50 peak hour trip threshold for inclusion in the analysis. Significance of impacts is based on the City’s TIA Guidelines, as discussed in Section 2.4.1. 6.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions Table 6–1 shows the queue lengths under Existing conditions at the study area signalized intersection, for the applicable left-and-right turning movements to which the Project would contribute traffic. As shown in Table 6–1, existing queues are accommodated in the existing turn pockets, where applicable. 6.3 Analysis of Existing + Project Conditions Table 6–1 shows the queue lengths under Existing + Project conditions at the study area signalized intersection, for the applicable left-and-right turning movements with the Project’s traffic contribution. As shown in Table 6–1, existing + project queues are accommodated in the existing turn pockets where applicable. The right turn volumes are less than the 150 peak hour trip threshold at which a dedicated right turn lane should be considered, per City guidelines. TABLE 6–1 EXISTING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Signalized Intersection Movement Turn Lanes Pocket Length (feet) Peak Hour Existing Existing + Project Turn Volume Queue Length (feet) Turn Volume Queue Length (feet) 4. La Costa Avenue / Romeria Street WBR — N/A a AM 10 — 10 — PM 28 — 30 — SBR — N/A a AM 13 — 19 — PM 10 — 13 — EBL 1 160 AM 1 1 3 3 PM 8 8 13 13 Footnotes: a. Shared lane. Queue length not shown as traffic stream includes through trips. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 447 of 612 6.4 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative Conditions Table 6–2 shows the queue lengths under Existing + Cumulative conditions at the study area signalized intersection, for the applicable left-and-right turning movements to which the Project would contribute traffic. As shown in Table 6–2, Existing + Cumulative queues are accommodated in the existing turn pockets where applicable. 6.5 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative + Project Conditions Table 6–2 shows the queue lengths under Existing + Cumulative + Project conditions at study area signalized intersection for the applicable left-and-right turning movements with the addition of Project traffic. As shown in Table 6–2, Existing + Cumulative + Project queues are accommodated in the existing turn pockets, where applicable. The right turn volumes are less than the 150 peak hour trip threshold at which a dedicated right turn lane should be considered, per City guidelines. TABLE 6–2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Signalized Intersection Movement Turn Lanes Pocket Length (feet) Peak Hour Existing + Cumulative Existing + Cumulative + Project Turn Volume Queue Length (feet) Turn Volume Queue Length (feet) 4. La Costa Avenue / Romeria Street WBR — N/A a AM 11 — 11 — PM 29 — 31 — SBR — N/A a AM 13 — 19 — PM 10 — 13 — EBL 1 160 AM 1 1 3 3 PM 8 8 13 13 Footnotes: a. Shared lane. Queue length not shown as traffic stream includes through trips. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 448 of 612 6.6 MMLOS Analysis The existing multi-modal facilities in the vicinity of the Project site were evaluated using the City of Carlsbad’s MMLOS Tool (September 2018). The MMLOS study area was selected based on the City’s scoping requirements and the street typology of the roadway, which indicates which modes are subject to LOS standards on that facility type. Table 6–3 summarizes the MMLOS analysis results for the pedestrian and bicycle facilities on Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. As shown in Table 6–3 bicycle conditions on these streets are calculated at LOS B. The pedestrian facilities are tentatively calculated at LOS C under existing conditions, but with certain essential features lacking. The Project will replace the ramp along its frontage at the southwest corner of the Romeria Street / Gibraltar intersection, improving it to meet ADA requirements. The Project will also add a streetlight at this same street corner. With these improvements, pedestrian conditions are expected to achieve LOS A. Appendix C contains the detailed MMLOS worksheets. TABLE 6–3 MMLOS ANALYSIS Location Direction Without Project With Project Pedestrian LOS Bicycle LOS Pedestrian LOS Bicycle LOS Total Score LOS Total Score LOS Total Score LOS Total Score LOS Romeria Street Gibraltar Street to La Costa Avenue NB — — 85 B — — 85 B SB 70 C* 85 B 90 A 85 B Gibraltar Street Romeria Street to La Costa Avenue EB 75 C* 85 B 95 A 85 B WB — — 85 B — — 85 B General Notes: 1. Pedestrian LOS is only evaluated for the side of the street where the project is located per City TIA Guidelines. 2. * indicates the lack of an essential feature. MMLOS Point Point Score LOS 90-100 A 80-89 B 70-79 C 60-69 D 50-59 E 0-49 F Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 449 of 612 6.7 TIA Guidelines – Findings and Conclusions Based on the City’s TIA Guidelines and thresholds of significance, presented in Section 2.4.1, no significant queuing impacts are calculated based on the addition of Project traffic to the signalized intersection within the study area. The Project will provide improvements along its frontage, including street lighting and an ADA-compliant curb ramp and landing at the intersection of Romeria Street / Gibraltar Street, to meet MMLOS requirements. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 450 of 612 7.0 ANALYSIS PER SANTEC/ITE GUIDELINES (CEQA) 7.1 Background Based on the approach and methodologies described in Section 2.2 for the CEQA analysis, the following is an evaluation of the one (1) signalized intersection, three (3) unsignalized intersections, and three (3) street segments. Significance of impacts is based on the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines, as discussed in Section 2.4.2. 7.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions 7.2.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Table 7–1 shows the AM/PM peak hour operations of study area intersections under existing conditions. This table shows all of the existing intersections operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Appendix D contains the intersection analysis worksheets for the Existing scenario. 7.2.2 Roadway Segment Analysis Analysis of the study area street segments was performed using the methodology outlined in Section 2.2.4 of this report. Table 7–2 shows that all of the study area street segments are calculated to currently operate at acceptable LOS D or better, except for: La Costa Avenue, Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street – Westbound AM (LOS E) 7.3 Analysis of Existing + Project Conditions 7.3.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Table 7–1 shows the results of the intersection capacity analyses conducted for the study intersections under Existing + Project conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. This table shows that all of the existing and proposed intersections operate at LOS B or better with the addition of Project traffic volumes. Appendix E contains the intersection analysis worksheets for the Existing + Project scenario. 7.3.2 Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Project street segment analyses were conducted for the study roadways. Table 7–2 summarizes the street segment operations under Existing + Project conditions. As shown in Table 7–2, with the addition of Project traffic, study area segments are calculated to continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better, except for the following: La Costa Avenue, Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street – Westbound AM (LOS F) No significant impact is calculated on the segment listed above as the Project-related increase in V/C ratio is less than the significance threshold of 0.02 during both the AM and PM peak hours. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 451 of 612 TABLE 7–1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS – EXISTING CONDITIONS Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Existing Existing + Project Significant Impact Delaya LOSb Delay LOS Δc 1. Romeria St / Gibraltar St MSSC d AM 8.9 A 8.9 A 0.0 No PM 8.9 A 8.9 A 0.0 No 2. Romeria St / Project Drwy (N) MSSC AM — — 8.7 A — No PM — — 8.5 A — No 3. Romeria St / Project Drwy (S) MSSC AM — — 8.6 A — No PM — — 8.5 A — No 4. Romeria St / La Costa Ave Signal AM 13.7 B 13.9 B 0.2 No PM 7.8 A 8.0 A 0.2 No Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of Service c. Δ denotes Project induced delay increase. d. Minor Street Stop Control. Minor street delay is reported. SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED Delay LOS Delay LOS 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E ≥ 80.1 F ≥ 50.1 F Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 452 of 612 TABLE 7–2 EXISTING + PROJECT SEGMENT ANALYSIS Segment Capacity a (LOS E) Dir. Peak Hour Existing Existing + Project Sig. Impact Volume LOSb V/Cc Volume LOS V/C Δd Romeria Street 1. Gibraltar Street to La Costa Avenue 560 NB AM 17 A 0.030 19 A 0.034 0.004 No PM 42 A 0.075 49 A 0.088 0.013 No 560 SB AM 49 A 0.088 57 A 0.102 0.014 No PM 28 A 0.050 32 A 0.057 0.007 No La Costa Avenue 2. Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street 780 EB AM 359 A 0.460 361 A 0.463 0.003 No PM 681 D 0.873 686 D 0.879 0.006 No 780 WB AM 778 E 0.997 784 F 1.005 0.008 No PM 472 B 0.605 475 B 0.609 0.004 No 3. Romeria Street to Cadencia Street 780 EB AM 373 A 0.478 375 A 0.481 0.003 No PM 652 D 0.836 653 D 0.837 0.001 No 780 WB AM 697 D 0.894 697 D 0.894 — No PM 448 A 0.574 450 A 0.577 0.003 No Footnotes: a. Hourly peak hour directional capacities based on City of Carlsbad Segment LOS Capacity Thresholds. b. Level of Service c. Volume to Capacity. d. Δ denotes project induced V/C increase. LOS V/C A <0.6 B <0.7 C <0.8 D <0.9 E <1.0 F >1.0 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 453 of 612 7.4 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative Conditions 7.4.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Table 7–3 reports the Existing + Cumulative intersection operations during the AM and PM peak hours. This tables shows that all of the existing intersections operate at LOS B or better with the addition of cumulative project traffic volumes. Appendix F contains the intersection analysis worksheets for the Existing + Cumulative scenario. 7.4.2 Roadway Segment Analysis Table 7–4 summarizes the street segment operations under Existing + Cumulative Projects conditions. As shown in Table 7–4, the study area segments are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D or better with the addition of cumulative project traffic, except for: La Costa Avenue, Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street – Westbound AM (LOS F) La Costa Avenue, Romeria Street to Cadencia Street – Westbound AM (LOS E) 7.5 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative + Project Conditions 7.5.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Table 7–3 reports the Existing + Cumulative + Project intersection operations during the AM and PM peak hours. This table shows that all of the existing and proposed intersections operate at LOS B or better with the addition of cumulative and Project traffic volumes. Appendix G contains the intersection analysis worksheets for the Existing + Cumulative + Project scenario. 7.5.2 Roadway Segment Analysis Table 7–4 summarizes the street segment operations under Existing + Cumulative + Project conditions. As shown in Table 7–4, with the addition of Cumulative Projects and Project traffic, the study area segments are calculated to continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better, except for: La Costa Avenue, Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street – Westbound AM (LOS F) La Costa Avenue, Romeria Street to Cadencia Street – Westbound AM (LOS E) No significant impact is calculated on either of the above-listed segments as the Project-related increase in V/C ratio is less than the significance threshold of 0.02 during both the AM and PM peak hours. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 454 of 612 TABLE 7–3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Existing + Cumulative Existing + Cumulative + Project Significant Impact Delaya LOSb Delay LOS Δc 1. Romeria St / Gibraltar St MSSC d AM 8.9 A 8.9 A 0.0 No PM 8.9 A 8.9 A 0.0 No 2. Romeria St / Project Drwy (N) MSSC AM — — 8.7 A — No PM — — 8.5 A — No 3. Romeria St / Project Drwy (S) MSSC AM — — 8.6 A — No PM — — 8.5 A — No 4. Romeria St / La Costa Ave Signal AM 14.0 B 14.2 B 0.2 No PM 7.9 A 8.1 A 0.2 No Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of Service c. Δ denotes Project induced delay increase. d. Minor Street Stop Control. Minor street delay is reported. SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED Delay LOS Delay LOS 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E ≥ 80.1 F ≥ 50.1 F Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 455 of 612 TABLE 7–4 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS SEGMENT ANALYSIS Segment Capacity a (LOS E) Dir. Peak Hour Existing + Cumulative Existing + Cumulative + Project Sig. Impact Volume LOSb V/Cc Volume LOS V/C Δd Romeria Street 1. Gibraltar Street to La Costa Avenue 560 NB AM 18 A 0.032 20 A 0.036 0.004 No PM 43 A 0.077 50 A 0.089 0.012 No 560 SB AM 50 A 0.089 58 A 0.104 0.015 No PM 29 A 0.052 33 A 0.059 0.007 No La Costa Avenue 2. Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street 780 EB AM 363 A 0.465 365 A 0.468 0.003 No PM 689 D 0.883 694 D 0.890 0.007 No 780 WB AM 784 F 1.005 790 F 1.013 0.008 No PM 477 B 0.612 480 B 0.615 0.003 No 3. Romeria Street to Cadencia Street 780 EB AM 377 A 0.483 379 A 0.486 0.003 No PM 660 D 0.846 661 D 0.847 0.001 No 780 WB AM 704 E 0.903 704 E 0.903 — No PM 453 A 0.581 455 A 0.583 0.002 No Footnotes: a. Hourly peak hour directional capacities based on City of Carlsbad Segment LOS Capacity Thresholds. b. Level of Service c. Volume to Capacity. d. Δ denotes project induced V/C increase. LOS V/C A <0.6 B <0.7 C <0.8 D <0.9 E <1.0 F >1.0 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 456 of 612 7.6 CEQA Method – Findings and Conclusions No significant impacts are identified based on the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines thresholds of significance presented in Section 2.4.2. End of Report Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 457 of 612 TECHNICAL APPENDICES ROMERIA POINTE Carlsbad, CaliforniaMarch 9, 2020 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 458 of 612 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 4542 Ruffner Street Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92111 858.300.8800 T 858.300.8810 F www.llgengineers.com Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 459 of 612 APPENDIX A INTERSECTION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 460 of 612 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 461 of 612 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers S:\Technical Manuals\HCM\HCM 6\HCM Writeup_SigHCM6.doc HIGHWAY CAPACITY 6th EDITION MANUAL LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS In the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6), Level of Service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, Level of Service criteria are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle for a 15-minute analysis period. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Delay is a complex measure, and is dependent on a number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the v/c ratio for the lane group or approach in question. LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROLLED DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) A < 10.0 B 10.1 to 20.0 C 20.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 55.0 E 55.1 to 80.0 F > 80.0 Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, (i.e. less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle). This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Level of Service B describes operations with delay in the range of 10.1 to 20.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Level of Service C describes operations with delay in the range of 20.1 to 35.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in the level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersections without stopping. Level of Service D describes operations with delay in the range of 35.1 to 55.0 seconds per vehicle. At Level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Level of Service E describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 to 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over-saturation (i.e. when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection). It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 462 of 612 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers S:\Technical Manuals\HCM\HCM 6\HCM Writeup_UnsigHCM6.doc HIGHWAY CAPACITY 6th EDITION MANUAL LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS In the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6), Level of Service for unsignalized intersections is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. Level of Service is not defined for the intersection as a whole. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The criteria are given in the following the table, and are based on the average control delay for any particular minor movement. LEVEL OF SERVICE AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY SEC/VEH EXPECTED DELAY TO MINOR STREET TRAFFIC A 0.0 < 10.0 Little or no delay B 10.1 to 15.0 Short traffic delays C 15.1 to 25.0 Average traffic delays D 25.1 to 35.0 Long traffic delays E 35.1 to 50.0 Very long traffic delays F > 50.0 Severe congestion Level of Service F exists when there are insufficient gaps of suitable size to allow a side street demand to safely cross through a major street traffic stream. This Level of Service is generally evident from extremely long control delays experienced by side-street traffic and by queuing on the minor-street approaches. The method, however, is based on a constant critical gap size; that is, the critical gap remains constant no matter how long the side-street motorist waits. LOS F may also appear in the form on side-street vehicles selecting smaller-than-usual gaps. In such cases, safety may be a problem, and some disruption to the major traffic stream may result. It is important to note that LOS F may not always result in long queues but may result in adjustments to normal gap acceptance behavior, which are more difficult to observe in the field than queuing. In most cases at Two-Way Stop Controlled (TWSC) intersections, the critical movement is the minor-street left-turn movement. As such, the minor-street left-turn movement can generally be considered the primary factor affecting overall intersection performance. The lower threshold for LOS F is set at 50 seconds of delay per vehicle. There are many instances, particularly in urban areas, in which the delay equations will predict delays of 50 seconds (LOS F) or more for minor-street movements under very low volume conditions on the minor street (less than 25 vehicle/hour). Since the first term of the equation is a function only of the capacity, the LOS F threshold of 50 sec/vehicle is reached with a movement capacity of approximately 85 vehicle/hour or less. This procedure assumes random arrivals on the major street. For a typical four-lane arterial with average daily traffic volumes in the range of 15,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day (peak hour, 1,500 to 2,000 vehicle/hour), the delay equation used in the TWSC capacity analysis procedure will predict 50 seconds of delay or more (LOS F) for many urban TWSC intersections that allow minor-street left-turn movements. The LOS F threshold will be reached regardless of the volume of minor-street left-turn traffic. Not-withstanding this fact, most low-volume minor-street approaches would not meet any of the volume or delay warrants for signalization of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) since the warrants define an asymptote at 100 vehicle/hour on the minor approach. As a result, many public agencies that use the HCM 6 Level of Service thresholds to determine the design adequacy of TWSC intersections may be forced to eliminate the minor-street left-turn movement, even when the movement may not present any operational problem, such as the formation of long queues on the minor street or driveway approach. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 463 of 612 APPENDIX B EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS SHEETS Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 464 of 612 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 465 of 612 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement CountLocation:Romeria St & Gibraltar St City:Carlsbad Project ID:19-04397-002 Control:1-Way Stop(NB)Date: NS/EW Streets: 0100000001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 2000000003803400207:15 AM 1021000000516000167:30 AM 202000000070130015 7:45 AM 5050000000605600278:00 AM 00100000031101200188:15 AM 300000000040020098:30 AM 001000000170220013 8:45 AM 50000000002020009 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :180111000007501201900127 APPROACH %'s :60.00% 0.00% 36.67% 3.33%0.00% 12.07% 86.21% 1.72% 51.28% 48.72% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:00 AM 37 37 44 07:45 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :1009100000326115130078 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.500 0.000 0.450 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.813 0.250 0.625 0.542 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0100000001000100NLNT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL4:00 PM 5010000002201300144:15 PM 202000000260100013 4:30 PM 4020000003901200214:45 PM 6000000001302200145:00 PM 305000000230400017 5:15 PM 502000000210110012 5:30 PM 7050000002401100205:45 PM 303000000320010012 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :3502000000017300111000123 APPROACH %'s :63.64% 0.00% 36.36% 0.00%0.00% 36.17% 63.83% 0.00% 52.38% 47.62% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:15 PM 290 289 296 04:30 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :15090000008210840065 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.625 0.000 0.450 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.667 0.583 0.000 0.500 0.500 0.000 0.000 EASTBOUND 10/17/2019 Gibraltar St NORTHBOUND Gibraltar St 0.636 WESTBOUND Romeria St Romeria St 0.682 EASTBOUND PM AM 07:00 AM - 08:00 AM NORTHBOUND 0.500 0.722 Total 0.7740.604 WESTBOUND 0.750 SOUTHBOUND 0.750 04:15 PM - 05:15 PM SOUTHBOUND Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 466 of 612 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement Count Location:Romeria St & Gibraltar St City:Carlsbad Project ID:19-04397-002 Control:1-Way Stop(NB)Date: NS/EW Streets: 0100000001000100NLNT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 000000000110020047:15 AM 000000000000000007:30 AM 00000000000000000 7:45 AM 00000000000000000 8:00 AM 000000000000010018:15 AM 100000000000000018:30 AM 00000000000000000 8:45 AM 00000000000000000 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :10000000011003006 APPROACH %'s :100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:00 AM 37 37 44 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :00000000011002004 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0100000001000100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL4:00 PM 000000000000000004:15 PM 00000000000100001 4:30 PM 000000000000000004:45 PM 000000000000000005:00 PM 000000000000010015:15 PM 00000000000010001 5:30 PM 000000000000000005:45 PM 00000000000000000 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :00000000000111003 APPROACH %'s :0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:15 PM 290 289 296 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :00000000000101002 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 10/17/2019 04:15 PM - 05:15 PM 0.5000.250 0.250 07:00 AM - 08:00 AM 0.250 PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0.250 0.250 AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND Bikes Romeria St Romeria St Gibraltar St Gibraltar St Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 467 of 612 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement CountLocation:Romeria St & Gibraltar St Project ID:19-04397-002 City:Carlsbad Date:10/17/2019 NS/EW Streets: EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL 7:00 AM 0000000007:15 AM 0011000027:30 AM 0010000017:45 AM 000000000 8:00 AM 002100003 8:15 AM 000100001 8:30 AM 000100001 8:45 AM 000100001 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :004500009 APPROACH %'s :44.44% 55.56% PEAK HR :07:00 AM 36 36 43 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :002100003 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.500 0.250 Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL4:00 PM 0001001024:15 PM 0021111174:30 PM 001000001 4:45 PM 000000000 5:00 PM 000401005 5:15 PM 001000001 5:30 PM 0000010015:45 PM 001000001 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0056132118 APPROACH %'s :45.45% 54.55% 25.00% 75.00% 66.67% 33.33% PEAK HR :04:15 PM 287 286 293 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :0035121113 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.375 0.313 0.250 0.500 0.250 0.250 AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG Romeria St Romeria St Gibraltar St 0.3750.375 PM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG 0.4640.500 0.375 0.250 Pedestrians (Crosswalks) WEST LEG 07:00 AM - 08:00 AM Gibraltar St 04:15 PM - 05:15 PM Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 468 of 612 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services ID:19-04397-002 Day: City:Carlsbad Date: AM 0000 AM NOON 0000 NOON PM 0000 PM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM 0000 0 000 1 4013 100 008015 000 0 TEV 78065 0 000 308 1 PHF 0.72 0.77 26021 0 0010 AM NOON PM PM NOON AM PM 0150 9PM NOON 0000NOON AM 1100 9AM Gi b r a l t a r S t 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM NONE 24019 Romeria St 42 0 Romeria St SOUTHBOUND 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM NORTHBOUND 17 0 PE A K H O U R S Total Vehicles (AM) NONE 04:15 PM - 05:15 PM 0 0 0 1-Way Stop(NB) Gi b r a l t a r S t EA S T B O U N D Peak Hour Turning Movement Count 29 Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM) Romeria St & Gibraltar St Thursday 10/17/2019 CONTROL WE S T B O U N D 07:00 AM - 08:00 AM Total Vehicles (Noon) Pedestrians (Crosswalks) Bikes (NOON) 12 CO U N T P E R I O D S Bikes (AM) NOONAM PM 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 PM AM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM AM NOON PM NOON 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 15 13 0 26 3 0 0 0 0 10 0 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 8 4 0 21 8 0 0 0 0 15 0 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO O N PM AM NO O N AM PM NO O N AM PMNO O N PM AM Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 469 of 612 t. ¢::i -t-----+---.. -+---+---::, ~ ______,______,_ -+---+---., c;-______,______,_ -+ ______,______,_ ~ National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement CountLocation:Romeria St & La Costa Ave City:Carlsbad Project ID:19-04397-001 Control:Signalized Date: NS/EW Streets: 0100010011101200 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 50004160278500108102107:15 AM 401090400901203158202837:30 AM 211205240064130119010304 7:45 AM 281100743017713014174703398:00 AM 4441609020083601146003118:15 AM 100002040175001163102578:30 AM 11010714037770114220256 8:45 AM 6110303025350013010205 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :129 7 31 0 46 8 30 0 9 597 61 0 21 1211 15 0 2165 APPROACH %'s :77.25% 4.19% 18.56% 0.00% 54.76% 9.52% 35.71% 0.00% 1.35% 89.51% 9.15% 0.00% 1.68% 97.11% 1.20% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:15 AM 38 37 44 07:45 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :97 6 29 0 30 6 13 0 1 314 44 0 19 668 10 0 1237 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.551 0.375 0.453 0.000 0.833 0.375 0.813 0.000 0.250 0.872 0.846 0.000 0.339 0.879 0.357 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0100010011101200NLNT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL4:00 PM 405041101161800105602964:15 PM 10120203021609019770294 4:30 PM 9010101102143300121402954:45 PM 9020406011611200100803035:00 PM 142604110212515029850275 5:15 PM 123103020018610019930320 5:30 PM 111106010515311011191203215:45 PM 7040300001693019950291 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :76 7 22 0 36 3 15 0 13 1258 71 0 6 838 50 0 2395 APPROACH %'s :72.38% 6.67% 20.95% 0.00% 66.67% 5.56% 27.78% 0.00% 0.97% 93.74% 5.29% 0.00% 0.67% 93.74% 5.59% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:45 PM 292 289 296 05:30 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :46 6 10 0 17 1 10 0 8 625 48 0 4 416 28 0 1219 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.821 0.500 0.417 0.000 0.708 0.250 0.417 0.000 0.400 0.840 0.800 0.000 0.500 0.874 0.583 0.000 0.912 Total 0.9490.869 WESTBOUND 0.848 SOUTHBOUND 0.705 0.700 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM SOUTHBOUNDPM AM 07:15 AM - 08:15 AM NORTHBOUND 0.516 EASTBOUND 10/17/2019 La Costa Ave NORTHBOUND La Costa Ave 0.894 WESTBOUND Romeria St Romeria St 0.875 0.880 EASTBOUND Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 470 of 612 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement Count Location:Romeria St & La Costa Ave City:Carlsbad Project ID:19-04397-001 Control:Signalized Date: NS/EW Streets: 0100010011101200NLNT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 000000000000000007:15 AM 000001000000000017:30 AM 00000000000000000 7:45 AM 00000100010000002 8:00 AM 000000000000000008:15 AM 000000000000000008:30 AM 00000000000000112 8:45 AM 00000000000001001 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :00000200010001116 APPROACH %'s :0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% PEAK HR :07:15 AM 38 37 44 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :00000200010000003 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0100010011101200 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL4:00 PM 000000000000000004:15 PM 00000000100000001 4:30 PM 000000000000000004:45 PM 000000000000000005:00 PM 001000000000000015:15 PM 00001000000000001 5:30 PM 000000000000000005:45 PM 00000000000000000 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :00101000100000003 APPROACH %'s :0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:45 PM 292 289 296 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :00101000000000002 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.00 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Bikes Romeria St Romeria St La Costa Ave La Costa Ave 0.500 0.250 AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 10/17/2019 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM 0.5000.250 0.250 07:15 AM - 08:15 AM 0.375 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 471 of 612 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement CountLocation:Romeria St & La Costa Ave Project ID:19-04397-001 City:Carlsbad Date:10/17/2019 NS/EW Streets: EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL 7:00 AM 1100000027:15 AM 0100000017:30 AM 0000030037:45 AM 00001100011 8:00 AM 100020104 8:15 AM 000000000 8:30 AM 110002004 8:45 AM 000010001 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :33004151026 APPROACH %'s :50.00% 50.00%21.05% 78.95% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:15 AM 37 36 43 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :11003131019 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.250 0.250 0.375 0.325 0.250 Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL4:00 PM 0000000114:15 PM 0000000004:30 PM 000000000 4:45 PM 000000000 5:00 PM 100000001 5:15 PM 000000000 5:30 PM 3000110055:45 PM 020000002 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :420011019 APPROACH %'s :66.67% 33.33%50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 100.00% PEAK HR :04:45 PM 289 286 293 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :400011006 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.333 0.250 0.250 Pedestrians (Crosswalks) WEST LEG 07:15 AM - 08:15 AM La Costa Ave 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM 0.3000.333 0.250 PM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG 0.4320.500 0.364 0.250 AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG Romeria St Romeria St La Costa Ave Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 472 of 612 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services ID:19-04397-001 Day: City:Carlsbad Date: AM 136300 AM NOON 0000 NOON PM 101170 PM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM 0100 0 28010 2 416 0 668 000 014019 108 1 TEV 1237 0 1219 0 000 314 0 625 1 PHF 0.91 0.95 44048 1 0010 AM NOON PM PM NOON AM PM 046610PM NOON 0000NOON AM 097629AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Count 53 Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM) Romeria St & La Costa Ave Thursday 10/17/2019 CONTROL WE S T B O U N D 07:15 AM - 08:15 AM Total Vehicles (Noon) Pedestrians (Crosswalks) Bikes (NOON) 373 CO U N T P E R I O D S Bikes (AM) PE A K H O U R S Total Vehicles (AM) NONE 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM 17 42 0 Signalized La C o s t a A v e EA S T B O U N D Romeria St 69 0 Romeria St SOUTHBOUND 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM NORTHBOUND 652 0 La C o s t a A v e 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM NONE 778 0 472 NOONAM PM 0 3 1 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 PM AM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM AM NOON PM NOON 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 19 668 10 44 314 1 13 6 30 97 6 29 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 4 416 28 48 625 8 10 1 17 46 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 NO O N PM AM NO O N AM PM NO O N AM PMNO O N PM AM Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 473 of 612 t. ¢::i -t-----+---.. -+---+---::, ~ ______,______,_ -+---+---., c;-______,______,_ -+ ______,______,_ ~ APPENDIX C MMLOS RESULTS Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 474 of 612 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 475 of 612 ROADWAY INFO Roadway Name From To Street Typology from Mobility Element _ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2-way total) PEDESTRIAN Roadway Direction NB SB * Are crosswalks marked per CA MUTCD standards?Yes Yes * Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet (Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4'):5 5 * Do sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e.g., cross-slope and trip hazards)?No No * Do ramps and landings appear to meet ADA requirements?No No * Do the street light locations appear adequate?No No Speed limit (miles per hour - mph):25 mph or lower 25 mph or lower Number of Through Lanes:1 1 Are there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge? (Include turn lanes in count)Yes Yes Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian facility and vehicle travel way:0' to 2'0' to 2' Does on-street parking or a bike lane provide 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way?Yes Yes Any apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings?No No Are there any permanent speed control devices installed?No No Are there traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (e.g., bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island)?No No Do crosswalks appear to be high visibility?Yes Yes Are there intersection enhancements provided for pedestrians (e.g., pedestrian signal phasing, countdown heads)? No No Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at street crossings?No No Is there pedestrian scale lighting?No No Do active building frontages appear to be present on 80% of street curb line?No No Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards businesses or attractions?No No Do the street trees appear to provide shade over more than 50% of the sidewalk length?No No Romeria St Gibraltar St La Costa Ave Local/Neighborhood 710 *Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). 70 | C NB SCORE | LOS 70 | C SB SCORE | LOS May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! X Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 476 of 612 Project: Segment: Scenario: By: NB SB Points Points Assigned Points Assigned * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk or path meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 15 15 15 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 5' if unspecified) 10 10 10 Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified)5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Ramps and landings within segment meet ADA requirements 10 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk segments meet ADA requirements (cross-slope and trip hazards) 10 0 0 Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 10 0 0 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 10 10 10 On-street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 5 5 Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 0 0 Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 10 0 0 Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 5 5 Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 5 5 No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings 5 5 5 Permanent speed control devices installed on segments posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer 5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Crosswalks are marked according to CA MUTCD guidelines 10 10 10 Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the CA MUTCD)5 5 0 Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island) 10 0 0 Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians (pedestrian-friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown heads, signage, etc.) 10 0 0 RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Street light locations appear adequate 10 0 0 Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational spaces) 5 0 0 Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk length 5 0 0 Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 0 0 Pedestrian scale lighting 5 0 0 70 65 C D No No Other Elements Accessibility and functionality Total Score: All Essential Feature Criteria Met? Pedestrian LOS: Street characteristics Romeria Pointe Romeria St From Gibraltar St To La Costa Ave Existing LLG Crossing characteristics Criteria Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 477 of 612 ROADWAY INFO Roadway Name From To Street Typology from Mobility Element _ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2-way total) PEDESTRIAN Roadway Direction EB WB * Are crosswalks marked per CA MUTCD standards?Yes Yes * Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet (Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4'):5 5 * Do sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e.g., cross-slope and trip hazards)?Yes Yes * Do ramps and landings appear to meet ADA requirements?No No * Do the street light locations appear adequate?No No Speed limit (miles per hour - mph):25 mph or lower 25 mph or lower Number of Through Lanes:1 1 Are there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge? (Include turn lanes in count)Yes Yes Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian facility and vehicle travel way:0' to 2'0' to 2' Does on-street parking or a bike lane provide 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way?Yes Yes Any apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings?No No Are there any permanent speed control devices installed?No No Are there traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (e.g., bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island)?No No Do crosswalks appear to be high visibility?No No Are there intersection enhancements provided for pedestrians (e.g., pedestrian signal phasing, countdown heads)? No No Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at street crossings?No No Is there pedestrian scale lighting?No No Do active building frontages appear to be present on 80% of street curb line?No No Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards businesses or attractions?No No Do the street trees appear to provide shade over more than 50% of the sidewalk length?No No Gibraltar St La Costa Ave Romeria St Local/Neighborhood 630 *Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). 75 | C EB SCORE | LOS 75 | C WB SCORE | LOS May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! X Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 478 of 612 Project: Segment: Scenario: By: EB WB Points Points Assigned Points Assigned * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk or path meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 15 15 15 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 5' if unspecified) 10 10 10 Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified)5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Ramps and landings within segment meet ADA requirements 10 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk segments meet ADA requirements (cross-slope and trip hazards) 10 10 10 Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 10 0 0 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 10 10 10 On-street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 5 5 Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 0 0 Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 10 0 0 Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 5 5 Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 5 5 No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings 5 5 5 Permanent speed control devices installed on segments posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer 5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Crosswalks are marked according to CA MUTCD guidelines 10 10 10 Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the CA MUTCD)5 0 0 Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island) 10 0 0 Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians (pedestrian-friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown heads, signage, etc.) 10 0 0 RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Street light locations appear adequate 10 0 0 Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational spaces) 5 0 0 Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk length 5 0 0 Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 0 0 Pedestrian scale lighting 5 0 0 75 75 C C No No Romeria Pointe Gibraltar St From La Costa Ave To Romeria St Existing LLG Crossing characteristics Criteria Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria Other Elements Accessibility and functionality Total Score: All Essential Feature Criteria Met? Pedestrian LOS: Street characteristics Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 479 of 612 ROADWAY INFO Roadway Name From To Street Typology from Mobility Element _ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2-way total) BICYCLE Roadway Direction NB SB * Do the roadway pavement conditions appear to be good (e.g., no pot holes)?Yes Yes * Does bike facility on roadway appear to be free of obstructions (e.g., drainage grates)? Yes Yes * Does the bicycle facility appear to meet MUTCD signing and striping design guidelines?No No Is on-street parking provided?Parallel parking Parallel parking Speed limit (miles per hour - mph):25 mph or lower 25 mph or lower Does the bikeway on the study segment and side streets meet and/or exceed the Bicycle Master Plan?Both Both Is there enhanced bicycle detection or video detection provided at intersections?No No Any bicycle racks are provided along segment?No No Bicycle Facility Provided: Romeria St Gibraltar St La Costa Ave Local/Neighborhood 710 85 | BNB SCORE | LOS 85 | BSB SCORE | LOS X *Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 480 of 612 Project: Segment: Scenario: By: NB SB Points Points Assigned Points Assigned Speed limit is ≤ 25 mph 25 25 25 Speed limit is 30 mph 15 0 0 Speed limit is 35 mph 10 0 0 Residential street with ADT < 3,000 15 15 15 Street with ADT between 3,000 and 6,000 10 0 0 Class I facility (off-street path), Class IV (cycle track), or multiuse path 25 0 0 Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on-street bicycle lanes)15 0 0 Bike lane buffer (2' min) is provided 5 0 0 Class III facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only)5 0 0 Additional traffic calming/speed management features have been applied to Class III facility (i.e. a bike boulevard)10 0 0 Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan 25 25 25 Bike lane (including buffer) is at least 8' wide from face of curb 10 0 0 Bicycle facilities with signing and striping meet design guidelines D 10 0 0 Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes)10 10 10 Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates)5 5 5 Bikeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master Plan along segment 5 5 5 Bike lanes are striped continuously on all approaches to and departures from intersections, without dropping at turn lanes or driveways 5 0 0 No on-street parking and speed limit is 25 or 30 mph 5 0 0 Back-in angled parking 5 0 0 Parallel parking with door-side buffered bike lane 5 0 0 Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at intersections 5 0 0 Bicycle racks are provided along segment 5 0 0 85 85 B B Total Score: Bike LOS: Connectivity/ Contiguity Adjacent Vehicle Parking Other Elements Romeria Pointe Romeria St From Gibraltar St To La Costa Ave All Scenarios LLG Facility Bicycle MMLOS Criteria Criteria Street Characteristics Bikeway Design Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 481 of 612 ROADWAY INFO Roadway Name From To Street Typology from Mobility Element _ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2-way total) BICYCLE Roadway Direction EB WB * Do the roadway pavement conditions appear to be good (e.g., no pot holes)?Yes Yes * Does bike facility on roadway appear to be free of obstructions (e.g., drainage grates)? Yes Yes * Does the bicycle facility appear to meet MUTCD signing and striping design guidelines?No No Is on-street parking provided?Parallel parking Parallel parking Speed limit (miles per hour - mph):25 mph or lower 25 mph or lower Does the bikeway on the study segment and side streets meet and/or exceed the Bicycle Master Plan?Both Both Is there enhanced bicycle detection or video detection provided at intersections?No No Any bicycle racks are provided along segment?No No Bicycle Facility Provided: Gibraltar St La Costa Ave Romeria St Local/Neighborhood 630 85 | BEB SCORE | LOS 85 | BWB SCORE | LOS X *Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 482 of 612 Project: Segment: Scenario: By: EB WB Points Points Assigned Points Assigned Speed limit is ≤ 25 mph 25 25 25 Speed limit is 30 mph 15 0 0 Speed limit is 35 mph 10 0 0 Residential street with ADT < 3,000 15 15 15 Street with ADT between 3,000 and 6,000 10 0 0 Class I facility (off-street path), Class IV (cycle track), or multiuse path 25 0 0 Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on-street bicycle lanes)15 0 0 Bike lane buffer (2' min) is provided 5 0 0 Class III facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only)5 0 0 Additional traffic calming/speed management features have been applied to Class III facility (i.e. a bike boulevard)10 0 0 Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan 25 25 25 Bike lane (including buffer) is at least 8' wide from face of curb 10 0 0 Bicycle facilities with signing and striping meet design guidelines D 10 0 0 Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes)10 10 10 Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates)5 5 5 Bikeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master Plan along segment 5 5 5 Bike lanes are striped continuously on all approaches to and departures from intersections, without dropping at turn lanes or driveways 5 0 0 No on-street parking and speed limit is 25 or 30 mph 5 0 0 Back-in angled parking 5 0 0 Parallel parking with door-side buffered bike lane 5 0 0 Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at intersections 5 0 0 Bicycle racks are provided along segment 5 0 0 85 85 B B Total Score: Bike LOS: Connectivity/ Contiguity Adjacent Vehicle Parking Other Elements Romeria Pointe Gibraltar St From La Costa Ave To Romeria St All Scenarios LLG Facility Bicycle MMLOS Criteria Criteria Street Characteristics Bikeway Design Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 483 of 612 ROADWAY INFO Roadway Name From To Street Typology from Mobility Element _ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2-way total) PEDESTRIAN Roadway Direction NB SB * Are crosswalks marked per CA MUTCD standards?Yes Yes * Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet (Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4'):5 5 * Do sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e.g., cross-slope and trip hazards)?No No * Do ramps and landings appear to meet ADA requirements?No Yes * Do the street light locations appear adequate?No Yes Speed limit (miles per hour - mph):25 mph or lower 25 mph or lower Number of Through Lanes:1 1 Are there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge? (Include turn lanes in count)Yes Yes Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian facility and vehicle travel way:0' to 2'0' to 2' Does on-street parking or a bike lane provide 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way?Yes Yes Any apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings?No No Are there any permanent speed control devices installed?No No Are there traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (e.g., bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island)?No No Do crosswalks appear to be high visibility?Yes Yes Are there intersection enhancements provided for pedestrians (e.g., pedestrian signal phasing, countdown heads)? No No Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at street crossings?No No Is there pedestrian scale lighting?No No Do active building frontages appear to be present on 80% of street curb line?No No Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards businesses or attractions?No No Do the street trees appear to provide shade over more than 50% of the sidewalk length?No No Romeria St Gibraltar St La Costa Ave Local/Neighborhood 710 *Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). 70 | C NB SCORE | LOS 90 | A SB SCORE | LOS May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! X Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 484 of 612 Project: Segment: Scenario: By: NB SB Points Points Assigned Points Assigned * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk or path meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 15 15 15 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 5' if unspecified) 10 10 10 Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified)5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Ramps and landings within segment meet ADA requirements 10 0 10 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk segments meet ADA requirements (cross-slope and trip hazards) 10 0 0 Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 10 0 0 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 10 10 10 On-street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 5 5 Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 0 0 Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 10 0 0 Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 5 5 Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 5 5 No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings 5 5 5 Permanent speed control devices installed on segments posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer 5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Crosswalks are marked according to CA MUTCD guidelines 10 10 10 Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the CA MUTCD)5 5 0 Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island) 10 0 0 Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians (pedestrian-friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown heads, signage, etc.) 10 0 0 RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Street light locations appear adequate 10 0 10 Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational spaces) 5 0 0 Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk length 5 0 0 Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 0 0 Pedestrian scale lighting 5 0 0 70 85 C B No No Romeria Pointe Romeria St From Gibraltar St To La Costa Ave With Project LLG Crossing characteristics Criteria Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria Other Elements Accessibility and functionality Total Score: All Essential Feature Criteria Met? Pedestrian LOS: Street characteristics Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 485 of 612 ROADWAY INFO Roadway Name From To Street Typology from Mobility Element _ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2-way total) PEDESTRIAN Roadway Direction EB WB * Are crosswalks marked per CA MUTCD standards?Yes Yes * Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet (Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4'):5 5 * Do sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e.g., cross-slope and trip hazards)?Yes Yes * Do ramps and landings appear to meet ADA requirements?Yes No * Do the street light locations appear adequate?Yes No Speed limit (miles per hour - mph):25 mph or lower 25 mph or lower Number of Through Lanes:1 1 Are there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge? (Include turn lanes in count)Yes Yes Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian facility and vehicle travel way:0' to 2'0' to 2' Does on-street parking or a bike lane provide 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way?Yes Yes Any apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings?No No Are there any permanent speed control devices installed?No No Are there traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (e.g., bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island)?No No Do crosswalks appear to be high visibility?No No Are there intersection enhancements provided for pedestrians (e.g., pedestrian signal phasing, countdown heads)? No No Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at street crossings?No No Is there pedestrian scale lighting?No No Do active building frontages appear to be present on 80% of street curb line?No No Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards businesses or attractions?No No Do the street trees appear to provide shade over more than 50% of the sidewalk length?No No Gibraltar St La Costa Ave Romeria St Local/Neighborhood 630 *Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). 95 | A EB SCORE | LOS 75 | C WB SCORE | LOS May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! X Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 486 of 612 Project: Segment: Scenario: By: EB WB Points Points Assigned Points Assigned * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk or path meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 15 15 15 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 5' if unspecified) 10 10 10 Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified)5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Ramps and landings within segment meet ADA requirements 10 10 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk segments meet ADA requirements (cross-slope and trip hazards) 10 10 10 Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 10 0 0 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 10 10 10 On-street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 5 5 Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 0 0 Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 10 0 0 Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 5 5 Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 5 5 No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings 5 5 5 Permanent speed control devices installed on segments posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer 5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Crosswalks are marked according to CA MUTCD guidelines 10 10 10 Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the CA MUTCD)5 0 0 Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island) 10 0 0 Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians (pedestrian-friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown heads, signage, etc.) 10 0 0 RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Street light locations appear adequate 10 10 0 Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational spaces) 5 0 0 Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk length 5 0 0 Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 0 0 Pedestrian scale lighting 5 0 0 95 75 A C Yes No Romeria Pointe Gibraltar St From La Costa Ave To Romeria St With Project LLG Crossing characteristics Criteria Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria Other Elements Accessibility and functionality Total Score: All Essential Feature Criteria Met? Pedestrian LOS: Street characteristics Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 487 of 612 APPENDIX D HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS – EXISTING Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 488 of 612 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 489 of 612 Existing AM Romeria Pointe 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St 03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\1 Ex AM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 3 26 15 13 11 9Future Vol, veh/h 3 26 15 13 11 9Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 33000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 72 72 72 72 72 72Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 4 36 21 18 15 13 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 43 0 85 25 Stage 1 - - - - 25 - Stage 2 - - - - 60 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1566 - 916 1051 Stage 1 - - - - 998 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1562 - 900 1048Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 900 - Stage 1 - - - - 981 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 3.9 8.9HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)961 - - 1562 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 - - 0.013 -HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0HCM Lane LOS A - - A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 490 of 612 Existing AM Romeria Pointe 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave 03/09/2020 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\1 Ex AM.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 314 44 19 668 10 97 6 29 30 6 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 1 314 44 19 668 10 97 6 29 30 6 13 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1 345 48 21 734 11 107 7 32 33 7 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 5 821 696 47 852 13 338 38 60 296 73 77 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.46 0.46 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1838 28 954 202 324 789 394 414 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1 345 48 21 0 745 146 0 0 54 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1865 1480 0 0 1597 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 4.9 0.7 0.4 0.0 13.8 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 4.9 0.7 0.4 0.0 13.8 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.73 0.22 0.61 0.26Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 5 821 696 47 0 865 436 0 0 446 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.42 0.07 0.45 0.00 0.86 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 230 992 840 230 0 989 1133 0 0 1148 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.3 7.5 6.3 18.6 0.0 9.3 14.1 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.0 0.3 0.0 6.7 0.0 7.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 5.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.3 7.8 6.3 25.3 0.0 16.4 14.5 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS D A A C ABBAABAA Approach Vol, veh/h 394 766 146 54Approach Delay, s/veh 7.7 16.6 14.5 13.3Approach LOS ABBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.5 21.5 11.7 4.6 22.4 11.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 20.5 26.0 5.0 20.5 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 6.9 3.0 2.0 15.8 5.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.0 2.1 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.7HCM 6th LOS B Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 491 of 612 Existing PM Romeria Pointe 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St 03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\2 Ex PM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 8 21 8 4 15 9Future Vol, veh/h 8 21 8 4 15 9Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 88023Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 77 77 77Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 10 27 10 5 19 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 45 0 59 35 Stage 1 - - - - 32 - Stage 2 - - - - 27 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1563 - 948 1038 Stage 1 - - - - 991 - Stage 2 - - - - 996 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1551 - 933 1027Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 933 - Stage 1 - - - - 977 - Stage 2 - - - - 994 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.9 8.9HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)966 - - 1551 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 - - 0.007 -HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0HCM Lane LOS A - - A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 492 of 612 Existing PM Romeria Pointe 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave 03/09/2020 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\2 Ex PM.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 625 48 4 416 28 46 6 10 17 1 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 625 48 4 416 28 46 6 10 17 1 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 658 51 4 438 29 48 6 11 18 1 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 19 907 769 10 832 55 298 13 24 256 16 55 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.49 0.49 0.01 0.48 0.48 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1734 115 1119 140 256 834 172 582 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 658 51 4 0 467 65 0 0 30 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1849 1515 0 0 1588 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 9.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 5.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 9.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 5.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.74 0.17 0.60 0.37Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 19 907 769 10 0 887 336 0 0 328 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.73 0.07 0.41 0.00 0.53 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 273 1751 1484 273 0 1731 1361 0 0 1350 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.0 6.7 4.5 16.1 0.0 5.9 13.9 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.9 1.1 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.0 7.8 4.5 41.7 0.0 6.4 14.2 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS C A A D AABAABAA Approach Vol, veh/h 717 471 65 30Approach Delay, s/veh 7.8 6.7 14.2 13.7Approach LOS AABB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 20.3 7.6 4.8 20.1 7.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 26.0 5.0 30.5 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 11.1 2.5 2.1 7.7 3.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.7 0.1 0.0 3.0 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.8HCM 6th LOS A Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 493 of 612 APPENDIX E HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS – EXISTING + PROJECT Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 494 of 612 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 495 of 612 Existing + Project AM Romeria Pointe 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St 03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\3 Ex+P AM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 3 26 15 13 12 9Future Vol, veh/h 3 26 15 13 12 9Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 33000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 72 72 72 72 72 72Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 4 36 21 18 17 13 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 43 0 85 25 Stage 1 - - - - 25 - Stage 2 - - - - 60 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1566 - 916 1051 Stage 1 - - - - 998 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1562 - 900 1048Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 900 - Stage 1 - - - - 981 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 3.9 8.9HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)958 - - 1562 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - - 0.013 -HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0HCM Lane LOS A - - A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 496 of 612 Existing + Project AM Romeria Pointe 2: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (N)03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\3 Ex+P AM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 1 4 1 17 49 0Future Vol, veh/h 1 4 1 17 49 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 -----Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 1 5 1 20 58 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 80 58 58 0 - 0 Stage 1 58 ----- Stage 2 22 -----Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 922 1008 1546 - - - Stage 1 965 ----- Stage 2 1001 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 921 1008 1546 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 921 ----- Stage 1 964 ----- Stage 2 1001 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 0.4 0HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1546 - 989 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.006 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.7 - -HCM Lane LOS A A A - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 497 of 612 Existing + Project AM Romeria Pointe 3: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (S)03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\3 Ex+P AM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 4 1 18 53 0Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 1 18 53 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 -----Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 0 5 1 21 62 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 85 62 62 0 - 0 Stage 1 62 ----- Stage 2 23 -----Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 916 1003 1541 - - - Stage 1 961 ----- Stage 2 1000 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 915 1003 1541 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 915 ----- Stage 1 960 ----- Stage 2 1000 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.6 0.4 0HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1541 - 1003 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.005 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.6 - -HCM Lane LOS A A A - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 498 of 612 Existing + Project AM Romeria Pointe 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave 03/09/2020 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\3 Ex+P AM.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 314 44 19 668 10 97 6 29 32 6 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 3 314 44 19 668 10 97 6 29 32 6 19 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 3 345 48 21 734 11 107 7 32 35 7 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 7 824 699 46 851 13 338 37 61 271 71 99 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.46 0.46 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1838 28 957 201 325 683 383 533 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 3 345 48 21 0 745 146 0 0 63 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1865 1484 0 0 1598 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 4.9 0.7 0.5 0.0 13.9 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 4.9 0.7 0.5 0.0 13.9 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.73 0.22 0.56 0.33Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 7 824 699 46 0 863 436 0 0 441 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.42 0.07 0.45 0.00 0.86 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 229 986 835 229 0 983 1124 0 0 1141 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.3 7.5 6.3 18.7 0.0 9.3 14.1 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 33.0 0.3 0.0 6.7 0.0 7.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 5.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.3 7.8 6.3 25.4 0.0 16.6 14.6 0.0 0.0 13.5 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS D A A C ABBAABAA Approach Vol, veh/h 396 766 146 63Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 16.9 14.6 13.5Approach LOS ABBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.5 21.6 11.7 4.7 22.5 11.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 20.5 26.0 5.0 20.5 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 6.9 3.2 2.1 15.9 5.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 0.3 0.0 2.1 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.9HCM 6th LOS B Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 499 of 612 Existing + Project PM Romeria Pointe 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St 03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\4 Ex+P PM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 8 22 8 4 15 9Future Vol, veh/h 8 22 8 4 15 9Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 88023Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 77 77 77Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 10 29 10 5 19 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 47 0 60 36 Stage 1 - - - - 33 - Stage 2 - - - - 27 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1560 - 947 1037 Stage 1 - - - - 989 - Stage 2 - - - - 996 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1548 - 932 1026Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 932 - Stage 1 - - - - 975 - Stage 2 - - - - 994 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.9 8.9HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)965 - - 1548 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 - - 0.007 -HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0HCM Lane LOS A - - A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 500 of 612 Existing + Project PM Romeria Pointe 2: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (N)03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\4 Ex+P PM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 3 42 28 1Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 3 42 28 1Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 -----Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 0 2 4 49 33 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 91 34 34 0 - 0 Stage 1 34 ----- Stage 2 57 -----Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 909 1039 1578 - - - Stage 1 988 ----- Stage 2 966 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 906 1039 1578 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 906 ----- Stage 1 985 ----- Stage 2 966 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.5 0.5 0HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1578 - 1039 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.002 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.5 - -HCM Lane LOS A A A - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 501 of 612 Existing + Project PM Romeria Pointe 3: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (S)03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\4 Ex+P PM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 4 45 30 0Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 4 45 30 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 -----Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 0 2 5 53 35 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 98 35 35 0 - 0 Stage 1 35 ----- Stage 2 63 -----Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 901 1038 1576 - - - Stage 1 987 ----- Stage 2 960 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 898 1038 1576 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 898 ----- Stage 1 984 ----- Stage 2 960 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.5 0.6 0HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1576 - 1038 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - 0.002 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.5 - -HCM Lane LOS A A A - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 502 of 612 Existing + Project PM Romeria Pointe 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave 03/09/2020 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\4 Ex+P PM.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 625 48 4 416 30 46 6 10 18 1 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 13 625 48 4 416 30 46 6 10 18 1 13 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 14 658 51 4 438 32 48 6 11 19 1 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 33 906 768 10 812 59 300 14 25 246 16 63 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.48 0.48 0.01 0.47 0.47 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1721 126 1122 140 257 768 165 653 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 14 658 51 4 0 470 65 0 0 34 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1847 1519 0 0 1585 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 9.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 5.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 9.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 5.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.74 0.17 0.56 0.41Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 33 906 768 10 0 871 339 0 0 326 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.73 0.07 0.41 0.00 0.54 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 272 1745 1478 272 0 1723 1354 0 0 1345 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.9 6.7 4.5 16.2 0.0 6.1 13.9 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.7 1.1 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.6 7.8 4.5 41.7 0.0 6.6 14.1 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS C A A D AABAABAA Approach Vol, veh/h 723 474 65 34Approach Delay, s/veh 7.9 6.9 14.1 13.7Approach LOS AABB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 20.3 7.7 5.1 19.9 7.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 26.0 5.0 30.5 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 11.1 2.6 2.3 7.9 3.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.7 0.1 0.0 3.1 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.0HCM 6th LOS A Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 503 of 612 APPENDIX F HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS – EXISTING + CUMULATIVE Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 504 of 612 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 505 of 612 Near-Term AM Romeria Pointe 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St 03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\5 NT AM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 3 27 15 13 12 9Future Vol, veh/h 3 27 15 13 12 9Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 33000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 72 72 72 72 72 72Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 4 38 21 18 17 13 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 45 0 86 26 Stage 1 - - - - 26 - Stage 2 - - - - 60 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1563 - 915 1050 Stage 1 - - - - 997 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1559 - 899 1047Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 899 - Stage 1 - - - - 980 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 3.9 8.9HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)957 - - 1559 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - - 0.013 -HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0HCM Lane LOS A - - A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 506 of 612 Near-Term AM Romeria Pointe 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave 03/09/2020 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\5 NT AM.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 317 45 20 673 11 98 6 29 31 6 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 1 317 45 20 673 11 98 6 29 31 6 13 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1 348 49 22 740 12 108 7 32 34 7 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 5 823 697 48 854 14 339 37 60 299 72 76 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.47 0.47 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1835 30 959 200 322 804 386 406 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1 348 49 22 0 752 147 0 0 55 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1865 1481 0 0 1597 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 5.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 14.1 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 5.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 14.1 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.73 0.22 0.62 0.25Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 5 823 697 48 0 868 436 0 0 447 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.42 0.07 0.45 0.00 0.87 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 229 985 835 229 0 982 1126 0 0 1140 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.4 7.5 6.3 18.6 0.0 9.3 14.2 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.3 0.3 0.0 6.5 0.0 7.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 5.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.7 7.9 6.3 25.2 0.0 16.9 14.6 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS D A A C ABBAABAA Approach Vol, veh/h 398 774 147 55Approach Delay, s/veh 7.8 17.1 14.6 13.4Approach LOS ABBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.6 21.6 11.7 4.6 22.6 11.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 20.5 26.0 5.0 20.5 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 7.0 3.0 2.0 16.1 5.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 0.2 0.0 2.1 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.0HCM 6th LOS B Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 507 of 612 Near-Term PM Romeria Pointe 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St 03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\6 NT PM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 8 22 8 4 16 9Future Vol, veh/h 8 22 8 4 16 9Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 88023Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 77 77 77Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 10 29 10 5 21 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 47 0 60 36 Stage 1 - - - - 33 - Stage 2 - - - - 27 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1560 - 947 1037 Stage 1 - - - - 989 - Stage 2 - - - - 996 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1548 - 932 1026Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 932 - Stage 1 - - - - 975 - Stage 2 - - - - 994 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.9 8.9HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)964 - - 1548 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.034 - - 0.007 -HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0HCM Lane LOS A - - A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 508 of 612 Near-Term PM Romeria Pointe 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave 03/09/2020 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\6 NT PM.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 631 50 4 420 29 47 6 11 18 1 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 631 50 4 420 29 47 6 11 18 1 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 664 53 4 442 31 49 6 12 19 1 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 19 911 772 10 832 58 297 13 26 258 17 54 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.49 0.49 0.01 0.48 0.48 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1727 121 1109 136 272 845 180 564 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 664 53 4 0 473 67 0 0 31 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1848 1516 0 0 1588 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 9.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 5.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 9.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 5.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.73 0.18 0.61 0.35Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 19 911 772 10 0 891 336 0 0 330 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.73 0.07 0.41 0.00 0.53 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 271 1736 1471 271 0 1715 1349 0 0 1338 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.2 6.7 4.5 16.3 0.0 5.9 14.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.0 1.1 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.1 7.8 4.5 41.8 0.0 6.4 14.3 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS C A A D AABAABAA Approach Vol, veh/h 725 477 67 31Approach Delay, s/veh 7.8 6.7 14.3 13.8Approach LOS AABB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 20.5 7.7 4.9 20.3 7.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 26.0 5.0 30.5 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 11.3 2.5 2.1 7.9 3.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.7 0.1 0.0 3.1 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.9HCM 6th LOS A Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 509 of 612 APPENDIX G HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS – EXISTING + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 510 of 612 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 511 of 612 Near-Term + Project AM Romeria Pointe 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St 03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\7 NT+P AM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 3 27 15 13 13 9Future Vol, veh/h 3 27 15 13 13 9Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 33000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 72 72 72 72 72 72Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 4 38 21 18 18 13 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 45 0 86 26 Stage 1 - - - - 26 - Stage 2 - - - - 60 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1563 - 915 1050 Stage 1 - - - - 997 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1559 - 899 1047Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 899 - Stage 1 - - - - 980 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 3.9 8.9HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)954 - - 1559 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 - - 0.013 -HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0HCM Lane LOS A - - A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 512 of 612 Near-Term + Project AM Romeria Pointe 2: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (N)03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\7 NT+P AM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 1 4 1 18 50 0Future Vol, veh/h 1 4 1 18 50 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 -----Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 1 5 1 21 59 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 82 59 59 0 - 0 Stage 1 59 ----- Stage 2 23 -----Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 920 1007 1545 - - - Stage 1 964 ----- Stage 2 1000 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 919 1007 1545 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 919 ----- Stage 1 963 ----- Stage 2 1000 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 0.4 0HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1545 - 988 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.006 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.7 - -HCM Lane LOS A A A - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 513 of 612 Near-Term + Project AM Romeria Pointe 3: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (S)03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\7 NT+P AM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 4 1 19 54 0Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 1 19 54 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 -----Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 0 5 1 22 64 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 88 64 64 0 - 0 Stage 1 64 ----- Stage 2 24 -----Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 913 1000 1538 - - - Stage 1 959 ----- Stage 2 999 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 912 1000 1538 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 912 ----- Stage 1 958 ----- Stage 2 999 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.6 0.4 0HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1538 - 1000 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.005 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.6 - -HCM Lane LOS A A A - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 514 of 612 Near-Term + Project AM Romeria Pointe 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave 03/09/2020 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\7 NT+P AM.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 317 45 20 673 11 98 6 29 33 6 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 3 317 45 20 673 11 98 6 29 33 6 19 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 3 348 49 22 740 12 108 7 32 36 7 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 7 826 700 48 853 14 339 37 60 274 70 98 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.46 0.46 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1835 30 962 199 323 698 376 524 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 3 348 49 22 0 752 147 0 0 64 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1865 1485 0 0 1597 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 5.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 14.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 5.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 14.2 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.73 0.22 0.56 0.33Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 7 826 700 48 0 866 437 0 0 442 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.42 0.07 0.45 0.00 0.87 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 227 979 830 227 0 976 1117 0 0 1133 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.5 7.5 6.3 18.8 0.0 9.4 14.2 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 33.0 0.3 0.0 6.5 0.0 7.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 1.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 5.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.5 7.8 6.3 25.3 0.0 17.1 14.7 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS D A A C ABBAABAA Approach Vol, veh/h 400 774 147 64Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 17.4 14.7 13.6Approach LOS ABBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.6 21.8 11.8 4.7 22.7 11.8Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 20.5 26.0 5.0 20.5 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 7.0 3.2 2.1 16.2 5.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 0.3 0.0 2.0 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.2HCM 6th LOS B Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 515 of 612 Near-Term + Project PM Romeria Pointe 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St 03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\8 NT+P PM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 8 23 8 4 16 9Future Vol, veh/h 8 23 8 4 16 9Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 88023Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 77 77 77Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 10 30 10 5 21 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 48 0 60 36 Stage 1 - - - - 33 - Stage 2 - - - - 27 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1559 - 947 1037 Stage 1 - - - - 989 - Stage 2 - - - - 996 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1547 - 932 1026Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 932 - Stage 1 - - - - 975 - Stage 2 - - - - 994 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.9 8.9HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)964 - - 1547 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.034 - - 0.007 -HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0HCM Lane LOS A - - A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 516 of 612 Near-Term + Project PM Romeria Pointe 2: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (N)03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\8 NT+P PM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 3 43 29 1Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 3 43 29 1Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 -----Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 0 2 4 51 34 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 94 35 35 0 - 0 Stage 1 35 ----- Stage 2 59 -----Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 906 1038 1576 - - - Stage 1 987 ----- Stage 2 964 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 903 1038 1576 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 903 ----- Stage 1 984 ----- Stage 2 964 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.5 0.5 0HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1576 - 1038 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.002 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.5 - -HCM Lane LOS A A A - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 517 of 612 Near-Term + Project PM Romeria Pointe 3: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (S)03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\8 NT+P PM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 4 46 31 0Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 4 46 31 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 -----Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 0 2 5 54 36 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 100 36 36 0 - 0 Stage 1 36 ----- Stage 2 64 -----Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 899 1037 1575 - - - Stage 1 986 ----- Stage 2 959 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 896 1037 1575 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 896 ----- Stage 1 983 ----- Stage 2 959 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.5 0.6 0HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1575 - 1037 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - 0.002 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.5 - -HCM Lane LOS A A A - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 518 of 612 Near-Term + Project PM Romeria Pointe 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave 03/09/2020 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\8 NT+P PM.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 631 50 4 420 31 47 6 11 19 1 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 13 631 50 4 420 31 47 6 11 19 1 13 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 14 664 53 4 442 33 49 6 12 20 1 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 33 910 772 10 814 61 299 13 27 248 17 62 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.49 0.49 0.01 0.47 0.47 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1718 128 1112 136 272 779 172 634 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 14 664 53 4 0 475 67 0 0 35 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1847 1520 0 0 1586 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 9.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 6.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 9.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 6.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.73 0.18 0.57 0.40Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 33 910 772 10 0 875 339 0 0 328 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.73 0.07 0.41 0.00 0.54 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 270 1729 1466 270 0 1707 1342 0 0 1332 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.0 6.7 4.5 16.4 0.0 6.1 13.9 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.8 1.1 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.8 7.9 4.5 41.9 0.0 6.7 14.2 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS C A A D AABAABAA Approach Vol, veh/h 731 479 67 35Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 7.0 14.2 13.8Approach LOS AABB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 20.6 7.7 5.1 20.1 7.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 26.0 5.0 30.5 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 11.3 2.6 2.3 8.0 3.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.7 0.1 0.0 3.1 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.1HCM 6th LOS A Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 519 of 612 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453www.hcd.ca.gov September 18, 2019 Scott Chadwick, City Manager 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: City of Carlsbad, Romeria Pointe Project Dear Scott Chadwick: The purpose of this letter is to assist the city in complying with the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5). The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recognizes the challenge of interpreting ever-changing housing and land-use laws, and appreciates the city’s efforts to maintain compliance with all applicable laws. In enacting the Housing Accountability Act, the Legislature declared, “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions” (Gov. Code Sec 65589.5(a)(2)(A)). This housing crisis, the Legislature found, has adverse impacts on Californians and California, impacting citizens’ health, safety, economic standing and the state’s environment and competitiveness (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(a)(2)). Through the Housing Accountability Act, the Legislature intended “to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing developments” (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(a)(2)(K)). Furthermore, the Legislature declared, “It is the policy of the state that this section should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing” (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(a)(2)(L)). Through communications with the developer and Carlsbad city staff, we have been made aware of delays with the Romeria Pointe project (Project No. SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)). The Romeria Pointe project consists of 23 units of housing, including 3 units designated as very-low income. By virtue of its very low-income units, the project was granted a 35% density bonus as well as height and unit concessions provided by State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Sec. 65915) and applicable Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC Section 21.86.050). The project is proposed for two lots (APNs: 2163001200, 2163001300) designated in the Housing Element for moderate-income units (City of Carlsbad, 2013-2021 Housing Element, pg. B-2). According to the Planning Department staff report provided in advance of the project consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council, the Romeria Pointe application was deemed EXHIBIT 12 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 520 of 612 complete on October 12, 2018, compliant with all applicable zoning laws, and exempt from providing environmental documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it was an in-fill development project (City Council Agenda Packet, Item #12, Exhibit 4, “Planning Commission Staff Report”). The project was approved by a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission on March 20, 2019. The approval was appealed, and, on June 11, 2019, the City Council considered the appeal in an open session. The debate at City Council was extensive, but the outcome unclear. From HCD’s examination of the meeting record, it appears that the Council neither accepted nor denied the appeal. Instead, the Council chose to remand the project to the Planning Commission for a “focused EIR” that would consider both geotechnical and traffic impacts of the project. No written findings were made by the Council. By virtue of this decision, the city risks violating the Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act creates substantive preconditions for the delay and disapproval of housing. If a housing project “complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project’s application is determined to be complete,” the Housing Accountability Act requires jurisdictions to make specific findings when “the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density” (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(j)(1)). In particular, the local agency must determine, in writing, that “[t]he housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety” (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(j)(1)(A)) and “[t]here is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact” (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(j)(1)(B)). These written findings must be “supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record” (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(j)(1)). Moreover, the Legislature has declared its intent “that the conditions that would have a specific adverse impact upon the public health and safety . . . arise infrequently” (Gov. Code Sec. 65889(a)(3)). “Specific adverse impact” is narrowly defined as “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete” (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(j)(1)(A)). Finally, the Legislature has declared that “the receipt of a density bonus . . . shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision” (Gov. Code Sec. 65589(j)(3)). Under Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(5)(B), disapproval means failure “to comply with the time periods” established by Gov. Code Section 65950. The Legislature has determined that “A public agency that is the lead agency for a development project shall approve or disapprove the project within . . . [s]ixty days from the determination by Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 521 of 612 the lead agency that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), if the project is exempt from that act.” (Gov. Code Sec. 65950(a)(5)). The city has, thus far, made no findings that negate the Planning Department’s determination that the project is exempt. The Housing Accountability Act does not free the city from complying with CEQA (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(e)). But, by extending the development process substantially for this project, the City of Carlsbad risks violating the Housing Accountability Act. Please contact Cynthia Marsh (916-263-7421), of our staff, if we can be of any support. Sincerely, Zachary Olmstead Deputy Director cc: Matt Hall, Mayor City of Carlsbad Celia A. Brewer, City Attorney City of Carlsbad Don Neu, City Planner City of Carlsbad Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 522 of 612 From:Council Internet Email Cc:City Clerk Subject:FW: PLEASE delay meeting for Romeria Pointe on May 19th, 2020 Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 1:19:45 PM From: bbundaf@aol.com <bbundaf@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 10:20 AM To: Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: PLEASE delay meeting for Romeria Pointe on May 19th, 2020 Dear Mayor Hall, Mr. Chadwick, and City Council: I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the Council. I am requesting the hearing on May 19th, 2020 at 3PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments be delayed. This due to the Stay At Home orders that currently are in place. We are in the middle of a World Pandemic. EVERYONE's lives have been turned upside down. We are home schooling. Carlsbad residents are wondering when they will return to work so they can receive a paycheck. Neighbors are stranded in far away places! This neighbor has a very serious situation going on. Certainly their attention is going to saving their lives, not writing an e-mail to City Council! "My wife and I are stuck in Brasil for the foreseeable future ..... We have recently had a couple of deaths around us due to Covid-19 and some others who are now experiencing strange symptoms and the signature symptoms of Covid that we are all becoming aware of more and more. The hospitals are overflowing with IC patients and they are digging mass graves in many places, but at least able to bury people in individual coffins... Somehow the officials were still claiming it was going to not be bad here, but just bullshit.." A lot of time was spent on the evening of June 11th, 2019 on this issue. It's a HOT topic! At this point, the citizens of Carlsbad have very little information regarding thishearing. Under the current Stay At Home orders it is almost impossible to obtain any documents/information. If you recall, I had a hard enough time obtaining documents last Spring when life was "normal". Please see below from my e-mail sent to the City on May 19th, 2019: "City Planning has made it very difficult for me to obtain copies of the geotechnical report done for the developer by GeoSoil, Inc. Chris EXHIBIT 13 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 523 of 612 Garcia and I spoke on the morning of April 29th. He informed me that I could review the geotech report on premise at City Planning. If I wanted a copy I would need to get a bonded blue print company to do so for me. This report is on standard 8.5" x 11" paper. On May 2nd, I went to the planning office to review the documents. I asked the women who gave me the reports if I could bring a copy machine in and copy them myself. She said she couldn't see why not. Based on that information, I returned the following week on May 9th with my printer. I got the report and explained to them that I was told the previous week I could bring in a printer. I asked where I could set up. At that point a little "committee" was formed behind the counter. I was politely told after much deliberation I could not make my own copy. I understand the City Manager is looking into the issue." We have a right to information on this matter. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 has our back!!! Public authorities are obliged to publish certain information about their activities and members of the public are entitled to request information from public authorities. Many of us have been e-mailing in to the City inquiring aboutactivity on this issue since June 2019. No CEQA report has been provided. This is what Council decided was necessary for the Romeria Pointe Apartment project on June 11th 2019. I appreciate your time. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. Sincerely, Beth Citrano CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 524 of 612 From:Manager Internet Email To:City Clerk Subject:FW: Postponement of hearing for Romeria Pointe for May19th 2020 Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 1:25:24 PM This may be a duplicate since the council email was cc’d on it. From: hen <etonlodge@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 12:39 PM To: Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov> Cc: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Postponement of hearing for Romeria Pointe for May19th 2020 -----Original Message----- From: hen <etonlodge@aol.com> To: manager@carlsbadca.gov <manager@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: council@carlsbad.gov <council@carlsbad.gov> Sent: Wed, May 13, 2020 12:28 pm Subject: Postponement of hearing for Romeria Pointe for May19th 2020 Dear Mayor Hall, Mr.Chadwick and City Council: I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the Council. My name is Susan Ortman and I reside at , Carlsbad CA 92009 I just received notice by way of Chris Garcia that the Developer for Romeria Pointe Apartments has managed to obtain a hearing in front of City Council (by way video teleconference) to reconsider a directive that the City Council made to them on June11th, 2019. The end result of this meeting was that City Council remanded the project back to the Planning Commission as long as the developer completed an environmental impact report (CEQA) ) covering geotechnical and traffic issues. To my knowledge this has not been done and it would appear that they do not want to do it hence the hearing. At this time the whole country is experiencing a covid 19 Pandemic. There are huge restrictions placed on us including get togethers and meetings. Our lives are upside down and nothing is normal. To have this hearing where our voices cannot be heard physically in front of City Council and in City Chambers violates us as decent human beings. I feel completely railroaded by this and betrayed. We have faith in you our elected officials so please I am asking you to postpone this hearing until such times that it can come before City Council in the normal manner. Thank you for time in reading this and please, please do the right thing Susan Ortman A recent Covid 19 Survivor CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 525 of 612 From:Council Internet Email Cc:City Clerk Subject:FW: Romeria Point Apartments Appeal Date:Thursday, May 14, 2020 8:45:44 AM From: Chad <yougotchad@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 7:28 AM To: Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov> Cc: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Romeria Point Apartments Appeal Dear Mayor Hall, Mr. Chadwick, and City Council:I would like the below email to be included in the public record and in the staff reportssubmitted by the council. I own a condominium unit next door to the planned projectat I understand that the Council has scheduled a Public Hearing on May 19th, which Iassume is that the builder is attempting to appeal the prior decision to require aCEQA. Also, the staff report which would include the details of the said appeal willnot be available “on or after May 15” - which could be mean the same day to only fourdays prior to the Hearing. This time frame surely will not allow time for proper reviewand response to the Staff findings. Further, because we are in the middle of apandemic, there will be no public comment allowed but only letters to the Council.This will not allow for public questions and comment following any video staff reportpresentation and Q & A by the Council.I would like to formally request that this hearing be continued until:a) There is adequate time to review the Staff findings and answers as to why the priordecision to require a CEQA report is not being adhered to.b) Until the “Stay at Home Order” has been lifted, and we can attend in person.In every daily update from the City Manager we have been reminded that the Stay AtHome order from Governor Newsom is still in effect. Mr. Chadwick states "Your efforts are making a difference". These "efforts" to abide current restrictions make it impossible to communicate with neighbors and obtain documents/information. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you with a new date once the Stay At Home orders are no longer in effect. Best Regards, Chad Peck Resident/Owner CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 526 of 612 From:Council Internet Email Cc:City Clerk Subject:FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments Date:Thursday, May 14, 2020 8:45:50 AM Attachments: From: Andrew Chishchevoy <andriy.chishchevoy@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 12:38 AM To: Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Mayor Hall, Mr. Chadwick, and City Council: I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the Council. Writing about the hearing on May 19th, 2020 at 3PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments that we would like to be postponed. Due to the Stay At Home orders during this world wide pandemic it's pretty much impossible to convey all information via electronic means of communication. I request a postponement of this meeting until the current Stay At Home orders are lifted. Back in June 2019 we spent multiple days and hours on this issue. The entire Romeria neighborhood got involved and wants to have a chance to have a voice in this matter in person. Concerns we had regarding this project remain the same, and pictures attached to this email reconfirm that a 4 story building on a slope is not a safe project. Pictures are recent from mid April of 2020. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Andrew Chishchevoy CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 527 of 612 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 528 of 612 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 529 of 612 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 530 of 612 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 531 of 612 From:Melissa Flores To:City Clerk Cc:Chris Garcia; Don Neu Subject:FW: Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 4:12:44 PM -----Original Message----- From: MaryAnne Orcutt <maorcutt@gmail.com>Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 4:06 PMTo: Planning <Planning@CarlsbadCA.gov>Subject: Fwd: Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) >> Dear City Council,>> I understand that you have chosen to take up a matter at your next meeting Lots 393 and 394, which affects manyresidents on Gibraltar and Romeria Street when none of us can attend due to the “Stay at Home Order”. I wouldrespectfully request that you postpone this matter for a couple of months until the order is lifted, and residents canattend a meeting in person. Also,> 1) we have not been given sufficient notice, nor the specifics about what the builder is claiming, why he isrequesting that you overturn a previous decision made with input from residents. There is limited time to contactresidents or to properly formulate responses, since we do not yet know the issues.> 2) our voices are not properly heard since we cannot be physically present, versus only being able to send emails.> 3) three or four persons will be making a decision which affects hundreds of owners on the contiguous streets,with limited input from us. This seems to be a strategy to push through a decision without adequate public input.> 4)If the Environmental Impact (CEQA) studies have not been done, why would the Council reverse their decisionabout this important matter when residents cannot have input in an in person basis? I certainly hope that this is not away to avoid having community input and to allow the builder to proceed by getting around what the Council hasalready deemed to be required.>> As a reminder about the concerns of the owners on Gibraltar and Romeria, which have not yet been addressed:> 1) The density in this area is already such that there is no available street parking. Every spot is taken, especiallyin the evening/ overnight and on weekends. How would this be addressed by adding 23 additional families, many ofwhom might have two cars, since there would be families?> 2) We are very concerned about water quality issues, water run off, and sewage, as previously detailed to you. These issues would be addressed by the Environmental (CEQA including soil, water and extensive engineeringstudy) which is why we requested this initially. This is both a quality of life and safety issue for everyone livingnear this building project. If water quality issues are affected, or there is significant flooding or erosion, surely theCarlsbad City Council does not want to be subjected to law suits because they bypassed having the CEQA reportsdone.> 2) Since many units In the new project are 3 bedroom, this would add many children to the area, however thereare no playgrounds or green spaces, except for a stream on the La Costa Golf course (on private property), whichruns below our home. There is also a part of Box Canyon which is owned by the City of Carlsbad: it is an extremelydangerous area where some children choose to fish and swim, and the liability for the city here could be extreme. As others have mentioned, there are many rattlesnakes in the Box Canyon as well. To think about an additional 25-50 children utilizing this area and ruining the serenity of the area is unsettling, to say the least. We chose to buy ourproperty because of the serenity, so this would greatly affect our property value as well as everyone else’s in thearea, which of course affects the tax base, and may not be offset by adding the new units. I would think that theCarlsbad City Council would want to be mindful of the safety of its children (and liability) in considering buildingproject.> 3) There are no other 4 story buildings in the street, nor anywhere in the area. This would block other units’ sight Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 532 of 612 lines, cause more artificial light, Block sunlight, and cause more traffic and noise. Why would the City Council approve a high density 4 story building on top of a lot (which is already two stories higher than the street) in an area that is already quite dense? I have seen no plan to protect children and pedestrians in the a> ----- Message truncated -----CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 533 of 612 RE: SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2007-0051) ROMERIA POINTE APTS. Dear Mayor Hall, Mr. Chadwick, and City Council: I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the Council. On June 6, 2019, the Council deferred the Project and directed a complete CEQA be prepared. Yet, the public hearing announcement states that while the staff report is not yet available, the project “will not have any adverse significant impacts on the environment” and, therefore, the full CEQA report is not required. We ask that the Council directive be adhered to, and further, request this hearing by continued as: a) The Public Hearing Notice indicates Staff’s report availability “on or after May 15” -only four days prior to the Hearing - doesn’t allow time to respond. b) Under video format, there can be no public questions and comments following a staff presentation and Q&A by Council. Please wait until the “SIP Order” has been lifted and affected residents can participate, in person, at a Public Hearing. c) We request Public Works/Eng comments to the CEQA and following issues be made public for review and attached to the Staff report; The Project WILL have significant impact on both the abutting properties and nearby residents both during and after construction. Environmental impact: The developers consultants’ report indicated that construction deficiencies are to blame for land slippage/slides on adjacent easterly property and damage to units. They indicated that prior construction information and approvals were unavailable to ascertain the source and determine remedies. (Note, we see no comments regarding the potential soils impact to the developments south of the embankment). It is irresponsible for the developer to indicate that the soil, fill and compaction issues affecting abutting properties were pre-existing and, therefore, do not need to be fully studied and abated in the proposed Project. The land is unstable, and nothing gleaned from Project consultants suggest appropriate precautionary or remediation measures can be taken. We would like Engineering/Building Department review, response and requirements attached to Planning Staff’s recommendation and presence at a continued Public Hearing. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 534 of 612 Their soils report is inconclusive. The nature of the soil is unstable, making it difficult to determine what the soil decay and slide will be if the new project is constructed. If Council finds that their June 2019 directive for a full CEQA report need NOT be upheld, allowing the Project to move forward, City staff/Council findings attached to any conditional approval must require strong mitigation measures that are definitive and measurable by Inspectors, beyond what the developer/consultants propose. Sun/Shadow & Facade Impact: The Project is now four stories ABOVE streetside berms. It is disproportionate in scale to any development visible surrounding it. As we understand the elevations, the majority of the facade along Gibraltar will not have offsets (stepping back) other than the corner/upper), looming over the street within 15’-20’ of the sidewalk: What mitigation measures will be required to fit this facade into the low-rise buildings surrounding it? Further, we did not find Shadow studies. Given the mass of the Project, we request Council ensure that buildings will not impede sunlight by requiring Shadow studies, across streets, in all four directions. Traffic/ Parking issue: 1) The traffic count study still did not address parking : There is virtually no on-street parking availability, and these additional residents and their visitors will exacerbate the situation (regardless of the C-19 situation). Additional on-site parking is needed. 2) The distance from the corner of Romeria and Gibraltar to the garage ingress/egress may not allow adequate time to react to a vehicle either exiting or entering the garage, given typical vehicle speed and reduced site lines - Were site lines studied (without removing on-street parking between the corner and garage entrance)? We appreciate your consideration of the above. Sincerely, Susan and Warren Simmonds Carlsbad, CA 92009 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 535 of 612 From:MaryAnne Orcutt To:City Clerk Subject:Please read this into the record of the City Council Meeting of 5/19/20 Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 8:46:41 PM Dear Council, You will be discussing Lots 393 and 394 on 5/19/20, which affects many nearby owners. No residents can attend due to the “Stay at Home Order”. I respectfully request that you postpone this matter until the order is lifted, and owners can attend in person. Also, 1) we have not been given sufficient notice, nor the specifics about why the builder is requesting that you overturn a previous decision which had input from owners. Since we do not know the issues, we cannot formulate a response. 2) we wish to be physically present.3) 3 or 4 persons will be making a decision which affects hundreds of owners with little input. Is this a strategy to push through this decision? 4) Why would the Council reverse their decision about the CEQA testing? Hopefully this is not a means by which the builder can proceed when the Council has alreadydeemed this be required. Items unaddressed by the builder: 1) no available street parking. All spots taken, especially evenings/ overnight/weekends. How is this being addressed for 23-46 more cars? 2) water quality issues, water run off, sewage. CEQA would address this (including soil, water and extensive engineering study). Quality of life and safety issues are at stake here for everyone living near this building project. Surely Carlsbad City Councildoes not want to be subjected to law suits because they bypassed having the CEQA reports done. 2) lack of playgrounds or green spaces, except for a stream owned by Omni La Costa Golf and Box Canyon owned by City of Carlsbad: a dangerous rattlesnakearea where children choose to fish and swim: liability for the city could be extreme. 25-50 more children utilizing this area and ruining the serenity of the area is unsettling. We chose to buy our property because of the serenity, this would greatly affect property values, which affects the tax base, and may not be offset by addingnew units. Carlsbad City Council may wish to be mindful of safety of children (and liability) in considering this building project. 3) no other 4 story buildings on the street, nor anywhere in the area. Project would block sight lines, add artificial light, block sunlight, and cause more traffic and noise.Why would the City Council approve a high density 4 story building on top of a lot ( already two stories higher than the street) in an area that is already dense? What are plans to protect children and pedestrians, traffic mitigation, parking? The builder could consider a 2 story building with 1-2 bedroom units (not ideal, but would partiallyaddress some of concerns). I trust Carlsbad City Council will protect interests of hundreds of property owners, Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 536 of 612 rather than ramrodding through a project of one builder, and bypassing your own past decisions of how this builder must address our (and presumably your) concerns. Sincerely, Mary Anne Orcutt Mary Anne OrcuttSent from my iPad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 537 of 612 From:Ann Scott To:City Clerk Subject:Proposed Romero Pointe Apartment Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:55:23 PM I request this letter be read at the City Council Meeting May 19, 2020. I would like to suggest this meeting be postponed until it can be held in person. I received a notice of this meeting only today in the mail, May 12. It is my firm belief that the construction of this 4 story apartment complex will be detrimental to the safety of Gibraltar and Romero Street homeowners, causing more overcrowding and restricted street parking conditions. The sidewalks are already littered with trash and dog droppings. I cannot imagine the impact of adding yet another huge apartment complex to this already congested area. Thank you Ann & Jack Scott Carlsbad, Ca. Sent from my iPad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 538 of 612 From:Stuart Knecht To:Cori Schumacher; Keith Blackburn; Priya Bhat-Patel; Matthew Hall; City Clerk Subject:Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 8:36:07 PM I request that my following be read into the record of the City Council Meeting on May 19, 2020: Following are my objections to the proposed apartment project: 1. There already is substantial density on Gibraltar Street and Romeria Street. Adding a 23 unit apartment complex, with most units having three bedrooms, would add an unacceptable level of congestion to this neighborhood. Parking is already a significant problem on both streets, and it has not been unusual for our driveway to be blocked by cars squeezing into already limited parking spaces. Should you have any doubt about this, I invite you to observe our street, particularly in the evening and on weekends. Adding so many apartments, presumably with occupants who would own more than one car, would greatly exacerbate an already difficult situation. 2. Occupants of apartments with three bedrooms would, presumably, include families with children. There is no space on either Gibraltar Street or Romario Street for children to play. With so many cars parked on the street, there certainly will be a safety hazard for children running from between parked cars into the street in front of moving traffic. I was nearly killed as a youngster when I ran in front of a moving car from between two parked cars, so I am keenly aware of this danger. There could be liability issues for the Carlsbad City Council/City of Carlsbad should there be injury or death to children if this project is approved with Council member’s knowledge of such risk. 3. The 11/21/2017 report by GeoSoils, Inc. raised concerns about soil and slope stability. I understand that that all proposed projects prior to the current project had been denied by the city because of soil issues. Surely a four-story building constructed in an area that is elevated 15 to 20 feet above Gibraltar Street, poses a potential risk of water runoff, potential sewage issues, and hillside collapse following heavy rains. As an attorney, I suspect the city could face liability or litigation should this project proceed and adjacent properties are adversely affected or life is lost due to hillside collapse. I strongly recommend that a CEQA environmental impact study be conducted to fully understand the potential risks of this construction. 4. There are no four story buildings on Gibraltar Romeria Streets. To permit such a building to be constructed on elevated land, would, in my opinion, adversely impact sightlines of adjacent properties, degrade neighborhood aesthetics, increase artificial light and block sunlight, not to mention increase traffic and noise due to such a high density building. While some less extensive construction may be appropriate for this property, I believe the proposed project is entirely unsuitable and undesirable for this neighborhood. I urge City Council to deny the appeal of the planning commission‘s decision to approve the site development plan for this property. Sincerely yours, R. Stuart Knecht Sent from my iPad Sent from my iPad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 539 of 612 From:Stuart Knecht To:Cori Schumacher; City Clerk; Keith Blackburn; Matthew Hall; priva.bhat-patel@carlsbadca.gov Subject:Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004(DEV2017-0151) Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 8:16:20 PM I request that my following comment be read into the record of the City Council Meeting on May 19, 2020: Dear City Council Members, I am writing in response to the Notice Of Public Hearing, scheduled May 19, 2020, published May 8, 2020, regarding reconsideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a site development plan allowing construction of a four-story, 23 unit apartment project at the corner of Romario Street and Gibraltar Street. The notice states that officials in the meeting will participate through video or audio teleconference and that interested members of the public cannot attend in person but can only submit emails. I co-own property on Gibraltar Street. If this project is built as planned, it will have a profoundly negative impact on our neighborhood, our quality of life, our safety and the value of our property. I believe that reconsideration of this plan merits more than a teleconference meeting with no in-person participation by the many residents and property owners who will be affected by this project. Furthermore, with such short notice of the meeting, affected individuals will have little notice of the basis for which the builder claims to have justification for overturning the decision to require a CEQA. While the notice provides that interested members of the public have the right to submit email comments, I do not believe that such means of expressing concerns and raising questions adequately provides for a full airing of concerns and addressing questions. I therefore request that the public hearing on this subject be delayed until the current “stay at home order“ is terminated so that the public can be adequately heard in person to address concerns regarding this project that would so adversely affect our lives. Sincerely yours, R. Stuart Knecht Sent from my iPad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 540 of 612 From:Bob Wilcox To:Planning Subject:Romeria Pointe Apartments Date:Wednesday, July 01, 2020 2:06:31 PM I urge the City Council to approve the Romeria Pointe project. This is exactly the kind of infill development that our community needs to address our critical housing shortage. Rejecting or delaying these kinds of sensible developments damages our community in severalways: 1) By removing the local supply of rental properties, it drives up the cost of rent city-wide.2) It pushes people out further away from job centers in and around Carlsbad, forcing workers to commute further. This increases traffic for all of us, degrades local air quality, anddramatically increases our local carbon emissions over years or even decades. 3) It robs our city of the increased property tax base it would have provided, leaving the rest ofus to foot the bills. Unnecessary delays, while not as bad as outright rejections, still have many of the same impacts. I hope that in the future, the City Council will take these issues into considerationwhen infill development projects come up for approval. Sincerely, Robert Wilcox Carlsbad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 541 of 612 From:Chad To:Planning Subject:Romeria Pointe Apartments postponement Date:Monday, July 06, 2020 9:19:38 AM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning. This is a request that the hearing on July 15th, 2020 at 3PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments be postponed. This request is due to the current world wide pandemic. Nearly 3 hours was spent at the City Council meeting on June 11th, 2019 on this issue. This clearly shows the amount of attention this matter deserves. Please give the residents of Carlsbad a chance to have a voice in this matter in person once EVERYONE can focus on this important topic. In the update from the City Manager on July 2nd 2020, Mr. Chadwick states "Carlsbad has 22 more cases than my last report on Tuesday for a new total of 182. We estimate 86 are currently active, the highest by far since the start of the pandemic." This pandemic is FAR from over and the numbers in Carlsbad show thisto be true. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you with a new date when this matter can be addressed in person. Sincerely, CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 542 of 612 From:Chad To:Planning Subject:Romeria Pointe Apartments Date:Monday, July 06, 2020 9:23:30 AM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning. This is a request that the hearing on July 15th, 2020 at 3PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments be postponed. This request is due to the current world wide pandemic. Nearly 3 hours was spent at the City Council meeting on June 11th, 2019 on this issue. This clearly shows the amount of attention this matter deserves. Please give the residents of Carlsbad a chance to have a voice in this matter in person onceEVERYONE can focus on this important topic. In the update from the City Manager on July 2nd 2020, Mr. Chadwick states "Carlsbad has 22 more cases than my last report on Tuesday for a new total of 182.We estimate 86 are currently active, the highest by far since the start of the pandemic." This pandemic is FAR from over and the numbers in Carlsbad show this to be true. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you with a new date when this matter can be addressed in person. In my opinion we shouldn’t be meeting about anything regarding this project until the CEQA review that was to be done….is done! Sincerely, Chad Peck Carlsbad CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 543 of 612 From:Eileen Donovan To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Cc:Elizabeth Citrano; etonlodge@aol.com; Scott Christensen Subject:Hearing on July 15th, 2020 at 3PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments Date:Monday, July 06, 2020 10:17:29 AM Attachments:image.png Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning. This is a request that the hearing on July 15th, 2020 at 3PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments be postponed until the pandemic subsides and residents can attend in person. In all fairness, we spent 3 hours in a City Council meeting in June of 2019 and it was decided by your body that a partial CEQA would be conducted in the name of safety. Now the builder is attempting to get around that requirement and I feel using thepandemic to take unfair advantage of the residents in the affected area. The builder can hire any expert to tell him what he wants to hear and what the city wants to hear, but a CEQA is a completely independent body and their findings will be much more accurate. I am very disappointed the City is even considering this and not upholdingtheir ruling of requiring CEQA. Had the builder of started the CEQA back in June of 2019, we would probably have a report by now. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. This is much too important given the builder is proposing a 100-ton 4 story building to go up within a few feet of our property when we have already had 2 very expensive lifts on our property due to soil issues that also had a ripple effect by causing two extremelydamaging pipes bursting in the units on both sides of my unit in 2014.These both happened within 2 months of one another and cost well over $10,000 in repairs. As a result, my insurance carrier covered the 1st one and said they would cover the 2nd one, but then my home owners insurance would be cancelled. I called several othercarriers and none would take me on, so I had to go out of pocket on the 2nd flood. It is simple deduction that this could very well go horribly wrong without a properCEQA or at least a partial CEQA. Given this fact, I find it wholly inappropriate that we can only submit written statements as opposed to giving our statements verbally. Is the builder allowed to speak at this teleconference? Or do they too just submit it in writing? If they are allowed to speak and present, and we are not, that isgiving completely unfair advantage to the builder and not the residents who live here. There are literally LIVES and LIVELIHOODS at stake here. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE. This is an extremely important issue that should not be handled lightly as "normal city business" Here is an aerial view our properties and the history. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 544 of 612 I look forward to hearing from you with a new date when this matter can be addressed in person. Sincerely, Eileen Donovan Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 545 of 612 As vou can see a 100 ton, 4 story bulldlng would be within feet of our last soil comprom{$e In 2014. Rameria Pointe building plans show it to be very close to property the 1/ne Carlsbad CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 546 of 612 From:Heather Lindsey To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) Date:Monday, July 06, 2020 10:57:15 AM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning. Due to the current pandemic, I request that the hearing on July 15th, 2020 at 3PM for RomeriaPointe Apartments be postponed. Many of the surrounding owners are elderly and unable to due the diligence and research required in the current environment. Nearly 3 hours was spent at the City Council meeting on June 11th, 2019 on this issue. Thisclearly shows the amount of attention this matter deserves. Please postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you with a new date when this matter can be addressed in person. Sincerely, Heather Lindsey CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 547 of 612 From:bbundaf@aol.com To:Manager Internet Email; Planning Subject:PLEASE delay meeting for ROMERIA POINTE on July 15th, 2020 Date:Monday, July 06, 2020 10:11:38 PM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in staff reports. I am requesting the hearing on July 15th, 2020 at 3PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments be delayed. We are in the middle of a World Pandemic. EVERYONE's lives have been turned upside down! PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. Hours were spent on the evening of June 11th, 2019 on this issue. It's a HOT topic! It was voted 4-1 by City Council that a partial CEQA be done because of safety. Residents paid $800 for that appeal. We ask that the decision made that night be upheld. I had a hard enough time obtaining documents last Spring when life was "normal". Please see below my e-mail sent to the City on May 19th, 2019: "City Planning has made it very difficult for me to obtain copies of the geotechnical report done for the developer by GeoSoil, Inc. Chris Garcia and I spoke on the morning of April 29th. He informed me that I could review the geotech report on premise at City Planning. If I wanted a copy I would need to get a bonded blue print company to do so for me. This report is on standard 8.5" x 11" paper. On May 2nd, I went to the planning office to review the documents. I asked the women who gave me the reports if I could bring a copy machine in and copy them myself. She said she couldn't see why not. Based on that information, I returned the following week on May 9th with my printer. I got the report and explained to them that I was told the previous week I could bring in a printer. I asked where I could set up. At that point a little "committee" was formed behind the counter. I was politely told after much deliberation I could not make my own copy. I understand the City Manager is looking into the issue." Public authorities are obliged to publish certain information about their activities andmembers of the public are entitled to request information from public authorities. We have been e-mailing the City since June 2019 for updates. No CEQA review has been provided. We understand an independent study was done. However, that was generated by the builder/developer. CEQA would be unbiased. We had issues with the in person meeting last June. On the afternoon of June 11th 2019, the day of the meeting, I received a phone call that pictures I requested would not be shown on the presentation screen during the meeting. The pictures were of the property that sit next to the proposed project. It showed the damage the buildingsustained because of land issues. The pictures had been sent electronically. I also drove a hard copy to the City office several days prior as instructed to make sure Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 548 of 612 these pictures would be shown. Again, they were not. No explanation was ever given. Doing this via Zoom/electronically means no guarantee information is passed along before a decision is made. I appreciate your time. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed in person. Sincerely, Beth Citrano CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 549 of 612 From:Mary SurdyTo:Planning; Manager Internet Email; Mary SurdySubject:Romeria Pointe Apartments Meeting being held on July 15th at 3:00 PM Date:Thursday, July 09, 2020 2:36:33 PM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning Department. This is a request that the hearing on July 15th, 2020 at 3 PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments be postponed. This request is due to the current worldwide pandemic. Nearly three hours were spent at the City Council meeting on June 11th, 2019 on this issue. This clearly shows the amount of attention this matter deserves. Please give the residents of ourneighborhood in Carlsbad a chance to have a voice in this matter in person so EVERYONE can focus on this important topic. In the update from the City Manager on July 2nd 2020, Mr. Chadwick states "Carlsbad has 22 more Covid 19 cases than my last report on Tuesday for a new total of 182. We estimate 86 arecurrently active, the highest by far since the start of the pandemic." This pandemic is FAR from over and the numbers in Carlsbad show this to be true. NBC news this morning also indicated“La Costa” (our neighborhood) is a new “hot spot” for the virus. Being out and about is a major concern for our residents. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed with an “in person” meeting. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you with a new date when this matter can be addressed in person. Sincerely, Mary Surdy Carlsbad, CA 92009Roundtree Condominiums CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 550 of 612 From:mimijo007@roadrunner.com To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:re-meeting Date:Saturday, July 11, 2020 6:56:48 AM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick; As a resident at Carlsbad, Ca., I am distressed that a project this large could be allowed to be built on this already over-crowded corner! Please postpone this meeting until more thinking can be heard from the people whose lives will be so negatively affected by this project. Thank you for honoring our requests. Sincerely, Sammy Jo Reeder This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 551 of 612 From:hen To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Hearing on July 15th for Romeria Pointe Apartments Date:Saturday, July 11, 2020 12:00:45 PM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr.Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning. I am requesting that the hearing be put on hold until the Public is able to voice their concerns in person in front of the Commission. I feel that it is biased that the builder/developer/owner or any one representing the Romeria Pointe development is going to be allowed to speak in front of you on the 15th July but that the Public is not being given that same opportunity. All that we are allowed to do is present a comment by way of email for the hearing. On March 20th 2019 there was an application presented to the Planning Commission in Chambers concerning the Romeria Pointe Development. The reason that so few of us from the ensuing neighborhood attended was that we believed that our elected Planning Commission would never allow a towering four story building to be built in our two story neighborhood. Following that result, an Appeal was filed. I do hope you all have had the opportunity to read it as it expands on the problems we have in this neighborhood. On the 11th June the Appeal was heard in front of the Carlsbad City Council. The room was packed and the matter took almost three hours. The end result was that the Council asked the Builder/Developer to do a partial CEQA for soil and traffic. It would appear the Developer now wants that ruling overturned. I feel the developer is using the pandemic to his advantage to take advantage of the residents in the affected neighborhoods. The developer can hire any expert to his advantage but a CEQA is a completely independent body and their findings will be a lot more accurate. Five years ago our five story townhome complex located next door to the planned development had some soil slippage on the Northside which is adjacent to the proposed development. We underwent an extensive lift and reinforcement. The slippage was due to land movement which this area is prone too. In fact the Geologist hired by the Romeria Pointe development concurred with this and stated that sidewalks and driveways will have to be replaced within three years of development due to the instability of the ground and soil. Their Geologist report was also done on three stories not four. Their proposed building procedures include drilling down 32 feet into bedrock and other very unusual and extreme practices in order to construct four stories. The builder/developer mentioned that reports are inconclusive and do not know what the conceptual outcome is going to be until they start excavation. This area has severe street parking problems which is a safety concern. There is not adequate street parking for our residents now never mind adding to it by this development. There is no allowance for visitor parking on the plans so where are all these cars meant to go ? 23 Units equals at least 46 cars possibly more . There is now another problem that has arisen regarding traffic flow since the June 11th 2019 City Council Meeting. FIRES. The proposed Development is only 1/4 miles from the fire zone and a fire hazard map will be provided to you. Earlier this year I was notified by my Insurance Company that they would not be renewing my policy, Reason was that the location is unduly exposed to wind-driven embers, smoke and fire from wildland fuels, exacerbated by property vegetation with no opportunity for effective mitigation, A copy of this notice can be provided. From my window I can see the large greenbelt,very dry canyon. Its very close to the proposed development. Fires move very fast with the right conditions. If we had a fire now in this area it Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 552 of 612 would already be a struggle to evacuate safely due to the fact that La Costa Ave has been reduced to two lanes. If you add 46 plus cars to the existing number of cars that we have in this vicinity there would most possibly, be loss of life. This is what happened in the Paradise Fire from a few years ago too many carstrying to escape from the same location. This is a great concern to myself, all my neighbors and theimmediate area. I would ask the Planning Commission if they would kindly visit our neighborhood before the hearing onthe !5th July 2020. You would be able to see the two vacant lots, parking congestion, proximity tocanyon etc I appreciate you taking the time to read this and I hope you will look at our grave concerns and for theimmediate future honor the City Councils decision in getting the Developer to do the partial CEQA Thank YouSUSAN ORTMAN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 553 of 612 From:Chad To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe Apartment Appeal for the July 15th 2020 meeting. Date:Sunday, July 12, 2020 11:45:51 AM Dear Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included into the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning and read at the next “public” hearing. It is very biased that only the building/developer/owner is the only person to be able to voice their interests in this project where the public/residents who are directly affected are otherwise muted. We, the most affected by this towering project, the people who have to live by the poorly planned building complex, which takes into no account for the current limited parking, increased traffic congestion and noise pollution created by this now 23 unit development have no voice in front of those who we ultimately decide our future. The developers of the Romeria Point Apartment complex have previously neglected to complete necessary actions, the partial CEQA, as requested after the last meeting which lasted almost three hours on June 11th 2019. At the previous meeting it was discovered that the Geologist report was for a three story development not the now proposed four stories. During this meeting the Geologist reported that due to the perceived ground instability, the sidewalks and driveways will need reconstruction in the near future. The developer revealed that the increase to 23 units was do to the extremes they must undergo, drilling 23 feet down to stabilize the area, and the added units was to recoup the initial investment this will incur. This increase still has no consideration for where these new residents will park their cars in an already over crowded area with current traffic congestion. The developer then tried to conduct a meeting in the middle of a pandemic which limited peoples ability to leave their place of residence let alone gather together to meet and plan and express themselves. This meeting was effectively postponed until now, a time where the people most affected by this project still cannot feel safe being together and, as reported in the recent news, is an ever growing problem of personal safety. This developer has in my opinion, already shown itself to try and bypass normal requirements by including just enough units that would allow them exemptions. The increase in the number of units to recoup cost, the disregard to plan for adequate parking for their proposed residents and the people that will visit them, seems to show they only have their best interest in mind. Now at this meeting they request that another exemption be made to begin their project, they ask that the CEQA be nullified. While the developer can hire “experts” to bolster their side of the project, the CEQA is conducted by an independent party, impartial to both sides. I would ask that those involved in the future of our neighborhood, visit the community directly impacted. Walk the streets, see the existing parking and crowding already troubling our little community. Actually speak to those of us affected face to face like you will the developer, the only party that is allowed to be in front of you at this time. During this time where many people are home you will truly see just some of the problems we are concerned with. In conclusion, at the least please postpone this meeting and any decisions to be made, require the CEQA be completed before this project be re-addressed. At the most, do the aforementioned and come to our community and walk the streets that this project will affect. Thank you, Chad Peck Resident Carlsbad, CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 554 of 612 From:Tim Clark To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe Hearing July 15th Date:Monday, July 13, 2020 9:28:32 AM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record/staff reports submitted to City Planning. Nearly 3 hours was spent at a City Council meeting on June 11th, 2019 discussing this proposed project. A decision was made by our council to have a partial CEQA review done. I would like to ask you to stand by the decision made by our appointed City Council for a CEQA review for this project. They deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings. This type of construction is not used in this neighborhood. The soil in this area is known to bepoor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! 2. Summer of 2019 LaCosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 in the areaof the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone to the north. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Please support the decision made by our City Coucil on June 11th, 2019 to have a CEQA review done. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Sincerely, Tim and Lynn Clark Carlsbad, CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 555 of 612 From:brian grieser To:Planning Subject:Romeria Point Hearing July 15, 2020 Date:Monday, July 13, 2020 1:18:05 PM First comment- Bad Decision! During this serious COVID 19 Epidemic, it is not feasible for someone of my age to be attending any meeting. Subject project is not acceptable to anyone who lives in the area. Currently there are no parking areas on Romeria or the other streets. The area was not planned appropriately for the number of units and their parking requirements. This is very obvious to anyone visiting or living in the area. Adding another development, without a 100% on-site parking requirement, is not in the best interests of the local residents nor acceptable to Carlsbad's future development. Approval of a hybrid development, bypassing basic requirements for the sake of tax revenue is disgusting, considering the negative impact on the many Carlsbad residents that will be affected. Request further study of this plan’s variances and impact on those of us who will suffer. I do not believe Carlsbad city hall can wisely considering this plan. Sincerely, Brian and Joan Grieser Carlsbad, CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 556 of 612 From:Heather Lindsey To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe (Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) Date:Monday, July 13, 2020 2:24:36 PM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record/staff reports submitted to City Planning. This is regarding Romeria Pointe (Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151). Nearly 3 hours was spent at a City Council meeting on June 11th, 2019 discussing this proposed project. A decision was made by our council to have a partial CEQA review done. I would like to ask you to stand by the decision made by our appointed City Council for a CEQA review for this project. They deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This area of the City has unstable soil. Golfcrest, the development directly west of Romeria Pointe, has had the hill behind it slide into its driveway in the past. Villa Romeria, the property behind the proposed site, is slipping down towards this project and has had already had to spend funds to fix what happened in the past. The issue at hand is not just the stability of the project being built, but the impact on the stability around the property and on neighboring properties. The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings should be of concern. This type of construction is not used in this neighborhood. Also, in the summer of 201,9 LaCosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone to the north. Additionally, if there is not a crosswalk at Romeria and La Costa Ave, the kids will cross illegally to get to school. There is one at the next intersection, but it is unlikely they will walk to make the crossing legally. These units will attract families and therefore this needs to be taken into account. Lastly, as I understand the development, the highest point of their new building is 72 feet higher than Golfcrest’s (neighboring complex to the west) highest point—meaning that their highest point is over 5 stories higher than our highest point. The bottom of their garage is 30 feet higher than Golfcrest’s highest point. The development garage is at 86 feet and ours is around ground level— meaning their lowest point will be around 86 feet higher than our lowers point. The garages are the Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 557 of 612 first levels and then the units are on top. This impacts light, will cast a shadow, and there will be a lack of privacy since their western units will look down into bathrooms and bedrooms. Please support the decision made by our City Council on June 11th, 2019 to have a CEQA review done. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Sincerely, Heather Lindsey Carlsbad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 558 of 612 From:jdllal@aol.com To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe (Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) Date:Monday, July 13, 2020 2:26:31 PM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record/staff reports submitted to City Planning. This is regarding Romeria Pointe (Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151). Nearly 3 hours was spent at a City Council meeting on June 11th, 2019 discussing this proposed project. A decision was made by our council to have a partial CEQA review done. I would like to ask you to stand by the decision made by our appointed City Council for a CEQA review for this project. They deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This area of the City has unstable soil. Golfcrest, the development directly west of Romeria Pointe, has had the hill behind it slide into its driveway in the past. Villa Romeria, the property behind the proposed site, is slipping down towards this project and has had already had to spend funds to fix what happened in the past. The issue at hand is not just the stability of the project being built, but the impact on the stability around the property and on neighboring properties. The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings should be of concern. This type of construction is not used in this neighborhood. Also, in the summer of 201,9 LaCosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone to the north. Additionally, if there is not a crosswalk at Romeria and La Costa Ave, the kids will cross illegally to get to school. There is one at the next intersection, but it is unlikely they will walk to make the crossing legally. These units will attract families and therefore this needs to be taken into account. Lastly, as I understand the development, the highest point of their new building is 72 feet higher than Golfcrest’s (neighboring complex to the west) highest point—meaning that their highest point is over 5 stories higher than our highest point. The bottom of their garage is 30 feet higher than Golfcrest’s highest point. The development garage is at 86 feet and ours is around ground level—meaning their lowest point will be around 86 feet higher than our lowers point. The garages are the first levels and then the units are on top. This impacts light, will cast a shadow, and there will be a lack of privacy since their western units will look down into bathrooms and bedrooms. Please support the decision made by our City Council on June 11th, 2019 to have a CEQA review done. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 559 of 612 Sincerely, Lucille Lindsey Carlsbad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 560 of 612 July 13, 2020 Re: July 15, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Item #1—Public Hearing on Romeria Pointe Apartments Greetings Carlsbad Planning Commission and Planning Department: Disclaimer: I am a member of the Carlsbad Traffic and Mobility Commission (T&MC). We have been tasked with reviewing traffic-related guidelines that are used for development applications, but not with the review of individual applications, so I am commenting as an individual. I am neutral on this project, but I believe that it would have been more appropriate and reasonable to have this applicant conduct a “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT) analysis as part of its Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), rather than (or instead of) the complex, but irrelevant, vehicle level of service (LOS) analyses. I also am concerned that Carlsbad’s TIA Guidelines are not being followed consistently, and that formal VMT implementation was improperly delayed. VMT vs. LOS analysis A 2017 settlement agreement between the City of Carlsbad and an environmental group required the city to start reviewing all discretionary development projects for actions that aim to reduce VMT, including two required updates to its TIA Guidelines (see Endnote 1). A VMT analysis of the Romeria Pointe Apartments project would have shown that it has a significant traffic impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (see Endnote 2). In the project area, the mean residential VMT (per capita) is 113% (Fehr & Peers data) to 119% (SANDAG data) of the Carlsbad mean, which would require a 33% to 40% reduction in project VMT to reach the “85% of city mean” target level. This would be achieved by decreased vehicle ownership and/or trips by the future residents of the development, e.g., through implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. Numerous public comments were received on this matter for the March 20, 2019 Planning Commission and June 11, 2019 City Council meetings. Most of the commenters included concerns about the adequacy of vehicle parking, increased traffic, and/or related impacts in the area. Accordingly, at the June 11th meeting, the City Council requested a focused CEQA review of traffic, as well as geology. A VMT-based CEQA traffic analysis would have been the most consistent with that request. Instead, the applicant conducted only a level of service (LOS)-based analysis in its TIA, even though the project area does not even include any streets that are subject to the city’s vehicle LOS performance standard (in its 2015 General Plan update, the city changed the prioritized mode of travel on the adjacent portion of La Costa Avenue from vehicles to pedestrians/bicycles). So, no meaningful results would reasonably have been expected to emerge from an LOS study. In fact, the study indicates that the project will further degrade the vehicle LOS on La Costa Avenue from an already “deficient” grade of “E” to a failing “F” in the westbound direction in the morning peak period (see TIA Table 7-2, included as Attachment 7 beginning on page 390 of the staff report). And, on a cumulative basis (when all of the currently planned developments are completed in the area), La Costa Avenue approaches deficiency in the eastbound direction in the evening peak period, as well (TIA Table Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 561 of 612 7-4). However, due to the re-prioritization of La Costa Avenue and the small volume-to-capacity ratio change, the project is not responsible for any mitigation. Lack of compliance with and failure to update the TIA Guidelines The TIA Guidelines, which were created pursuant to the 2017 settlement agreement, require applicants to file a written Scoping Agreement with the City, which is intended to define the requirements of the TIA as approved by city staff (see Endnote 3). After the City Council requested the focused CEQA traffic analysis, a Scoping Agreement could have designated a VMT analysis for the TIA, which would have been consistent with (1) the City’s March 2017 settlement agreement that all discretionary development projects need to be reviewed for actions to reduce VMT;(2) the availability of all of the necessary final VMT guidance and tools from the San Diego County Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the State of Office of Planning Research (OPR) (see Endnote 4); and (3) the fact that VMT-based mitigation is exactly the approach that could help address the residents’ concerns. However, no Scoping Agreement was filed, and LOS analysis was done instead of VMT. The lack of a written Scoping Agreement is not unique to this project. Multiple public records requests for such agreements have come back with no responsive documents. This is not only inconsistent with the TIA Guidelines, but it is also bad public policy. And it is antithetical to transparency and accountability to have complex TIA requirements exchanged over undocumented telephone calls. I believe a legal opinion should be sought from the City Attorney on this topic to ensure compliance of current and future applications. The City also failed to comply with the March 2017 settlement agreement when they did not further revise the VMT portion of the TIA Guidelines by the December 2019 deadline (12 months after OPR’s final guidance). Instead, the City waited until the State-mandated July 1, 2020 deadline to “officially” begin their VMT program. They also did not incorporate the new VMT analysis into the TIA Guidelines as prescribed in the settlement agreement, but rather developed them as a separate document, even though the LOS and VMT aspects are intertwined. VMT analyses for other Carlsbad projects It is also interesting to note that the city had developers of multiple other projects conducting VMT analyses several months before Carlsbad’s own version of VMT analysis guidelines had been reviewed by the T&MC or adopted by the City Council. This apparent “informal” application of VMT analysis was happening concurrent with the Romeria Pointe Apartments LOS analyses, suggesting an inconsistent application of the TIA rules. In fact, one developer switched from doing LOS to VMT analysis in their TIA during this same time period (see Endnote 5). VMT/climate action vs. housing accountability In recent years, the numerous state laws have emphasized an urgent need to address both climate change and housing accountability. So, it is important to note that the VMT-related traffic impact being described here is one of the exceptions to the Class 32 CEQA exemption being invoked for this project, Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 562 of 612 which is not superseded by housing laws or opinion letters from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Conclusion Ironically, if the city had not re-prioritized La Costa Avenue to pedestrians/bicycles, the applicant likely would have had to further mitigate the project’s effect on vehicle congestion with measures that included improvements to encourage more walking and biking (based on the addition of traffic to an already deficient street). And if the city had started formally using VMT earlier, as required by the settlement agreement, or had used VMT informally (as it did with other developers), then the applicant would have had to take steps to try to reduce vehicle ownership and trips. Instead, neither of these was applied. Perhaps some compromise can be reached to maximize mitigation, though. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING Do the TIA Guidelines require filing of Scoping Agreements with the city? If staff believes Scoping Agreements are optional, then I think a legal opinion from the City Attorney on this matter is in order. Is a telephone call (or a series of telephone calls or other unwritten communications) sufficient to qualify as “filing” a Scoping Agreement per the TIA Guidelines? If staff believes that is sufficient, I think a legal opinion from the City Attorney on this matter is in order. Was a written Scoping Agreement filed with the city for the TIA conducted for the Romeria Pointe Apartments project? If not, how was scoping conducted, and what was the timing? Was a VMT analysis discussed with the Romeria Pointe Apartments developer? Could a VMT analysis have been required? Could a VMT analysis have been requested? Would a significant environmental impact related to traffic based on VMT analysis be a valid exception to the Class 32 categorical exemption being invoked for this project under CEQA? If the VMT analysis had been done, wouldn’t it have shown a significant environmental impact under CEQA? ENDNOTES Endnote 1: Settlement agreement (March 2017) A settlement agreement signed by the City of Carlsbad and North County Advocates on March 14, 2017 required that the City begin reviewing all discretionary development projects for actions that aim to reduce street congestion and VMT by: (1) updating its TIA Guidelines within 12 month of the agreement, (2) approving a TDM plan and ordinance within 24 months of the agreement, and (3) doing a further Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 563 of 612 update to the TIA Guidelines within 12 months of the state Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issuing its final VMT guidance. The full version of the agreement is available in the City’s public records system under the City Council meeting of the same date, but Paragraph 4.3.6 reads: As part of the development review process, the City shall evaluate all discretionary projects for consistency with applicable General Plan policies and CAP measures and actions that aim to reduce roadway congestion and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques and multi-modal improvements. Within twenty-four (24) months, City staff shall present to City Council for consideration and approval a TDM plan and ordinance that addresses alternative transportation modes for new and existing uses as described in CAP Measures K-1 and K-2. Within twelve (12) months, the City shall update its Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, incorporating multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) analysis to address vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes of travel, and including transportation demand management (TDM) trip reduction methodologies and best practices to reduce automobile trips and improve travel mode shift. The updated TIA Guidelines will also be used to determine requirements for offsetting project impacts and evaluating opportunities for improving project-level connections for all travel modes (vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit). Within twelve (12) months of the state Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issuing final amendments to the CEQA Guidelines regarding the use of VMT as the primary metric to analyze transportation impacts rather than vehicle level of service (LOS), the City, in collaboration with SANDAG and applicable working groups, will revise the updated TIA Guidelines to be consistent with OPR's final amendments to the CEQA Guidelines. Endnote 2: VMT analysis of Romeria Pointe Apartments project Using data (based on SANDAG Series 13) from Fehr & Peers, the contractor that developed Carlsbad’s current VMT maps, the project site is located in Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1382, which has a mean VMT per capita of 25.49, while the mean for the entire city is 22.53. Therefore, the project is at about 113% of the city mean. To mitigate below the 85% target level, the project would have to reduce its VMT by 33%: (25.49 – [22.53][0.85])/(22.53)(0.85). Using SANDAG’s own Series 13 data, which was available at the time of the remand, the project site is located in Census Tract 200.15, which has a mean VMT per capita of 22.56, while the mean for the entire city is 18.90. Therefore, the project is at about 119% of the city mean. To mitigate below the 85% target level, the project would have to reduce its VMT by 40%: (22.56 – [18.90][0.85])/(18.90)(0.85). Endnote 3: TIA Guidelines (April 2018) – included in the staff report beginning at page 169 The TIA Guidelines were updated in April 2018—13 months after the settlement agreement was signed (one month late). They indicate, beginning in Section 3, that a written Scoping Agreement must be reviewed and approved by the City and filed prior to initiating the TIA. The TIA Guidelines go on to list the many components to be included in the Scoping Agreement, including the type of TIA and methodologies, a study area map and list of facilities to be studied, a traffic data collection plan, Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 564 of 612 scenarios to be studied, VMT discussion, trip generation and distribution methods, trip reduction plans, etc. There is a sentence in Section 3.1 of the TIA Guidelines that refers to the use of a telephone call or email, and Staff has argued that they can do the TIA scoping over the telephone based on that language. However, that reference to a telephone call or email is clearly only intended as an optional substitute for in-person consultation with staff to help prepare the Scoping Agreement—not as a substitute for the Scoping Agreement itself. Endnote 4: County and State VMT guidance (November 2017 – May 2019) Section 3.6 of the TIA Guidelines has a section describing VMT analysis, and the fact that guidance was forthcoming from SANDAG through SANTEC/ITE, and the State of California through OPR. In fact, OPR had already issued draft VMT guidance five months earlier (November 2017), and they issued their final guidance in December 2018. In addition, SANDAG issued their final guidance and VMT analysis tools in May 2019. Carlsbad could have adopted either set of guidelines to comply with the March 2017 settlement agreement, and there was plenty of lead time with the draft guidance to be ready to do that. Endnote 5: VMT analyses in Carlsbad The LOS-only TIA for Romeria Pointe Apartments was completed in March 2020. For reference, other developments completed VMT-based TIAs in that same timeframe, including one for a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for West Oaks (April 2020) and one for a recirculated draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for Marja Acres (May 2020). And these applications had been under development for similarly lengthy periods of time. In fact, the original Marja Acres DEIR, which included only an LOS-based TIA, was released in April 2019 and underwent public review through May 2019. However, they subsequently decided to recirculate the DEIR with the LOS section replaced by a VMT section—all in the time period when the present applicant was doing LOS instead of VMT. The City claims a switchover to VMT as of July 2020, but the above observations indicate an inconsistent application of the TIA rules. Best regards, Steve Linke Carlsbad, CA Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 565 of 612 From:Andrew Chishchevoy To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe Apartments Date:Monday, July 13, 2020 6:17:42 PM Dear Mayor Hall, Mr. Chadwick, and City Council: I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submittedto the Council. Writing about the hearing on May 19th, 2020 at 3PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments that wewould like to be postponed. Due to the Stay At Home orders during this world wide pandemic it's pretty much impossible to convey all information via electronic means of communication.I request a postponement of this meeting until the current Stay At Home orders are lifted. Back in June 2019 we spent multiple days and hours on this issue. The entire Romeria neighborhood got involved and wants to have a chance to have a voice in this matter in person.Concerns we had regarding this project remain the same, and pictures attached to this email reconfirm that a 4 story building on a slope is not a safe project. Pictures are recent from midApril of 2020. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Andrew Chishchevoy -- Andrew Chishchevoy CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 566 of 612 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 567 of 612 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 568 of 612 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 569 of 612 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 570 of 612 From:Diane Nygaard To:Planning Subject:Comments on Item # 1- Romeria Pointe Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 5:42:49 AM Please read these comments into the record Honorable Chair and Commissioners The city recently adopted new guidelines for traffic analysis- using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)to comply with CEQA requirements and updating congestion analysis using Level ofService. This project will generate 184 Average Daily Trips(ADT) . The new CEQA standard requires VMT analysis for a project of 110 ADT or more yet there was no VMT analysis done for thisproject. Projects below 110 ADT are assumed to not have a significant impact- those above could have such an impact which is why a VMT analysis is required. It is the VMT analysisthat would determine if the project has a significant impact or not. In the absence of such an analysis it must be presumed that the project could have an adverse impact and it should notbe considered exempt from CEQA. The traffic study was updated in March of 2020, yet failed to include the VMT analysis although other projects during this same period were required to do both VMT and LOS trafficstudies. Furthermore, during the time this project was under review for appeal the city identified a major error in the Climate Action Plan related to VMT. In January of 2020 it was determinedthat the CAP no longer constituted adequate mitigation for GHG. This project adds GHG , the CAP no longer mitigated those impacts- yet no further analysis or mitigation was provided forGHG. And in spite of that the project was still considered to be exempt from CEQA. The city council specifically directed that this project be evaluated for CEQA compliance and directed further analysis of traffic. The staff report fails to support the conclusion that thereare no adverse impacts from traffic or GHG. VMT and related GHG analysis should be done to determine if the project has any adverse impacts prior to project approval. Diane NygaardOn behalf of Preserve Calavera CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 571 of 612 From:Stuart Knecht To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe Hearing- July 15, 2020 Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 10:52:51 AM Please read this email into the record of the City Planning Commission for the July 15, 2020 City Planning Commission meeting. Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, This project was discussed in detail by the Carlsbad City Council at its meeting on June 11th, 2019. City Council deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". City Council made a decision to require that a partial CEQA review be done for this project. I urge you to stand by that decision. The need for a CEQA review is warranted because the proposed construction utilizes "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support two 4-story buildings. This type of construction is not appropriate in this neighborhood because the soil condition in this area is poor. The 11/21/2017 report by GeoSoils, Inc. raised concerns about soil and slope stability. I understand that all proposed projects prior to the current project had been denied by the city because of soil issues. In fact, our condominium building on Gibraltar had to undergo very extensive and expensive structural reconstruction several years ago because of soil and slope conditions. The proposed construction poses a potential risk of water runoff, sewage issues, and hillside collapse following heavy rains. As an attorney, I suspect the city could face liability or litigation should this project proceed and adjacent properties are adversely affected or life is lost due to hillside collapse. In addition, the proposed project is very close to Box Canyon, a large fire hazard zone to the north. Because LaCosta Avenue traffic lanes were recently reduced from 4 to 2 between Rancho Santa Fe and El Camino Real, evacuation from this area could be impaired and access by fire fighting equipment could be impeded. This situation could be a significant safety risk to residents and property. Also, this project could exacerbate the already significant congestion in the Gibraltar/Romeria neighborhood, worsening the difficult parking situation (our driveway has been blocked by cars parked on Gibraltar) and increasing traffic and noise. Furthermore, there is no space on either Gibraltar Street or Romario Street for children to play. With so many cars parked on the street, there certainly will be a safety hazard for children running from between parked cars into the street in front of moving traffic. I was nearly killed as a youngster when I ran in front of a moving car from between two parked cars, so I am keenly aware of this danger. And certainly Box Canyon is not a safe alternative. For these reasons, I urge you to support the decision made by our City Council on June 11th, 2019 to require a CEQA review for this project. Sincerely, R. Stuart Knecht CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 572 of 612 SDP 2018-2004 (Dev2017-0151) ROMERIA POINTE PLEASE READ COMMENTS INTO THE RECORD AT THE P.C.MEETING 7.15.20 Planning Commission, CEQA exemptions require the “common sense rule be applied to relative risk and impact: Relevant Areas of Potential Impact include Geology and Soils, Visual Quality and Cumulative effects.” We understand the developer has high holding costs and that the City needs low-income units to meet General Plan requirements, however, those considerations appear to be overriding concerns related to geotechnical, traffic circulation/parking, sun/shade and visual quality issues. In January 2007, a 9-unit residential condominium project on the site was approved. ‘“The maximum number of units for a 0.72-acre parcel is 16 dwelling units. To construct 23 units, the applicant is requesting approval of a density bonus” (abbv.Staff report). We do not concur that this site is appropriate for the density bonus, incentives and concessions requested. This site is generally surrounded by low-rise projects, many of which are not rental apartments and are two-story attached units, AT STREET GRADE. Take a site visit, or at a minimum rotate this site in its surroundings on Google Earth. You’ll see that this site is significantly elevated above Gibraltar Street, 20+- feet at the corner of Romeria/Gibraltar. The Gibraltar-facing building proposed, rises an additional 40 feet+. “The RD-M Zone currently restricts building height to 35 feet. The applicant is requesting the allowance for increased building height as a concession”. Great for the residents of the project while dwarfing surrounding homes, affecting existing residents, and not in concert with any infill guidelines for area pattern conformity. The project renderings are “stand-alone”. Please require 3-D modeling or perspectives in-situ (including placement of surrounding properties) to see how out of context this mass will appear. CEQA EIRs are conducted to ascertain whether the project “Reduces mitigation to a level below significance.” Neither the developer, consultants, staff/third-party reviewer appeared to conduct significant additional study but rather reviewed previous core samples and statistics, and summarily dismissed the impacts on the property to the south as “off-site and a different soils type”. The take-away was that it is impossible to do on-site study on adjacent /nearby properties, nor could they determine the exact cause or solution to significantly mitigate their slippage issues (to the south/east). The City can not possibly stipulate measures that will guarantee that mitigation can reduce impact to a level below significance. We trust that the City remains fully aware of these issues, and with full knowledge of possible impacts, and would accept responsibility considering the risks involved. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 573 of 612 Categorical Exemptions are provided “where there is no ‘reasonable’ possibility for significant impact”. Examples given would be converting an apartment to a condo and not comparable to construction of a project this size, increased density, unusual height, on graded fill with complex construction issues. A Categorical CEQA exemption is not applicable. Thank you for your consideration. Susan Simmonds, owner Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 574 of 612 SDP 2018-2004 (DEV2017-0151) ROMERIA POINTE READ COMMENTS INTO THE RECORD AT THE MEETING 7.15.2020 Planning Commission, To approve, the Planning Commission would have to find Romeria Pointe “ is compatible with the other multiple-family residential uses surrounding the project site. The residential apartment project will not adversely impact the site, surroundings, or traffic circulation”. The majority of surrounding units are individually owned, low-rise units. In no way is the density, scale and massing of the building similar. -The developer is seeking BOTH a density bonus and an allowance for increased building height and is providing several “low-income”units. -Please note that the majority of these apartments are 3 bed/2.5 bath (versus 2/2 in the vicinity) which requires far more square footage to build the bigger units. -This imbalance for surrounding residents is extraordinary. Even if these buildings were not set 20’ above grade (versus at street level), the massing will dwarf those opposite it on Gibraltar. -Earlier, we requested that the increase in “looming” building height and mass (re additional square footage and number of units) warrants sunshade studies re its visual impact...If you decide to move forward, please ensure that the upper two floors are stepped back (8-10+’ on all four sides) otherwise the project will appear extraordinarily massive. Further that the colors chosen avoid glare and reflection. The traffic study did not take into account on-street parking issues relative to sight lines and traffic safety. -By example, our daughter was run off the road last week, as a car turned from Gibraltar onto Romeria at speed, causing her injury. We surmise the driver could simply not see her….with every on-street parking space taken, sight lines are reduced, and street width narrowed. -Those exiting the project garage would be at risk as well. (A 3-D computer model with cars, streets, residences, trees, etc. in place would make this apparent). -23 larger-than-average apartments (with more bedrooms than average) generate more cars or at least more trips per unit in an area congested with fully used on-street parking spaces. -Less than 1/10 of a mile from the HIGH FIRE HAZARD zone at the end of Gibraltar - (a LOCAL responsibility area), this will increase the exiting risk for residents along Gibraltar for reasons discussed above. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 575 of 612 The property to the south/east has had land slippage issues that neither the developer’s consultants nor staff have, or can, adequately address. The “adequate mitigation measures” required to approve can not assure adjacent owners will avoid further disruption. Perhaps 11 units originally proposed could have been accommodated without significant impact placed atop the fill on site, but now 23 units are being proposed, requiring embedded deep pilings, retaining walls on fill high above the street. Section 15300.2 indicates that a categorical exemption not be used where there the activity will have a significant effect due to unusual circumstances’”...clearly this would apply with its massive fill/soil issues and project height. Thank you, Warren Simmonds, owner Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 576 of 612 From:Kara Brem To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria pointe Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 2:26:52 PM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, This project was discussed in detail by the Carlsbad City Council at its meeting on June 11th, 2019. City Council deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". City Council made a decision to require that a partial CEQA review be done for this project. I urge you to stand by that decision. The need for a CEQA review is warranted because the proposed construction utilizes "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support two 4-story buildings. This type of construction is not appropriate in this neighborhood because the soil condition in this area is poor. The 11/21/2017 report by GeoSoils, Inc. raised concerns about soil and slope stability. I understand that all proposed projects prior to the current project had been denied by the city because of soil issues. In fact, our condominium building on Gibraltar had to undergo very extensive and expensive structural reconstruction several years ago because of soil and slope conditions. The proposed construction poses a potential risk of water runoff, sewage issues, and hillside collapse following heavy rains. As an attorney, I suspect the city could face liability or litigation should this project proceed and adjacent properties are adversely affected or life is lost due to hillside collapse. In addition, the proposed project is very close to Box Canyon, a large fire hazard zone to the north. Because LaCosta Avenue traffic lanes were recently reduced from 4 to 2 between Rancho Santa Fe and El Camino Real, evacuation from this area could be impaired and access by fire fighting equipment could be impeded. This situation could be a significant safety risk to residents and property. Also, this project could exacerbate the already significant congestion in the Gibraltar/Romeria neighborhood, worsening the difficult parking situation (our driveway has been blocked by cars parked on Gibraltar) and increasing traffic and noise. Furthermore, there is no space on either Gibraltar Street or Romario Street for children to play. With so many cars parked on the street, there certainly will be a safety hazard for children running from between parked cars into the street in front of moving traffic. I was nearly killed as a youngster when I ran in front of a moving car from between two parked cars, so I am keenly aware of this danger. And certainly Box Canyon is not a safe alternative. For these reasons, I urge you to support the decision made by our City Council on June 11th, 2019 to require a CEQA review for this project. Sincerely, Kara Brem Carlsbad 92009 Kara Brem Short and sweet. Sent from my iphone. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 577 of 612 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 578 of 612 From:Jerry Surdy To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe Apartments Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 2:47:04 PM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning. I am in total agreement with the concerns established for safety, on-street parking availability, sightlines, fire zone, evacuation routing and soil slippage issues that have been expressed by many homeowners in my neighborhood. I live in the complex directly north of this proposed project - Roundtree Condominiums. There also seems to be a lack of additional studies specifically pertaining to this constructionsite. Many developers beforehand who have expressed an interest to build here have walkedaway from the project due to "soil conditions". Why, after all these years, has the soil become"suitable" for building a 23 unit apartment complex on that is four stories tall? Is this all beingdone for the "almighty dollar" vs. the safety of this neighborhood? I am also concerned with the insertion of a "unicorn" project into a neighborhood whosesurrounding properties have little or no resemblance to the proposed construction. Jerry Surdy Carlsbad, CA 92009jerrysurdy@gmail.com CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 579 of 612 From:bbundaf@aol.com To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe: Hearing July 15th Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 3:15:15 PM Dear Planning Commission, Please include this in the Staff Report and City Records. On June 11, 2019 approximately 3 hours was spent at a Carlsbad City Council meeting addressing the proposed Romeria Pointe Apartment project. As a community, we gathered together and paid the fee for the appeal to get us to this point. A decision was made (voted 4-1) by the council that evening that a partial CEQA review was to be done. They deemed there were “unusual circumstances”pertaining to the project site. I ask that you support the decision made by our City Council. The Housing Element Committee brochure recently released indicates these 2 restrictions for building projects: 1. Where the topography is not conducive to building 2. They aren’t safe because they are in a flood zone or HIGH FIRE AREA The proposed project falls into these two categories. This makes two “unusual circumstances” for this project! UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE 1: The proposed project is going to be built into a slope. This is not normal flat land with a traditional foundation going on top. The slope and soil conditions are requiring this project to use “cast-in-drilled-hole piles” to support this VERY large structure. In 2013, Villa Romeria, which is the property that sits right next to the proposed buildings was showing distress. Floors were buckling, huge cracks were appearingon walls. American Geotechnical, Inc. surveyed the property. This led to hiring Eaglelift, Inc. to stabilize the foundation with push piers. The cost of the lift was close to $25,000. Villa Romeria is only 5 units so this was a HUGE expense for owners! This demonstrates the instability of the land and soil in this area. There areother properties in the area that have sustained damage due to the existing soil conditions just not Villa Romeria. UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE 2: This proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a LARGE Fire Hazard area designated by CAL Fire. This is an “unusual circumstance”! Per Article 19 “unusual circumstances” are the exceptions requiring a CEQA review. LaCosta Avenue is the major road used for travel for residence from the proposed project. Since the June 2019 City Council meeting LaCosta Ave. was “downsized” Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 580 of 612 from a 4-lane road to a 2-lane road. The major reason for 88 deaths in the Paradise Fire in 2018 was because people could not get out. It was nearly a few years earlier the main road in Paradise, CA went from 4 lanes to 2. Escaping via public transportation is not even an option. There is no access to a train/Coaster. The closest bus stop is .06 from Romeria and Gibraltar. There are all sorts of limitations on when the bus runs such as holidays and weekends. This is not a reliable and consistent option for escape if needed. Question? Why did the City of Carlsbad not revise the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) portion of the TIA Guidelines by the December 2019 deadlineper a March 2017 agreement? It wasn’t until just this month that the City addressed this due to the state-mandated July 1, 2020 deadline. If a VMT analysis had been done instead of a Level Of Service (LOS) analysis, findings would have been different. It would have shown significant environmental impact requiring mitigation. Only a LOS was done. (Significant environmental effect on traffic—Section 15332(c)) Article 12.5 Section 15192. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS FOR EXEMPTIONS FORAGRICULTURAL HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS 8. (h) The project site is not subject to wildland fire hazard, as determined by theDepartment of Forestry and Fire Protection, unless the applicable general plan or zoningordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of a wildland fire hazard. In addition to the fire hazard/traffic issue and soil/slippage issues Romeria Pointe is not consistent with Carlsbad’s General Plan. The dwelling unit density is higher than allowed by its R-23 land use designation, requiring a density bonus. The project is also not consistent with Carlsbad’s Zoning Ordinance. The building height is higherthan the maximum allowed by its RD-M development standard. In order to qualify for an exemption set forth in sections 15193, 15194 or 15195, a housingproject must meet all of the threshold criteria. (a) The project must be consistent with: 1. (1) Any applicable general plan…..Consistency with the general plan and zoning regulations—Section 15332(a) Are you 100% confidant that this proposed project is SAFE and has NO “UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE”??? Is there reasonable doubt that this project could be dangerous causing damage or death? Once these buildings go up, they won’t becoming down. Please support the decision made by City Council for a CEQA review. There are “unusual circumstances”. Thank you, Beth Citrano Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 581 of 612 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 582 of 612 From:bbundaf@aol.com To:Planning; manager@carlsbadca.gove Subject:Romeria Pointe: Hearing July 15th Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 3:11:46 PM Dear Planning Commission, Please include this in the Staff Report and City Records. On June 11, 2019 approximately 3 hours was spent at a Carlsbad City Council meeting addressing the proposed Romeria Pointe Apartment project. As a community, we gathered together and paid the fee for the appeal to get us to this point. A decision was made (voted 4-1) by the council that evening that a partial CEQA review was to be done. They deemed there were “unusual circumstances”pertaining to the project site. I ask that you support the decision made by our City Council. The Housing Element Committee brochure recently released indicates these 2 restrictions for building projects: <!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->Where the topography is not conducive to building <!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->They aren’t safe because they are in a flood zone or HIGH FIRE AREA The proposed project falls into these two categories. This makes two “unusual circumstances” for this project! UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE 1: The proposed project is going to be built into a slope. This is not normal flat land witha traditional foundation going on top. The slope and soil conditions are requiring this project to use “cast-in-drilled-hole piles” to support this VERY large structure. In 2013, Villa Romeria, which is the property that sits right next to the proposed buildings was showing distress. Floors were buckling, huge cracks were appearing on walls. American Geotechnical, Inc. surveyed the property. This led to hiring Eaglelift, Inc. to stabilize the foundation with push piers. The cost of the lift wasclose to $25,000. Villa Romeria is only 5 units so this was a HUGE expense for owners! This demonstrates the instability of the land and soil in this area. There are other properties in the area that have sustained damage due to the existing soil conditions just not Villa Romeria. UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE 2: This proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a LARGE Fire Hazard area designated byCAL Fire. This is an “unusual circumstance”! Per Article 19 “unusual circumstances” are the exceptions requiring a CEQA review. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 583 of 612 LaCosta Avenue is the major road used for travel for residence from the proposed project. Since the June 2019 City Council meeting LaCosta Ave. was “downsized” from a 4-lane road to a 2-lane road. The major reason for 88 deaths in the Paradise Fire in 2018 was because people could not get out. It was nearly a few years earlier the main road in Paradise, CA went from 4 lanes to 2. Escaping via public transportation is not even an option. There is no access to a train/Coaster. The closest bus stop is .06 from Romeria and Gibraltar. There are allsorts of limitations on when the bus runs such as holidays and weekends. This is not a reliable and consistent option for escape if needed. Question? Why did the City of Carlsbad not revise the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) portion of the TIA Guidelines by the December 2019 deadline per a March 2017 agreement? It wasn’t until just this month that the City addressed this due to the state-mandated July 1, 2020 deadline. If a VMT analysis had been done instead of a Level Of Service (LOS) analysis, findings would have been different. It would have shown significant environmental impact requiring mitigation. Only a LOS was done. (Significant environmental effect on traffic—Section 15332(c)) Article 12.5 Section 15192. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS FOR EXEMPTIONS FORAGRICULTURAL HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS 8. (h) The project site is not subject to wildland fire hazard, as determined by theDepartment of Forestry and Fire Protection, unless the applicable general plan or zoningordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of a wildland fire hazard. In addition to the fire hazard/traffic issue and soil/slippage issues Romeria Pointe is not consistent with Carlsbad’s General Plan. The dwelling unit density is higher than allowed by its R-23 land use designation, requiring a density bonus. The project is also not consistent with Carlsbad’s Zoning Ordinance. The building height is higherthan the maximum allowed by its RD-M development standard. In order to qualify for an exemption set forth in sections 15193, 15194 or 15195, a housingproject must meet all of the threshold criteria. (a) The project must be consistent with: 1. (1) Any applicable general plan…..Consistency with the general plan and zoning regulations—Section 15332(a) Are you 100% confidant that this proposed project is SAFE and has NO “UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE”??? Is there reasonable doubt that this project could be dangerous causing damage or death? Once these buildings go up, they won’t be coming down. Please support the decision made by City Council for a CEQAreview. There are “unusual circumstances”. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 584 of 612 Thank you, Beth Citrano CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 585 of 612 From:Mary Surdy To:Planning; Manager Internet Email; Mary Surdy Subject:Romeria Pointe Apartments Meeting on Wednesday July 15th Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 3:31:45 PM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick: I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning. ***************************************************************************** I am a homeowner at the Roundtree Condominiums just across Gibraltar Street - north of the proposed Romeria Apartment Complex. I have expressed my concern before regarding this project and will continue to do so. My first concern is “parking” on the street in our neighborhood. Last year, the City of Carlsbad came through our local streets and "red striped" many needed parking spaces. They took what was already a bad problem for parking and made it worse. I do understand the Fire Department needs the approximately 20 red striped spaces for their trucks and/or the Police Department for emergency reasons. Why can't you understand that there are NO additional parking spaces being created by building this behemoth of a structure. Even though the builder is proposing to include 42 parking spaces inside the building, the tenants will need overflow parking on Romeria and Gibraltar Streets for the amount of people that will eventually move into this complex. It will only make matters much worse for our guest parking in the neighborhood and/or the people who live here with one parking space in their complex but require additional parking. Please do a "parking study" which should have been included in your "Traffic Study". Traffic wasn't a problem; the parking has always been the issue. Yes, traffic will be worse, but the parking issue is the key issue here. This proposed apartment building will NOT fit in with the surrounding neighborhood which is currently two-story-tall buildings. This will be an eyesore in our neighborhood. Please consider building a four-story apartment complex in YOUR neighborhood. Will it fit in? Will it be an eyesore? Will is block your views? Will it “shade” your home? Will it Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 586 of 612 devalue your property? We have also been apprised of the “fire safety” issue called out in your reports. You are proposing to build a 23-unit complex in an already crowded neighborhood which is .1 (one tenth) of a mile from the fire hazard map provided by the State of California Fire Hazard Zone. Our neighborhood is rated “VH” (very high hazard). That will place extraordinary pressure on the fire department should there be a fire in this area. It will also make it very hard for residents to leave this area should there be a massive fire to escape safely. This very overcrowded neighborhood with just “two” exits (Romeria at La Costa Avenue and Gibraltar at La Costa Avenue) will make it nearly impossible to escape safely by adding at least another 45+ cars from this proposed complex to the hundreds of cars already here. All residents that live on these two aforementioned streets, along with all the complexes on Jerez, will need to exit these two streets. Please keep in mind the “Woolsey and the Camp” fires and how many lives were lost. There would be hundreds of cars trying to exit these two streets also while fire officials would be trying to enter our streets. Pure disaster awaits us all if a fire ever starts. Again, thank you for your time and consideration. Mary Surdy Carlsbad, CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 587 of 612 YIMBY Law 1260 Mission St San Francisco, CA 94103 hello@yimbylaw.org 7/14/2020 Carlsbad Planning Commission City Council Chamber 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 planning@carlsbadca.gov; clerk@carlsbadca.gov; Via Email Re: Romeria Pointe Apartments SDP 2018-0004 Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission, YIMBY Law submits this letter to inform you that the Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). California Government Code § 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality’s zoning ordinance or general plan at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make findings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety. The most relevant section is copied below: (j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. . . . Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 588 of 612 YIMBY LAW (4) For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. The applicant proposes to construct a four-story, 23-unit residential apartment project which includes three inclusionary housing units, on property generally located at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. The above captioned proposal is zoning compliant and general plan compliant, therefore, your local agency must approve the application, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above. Yimby Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Law YIMBY Law, 1260 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94103 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 589 of 612 From:MaryAnne Orcutt To:Planning Subject:Romero’s Pointe Planning Commission July 15 hearing Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 5:24:49 PM Please read this email into the record on July 15, 2020 for the case listed below. RE: Case SDP 2018-0004 (Dev2017-0151) Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Scott Chadwick: As an owner of property on Gibraltar Street, I am very concerned about the following issues regarding The Romeria Pointe Apartments and would like them resolved prior to approving for this project. 1)Water quality issues, water run-off, sewage: a CEQA review (including soil, water and extensive engineering study) would address these issues. Previously, the Carlsbad City Council required this CEQA review, which was an excellent decision, and presumably partially based on the11/21/2017 Geosoils, Inc report. Why is this project now being reconsidered? Quality of life and safety issues are at stake here for everyone living near this building project, and for any prospective residents in this new complex. Surely Carlsbad City Council does notwant to be subjected to law suits because they bypassed having the CEQA review done. I am not sure how the city planner can find that this property is exempt, finding that there will be no significant impact to the environment, if a CEQA study has not been done, and development onthis lot has been turned down before because of soil stability and water quality, etc especially given the density of the project. 2) There is no available street parking. All spots are currently taken,especially evenings/ overnight/weekends. How is this being addressed for 23-46 more cars? 3) There is a lack of playgrounds or green spaces, except for a streamowned by Omni La Costa Golf and Box Canyon owned by City of Carlsbad. This is a dangerous rattlesnake and fire area and not safe for children who fish and swim. Carlsbad City Council may wish to be mindful of the safety of children (and liability) in considering this building project.Furthermore, significantly increasing the density in this area would likely adversely affect property values, and, as a result, the tax base, which may not be offset by adding new units. 4) There are no other 4-story buildings on the street, nor anywhere in the Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 590 of 612 area. This project would block sight lines, add artificial light, block sunlight, and cause more traffic and noise. The lot is already two stories higher than Gibraltar Street, and the area is already dense, so a 2-story building would make more sense (which would still not be ideal given the density, but would partially address these concerns once the CEQAreview is done). What plans are there to protect children and pedestrians, traffic mitigation, parking? I trust Carlsbad City Council will protect the interests of hundreds ofproperty owners, rather than approving this project when there have been many reasons why projects have not been approved for this site in the past. We hope that you will not reverse your own past decisions of how this builder must address our (and presumably your) concerns. Thank you for your careful consideration of these issues. Sincerely, Mary Anne Orcutt Mary Anne OrcuttSent from my iPad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 591 of 612 From:Eileen Donovan To:Planning Subject:Public Comment on the Romeria Pointe Project for 7/15 3pm Meeting Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 6:08:41 PM Attachments: Dear City Planning, I would like the below comments to be read into the public record at the City PlanningCommission meeting on 7/15/2020 at 3pm regarding Romeria Pointe Apartments. In addition,I was told by the clerk that a power point deck could be shared to the commission and thepublic, so I would like the attached slide deck to be shown on the zoom conference while thebelow comments are being read. Please confirm you will be able to display the power point onthe zoom conference during this meeting. Thanks, Eileen Donovan, ,Carlsbad This is under 500 words. ----------------------------- Slide #1: Villa Romeria Resident Response According to the CEQA Guidelines we feel the exemption requirements are NOT met. 1. Significant effects relating to traffic: The project is located within a 10th of a mile from a High Risk Fire Zone. La Costa Ave was reduced from two lanes to one lane, furthering the possibility of traffic congestion with an extra 50-60 vehicles in the event of a possible evacuation dues to fire. The City of Carlsbad deemed our area to be “car dependent with minimal public transit available” 2. Reasonable possibility to have a significant effect on the environment due to unusualcircumstances. Known soil issues with two separate lifts completed on Villa Romeria at a cost of over $100,000 makes this a highly unusual circumstance to the environment which creates a very high risk with a 100 ton building going up within feet of the last lift CIG insurance finds our area to be too close to the high risk fire zone to insure our property, which also is a significant and unusual to the environment. Slide #2: Traffic & Significant Effects In 2011 La Costa Ave was reduced from a two lanes road to a one lane Our area is deemed to be Car Dependent with minimal public transit available by the city of Carlsbad. As a result, the influx of traffic for an additional 50-60 cars will be very high and create more congestion and street parking will be non- existent. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 592 of 612 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Slide #3: Traffic and Reduced Lane = Increased Fire Hazard The most significant traffic & safety issue is that the project is located within one 10th of amile from a very high risk fire zone. Slide #4: Home Owner Insurance Cancelled “ Location is unduly exposed to wind driven embers, smoke and fire from wildland fuels,exacerbated by any property vegetation, with no opportunity for effective mitigation.” Slide #5: Significant Effect on the Environment Due to Unusual Circumstances Villa Romeria was built in 1986 1997 Performed a lift due to crib wall movement. Entire property was lifted and secured with pylon jacks ($60k Cost) 2014 Unit 7551 began having tiles buckle and two pipes burst in 7553 and 7557 flooding 3 units. 2014 7551 was pulling northward towards the same area as the proposed Romeria Pointe project plan ($30k Cost) Slide #6: Damage from the 2014 slippage in 7551 (Photos) Slide #7: Conclusion Based on these facts, the CEQA Guidelines for exemption have NOT been met due to a longhistory of known, costly soil issues, fire hazard area, lane closures on La Costa and insurancecancellations all make for a “reasonable possibility to have a significant effect on theenvironment due to unusual circumstances.” Is the Carlsbad City Planning Commission willing to give a categorical exemption fromCEQA and risk our lives, safety and livelihoods just to get three small affordableapartments? All we are asking is that you allow a CEQA to be conducted which was decided upon by theCity Council on 6/11/2019. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 593 of 612 0 0 0 0 Villa Romeria Resident Response Eileen Donovan 7555 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, CA 92009 According to the CEQA Guidelines we feel the exemption requirements are NOT met. 1.Significant effects relating to traffic: •The project is located within a 10th of a mile from a High Risk Fire Zone. •La Costa Ave was reduced from two lanes to one lane, furthering the possibility of traffic congestion with an extra 50-60 vehicles in the event of a possible evacuation dues to fire. •The City of Carlsbad deemed our area to be “car dependent with minimal public transit available” 2.Reasonable possibility to have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. •Known soil issues with two lifts completed on Villa Romeria at a cost of over $100,000 makes this a highly unusual circumstance to the environment which creates a very high risk with a 100 ton building going up within feet of the last lift. •CIG insurance finds our area to be too close to the high risk fire zone to insure our property, which also is a significant and unusual to the environment. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 594 of 612 Traffic And Significant Effects •In 2011 La Costa Ave was reduced from a two lanes road to a one lane •Our area is deemed to be Car Dependent with minimal public transit available by the city of Carlsbad. As a result the influx of traffic for an additional 50-60 cars will be very high and create more congestion and street parking will be non existent. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 595 of 612 l!bc San Diego Union-tribune CARLSBAD: Westbound La Costa Avenue to lose a lane By BARBARA HENRY BHENRY NCTIMES.COM JU E 28, 20U I 10:30 PM Section of La Costa Avenue targeted for changes La Costa Country Club \.EVA H ST. DETAIL □ AREA NCT/CAL 1/4 MILE Tran portation in 920109 e I Car-D pendent Minim al Transi· -11 I -, _oo So , wh Bl able ..., I I I - his real c rd pen ent-m er·and:, Q ir a car. Transl is ely a option. rd I osta I e ands r quir "nimal amo nt of "nfr b1 'ng. a car. There Is o ruct e Traffic and Reduced Lane = Increased Fire Hazard •The most significant traffic & safety issue is that the project is located within one 10th of a mile from a very high risk fire zone. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 596 of 612 ll Legend Firestorms (2003, 2007, 2014) Fire Hazard Severity Zones' Very High High Moderate No Designation Fire Perimeters (1980-2014) D Sour CalFIRE FRAP, WUI, and Wildfire Hazard Potential + 0 l/l 0 QI :::, 0 l/l Project is on 10th of a mile from hist, risk fire zone s Esri, NASA NGA, USGS FEMA Esri Communit. .. “ Location is unduly exposed to wind driven embers, smoke and fire from wildland fuels, exacerbated by any property vegetation, with no opportunity for effective mitigation.” –Capitol Insurance Group, 9/23/2019 Home Owner Insurance Cancelled Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 597 of 612 IICIG r.a D 0 F Significant Effect on the Environment Due to Unusual Circumstances •Villa Romeria was built in 1986 •1997 Performed a lift due to crib wall movement. Entire property was lifted and secured with pylon jacks ($60k Cost) •2014 Unit 7551 began having tiles buckle and two pipes burst in 7553 and 7557 flooding 3 units. •2014 Unit 7551 was pulling northward towards the same area as the proposed Romeria Pointe project plan ($30k Cost) Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 598 of 612 As you can see a 100 ton, 4 story building would be within feet of our last soil compromise in 2014. Romeria Pointe building plans show it to be very close to property the Damage from the 2014 slippage in 7551 Ceiling drywall separating Tiles buckling Drywall cracking and pulling away from windows Back Patio Damage Stucco separating around windows Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 599 of 612 I I In Conclusion Based on these facts, the CEQA Guidelines for exemption have NOT been met due to a long history of known, costly soil issues, fire hazard area, lane closures on La Costa and insurance cancellations all make for a “reasonable possibility to have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” Is the Carlsbad City Planning Commission willing to give a categorical exemption from CEQA and risk our lives, safety and livelihoods just to get three small affordable apartments? All we are asking is that you allow a CEQA to be conducted which was decided upon by the City Council on 6/11/2019. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 600 of 612 From:bbundaf@aol.com To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe/July 15th/Read Comments Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 9:46:39 PM Dear Planning Commission, Please read July 15th/ Romeria Pointe (RP) June 11, 2019 Council voted 4-1 a partial CEQA be done. Council deemed there were “unusual circumstances” regarding RP. Please support this decision. Housing Element Committee brochure indicates 2 restrictions: <!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->Where topography is not conducive <!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->Not safe: flood zone or HIGH FIRE AREA Article 19 “unusual circumstances” are the exceptions requiring a CEQA review. UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE 1: RP site is a slope. <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Not normal flat land with a traditional foundation going on top. <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Will use “cast-in-drilled-hole piles” to support this VERY large structure. 2013, Villa Romeria sustained major damage because of soil/foundation issues. The foundation was stabilized with push piers. The lift was $25,000. This demonstratesthe instability of the land/soil in this area. Neighboring properties have sustained damage as well. UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE 2: RP is 1/10 of a mile from a LARGE Fire Hazard area designated by CAL Fire. Article 12.5 Section 15192. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS FOR EXEMPTIONS FORAGRICULTURAL HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS 8. (h) The project site is not subject to wildland fire hazard, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, unless the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk ofa wildland fire hazard. LaCosta Ave. is the main road to/from RP. <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->July 2019 LaCosta Ave. was “downsized” 4-lanes to 2-lanes <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->2018, major reason for 88 deaths in Paradise Fire because people could not get out Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 601 of 612 <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Several years before fire in Paradise, CA main road went from 4 lanes to 2. Escaping via public transportation not possible. Closest train station is 6.4 miles. The closest bus stop is .06 from RP. Bus schedule is unreliable. Why did the City of Carlsbad not revise the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) portion of the TIA Guidelines by the December 2019 deadline per a March 2017 agreement? Now state-mandated as July 1, 2020. If a VMT analysis had been done instead of a level of service (LOS) analysis it may have shown significant environmental impact. Only a LOS was done. (Significant environmental effect on traffic—Section 15332(c)) In order to qualify for an exemption set forth in sections 15193, 15194 or 15195, a housing project must meet all of the threshold criteria. (a) The project must be consistent with: 1. (1) Any applicable general plan….. Consistency with the general plan and zoning regulations—Section 15332(a) RP is not consistent with Carlsbad’s General Plan. The dwelling unit density is higherthan allowed by its R-23 land use designation requiring a density bonus. RP is not consistent with Carlsbad’s Zoning Ordinance. The building height is higher than the maximum allowed by its RD-M development standard. Are you 100% confidant that this proposed project is safe and has NO “UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE” leading to damage or death? Please support the decision made by Council for a CEQA review. Please keep the residence of Carlsbad safe. Thank you, Beth Citrano CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 602 of 612 From:Tetyana Pelypenko To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe Apartments to be postponed Date:Wednesday, July 15, 2020 7:36:51 AM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submittedto the City Planning. This is a request that the hearing on July 15th, 2020 at 3PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments bepostponed. This request is due to the current world wide pandemic. Nearly 3 hours was spent at the City Council meeting on June 11th, 2019 on this issue. This clearly shows the amount of attention this matter deserves. Please give the residents ofCarlsbad a chance to have a voice in this matter in person once EVERYONE can focus on this important topic. In the update from the City Manager on July 14th 2020, Mr. Chadwick states "Carlsbad has 31more cases than my last report on Tuesday for a new total of 221. We estimate 116 are currently active, the highest by far since the start of the pandemic." This pandemic is FARfrom over and the numbers in Carlsbad show this to be true. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you with a new date when this matter can be addressed in person. Sincerely,Tetyana Pelypenko CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 603 of 612 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 604 of 612 The 2018 Camp Fire killed 85 people -the deadliest blaze in California history. " Flames consume a home as the Camp Fire tears through Paradise, catifornia on November 8, 2018. STIIUCTION N OTl(l •A:,,.t.,,,Wnl._.., "~'"'U.""-l ~--~ ,ll\,l(Y10h NOll( I ...... w...1-...4. ..... -... --.;;;..,,_----,.,,,,. ....__...g . p-•~o ~ ·-· ..... -------· -... -. --·---... ----___ .._ ('11•,' ( .. ,1-ltruJ h -- ~~~~a 'r~~m~ a~~~~~ In 2014, the Poinsettia fire came within 1.9 miles of here. It burned 890 acres Paradise narrowed i~ inain road by two lanes dcspit1 warnings of grid lock during a major wildfire Q.> CJ ~~r~:«r-cl n,," I.XI, C 1, •·~r. ...t ""'" .. ~!• Ps,a. wt 'fflt • r lr.&:Vll nJ ,._ _ ,,~ The Los Angeles Times and other newspapers would later dig up many city planrung 1rustakes and conunumcanon failures that appeared 10 compound the devastation on the morning of .Nov. 8. 'Jbc core of the problem was that there just wasn't any time. The fire wa~ moving so astonishingly fast that, only a f cw minutes after Paradise started evacuating its first zones, 1t 1.vas obvious the entire community would have co be cleared . From:Steve Linke To:Planning Subject:Romeria Pointe Apartments verbal comment for 7/15/2020 Planning Commission meeting Date:Wednesday, July 15, 2020 11:51:22 AM Good afternoon. My name is Steve Linke. I am on the Carlsbad Traffic and Mobility Commission, but I am commenting as an individual. I submitted a letter a few days ago that I would like entered into the public record. Also, in the interest of better transparency, and because the Boards and Commissions are supposed to be following City Council practices more closely, I suggest that staff be asked to begin posting correspondence to the commission’s webpage prior to meetings, so everybody has access to it. The city changed the prioritization of La Costa Avenue from vehicles to pedestrians and bicycles back in 2015. So, even though the applicant’s traffic analysis shows that the project will degrade vehicle level of service from grade “E” to grade “F,” that is a meaningless result, because mitigation can no longer be required. So, after the City Council requested a CEQA traffic analysis, I believe it would have been more appropriate to have the applicant conduct a “vehicle miles traveled” (or VMT) analysis instead of level of service. The categorical CEQA exemption mechanism does not avoid the need for traffic analysis. As detailed in my letter, VMT analysis shows a significant traffic-based environmental impact of the project, which would require mitigation through measures that seek to reduce vehicle ownership and trips by future residents. I also am concerned that Carlsbad’s “Transportation Impact Analysis” (or TIA) Guidelines are not being followed consistently, and that VMT implementation was improperly delayed. The City signed a settlement agreement with an environmental group in 2017 that required them to produce the TIA Guidelines. Those guidelines require the filing of a written traffic analysis Scoping Agreement prior to initiation of the analysis, but that was not done for this project—nor is it seemingly done for most development projects. That is a practice that should change. The 2017 settlement agreement also requires review of all discretionary development projects for actions to reduce VMT. However, this development did not conduct a VMT analysis, even though other developments were doing that in the same time period. VMT analysis was not formally implemented in Carlsbad until long after it was required by the settlement agreement, despite many years of warning and ample guidance and tools available from the State and County at least as far back as May 2019. I am neutral on this project, but I hope that the appropriate mitigation of the VMT-based traffic impacts of the project can be negotiated, and that the TIA Guidelines are adhered to going forward. I also would like the questions in my letter to be answered. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 605 of 612 Thank you. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 606 of 612 Romero’s Pointe Apartments Robyn Clever <robynclever@yahoo.com> Mon 9/28/2020 10:26 AM Case File: SDP 2018-0004 (Dev2017-0151) Case Name: ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS Publish: September 25, 2020 My husband and I live at Carlsbad. There are 16 condos with 2 parking spaces per condo (14 below ground and 2 on property street level). There are so many apartments on Gibraltar Street it is very difficult to find street parking for our guests. We oppose the request of the 23 unit apartment complex. We feel this will only exaggerate the existing parking problem we have on our street. Sincerely, Robyn and Harry Clever Carlsbad, Ca. 92009 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 607 of 612 ROMERIA Point Apartments Robyn Clever <robynclever@yahoo.com> Mon 10/5/2020 10:56 AM Re: case file SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) May this email reinforce our original objection to build 23 units due to the current heavy use of street parking This high density of housing will only magnify the current problem. Sincerely, Robyn and Harry Clever Carlsbad, Ca 92009 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 608 of 612 From: Madeleine Szabo [mailto:mbszabo@snet.net] Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 10:55 AM To: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Fw: Vote No Please ensure that this letter is given to the Council and posted. Thanks. Madeleine Szabo Re: ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND STATE DENSITY BONUS ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR- STORY RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT PROJECT Dear City Council, Do you think it wise to approve projects that are in defiance of Carlsbad Land Use Management Plan density? The City spent untold hours and money on revising the General Plan five years ago. Why? Why, if you so irresponsibly defy it? Every developer is going to use the "State Density Bonus" to receive amendments to the Carlsbad General Plan. The Envision Carlsbad's vision: "Small Town Feel, Beach Community Character." erodes with each building that you approve at 4 stories. The traffic and the impact on City services will continue to explode as you approve increased population. Do you want to be responsible for the diminished quality of life as Carlsbad faces the perils of more cars, of crowding in our schools, and of more people living so close together? Do you want to expose yourself to more applications/appeals from developers for variances, since you will have set a precedence with continued amendments? Do you want to abdicate to Sacramento that is dictating the character of our City? On behalf of many disgruntled residents at the changing character of our City, I implore you to stand up to Sacramento. Don't let them dictate how we live. How is surrendering to Sacramento's demands allowing you to be advocates for Carlsbad? One of the Councilmembers wrote to me the following: "Ensuring we are meeting our commitment to following the Growth Management Plan (GMP) is essential. The GMP is the policy established by residents back in 1986 that delves in to how we ought to be mitigating the impacts from development and growth." We expect the Council to continue this commitment. Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 609 of 612 Prevent the floodgate from opening. If you so casually relinquish control to State mandates, then all developers will understandably invoke state law that diminish our own City Plan and City Vision. Do not approve this project nor projects like Marja Acres. Our independence and self-governance will be forever gone. Respectfully submitted, Madeleine Szabo Carlsbad, CA. 92008 bcc: Friends of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Residents for Sovereignty Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 610 of 612 City of Carlsbad Affordable Housing Density Bonus Project Number: SDP 2019-0004 (DEV2017-0151) Project Name: Romeria Pointe Apartments Location: Southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street APN’s: 216-300-12-00, 216-300-13-00 Applicant: BNR Investment & Development, LLC The project qualifies for a density bonus by providing affordable housing for low-income occupants pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 and Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.86. General Plan Land Use: R-23 Residential (15-23 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)) Lot Size/Developable Area: 0.72 acre/0.72 acre Base maximum density: 23 dwelling units per acre Base maximum units: 0.72 acre x 23 = 17 dwelling units (round up per CMC 21.86.040(G)) (15% or three units required to be inclusionary units) 35% density bonus: 17 + 35% = 22.95 = 23 units (round up per CMC 21.86.040(G)) Proposed number of units: 23 units Proposed density: 23/0.72 = 31.9 dwelling units per acre CMC 21.85 requirement: 15% x 23 = 3.4 or 3 units. 3 affordable units are provided on-site. Requested Incentives Pursuant to CMC Section 21.86.050 (A)(3)(c) a project which provides at least 15 percent of the total units for very low-income households shall receive three incentives or concessions. Incentive 1: 9 Units Removed from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. The project proposes 23 dwelling units and the unit yield at the GMCP of the property is 14 dwelling units. Therefore, a total of nine (9) dwelling units are proposed to be deducted from the City’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 43, an applicant requesting an allocation of dwelling units shall agree to provide the number of inclusionary units as required pursuant to CMC Section 21.85.050 and shall execute an affordable housing agreement (AHA) prior to building permit issuance pursuant to CMC Section 21.85.140. In approving a request for an allocation of excess dwelling units, the project shall meet the findings identified in City Council Policy No. 43. Specifically, the project location and density shall be found to be compatible with adjacent land uses and the project to be consistent with the General Plan and any other applicable planning document. As discussed in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7377, the proposed project meets these findings. Requested Waivers Per CMC 21.86.060, a density bonus project may qualify for waivers or reductions of development standards. Waiver 1: Relief from Maximum Building Height The RD-M Zone currently restricts building height to 35 feet. The applicant is requesting the allowance for increased building height as a waiver pursuant to CMC 21.86.060. As discussed in the findings in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7377, increased building height is an appropriate concession for the requested density bonus in that it results in cost reductions to enable the provision of housing affordable to the designated income group. EXHIBIT 14 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 611 of 612 CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section. (a)The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c)The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Exhibit 15 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 612 of 612 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Shirley Coggon <shirleycog@hotmail.com> Monday, November 16, 2020 2:51 PM City Clerk Subject: November 17, 2020 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments To: clerk@carlsbadca.gov Subject: 11 /17 /20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, All Receive -Agenda Item # 9 For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date I I/ I 7 CA V""CC _:: CM _::::::-ACM ....::::=-DCM ( 3) ·__:::::- I affirm my support of the "Concerned Citizens of Rancho La Costa" and the letter that was sent by · Everett Delano of the law firm Delano and Delano. I hereby request that you to stand by the decision made at the June 11, 2019, City Council meeting that makes a CEQA review mandatory for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances." The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support two four-story buildings was considered "unusual." The soil in this area is known to be poor. Neighboring buildings have sustained structural damage. This project could be very dangerous to the current residents and homeowners of Carlsbad. In addition, since the June 2019 meeting, in the area of the proposed project, La Costa Avenue was reduced to two lanes where it was once four. Traffic and parking continue to be an issue in this neighborhood. The environmental impact of the construction and use of a 23-unit complex must not be ignored. Please ensure the citizens of Carlsbad remain safe! I reaffirm my request that you stand by your decision made on June 11, 2019, and that the CEQA review must be conducted. Thank you. Sincerely, Shirley Coggon Carlsbad, CA 92009 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Tim Clark <clarktim3131@gmail.com> Monday, November 16, 2020 2:43 PM City Clerk I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. 1 would like to ask that you to stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffictparking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Tim Clark Carlsbad, CA 92009 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Thomas Citrano <tgcitrano@gmail.com> Monday, November 16, 2020 5:59 PM City Clerk Subject: 11/17 /20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Thomas G Citrano, :-Carlsbad, CA-92009. Thomas G. Citrano President: Leucadia Energy Services, Inc. Certified CA Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise CAUTION: Do not o en attachments or click on links unless ou reco nize the sender and know the content i 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: William Lackner <billlackner37@gmail.com> Monday, November 16, 2020 6:15 PM City Clerk 11/17 /20 Agenda item 9/Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you to stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! · In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Bill Lackner Deborah Rose CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless nize the sender and know the content i safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Carmen Altamirano <carmen_la29@hotmail.com> Monday, November 16, 2020 6:57 PM City Clerk 11/17 /20 Agenda #9: Romeria Pointe Apts Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I ask that you stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!! In addition, since the June 2019 meeting, La Costa Ave. became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/lOth of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen. This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood. Please keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Carmen Altamirano Carlsbad, CA 92009 Sent from my iPad 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: John Cornacchione <yorkjec@gmail.com> Monday, November 16, 2020 8:00 PM City Clerk Subject: 11/17 /20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, John Cornacchione Carlsbad, CA 92009 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: bethcitrano@yahoo.com Sent: To: Monday, November 16, 2020 9:25 PM City Clerk Subject: 11/17 /20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, On June 11, 2019 approximately 3 hours was spent at a Carlsbad City Council meeting addressing the proposed Romeria Pointe Apartment project. As a community, we gathered together and paid the fee for the appeal to get us to this point. A decision was made ( voted 4-1) by the council that evening that a partial CEQA review was to be done. This council deemed there were "unusual circumstances" pertaining to the project site. We ask that you stand by the decision you made on June 11th, 2019. The Housing Element Committee brochure recently released indicates these 2 restrictions for building projects: 1. Where the topography is not conducive to building 2. They aren't safe because they are in a flood zone or HIGH FIRE AREA The proposed project falls into these two categories. This makes two "unusual circumstances" for this project! UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE 1: The proposed project is going to be built into a slope. This is not normal flat land with a traditional foundation going on top. The slope and soil conditions are requiring this project to use "cast-in- drilled-hole piles" to support this VERY large structure. In 2013, Villa Romeria, which is the property that sits right next to the proposed buildings was showing distress. Floors were buckling, huge cracks were appearing on walls. American Geotechnical, Inc. surveyed the property. The report done by American Geotechnical Inc. dated July 18th, 2013 states the following in its conclusion: Based on the results of our LSR, it is our opinion that the subject home has been affected by adverse soil conditions. The documented distress is consistent with these observations. The manometer survey displays a pattern that is usually caused by expansive soil and/or slope influence. The adverse soil movement has likely been affecting the residence of the lifetime of the building and the recent distress reported by the homeowner suggests that the building is still experiencing movement. This led to hiring Eaglelift, Inc. to stabilize the foundation with push piers. The cost of the lift was close to $25,000. Villa Romeria is only 5 units so this was a HUGE expense for owners! This demonstrates the instability of the land and soil in this area. There are other properties in the area that have sustained damage due to the existing soil conditions just not Villa Romeria. 1 UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE 2: This proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a LARGE Fire Hazard area designated by CAL Fire. This is an "unusual circumstance"! Per Article 19 "unusual circumstances" are the exceptions requiring a CEQA review. LaCosta Avenue is the major road used for travel for residence from the proposed project. Since the June 2019 City Council meeting LaCosta Ave. was "downsized" from a 4-lane road to a 2-lane road. The major reason for 88 deaths in the Paradise Fire in 2018 was because people could not get out. It was nearly a few years earlier the main road in Paradise, CA went from 4 lanes to 2. Escaping via public transportation is not even an option. There is no access to a train/Coaster. The closest bus stop is .06 from Romeria and Gibraltar. There are all sorts of limitations on when the bus runs such as holidays and weekends. This is not a reliable and consistent option for escape if needed. Another concern that has repeatedly come up with regards to this project is parking and traffic. Question: Why did the city ignore the March 2017 settlement agreement, in which the city agreed to take VMT into account for all discretionary development projects? A "vehicle miles traveled" VMT analysis would have shown that the project has a significant environmental impact under CEQA. Question: Why did other projects such as Marja Acres and West Oaks that fall in the same timeframe for application follow a different protocol???? The inconsistent standard is concerrung. We support "The Concerned Citizens of Rancho LaCosta" and the letter sent in by DeLano and DeLano. Thank you, Tom, Beth, Quentin, and Gabe Citrano 2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Stephanie Cornacchione <329steph@gmail.com> Monday, November 16, 2020 9:57 PM City Clerk 11 /17 /20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizens of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangero.us to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Stephanie Cornacchione Carlsbad, CA 92009 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Andrew Chishchevoy < andriy.chishchevoy@gmail.com > Monday, November 16, 2020 10:34 PM City Clerk URGENT 11/17 /20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you to stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Andriy Chishchevoy . Carlsbad CA 92009 Andrew Chishchevoy 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Andrew Chishchevoy <andriy.chishchevoy@gmail.com> Monday, November 16, 2020 10:40 PM Planning; Manager Internet Email; City Clerk Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall, I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning. I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you to stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Andriy Chishchevoy , Carlsbad CA 92009 Andrew Chishchevoy frxi"1 I 1MG_1371.jpgE.I frxi"1 I 1MG_1372.jpgl=.l ~ I 1MG_1373.jpgE.i frxi"1 I IMG_1374.jpgE.i CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless nize the sender and know the content i safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: To: clerk@carlsbadca.gov dlw7832@aol.com Tuesday, November 17, 2020 12:16 AM City Clerk Nov 17, 2020 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Subject: 11 /17 /20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled- piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 ·1anes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue in all directions from the project! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Donald L. Wietzke Julie L. Wietzke Carlsbad, CA 92009-8345 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: MaryAnne Orcutt <maorcutt@gmail.com> Tuesday, November 17, 2020 8:08 AM City Clerk Subject: 11/17 /20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you to stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the. area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1 /1 O of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, MaryAnne Orcutt . Carlsbad, 92009 Mary Anne Orcutt Sent from my iPad 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Anne Perreira <anneperreira@gmail.com> Tuesday, November 17, 2020 8:13 AM City Clerk Please stop 4 story project To: clerk@carlsbadca.gov Subject: 11/17/20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This· is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Anne Perreira , La Costa 92009 CAUTION: Do not o en attachments or click on links unless ou reco nize the sender and know the content i 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Council Internet Email Sent: To: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 8:30 AM City Clerk Subject: FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments From: Marisa Puthoff <marisatheresa@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 6:16 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall, I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council. I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen of Carlsbad. It has come to my attention that City Planning recently approved the building of (2) 4 story buildings known as Romeria Pointe. I believe this project is putting Carlsbad citizens safety at risk. It is known that this area in LaCosta has poor soil and storm water issues. The scope of work for Romeria Pointe is extreme. This project will only add additional problems to the ones already in existance with land slippage and sink holes. This could ultimately cause harm or death to Carlsbad citizens. Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do not allow this project to be built. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Marisa Puthoff marisatheresa(@yahoo.com Carlsbad CA 92009 en attachments or click on links unless ou reco nize the sender and know the content i 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Robert Fagaly <fagaly@sbcglobal.net> Tuesday, November 17, 2020 8:41 AM City Clerk 11 /17 /20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, We support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. As long time residents of Carlsbad, we would like to ask that the City Council stand by its decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be quite dangerous to nearby residents and cause significant financial impacts. In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Having had to evacuate multiple times due to fires, anything that could impede an emergency evacuation is of concern. Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood and unless there is adequate parking (2 spaces per tenant) integral with the property (e.g., underground), nearby existing residents will be negatively impacted. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Bob and PJ Fagaly Carlsbad, CA 92009 en attachments or click on I inks unless ou reco nize the sender and know the content i 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Francois Dussault <fbmdussault@gmail.com> Tuesday, November 17, 2020 8:45 AM City Clerk 11/17 /20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This information concerns me greatly as the health and safety of residents in their own homes should never be in doubt. In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1 /1 0 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood, and without a clear plan to alleviate the current parking crisis, I cannot agree to duplicate the problem nearby. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Francois M.Dussault 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Cindy Rumley <ckhoury158@yahoo.com> Tuesday, November 17, 2020 8:53 AM City Clerk 11/17 /20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments All Receive -Agenda Item # 9 For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date J.J..l.cL CA .-cc ~ CM.,........---ACM .....---UCM (3) ::=:::: Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". In addition, the parking alone is not an issue that can be overlooked. The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! A large number of units on that street have one parking per unit. The street parking is full and there will be no room for additional cars at all let alone the volume that this complex will bring in. In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood as mentioned above. I remember nights coming home from work pregnant and weighed down with bags and having nowhere to park. To walk from La Costa Ave wasn't an option and is even less so with the lane reduction. It's going to affect sales in the neighborhood. No one wants to buy when they see a street packed with nowhere for themselves or guests to park. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Cynthia Rumley CAUTION: Do not o en attachments or click on links unless ou reco nize the sender and know the content i 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Kara Brem <kara@karabrem.com> Tuesday, November 17, 2020 8:54 AM City Clerk 11/17/20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Subject: 11/17/20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you to stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Kara Brem Carlsbad, CA 92009 Kara Brem Windermere Homes & Estates Realtor® I DRE# 01939667 "Hustle and heart is what sets me apart" See what my past clients have to say at: https:llwww.zillow.com/profile/karabreml#reviews 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Chris Salazar <chacha@dslextreme.com> Tuesday, November 17, 2020 8:55 AM City Clerk Agenda Item #9 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support the concerned citizens of La Costa regarding the 2 14 story buildings Romeria Point Apartments. The traffic on La Costa Ave with the new one lane would be impacted with so many apartments being built, would be much worse. Also the parking situation near me is terrible presently and would inpact us greatly. PLEASE VOTE NO. Thanks Richard Eugene Salazar Christine Cormier Salazar Sent from Mail for Windows 10 I, CA 92009 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Chad <yougotchad@gmail.com> Tuesday, November 17, 2020 9:16 AM City Clerk 11/17/20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Subject: 11/17/20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you to stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had ''unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project.· The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Chad Peck Carlsbad CA, 92009 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Stuart Knecht < rsknecht28@gmail.tom> Tuesday, November 17, 2020 9:49 AM City Clerk 1/17 /20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Project Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council, I am writing regarding the proposed Romeria Pointe project. I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent to City Council by the law firm Delano and Delano. In addition, for the following reasons, I believe the project, as proposed, will be harmful to the owners and residents of property in the Gibraltar/Romeria neighborhood: 1. There already is substantial density on Gibraltar Street and Romeria Street. Adding a 23 unit apartment complex, with most units having three bedrooms, would add an unacceptable level of congestion, noise and traffic to this neighborhood. Parking is already a significant problem on both streets, and it has not been unusual for our driveway to be blocked by cars squeezing into already limited parking spaces. 2. The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support two 4-story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage or, like our condominium, have had to make very extensive structural changes to prevent serious damage. The 11/21/2017 report by GeoSoils, Inc. raised concerns about soil and slope stability. I understand that all proposed projects prior lo the current project had been denied by the city because of soil issues. Surely a four-story building constructed in an area that is elevated 15 to 20 feet above Gibraltar Street, poses a potential risk of water runoff, potential sewage issues, and hillside collapse following heavy rains. 3. There are no 4-story buildings on Gibraltar or Romeria Streets. To permit such a building to be constructed on elevated land, would adversely impact sight lines of adjacent properties, degrade neighborhood aesthetics, increas.e artificial light and block sunlight. 4. Since the June 11, 2019 City Council meeting, Lacosta Avenue was reduced from 4 lanes to 2 lanes. Our condominium is on the edge of Box Canyon-a large fire zone. Escaping a serious fire in Box Canyon could be impaired by the traffic changes on Lacosta Avenue and access by fire fighters could also be impaired. This change has increased the risks to our lives and property and would only be exacerbated by the construction and subsequent residents of the proposed project. · For these reasons, I ask that you stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting requiring a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed then that this project had "unusual circumstances." Circumstances have not changed since then and such a review could prevent adverse consequences to our neighborhood. Please make the same decision that you would want made for such a project in your neighborhood. Sincerely, R. Stuart Knecht Carlsbad 92009 1 November 15, 2020 All Receive -Agenda Item# CJ For the Information of the: Clf(COUNCIL Date .!J...112 CA v CC ~ CM ~ACM ~DCM (3) _ Re: November 17, 2020 City Council Meeting Item #9-Romeria Pointe Apartments Honorable Mayor and Council members: After the City Council requested a focused California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) transportation impact analysis (TIA) on this project in June 2019, a level of service (LOS) based TIA was conducted. However, as part of the 2015 General Plan update, the city changed the prioritization of the portion of La Costa Avenue in the project area from vehicles to pedestrians and bicycles, so none of the streets in the area are subject to the vehicle LOS performance standard. This makes an LOS-based analysis essentially meaningless, even though the TIA shows degrading vehicle conditions there.1 Therefore, it would have been more relevant to conduct a "vehicle miles traveled" (VMT) based analysis. A VMT analysis would have shown that the project has a significant environmental impact under CEQA, because the site is located in a zone with a mean residential VMT per capita of 113% of the overall Carlsbad mean, which would have required 33% VMT mitigation to make the impact less than significant. 2 The mitigation would have been achieved through measures that decrease vehicle ownership and/or trips by the future residents of the development, e.g., through implementation of Transport?1tion Demand Management (TDM). That could have addressed some of the concerns expressed by the nearby residents in their many letters to the Planning Commission and City Council. . There are several additional reasons why a VMT analysis would have been more appropriate, including: • A March 14, 2017 settlement agreement between the City of Carlsbad and an environmental group required the city to start evaluating all discretionary development projects for actions that would reduce VMT through TDM measures and multi-modal improvements. 3 • Section 3.6 of Carlsbad's April 2018 TIA Guidelines describes VMT analysis and refer to forthcoming guidance from OPR and SANDAG.4 OPR had already issued draft VMT guidance in November 2017 and final guidance in December 2018. 5 And SAN DAG issued their final guidance and VMT analysis tools in May 20196--all prior to the request by council for a traffic study. 1 The Romeria Pointe Apartments TIA shows that three of the four La Costa Avenue street facilities directly adjacent to the project are operating at vehicle LOS grade "E," and that the project further degrades one of those to "F" (Table 7-2). However, that portion of La Costa Avenue is not subject to the vehicle LOS standard. 2 Based on Carl'sbad's VMT Analysis Guidelines, the project is located in Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1382, w~ich has a mean VMT per capita of 25.49, while the mean for the entire city is 22.53. To mitigate below the "85% of city mean" significance threshold, the project would have to reduce its VMT by 33%: (25.49 - [22. 53] (0.85] )/ (22. 53 )( 0.85 ). 3 Paragraph 4.3.6 of the Settlement and Community Benefit Agreement by and Among North County Advocates, the City of Carlsbad, etc., Resolution No. 2017-044, adopted March 14, 2017: http://edocs.carlsbadca.gov/HPRMWebDrawer/RecordHTML/467757 4 QPR is the State of California's Office of Planning and Research, and SAN DAG is the San Diego Association of Governments with guidance developed by the San Diego Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (SANTEC/ITE). . 5 QPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. 6 SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region. 1 • In the same timeframe that traffic data was being collected and analyzed for the Romeria Pointe Apartments TIA (late 2019 and early 2020}, staff was already directing other developers (e.g., Marja Acres and West Oaks} to switch to VMT analyses rather than LOS analyses for CEQA purposes. In the current staff report, staff relies on the fact that the application for Romeria Pointe Apartments was deemed complete and the city planner had made a CEQA determination by November 2018, such that the LOS traffic analysis rules allegedly in place at that time had to be followed-out of "fairness and the need for finality" for the developer. Staff also refers to the State of California's deadline that did not require cities to transition to VMT (or related) analysis until July 1, 2020. However, this ignores the March 2017 settlement agreement, in which the city agreed to take VMT into account for all discretionary development projects. And when it comes to other projects, like Marja Acres and West Oaks-with applications and CEQA determinations that also were completed long before the July 1, 2020 State deadline-and which benefit from doing VMT (rather than LOS} analysis, staff has hypocritically argued that they were allowed to decide on a project-by-project basis to allow VMT analysis before the deadline. I am not opposed to the Romeria Pointe Apartments project, but it should be required to mitigate its traffic impacts. The categorical CEQA exemption mechanism cited by staff does not avoid the need for traffic analysis, and although the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 restricts council's ability to reject such projects, justifiable conditions of approval and fees still can be imposed to ensure the adequacy of public facilities. 7 To be clear, the choices between LOS and VMT analysis, the selective application of TIA rules, and the decisions to not require sufficient mitigation all appear to be done on an inconsistent, "project-by-project" basis on behalf of developers-and not necessarily in consideration of "fairness and propriety" to the public. Sincerely, Steve Linke Carlsbad, CA Disclaimer: I am a member of the Carlsbad Traffic and Mobility Commission, but our commission is not involved in the review of development applications, so I am commenting as an individual. 7 California Code §65589.S(f)(3) 2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Everett Delano <everett@delanoanddelano.com> Monday, November 16, 2020 11 :09 AM City Clerk Chris Garcia City Council Nov. 17th meeting, agenda item #9 Comments to Carlsbad City Council re Romeria Pointe Apartments Project.pdf Please distribute the attached to City Council members. All Receive -Agenda Item # C, For the Information of the: Please confirm receipt. Thank you, Everett DeLano Delano & Delano 104 W. Grand Ave., Suite A Escondido, CA 92025 (760) 741-1200 (760) 741-1212 (fax) www.delanoanddelano.com CAUTION: Do not o en attachments or click on links unless 1 CITY COUNCIL Date 11 /, , CA ~cc _:::: CM ....-ACM ,.......-DCM (3) ..- nize the sender and know the content i ~· 1~ ~ D ELANO & DELANO VIA E-MAIL November 16, 2020 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Romeria Pointe Apartments Project: SDP 2018-0004 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: This letter is submitted on behalf of Concerned Citizens of Rancho La Costa in connection with the proposed Romeria Pointe Apartments project ("Project") and appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Project ("Appeal"). I. Non-Compliance with CEOA City staff has claimed the Project is exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15332. This claim is unsupported. Indeed, the City Council previously required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report precisely because of the potential for significant impacts. It is remarkable the Applicant is attempting to obtain approval without complying with the City Council's prior direction. "Because the exemptions operate as exceptions to CEQA, they are narrowly construed." San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1382; see also Castaic Lake Water Agency v. City of Santa Clarita (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1268 (rejecting "attempt to use limited exemptions contained in CEQA as a means to subvert rules regulating the projection of the environment"). "Exemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language." Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish and Game Comm. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125 (citation omitted). The Project is not exempt from CEQA for several reasons, including: (a) it is inconsistent with the General Plan, Pub. Res. Code§ 21159.21(a) & CEQA Guidelines § 15332(a); (b) it would "result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, [ and) air quality," CEQA Guidelines§ 15332(d); and Carlsbad City Council November 16, 2020 Page 2 of 4 ( c) "there is a reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment or the residents of the project due to unusual circumstances," Pub. Res. Code§ 21159.23(c). A Inconsistency with General Plan The Project is inconsistent with several General Plan goals and policies, including: 1. The Project does not support transit systems, 2-G.2; 2. The Project does not ensure "compatibility and integration with existing . uses" or support "a cohesive development pattern," 2-G.3; 3. The Project does not "[p]rotect the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas," 2-G.5; 4. The Project does not ensure "that the scale and character of new development is appropriate to the setting and intended use," 2-G. l 7; 5. The Project does not provide pedestrian and bikeway amenities, 2-G.18; 6. The Project does not ensure "that adequate public facilities and services are provided in a timely manner to provide the quality of life of residents," 2- G.21; 7. The Project does not provide "buffering and transitional methods" between the neighboring low-rise single-family uses and the Project's three-story multi-family uses, 2-P.41; 8. The Project is not "designed to preserve and/or enhance the visual quality of the pre-existing topography," 2-P.42; 9. The Project does not "foster harmony with landscape and adjacent development," "reduce erosion and runoff," provide buffers and screening, or "provide safe, easy pedestrian and bicycle linkages to nearby transportation corridors," 2-P.45; 10. The Project does not provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages to various destinations, 2-P.46; 11. The Project does not improve connectivity, 3-G.2; 12. The Project does not "[p]rovide inviting streetscapes that encourage walking and promote liveable streets," 3-G.3; 13. The Project does not "(u]tilize transportation demand management strategies ... ," 3-P.8; 14. The Project does not implement "transportation demand management strategies" or "transportation system management strategies," 3-P.l 1; 15. The Project does not "implement necessary pedestrian improvements ... ," 3- P.26; 16. The Project does not "improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity ... ," 3- P.32; 17. The Project does not implement "TDM programs that minimize the reliance on single-occupant automotive travel during peak commute hours," 3-P.41; Carlsbad City Council November 16, 2020 Page 3 of 4 18. The Project does not include the noise analysis required by the General Plan, including an identification of noise levels with and without the Project and a description of adequate and appropriate mitigation measures, 5-P .2; and 19. The Project does not "require site planning and architecture to incorporate noise-attenuating features" to meet outdoor and interior noise standards, 5- P .3. B. Project Impacts As evidence submitted to the City and to the Planning Commission noted, the Project will have significant traffic, noise, and air quality impacts. Furthermore, the failure to prepare an analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled ("VMT") is a violation of CEQA. Staff has claimed the Project is not required to prepare a VMT analysis. This is incorrect. CEQA Section 21099 required the Office of Planning and Research to develop criteria to "promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses." CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, developed pursuant to this mandate, "describes specific considerations for evaluating a project's transportation impacts" and generally provides that "vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts." CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3( c) mandates: "Beginning on July 1, 2020, the provisions of this section shall apply statewide." Accordingly, the Project must comply with the requirements of Section 15064.3. C. Significant Effects As evidence submitted to the City and to the Planning Commission noted, the Project will lead to significant impacts due to unusual circumstances, including traffic and parking impacts, community character impacts, fire and human safety impacts, and cumulative impacts. Additionally, among other things, the Project will: • lead to significant geotechnical impacts, and impacts associated with soil loss and erosion; 111 lead to significant impacts to water supply, particularly in light of substantial drought conditions over the last several years; • lead to significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions; and • lead to significant noise impacts, both during construction and operation. II. Non-Compliance with the General Plan If the Project "will frustrate the General Plan's goals and policies, it is inconsistent with the [City's] General Plan unless it also includes definite affirmative commitments to mitigate the adverse effect or effects." Napa Citizens for Honest Carlsbad City Council November 16, 2020 Page 4 of 4 Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342,379. As noted above, the Project is inconsistent with numerous General Plan goals and policies. III. The Required Findings Cannot be Made The proposed resolution and findings are inadequate. "[R]egardless of whether the local ordinance commands that the[] board set forth findings, that body must render findings sufficient both to enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they should seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the board's action." Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514 (footnote omitted). The proposed resolution fails to produce adequate findings supported by evidence. The Project violates State law and the General Plan. Accordingly, the City cannot make the findings required for a Site Development Plan pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 21.06. IV. Conclusion Accordingly, Concerned Citizens of Rancho La Costa requests you grant the appeal and reject the Project. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. ~·· Everett DeLano cc: Chris Garcia, Planning Division Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Heather Lindsey <hdlindsey@gmail.com?' Monday, November 16, 2020 1 :51 PM City Clerk Subject: 11/17 Council Meeting: Item #9 {Romeria Pointe) Members of City Council, For the myriad ideas set forth in the last several meetings (some included below), I am against this project, Romeria Street SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151). The letter submitted by the attorney representing "Concerned Citizens of Rancho Lacosta South" has the full weight of my support. Respectfully, Heather Lindsey Begin forwarded message: From: Heather Lindsey <hdlindsey@gmail.com> Subject: Romeria Pointe: SDP 2018-0004/DEV2017-0151 Date: May 21 , 2019 at 12:09:13 PM PDT To: "Council@carlsbadca.gov" <Council@Carlsbadca.gov> Members of City Council, "Council@carlsbadca.gov" <> I am opposed to Romeria Pointe (Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151). Although I have many concerns, after the last public hearing, it appears that only public safety concerns are relevant. Therefore, my concerns on this point are as follows: -The units/bedrooms in this development will attract families. There is little to no outside space for playing in this development. Kids already trespass on dangerous land west of this development. This will only get worse aRd injuries will occur. The developer should be required to make space for kids to play/be outside in his development. -This area of the City has unstable soil. Golfcrest, the development directly west of Romeria Pointe, has had the hill behind it slide into its driveways. Villa Romeria, the property behind ·the proposed site, is slipping down towards this project and has had already had to spend funds to fix what happened in the past. The issue at hand is not just the stability of the project being built, but the impact on the stability around the property as well. -I do not believe there is a crosswalk at Romeria and La Costa Ave, so the kids will cross illegally to get to school. There is one at the next intersection, but it is unlikely they will walk to make the crossing legally. I am also opposed to the development due to: -height ( As I understand it, the highest point of their building is 72 feet higher than Golfcrest's highest point. The bottom of their garage 30 higher than Golfcrest's highest point. The garage is at 86 feet and ours is around ground level.) -# of units -bulk and mass -out of character with the rest of the neighborhood -drainage issues -parking shortages I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the Council. Thank you for considering my input. 1 Sincerely, H. D. Lindsey Golfcrest Owner, Gibraltar Street en attachments or click on links unless ou reco nize the sender and know the content i 2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: jdllal@aol.com Monday, November 16, 2020 1 :58 PM City Clerk Item #9: Council Meeting on Nov 17 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I am an owner in the building directly west and under this project. This project should not be approved in its current form. I support the "Concerned Citizens of Rancho Lacosta South" and echo the comments focusing on .the health and safety concerns that surround this project as laid out by their attorneys from Delano and Delano submitted in its letter to you . . Thank you, Lucille Lindsey Owner CAUTION: Do not o en attachments or click on links unless nize the sender and know the content i safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: bbundaf@aol.com Tuesday, November 17, 2020 10:18 AM City Clerk 11/17 /20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Romeria Pointe Unusual Circumstances.JPG For review for 11/17/20 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #9 Fa-•~•'-"tMt-,.Ar,tun UVHfllP.,..._~00.~I. 201&. '' ~~m~~a ~~i~I~ ~~~~al ~irt~m~la~~ ~mdisc nJ.rtO\,t"d its o,ain mad U_v rwo fa.ncs dcspirc lv.lrnin~r,; of grilllorl during :1 major wildfire . --, . . ~-:::;~_ ... ::, : " ~ ,.-.............. ~ ____ ; ---=a..:....,-oc..:...u:.._. __ __, 1 All Receive -Agenda Item# 3._ For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date J.LlacA _..--cc ~ CM_.....-.z(CM -=:::__:-DCM (3) -- The 2018 Camp Fire killed 85 people -the deadliest blaze in California history. II Flames consume a home as the Camp Flre tears through Paradise, California on November 8, 2018. HIIIUCflOII ltOTl(l •"--•:Mnl'--.r-~r'\\-.l ~~-----~ -·~ ....... ~ .. --. -........ ..._ -~.. ,,. ••vc"•• ""'" • ..... ..--,-.i-.•1"'•· .. ( Ir • ( ~•l·hul . • · ~ ~~~~a I r~~m~ta~~~~11 )( In 2014, the Poinsettia f ire came within 1.9 miles of here. It burned 890 acres Paradise narrowed its main road by two lanes despite warnin~ of gridlock during a major ,vi.ldfire o., r -t "':~r .a.:.._ .-c w I\,. ... , l;'.Jt ClS rt.i1,,~J1..-f::,,-, ~' •'-:n~c r'.>,:,. ~"'" ':i1 • rd U.t-: WLI ~ro. ~ .. ,...., r, f'C,f I\: L.' ~Ci,tt,~' ..... ,. .. 'h ... :I b ,. • f\; 'O .':,,,,',.,.,r'"rtt',h-r'Q:-:J ,.Ullx:tlk.~-..-..... The I.us Angeles Times and other ncw~papcrs would later dig up many city plnnnmg mistakes and commumcation faJlurt>s Lh:'\t appearet.l to compound 1he devastation on the morning of Nov. 8. The core or the problem was chal chere just wasn't ,my timt>. T he rire was moving so astonishingly fast chm, only a few minutes after Paradise started evai..:uatmg it.':i first ;,ones, it was obvious the entire community would have w be cleared. Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Sylvia Hemby <shembyone@yahoo.com> Tuesday, November 17, 2020 10:32 AM City Clerk Romeria pointe apartment project:SDP 2018-0004 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you to stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! In addition since th~ June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Sylvia Hemby , Carlsbad, 92009 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: Subject: AnnMarie Quinn <aquinn@geotekusa.com> Tuesday, November 17, 2020 11:17 AM City Clerk I Support Romeria. Pointe!! All Receive -Agenda Item # 3._ For the Information of the: Cl"fY COUNCIL Date .J.JJD CA ,........CC ..-- CM v ACM ~CM (3) ~ I am a resident of North County and I Romeria Pointe is a proposed 23 unit infill project on a vacant lot in the La Costa area of Carlsbad and is MUCH needed!! Please pass this great project. Thank you!!! AnnMarie Quinn 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Good afternoon: Audrea Coble <acoble@ryan-young.com> Tuesday, November 17, 2020 11 :33 AM City Clerk . Romeria Pointe Apartments My name is Audrea Coble and I am writing this letter in support of the Romeria Pointe apartment project located on the corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. The project helps fill a huge need of low-income.housing in the community and provides high-quality units for rent. The project is well-designed, sits on a property among other multi-family housing complexes and follows all the local and state laws and regulations regarding density, and very clearly qualifies for a CEQA infill exemption, so I was very surprised at the outcome during the prior City Council hearing. As you are well aware, California remains in the midst of a statewide housing crisis, that has only gotten worse due to the Coronavirus pandemic. New housing such as this is a major public benefit, as it will bring additional tax revenue, new customers to local businesses, and most importantly it will reduce the displacement of existing residents into homelessness. The project will bring much needed affordable housing to Carlsbad without any public subsidy through the City's inclusionary housing program. I strongly support the project and urge the City Council to uphold both prior Planning Commission approvals of the project at a time when the community needs it the most. Kind Regards, AUDREA COBLE Director of Business Development RYANYOUNG 2200 CLEVELAND AVE. NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950 619.292.7800 main 619.787-1509 direct/cell lh~e::_«rvanyounginteriors.com 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Hello, Letizia Vinciguerra <letiziav@gmail.com> Tuesday, November 17, 2020 12:26 PM City Clerk Romeria Pointe project Romeria Pointe.pdf please see attached letter in support of the Romeria Pointe Project. sincerely, 1 TO: Carlsbad City Council DATE: __ 11/17/2020 __ RE: Romeria Pointe Apartments SOP 2018-0004 Dear Members of the City Council, My name is Letizia Barrera and I am writing this letter in support of the Romeria Pointe apartment project located on the corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. The project helps fill a huge need of low-income housing in the community and provides high-quality units for rent. The project is well-designed, sits on a property among other multi-family housing complexes and follows all the local and state laws and regulations regarding density, and very clearly qualifies for a CEQA infill exemption, so I was very surprised at the outcome during the prior City Council hearing. As you are well aware, California remains in the midst of a statewide housing crisis, that has only gotten worse due to the Coronavirus pandemic. New housing such as this is a major public benefit, as it will bring additional tax revenue, new customers to local businesses, and most importantly it will reduce the displacement of existing residents into homelessness. The project will bring much needed affordable housing to Carlsbad without any public subsidy through the City's inclusionary housing program. I strongly support the project and urge the City Council to uphold both prior Planning Commission approvals of the project at a time when the community needs it the most. Sincerely, Letizia Barrera Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 10:18 AM City Clerk . 11/17 /20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Romeria Pointe Unusual Circumstances.JPG For review for 11/17/20 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #9 ~ijm~~a ~iji~!~ ~~al ~irt~m~!a~re~ l'arndist i,.1m,~\-d iis 111,in ruatl by hm f,nc, dc.<pir( ;1,rnini;< uf b'Tidloct duri•l(I • n,:,jor wildfire • 11',it LMAlip.lo:ITII-_,lll;!w, ii,;•~u•~IIMl!IWfitiir;11fflMIIJ'•~Y' p;.,,...,ql,'~,11;.{(~~"11 ,.~~.-. .. ;;;_~, .. \_,,. ... ,itt'l' ~1111ki3oq\ll,~11:t'AN'~4.'tk n,n-N1b,i, prd.te•W:U ~ Ult'N'~I v.~•"'l.'lll!fU-.,T'1i-ll1•11l'lt'l-_.tnai.. ~bl-\1):1,0lll'l•fnit !INlfluanc,r-~uanN l:\'Xllllli-s:~r11M~ll'IJHIW1~ lliic(lllll!n-(Oll'Jll'"-Wl)'tr~b.,1"°10 b,.• ........ All Receive -Agenda Item # 3_ Forthe Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date / [/17 CA_vec ..:::::- CM _ ~M .::::DCM (3) .::::::: CAUTION: Do not o en attachments or click on links unless ou reco nize the sender and know the content i 1 The 2018 Camp Fire killed 85 people -the deadliest blaze in California history. 1 , Flames consume a home as the Camp Fire tears through Paradise, California on November 8, 2018. . :1 11 1 : :\• SlAU(flON NOTl(I ~ »ot •••r .. ,.. ...... _, ~--·· ----~ RomM ,,u,t,o• ,,or•<• ....... -........... -J ~~ ......... ---- ,-..,11, _ ................. .... ',. . . .. . ~~~~a , r~~m~ta~~~~" In 2014, the Poinsettia fire came within 1.9 miles of here. It burned 890 acres Paradise narrowed its rnain road hy two lanes dcspit( warnings of gridlock durin g a major wildfire 1.• • T 1 i\, C'f ;:l ,-'ft ,I l\toi ,,., 1,..,ti\~-I~ T;,11\. ,:I t• ~~./ - ,• ·•:r...1.i:, ,.~,.~1 • ~ ........... 1 •-f: ll .. ~ 'Jt S. •f I !, 1 r-r t: r1' l-;L.' ,.,,t;1,1~-.. 1.,,.. .. ,v,>!;, .-. .-, h; -., •"•••·?• ~.., ••••,~--..,,-.,,: ; The I .os 1\11gelt--s Times. ;me! ol her newspapers would later dig up many d ty plannmg rnlstak('S .1nd communication f.11luri-'s I hat appt>,H~l l.o c.:omp11uncl t ht! tlcvm;tation on the morning of Nov. 8. The core or the problem wa.-; that t11ere just wa~11·1 any I irnP.. Th!-! fi re was 111ovin~ so astonishingly fast that, only a few minutes after Paradise started evac:11aling il.s finH ;,ones, it wa::; obvious the entire conummity would have to be cleare<.I. The 2018 Camp Fire killed .85 people -the deadliest ~laze in California hi~tory. " ,Flames consume a home as the Camp Fire t_ears through Paradise, California on November 8,_ STIIU(f!ON .. oric r ........... », ..... _,._.., ...... "'"' _...___,,__.-..--;-... ·· "'---------. ' , • ._,,1,0111 •tOfl(t .,___,._., __ ,._.J 'I...-....-. -~ . - --.,.·o-1· .. . • ..... ,c, Cl -. ... · I T • ~... • •• ..... ....... -.. . (.;, ........ _ .. , ,:11·1::ul. , .. In 2014, the Poinsettia fire came within 1.9 miles of here~ It burned paradise 1uirrowed its 111ain road by two lanes dcspit1 · warnings of g:ridlo~k during a major wildfire \ J 1,'-' r I OO:t::•: .::~ ., "r,, ,. ,:..,.-•~~-1;. ,,-,'If\ ~o1t l'tp ~:=-:; •'·•·:r.•~ .:..,.J.i.:.t. ,: .. ::t '-;~f r IL,f~ "' S.·d I !,.-•rT" f: er L~ L,•. ~(,,I 11,,, ,.._.,., r• ~tt•J I r •.•, ,.:-~ .~,..,·)\ ~.,~·••t' ,.1,_,r Th!-! r .os i\ngel~s Tirnt:s ;rnd oLher newspapers would later dig up many dly pl:uming misr.akc-s and .communic3tion f:iilurt>s 11ml appe,ired t.o c:ompnund the dcv.1st,~tion on the morning of Nov. K The core or rhe prol>lem was that there just w:1:-;n'1 any I ime. The ri r~ was 111uving so ;:istonishingly fast that, only n few minuLes after Parailise sta.r(ed e.v,u:ualing ik; first zon~s, it wa:-; ohyioui:; the entire conummity would ·have to bo cleared. Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Sylvia Hemby Tuesday, November 17, 2020 10:32 AM City Clerk Romeria pointe apartment project:SDP 2018-0004 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho La Costa" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you to stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! In addition since th~ June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood . . Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Sylvia Hemby Carlsbad, 92009 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: Subject: Attachments: Importance: Mary Chaparro <mary@marychaparro.com> Tuesday, November 17, 2020 12:49 PM City Clerk Romeria Pointe Support Letter for Today Romeria Pointe Support Letter.docx High I would like to call in and speak as well in support of this project. Thank you! Mar')' Chapar'ro, MCSP Ch;:iparro ;:ind Assocfates Real Estate Berkshire Hathaway Hor11eServkes Callfornla PropcrtiC$ 619-884•44-n I Call or Text www.MaryChaparro.com ~ ~ BF.RKSH !RI~ H,\THAWAY l l!'l~Scr,-ic, ... ~ LUXURY Residential Sales I New Homes Builder Specialist I Luxury Representative I Real Estate Advisory Services :-iLIWi "~G iOU' Ht.I~~, CAL1r1Ji\NIA Discover your home's value. Get three independent estimates of your home's value immediately! 1 TO: Carlsbad City Council DATE: November 17, 2020 RE: Romeria Pointe Apartments SDP 2018-0004 Dear Members of the City Council, My name is Mary Chaparro and I am writing this letter in support ofthe Romeria Pointe apartment project located on the corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. The project helps fill a huge need of low-income housing in the community and provides high-quality units for rent. The project is well-designed, sits on a property among other multi-family housing complexes and follows all the local and state laws and regulations regarding density, and very clearly qualifies for a CEQA infill exemption, so I was very surprised at the outcome during the prior City Council hearing. As you are well aware, California remains in the midst of a statewide housing crisis, that has only gotten worse due to the Coronavirus pandemic. New housing such as this is a major public benefit, as it will bring additional tax revenue, new customers to local businesses, and most importantly it will reduce the displacement of existing residents into homelessness. The project will bring much needed affordable housing to Carlsbad without any public subsidy through the City's inclusionary housing program. I am a professional REALTOR and have worked in our local real estate market since 1984. My client's and now their children are not able to afford housing in San Diego County and are having to relocate due to our housing shortage and costs associated with challenges as this appeal and REAPPROVAL. This project provides an excellent option and solution for this area. I strongly support the project and urge the City Council to uphold both prior Planning Commission approvals of the project at a time when the community needs it the most. Sincerely, Mary L Chaparro, MCSP Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: jaksanderson01@gmail.com Tuesday, November 17, 2020 12:58 PM City Clerk Romeria Pointe Apartments TO:Carlsbad City Council DATE:November 16th, 2020 RE:Romeria Pointe Apartments SDP 2018-0004 Dear Members of the City Council, My name is Jaks Cunningham and I am writing this letter in support of the Romeria Pointe apartment project located on the corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. The project helps fill a huge need of low-income housing in the community and provides high-quality units for rent. The project is well-designed, sits on a property among other multi-family housing complexes and follows all the local and state laws and regulations regarding density, and very clearly qualifies for a CEQA infill exemption, so I was very surprised at the outcome during the prior City Council hearing. As you are well aware, California remains in the midst of a statewide housing crisis, that has only gotten worse due to the Coronavirus pandemic. New housing such as this is a major public benefit, as it will bring additional tax revenue, new customers to local businesses, and most importantly it will reduce the displacement of existing residents into homelessness. The project will bring much needed affordable ho·using to Carlsbad without any public subsidy through the City's inclusionary housing program. I strongly support the project and urge the City Council to uphold both prior Planning Commission approvals of the project at a time when the community needs it the most. Please stop wasting the time/money of all the people involved. I am so tired of councils holding up developments that are HELPFUL. We are in a housing Crisis, APPROVE the project. It is helping not harming. Respectfully, Jaks Cunningham 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: Ernestina Marshall <emarshall@ryan-young.com> Tuesday, November 17, 2020 1:01 PM To: City Clerk Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments TO:Carlsbad City Council DATE: 11/17/2020 RE:Romeria Pointe Apartments SOP 2018-0004 Dear Members of the City Council, My name is Ernestina Marshall and I am writing this letter in support of the Romeria Pointe apartment project located on the corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. The project helps fill a huge need of low-income housing in the community and provides high-quality units for rent. The project is well-designed, sits on a property among other multi-family housing complexes and follows all the local and state laws and regulations regarding density, and very clearly qualifies for a CEQA infill exemption; so I was very surprised at the outcome during the prior City Council hearing. As you are well aware, California remains in the midst of a statewide housing crisis, that has only gotten worse due to the Coronavirus pandemic. New housing such as this is a major public benefit, as it will bring additional tax revenue, new customers to local businesses, and most importantly it will reduce the displacement of existing residents into homelessness. The project will bring much needed affordable housing to Carlsbad without any public subsidy through the City's inclusionary housing program. I strongly support the project and urge the City Council to uphold both prior Planning Commission approvals of the project at a time when the community needs it the most. 1 From: To: Subject: Date: Kind regards, ~ Faviola Medina FW: Support of Romeria Tuesday, November 17, 2020 1:49:20 PM Tammy M cM inn, CPMC, CMC Senior Deputy City Clerk City of Carlsbad 760-434-2953 From: Stacie L Greene [mailto:stacie@OTMadv.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 1:41 PM To: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Support of Romeria November 17. 2020 To Carlsbad City Council, All Receive -Agenda Item # _ 9_ For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date:_ 11/17 CA_x_ CC_X_ CM_X_ ACM_X_ DCM (3) X I writing to you in support of the new Romeria Pointe apartment community. This is a well thought- out and designed project and much needed housing. Right now houses are selling above asking as we have very low inventory and rental prices are t hough the roof. The project helps fill a huge need of low-income housing in the community and provides high-quality units for rent. Plus, we need to support smart development in a cost effective manner so that the permitting and planning cost do not become a hinderance and thus adds to the cost each home being built and higher rental cost. As you are well aware, California remains in the midst of a statewide housing crisis, that has only gotten worse due to the Coronavirus pandemic. New housing such as this is a major public benefit, as it will bring addit ional tax revenue, new customers to local businesses, and most importantly it will reduce the displacement of existing residents into homelessness. The project will bri ng much needed affordable housing t o Carl sbad without any public subsidy through the City's inclusionary housing program. Please approve this project today Respectfully, Stacie Stacie L. Greene CEO/Media and Operations Director Over the Moon Sales & Advertising Sales, Advertising, Digital Tec/i nology, and Signage stacie@OTMAdv.com 858-663-1408 CAUTION. Do not o en attachments or click on links unless sender and know the content is safe. From: Eileen Donovan ~ To: Subject: 11/17/20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Tuesday, November 17, 2020 1:24:50 PM Date: Attachments: image.png Dear City Clerk --I have signed up and will be making public comments in my allotted 3 minutes, however, I would also like my written statement entered into the record. Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, You should have received a letter from the attorney of Delano and Delano regarding our objections to the Romeria Pointe Apartments project without a CEQA from the Concerned Citizens of Rancho Lacosta. This group represents over 30 homeowners and approximately 60-80 residents residing in the general area of this project. Per the attorney's letter we find that the claim from the Staff report that exempts the Romeria Point project from a CEQA review to be unsupported. 1. The city council ruled on conducting a CEQA review back in 2019 because of the significant impacts on the environment and we are perplexed as to why the applicant did not comply with that original ruling by the city council. 2. Per our attorney, this project is not exempt from CEQA for several reasons including: o It is inconsistent with the General Plan o It would result in significant impacts on traffic, noise and air quality o It has a reasonable possibility that it would have negative impacts on the residents due to unusual circumstances As far as the General Plan, this project is inconsistent with the plans goals and policies for many reasons, and more specifically: 1. The project does not comport with the scale and character of new development (i.e. Two 100-ton four story buildings going into a residential area where no other development is higher than two stories.) . 2. The project is not designed to preserve or enhance the visual quality of the pre- existing topography 3. The project does not include noise analysis required by the general plan. Nor does it include noise attenuating features to meet outdoor interior noise standards. 4. The project does not support transit systems Our attorney also points out that this project will have significant impact on traffic, . noise and air quality. While the city staff has decided that this project precludes an analysis of VMT, our attorney does not agree with that assessment and finds that the CEQA guideline 15064.3(c) mandates that "beginning on July 1, 2020 the provisions of this section shall apply statewide." Given the city has already set a precedence with other projects, like Marja Acres and West Oaks to require VMT and with all of the unusual circumstances surrounding the Romeria Pointe project, this project should require a VMT and the city has set a precedence on previous rulings. In addition, Lacosta Ave. was recently reduced from two to one lane going each direction just within the last few years. That has already had a major impact on traffic. VMT is designed to support transportation planning and assess the impact of various population forecasts, so given the unusual nature of the Romeria Pointe project, it should not preclude a VMT simply based on a timing technicality. We do not believe that is a responsible stance for the city to exempt a VMT based on a technicality given this project could potentially increase the number of vehicles to 40 or more. And of course, there is the question of why Marja Acres and West Oaks were subjected to a VMT, but Romeria Point is not, especially with all of the unusual circumstances. The staff report states it wants to waive the CEQA and VMT out of "fairness and the need for finality" for the developer, but where is the "fairness and safety consideration" for the public? I am not opposed to the Romeria Pointe project assuming a CEQA can clear the project as the City Council requested in the prior council meeting in 2019. CEQA is an independen·t body and can provide the most accurate assessment of the project's viability. Without an independent body such as CEQA conducting the analysis, there is no faith in the results and outcome which could very well have a negative impact on the environment surrounding the .project given all the unusual circumstances such as, a known history of soil issues, traffic & parking issues, plus having a development that is not in accordance with the scale and character of any current development in the area. (i.e. Two 100-ton four story buildings going into a residential area where none are higher than two stories.) In conclusion, I am asking that the City Council grant the appeal and request once again from the developer that a CEQA review be conducted in the interest of "fairness and safety considerations" for the public. The public interest should take precedence over a need for "finality" in favor of a developer for a proposed project with highly unusual circumstances that should in fact require a CEQA. Sincerely, Eileen Donovan Carlsbad, CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From: Nelson. Shelley To: ~ Cc: AttQmev; Chris Garcia: iohn@streamlinedeve!oomentgroup.com; Chine. Jeffrey Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments Project: SDP 2018-0004 -Response to Comment Letters ... Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 1:26:16 PM Attachments: 11-17-2020 LIB Mayor and City Council re Response to Comment Letters on Romeria Pointe Apartments Project sop 201s- Q.001&df Importance: High Good Afternoon: The attached con-espondence is sent on behalf of Jeff Chine in connection with the referenced project. We would appreciate it if you would kindly acknowledge receipt. Sincerely, Shelley Nelson I Legal Secretary for Jeffrey A. Chine, Michael C. Pruter, Richard "Rick" Miltimore, and Seth A. Garrett Direct (619) 235-1555 x32238 I <mailto:snelson@allenmatkjns.com> snelson@allenrnatkins.com Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP One America Plaza, 600 West Broadway, 27.th Floor, San Diego, CA 92101-0903 <https-//ur)defense com/v3/ http·//www allenmatkins comi ·11E 4xU6-vwMWK-Q15bssJu9- 9p7vUC2MOg4O1JPK-ZDlg4eViXAQ-uK74O001Ssv3PI06QVob8WOit9DSA$> Allen Matkins Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e- mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Allen Matkins Via Electronic Mail November 17, 2020 Mayor and City Council c/o City Clerk Barbara Engleson City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, 27th Floor I San Diego, CA 92101-0903 Telephone: 619.233.1 155 I Facsimile: 619.233.1158 www.allenmatkins.com Jeffrey A. Chine E-mail: jchine@allenmatkins.com Direct Dial: 619235. 1525 File Number: 378693.0000 I/Docwnent2.000 Re: Response to Comment Letters on Romeria Pointe Apartments Project: SDP 2018-0004 Dear Honorable Mayor Hall and City Council: This letter is submitted on behalf of the Romeria Pointe Apartments Project ("Project") applicant, BNR Investment & Development LLC ("Applicant"), in response to a letter dated November I 6, 2020 from the Concerned Citizens of Rancho La Costa ("Rancho La Costa Comments") and a letter dated November 15, 2020 from Steve Linke ("Linke Comments''.). As outlined below, neither letter raises significant or legitimate issues not already addressed by the Project and staff report. We urge the City Council to approve the Project as recommended by staff I. RANCHO LA COSTA COMMENT RESPONSE A. Section I The Rancho La Costa claim the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan, Pub. Res. Code § 21159.21 (a) & California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines § 15332(a), is false. The project was determined to be categorically exempt from the CEQA under Guidelines Section 15332 for In-Fill Development Projects. The CEQA exemption is discussed in detail in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7377 and staff report. There is no significant effect related to traffic as shown in the Project traffic study that evaluated transportation impacts based on valid methodologies and thresholds of significance. 1. Section I.A Section I.A of the La Costa Comment Letter makes numerous baseless assertions of the Project's supposed inconsistency with the General Plan. We respond to each of these numbered asse11ions below. Los Angeles I Orange County I San Diego I Century City I San Francisco Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Mayor and City Council November 17, 2020 Page 2 1. The Project does not support transit systems, 2-G.2 This is a reference to a General Plan goal and is not a requirement for development. General Plan Goal 2-G.2 is not project-specific, it is related to land use policy implementation. 2. The Project does not ensure "compatibility and integration with existing uses'' or support "a cohesive development patter," 2-G.3 This goal strives to "Promote infill development that makes efficient use of limited land supply, while ensuring compatibility and integration with existing uses." (General Plan Goal 2~ G.3.) This Project does exactly that. The surrounding area is almost exclusively comprised of low- rise multi-family housing projects between two to four stories and, while modem in architectural styling, the Project is comprised of subdued architectural features and earth tone color schemes, which fully integrates it with the surrounding Projects. 3. The Project does not "[p]rotect the neighborhood atmosphere and identify of existing residential areas," 2-G.5 The Project proposes to develop a property that has remained vacant and turned into a dump site for trash and undocumented fill, in addition to becoming a hazard for kids who use it as a place to play. If anything, the Project will enhance the neighborhood atmosphere, creating a lively comer, eliminating a potential hazard site and provide a project that is of similar development density and scale of the surrounding properties. 4. The Project does not ensure "that the scale and character of new development is appropriate to the setting and intended use." 2-G.17 The setting and intended use of this property is appropriate. The property is zoned specifically for multi-family housing at the density we have proposed, and we are not seeking any zone changes or general plan amendments. The Applicant is strictly following the zoning ordinance and state density bonus law. The surrounding area and adjacent properties are all comprised of apartments and condos of similar size and scale. 5. The Project does not provide pedestrian and bikeway amenities, 2-G.18 This Comment is a reference to a General Plan goal and is not a requirement for development. General Plan Goal 2-G. l 8 is not project-specific, it is related to land use policy implementation. 6. The Project does not ensure "that adequate public facilities and services are provided in a timely manner to provide the quality of life of residents." 2-G.21 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Mayor and City Council November 17, 2020 Page 3 The neighborhood infrastructure was designed with the intended use and density of this property in mind. The Project is located on an infill development site that is one of the last vacant sites in the neighborhood, and public facilities and services are available for all projects and properties in this neighborhood. 7. The Project does not provide "buffering and transitional methods" between the neighboring low-rise single-family uses and the Project's three-story multi-family uses, 2-P.41 This Comment does not apply to the Project. There are no low-rise single-family uses on adjacent properties. The two adjacent properties both contain multi-family housing projects. 8. The Project is not "designed to preserve and/or enhance the visual quality of the pre-existing topography," 2-P.42 To the contrary, the Project is designed specifically with the pre-existing topography in mind. To ignore the pre-existing topography and site conditions would result in a massive grading operation and a single pad for the entire project. The Applicant worked hand-in-hand with staff to ensure the development was terraced with the slope, utilizing and even reducing the existing pad heights. Furthermore, this development proposes maintaining and enhancing the sloped areas on the north side of the Project with geogrid reinforcements, landscaping and irrigation to ensure it is a feature and an amenity for the entire neighborhood. 9. The Project does not "foster harmony with landscape and adjacent development.," :reduce erosion and runoff," provide buffers and screening, or "provide safe,, easy pedestrian and bicycle linkages to nearby transportation corridors," 2-P.45 As has been mentioned in prior responses, the Project was designed to promote cohesion between our property and adjacent properties. The Applicant held public meetings with adjacent property owners and specifically addressed the landscaping and screening of the first-floor parking area. The Project provides significant landscaping to screen the parking area on all sides. Sidewalks are already in place and will be enhanced and rebuilt as part of the Project, and bike lanes are already present along the main thoroughfare of La Costa Avenue. The Project is subject to strict storm water regulations and the storm water system is designed so that nearly I 00% of the storm water that touches this site will be caught, channeled to a filtration system, and then slowly released into the city storm drain system. This system is far superior than the currently vacant site. 10. The Project does not provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages to various destinations, 2-P.46 This is a reference to a General Plan goal and is not a requirement for development. The General Plan Goal 2-P.46 is not project-specific, it is related to land use policy implementation. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Mayor and City Council November 17, 2020 Page 4 11. The Project dos not improve connectivity, 3-G.2 This is a reference to a General Plan goal and is not a requirement for development. However, the Project is enhancing pedestrian facilities to improve connectivity. 12. The Project does not "[p]rovide inviting streetscapes that encourage walking and promote livable streets," 3-G.3 This is a reference to a General Plan goal and is not a requirement for development. The Project is an infill development with pre-established surrounding public infrastructure such as streets and sidewalks. The project is providing landscaping enhancements along the Project frontage. 13. The Project does not "[u]tilize transportation demand management strategies ... ," 3-P.8 This policy is a general statement and is not a project requirement. The Project is in conformance with the city's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines that are based on General Plan policies. 14. The Project does not implement "transportation demand management strategies" or "transportation system management strategies," 3-P.11 The Project is not subject to this policy as the project does not affect roadways exempt from vehicular level of service standard. 15. The Project does not "implement necessary pedestrian improvements ... ," 3- P.26 The Project did identify and implement necessary pedestrian improvements on streets where pedestrians are to be accommodated per the Mobility Element, Table 3-1. 16. The Project does not "improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity .... " 3-P.32 The Project evaluated multi-modal level of service ("MMLOS") including pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The pedestrian and bicycle facilities evaluated are in conformance with the bicycle and pedestrian master plans. The Project was not subject to transit analysis in accordance with the city's Transportation Impact Guidelines and Table 3-1 of the Mobility Element. Conforming sidewalks and bicycle facilities lead to the nearby school along with protected crossings at major streets. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Mayor and City Council November 17, 2020 Page 5 17. The Project does not implement "TDM programs that minimize the reliance on single-occupant automotive travel during peak commute hours," 3-P.41 This policy addresses the City's actions and is not a requirement of development. The City has implemented a city-wide transportation demand management ("TDM") program that supports businesses, schools and residents. 18. The Project does not include the noise analysis required by the General Plan, including an identification of noise levels with and without the Project and a description of adequate and appropriate mitigation measures, 5-P.2 The claim that the Project did not produce a noise analysis is simply false. The Applicant submitted a Noise Study completed by Rincon Consultants in January 2018 (misdated as January 2017). The Noise Study conclusively addresses all aspects mentioned by the comment. 19. The Project does not "require site planning and architecture to incorporate noise attenuating features" to meet outdoor and interior noise standards, 5-P.3. The Noise Study concludes that the proposed use is similar and compatible in scale to existing multi-family residential buildings in the vicinity, and the on-site operation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial noise increase on the project site or vicinity with adherence to existing City noise ordinances. 2. Section LB This comment states the Project will have significant impacts on traffic, noise and air quality. However, the comment does not provide or identify any evidence which supports this conclusion. There has been no credible evidence submitted to the City and to the Planning Commission that the Project may have significant impacts on traffic, noise and air quality. City Staff evaluated the Project, considered the noise study prepared by Rincon Consultants (January 2018, misdated January 2017), and determined that the Project's compliance with applicable provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including Chapter 8.48 relating to construction noise and the policies set forth in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan, would avoid or reduce potential noise impacts to a level below significance. The Planning Commission's finding that the Project would not have a significant impact on noise, and the reasons and evidence in support of the finding, are set forth in Section 14(d)(ii) of Planning Commission Resolution No. 7377. City Staff also evaluated the potential impacts of the Project on air quality and determined the Project's impacts would be minimal and would not contribute significantly to an air quality violation or a cumulatively significant increase in emissions throughout the air basin. The Project will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state and local regulations regarding pollutant emissions, including the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District's Rules and Regulations. The Planning Commission's finding that the Project would not have a significant impact on air quality, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Mayor and City Council November 17, 2020 Page 6 and the reasons and evidence in support of the finding, are set forth in Section 14( d)(iii) of Planning Commission Resolution No. 7377. City Staff also evaluated the Project's potential impacts on traffic in the project area. A Traffic Impact Analysis ("TIA") was prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers (March 2020), which determined that the Project would not have a significant impact on traffic. City Staff concurred with the technical analysis and findings in the TIA and the Planning Commission's finding with respect to potential traffic impacts is set forth in Section 14(d)(i) of Planning Commission Resolution No. 7377. The comment also states that the City's failure to prepare an analysis of vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") is a violation of CEQA because CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3( c) requires the preparation of a VMT analysis and Section 15064.3 applies statewide beginning July 1, 2020. This comment is incorrect because it fails to consider the applicability of CEQA Guidelines Section 15007. Section 15007 applies to amendments to the CEQA Guidelines like Section 15064.3. Subdivision ( c) of Section 15007 provides that a CEQA document does not need to be revised to conform to any new requirements in the CEQA Guidelines that take effect before the document is finally approved if the document meets the requirements in effect when the document is sent out for public review. The Planning Commission initially approved the infill exemption on March 20, 2019. The Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council, which remanded the matter back to City Staff to review the Project's environmental analysis on June 11, 2019. City Staff considered the information in the TIA, which used a "level of service" ("LOS") standard, and affirmed the original determination that the Project met the requirements for an infill exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. The fact that the Planning Commission's final approval of the exemption occurred on July 15, 2020, did not mean that the City was required to prepare a VMT analysis under Section 15064.3. 3. Section LC This comments states that evidence submitted to the City and the Planning Commission shows the Project will lead to significant impacts due to unusual circumstances, including traffic and parking impacts, community character impacts, fire and human safety impacts, and cumulative impacts. Except for this general statement, however, the comment does not identify or provide any evidence in support of its assertion. City Staff has reviewed the evidence submitted to the City and the Planning Commission and determined there is no substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant impact due to unusual circumstances. Concerns regarding the Project's potential geotechnical impacts are addressed in the geotechnical report prepared by Geo Soils, Inc. (November 20, 2019), which determined that the Project would not have a significant impact on geology and soils and neither the existing conditions nor the proposed construction method constituted an unusual circumstance. In addition, the comment has not identified any evidence in support of its assertion that potential impacts to water supply, greenhouse gas emissions or noise would be either significant or due to unusual circumstances. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Mayor and City Council November 17, 2020 Page 7 B. Section II Section II states the Project is inconsistent with numerous General Plan goals and policies stated previously in the Comment Letter and provides a legal citation regarding a Project's inconsistency with the General Plan. Please see the responses to Section I.A. C. Section III With respect to Section III, this comment makes the general assertions that the proposed resolution and findings are inadequate, the proposed resolution fails to produce adequate findings supported by evidence, the Project violates state law and the General Plan, and the City cannot make the findings required for a Site Development Plan pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.06. The City Council is considering an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Project and an infill exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7377 sets forth the Planning Commission's findings, and the reasons and evidence in support of the findings. The comment does not identify any specific aspect or provision of the proposed resolution or findings, or any aspect of Planning Commission Resolution No. 7377, which fails to comply with applicable law. Accordingly, no further response is possible. II. LINKE COMMENT RESPONSE The settlement agreement referenced in the Linke Comment Letter did not require that VMT standards be adopted and applied in 2017. Rather, the agreement stipulates that the city evaluate discretionary projects for consistency with the General Plan and Climate Action Plan ("CAP") and actions to reduce VMT through Transportation Demand Management techniques and multi-model improvements. Staff contends that the application meets this requirement because as the record reflects, the project complies with the city's TDM standards and MMLOS requirements. Very truly yours, Jeffrey A. Chine JAC:ebp cc: Mr. John Allen Celia Brewer, City Attorney Chris Garcia, City Associate Planner From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Marissa Tucker Qtl.Qed, Support for ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS Action Item 9 Tuesday, November 17, 2020 1:28:13 PM suooortRomeria.odf Please see the attached Jetter of support for the November 17th City Council Meeting, Action Item 9. Marissa Tucker-Borquez @mtBorq CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. TO: Carlsbad City Council DATE: 11-17-2020 RE: Romeria Pointe Apartments SOP 2018-0004 Dear Members of the City Council, My name is Marissa Tucker-Borquez and I am writing this letter in support of the Romeria Pointe apartment project located on the corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. The project helps fill a huge need of low-income housing in the community and provides high-quality units for rent. The project is well-designed, sits on a property among other multi-family housing complexes and follows all the local and state laws and regulations regarding density, and very clearly qualifies for a CEQA infill exemption, so I was very surprised at the outcome during the prior City Council hearing. As you are well aware, California remains in the midst of a statewide housing crisis, that has only gotten worse due to the Coronavirus pandemic. New housing such as this is a major public benefit, as it will bring additional tax revenue, new customers to local businesses, and most importantly it will reduce the displacement of existing residents into homelessness. The project will bring much needed affordable housing to Carlsbad without any public subsidy through the City's inclusionary housing program. I strongly support the project and urge the City Council to uphold both prior Planning Commission approvals of the project at a time when the community needs it the most. Sincerely, President, YIMBY Dems From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: saul barrera ~ Romeria Pointe Apartments Tuesday, November 17, 2020 1 :29: 12 PM Letter to Carlsbad Cjty Council .pdf See attached letter in favor of the Romeria Pointe apartment project. Isamel Saul Ban·era CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. TO: Carlsbad City Council DATE: 11/17/2020 RE: Romeria Pointe Apartments SDP 2018-0004 Dear Members of the City Council, My name is Ismael Saul Barrera and I am writing this letter in support of the Romeria Pointe apartment project located on the corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. The project helps fill a huge need of low-income housing in the community and provides high-quality units for rent. The project is well-designed, sits on a property among other multi-family housing complexes and follows all the local and state laws and regulations regarding density, and very clearly qualifies for a CEQA infill exemption, so I was very surprised at the outcome during the prior City Council hearing. As you are well aware, California remains in the midst of a statewide housing crisis, that has only gotten worse due to the Coronavirus pandemic. New housing such as this is a major public benefit, as it will bring additional tax revenue, new customers to local businesses, and most importantly it will reduce the displacement of existing residents into homelessness. The project will bring much needed affordable housing to Carlsbad without any public subsidy through the City's inclusionary housing program. I strongly support the project and urge the City Council to uphold both prior Planning Commission approvals of the project at a time when the community needs it the most. Sincerely, Mia De Marzo From: Sent: To: Subject: Taylor Patterson <taylor@taylorpatterson.com> Wednesday, November 18, 2020 7:59 AM City Clerk 11/17 /20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffic/parking continues.to be an issue in this neighborhood. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Taylor Patterson Carlsbad, Ca 92009 !CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.I 1 Mia De Marzo From: Sent: To: Subject: tp.spamfilter@gmail.com Wednesday, November 18, 2020 7:39 AM City Clerk 11 /17 /20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho La Costa" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Sonja Holtman Carlsbad, Ca 92009 !CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.I Mia De Marzo From: Sent: To: Subject: therese@sensible-chic.com Wednesday, November 18, 2020 7:37 AM City Clerk 11/17 /20 Agenda Item #9 Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Honorable Mayor and City ~ouncil, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho Lacosta" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!!· In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Therese Patterson Carlsbad, Ca 92009 !CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.I 1 Mia De Marzo From: Sent: To: Subject: Cristina Grosse <sdcristinag@icloud.com> Tuesday, November 17, 2020 9:19 PM City Clerk Romeria Pointe Project Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support "Concerned Citizen's of Rancho La Costa" and the letter that was sent in by the law firm Delano and Delano. I would like to ask that you stand by the decision made at the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting for a CEQA review for the Romeria Pointe project. It was deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings was considered "unusual". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! In addition since the June 2019 meeting, Lacosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 lanes in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Traffic/parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Please stand by your decision made on June 11th, 2019. Sincerely, Cristina Grosse Sent from my iPhone Cristina @, CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chamber, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, to reconsider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Site Development Plan to allow the construction of a four-story, 23-unit residential apartment project which includes three inclusionary housing units, on property generally located at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street, and more particularly described as: Lots 393 and 394 of La Costa South Unit No. 5, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 6600, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 10, 1970 Whereas, on March 20, 2019 the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted 7-0 to Approve of a Site Development Plan to construct a four-story, 23-unit residential apartment project which includes three inclusionary housing units, on property generally located at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. The City Planner has determined that this project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 "In-Fill Development Projects" of the State CEQA Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after May 15, 2020. If you have any questions, please contact Chris Garcia in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4622 or chris.garcia@carlsbadca.gov. As a result of the waivers in State of California Executive Order N-29-20, the Brown Act permits full participation of officials in meetings through video or audio teleconference. The meeting can be viewed online at www.carlsbadca.gov or on the City's cable channel. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to send an e-mail to clerk@carlsbadca.gov before the item is heard at the May 19, 2020 City Council meeting. You can participate in the meeting by e-mailing your comments to the City Clerk at clerk@carlsbadca.gov prior to commencement of the agenda item. Your comments will be transmitted to the City Council. If you desire to have your comment read into the record at the City Council meeting, please indicate so in the first line of your e-mail and limit your e-mail to 500 words or less. Emails will be read for three minutes each, unless the presiding officer (usually the Mayor) changes the time. If you challenge the Site Development Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CASE NAME: PUBLISH: SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) ROMER IA POINTE APARTMENTS May 8, 2020 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL GOLF COURSE SITE MAP • N NOT TO SCALE Romeria Pointe Apartments SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) #10057 23-Mar-20 600' OWNERSHIP LISTING PREPARED FOR: '216-300-12-00, 216-300-13-00 : BNR INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT LL C GIBRALTAR & ROMERIA STREET CARLSBAD CA 92009 1. 216-290-26-01 DINNEEN J & MARYE ROBERT 9105 W 131ST TER : OVERLAND PARK KS 66213 4. 216-290-26-04 ORCUTT MARY A TRUST 09-17-08 7661 NORHILL RD COLUMBUS OH 43235 I 7. 216-290-34-03 SAISHO FAMILY TRUST 08-19-99 216 FIELDSTONE CT ROSEVILLE CA 95747 10. 216-290-34-06 WILLIAMS FAMILY TRUST i 1183 CALLE CHRISTOPHER I ENCINITAS CA 92024 13. 216-290-34-09 I SKA VINSKI KIPRIAN M & BARBARA H REVOCABLE TRUST 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #9 1 CARLSBAD CA 92009 16. 216-290-34-12 AP E INVESTMENTS LLC 753 JACQUELENE CT ENCINITAS CA 92024 19. 216-290-34-15 FISHMAN NAOMI A REVOCABLE TR 2929 WP ARK.RIDGE DR PEORIA IL 61604 22. 216-290-35-02 HATLE DEBRA FAMILY TRUST 1419 DOMINIS ST #502 HONOLULU HI 96822 I I Pat: aver .com/ atents l Easy Peel' Address Labels : Bend along !me to expose Pop-up Edge I 2. 216-290-26-02 SURPRISE PROPERTIES LLC 3177 WILDFLOWER SMT ENCINITAS CA 92024 5. 216-290-34-01 WYNNE E WEISS 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #1 CARLSBAD CA 92009 8. 216-290-34-04 SEAN M & MARGUERITE N TALBOTT 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #4 CARLSBAD CA 92009 11. 216-290-34-07 KELLEY K CHRISMAN 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #7 1 CARLSBAD CA 92009 14. 216-290-34-10 AMERICAN ESTATE & TRUST 7152 ALMADEN LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 17. 216-290-34-13 JOHN C & KAREN SALGADO 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #13 CARLSBAD CA 92009 20. 216-290-34-16 YANG JEFF & PEARL TRUST 07-15-11 11888 MENDIOLA PT : SAN DIEGO CA 92129 I 23. 216-290-35-03 CHRISTINA L CAHALL 7526 JEREZ CT #3 CARLSBAD CA 92009 Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peelr ] Re liez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Po -u · 1 Go to avery.com;t'templates : · UseAveryTemplate5160 1 JOHN ALLEN 2266 GRAND A VE STE26 SAN DIEGO CA 92109 I 3. 216-290-26-03 MARK & KARLA SKOOG 276 CHANTILLY CIR SIMI VALLEY CA 93065 6. 216-290-34-02 ROBERT R & TERESA A QUIROZ 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #2 . CARLSBAD CA 92009 9. 216-290-34-05 HARRY J & ROBYN CLEVER 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #5 CARLSBAD CA 92009 12. 216-290-34-08 JAMES J IR A AGOSTINI 16 CALAIS CIR RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270 15. 216-290-34-11 ALLEN AJ FAMILY 2014 TRUST 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #11 CARLSBAD CA 92009 18. 216-290-34-14 ROSS ROBERT G FAMILY TRUST 80234 ROYAL DORNOCH DR INDIO CA 92201 21. 216-290-35-01 RANDALLJ & CATTBRENDAKHOFFIUS 1133 SCRUB JAY CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 24. 216-290-35-04 GAMUS LIVING TRUST 12-13-01 7526 JEREZ CT #4 , CARLSBAD CA 92009 Allez a avery.ca;t'gabarits i Utilisez le Ga bar" v r l • ·A.VERY. 624-ff · : ~ I 25. 216-290-35-05 DARWIN & PATRICIA SCHUSSLER 7528 JEREZ CT #5 CARLSBAD CA 92009 28. 216-290-35-08 SYDNEY SERWIN 7528 JEREZ CT #8 CARLSBAD CA 92009 31. 216-290-35-11 ANDERSON TRIO FAMILY TRUST 7532 JEREZ CT #11 CARLSBAD CA 92009 I 34. 216-290-35-14 I SUSAN C MCBRIDE 7530 JEREZ CT #14 CARLSBAD CA 92009 37. 216-290-35-17 CHRISTOPHER A JEFFERY 7668 EL CAMINO REAL #104-6 CARLSBAD CA 92009 40. 216-290-35-20 LENNIENGEE 7565 GIBRALTAR ST #20 CARLSBAD CA 92009 1 43. 216-290-35-23 POMMIER MICHELLE Y LIVING TR 7563 GIBRALTARST #23 CARLSBAD CA 92009 46. 216-290-37-02 ROTT HARRY REVOCABLE TRUST 1415 PANTHERLN #318 NAPLES FL 34109 49. 216-290-37-05 MATTHEW POYMA 7520 JEREZ CT #E CARLSBAD CA 92009 52. 216-290-37-08 HUI & ZHANG YAN LI 7514 JEREZ CT #B CARLSBAD CA 92009 I I · ver .com ate ts l Easy Peel' Address Labels : Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge 1 26. 216-290-35-06 JAMES CLEE 7528 JEREZ CT #6 CARLSBAD CA 92009 29. 216-290-35-09 JEREZ COURT ASSOCIATION 906 SYCAMORE A VE #100 VISTA CA 92081 32. 216-290-35-12 REBECCA JAVENS 7532 JEREZ CT #12 CARLSBAD CA 92009 35. 216-290-35-15 ! MILLER LIVING TRUST 09-04-13 1 7530 JEREZ CT #15 CARLSBAD CA 92009 38. 216-290-35-18 ABRASSART-SHIMA TERESA A TR 6919 QUAIL PL #B CARLSBAD CA 92009 41. 216-290-35-21 BRENDAN & LAMSA KATE LOPEZ 44870 CAMINO ALAMOSA TEMECULA CA 92592 44. 216-290-35-24 MANOJ C & JAGRUTI M MANIAR 11625 ALDERIDGE LN SAN DIEGO CA 92131 47. 216-290-37-03 ADAMSEN PAUL B & JACQUELINE H LNlNGTR 7520 JEREZ CT #C CARLSBAD CA 92009 50. 216-290-37-06 SHARON K BENKOVIC 7520 JEREZ CT #F CARLSBAD CA 92009 I 53. 216-290-37-09 ROJELIO & JEANNIE M VILLALOBOS 7514 JEREZ CT #C CARLSBAD CA 92009 Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel® : Re liez a la hathure afin de reveler le rebord Po -u · 1 Go to avery.com/templates : Use Avery Template 57 60 1 27. 216-290-35-07 SOL SIRONA TRUST 05-06-19 11661 BLOCKER DR #100 AUBURN CA 95603 30. 216-290-35-10 EICHMAN THERESA D REVOCABLE TR 1 7532 JEREZ CT #10 CARLSBAD CA 92009 33. 216-290-35-13 DANIEL TYLER & ADRIENNE M BROWN 3993 PRIMA VERA RD SANTA BARBARA CA 93110 36. 216-290-35-16 LINDA S PEREZ i 20351 ACRE ST WINNETKA CA 91306 1 39. 216-290-35-19 FRIEDBERG MICHAEL S REVOCABLE TR 7565 GIBRALTAR ST #19 CARLSBAD CA 92009 42. 216-290-35-22 DINAR MILLER 7563 GIBRALTAR ST #22 CARLSBAD CA 92009 45. 216-290-37-01 1 MARK WASHBURN 7520 JEREZ CT #A CARLSBAD CA 92009 48 .. 216-290-37-04 SHIHYENHSU 2020 HANSCOM DR S PASADENA CA 91030 51. 216-290-37-07 BIRMINGHAM CARDIFF LLC 1346 SUMMIT A VE CARDIFF CA 92007 54: 216-290-37-10 EL MOSTAF A RANI 7514 JEREZ CT #D CARLSBAD CA 92009 Allez a avery.ca/gabarits : Uti ·sez · r 55. 216-290-39-01 SHEA CHRISTOPHER B & STACEY D REV 7180 AVIARADR CARLSBAD CA 92011 58. 216-290-39-04 KNIGHT LAURA D TRUST 09-02-11 7533 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 61. 216-290-39-07 VICKI L MCLUCAS 3 VIAZAMORA SAN CLEMENTE CA 92673 64. 216-290-39-10 WHITSETT CAROLE REVOCABLE LIVING TR 7519 GIBRALTAR ST . CARLSBAD CA 92009 67. 216-290-39-13 NOVAK HOWARD & SUE A FAMILY BYPASS TR 7513 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 70. 216-290-39-16 DAN & ANNE KLENSKE 7507 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 73. 216-290-46-01 JOHN & BESH-STURGEON CINDY STURGEON 4450 SHOSHONI A VE ANCHORAGE AK 99516 76. 216-290-46-04 DNMPARKERL LC 'P OBOX 1432 GLENDORA CA 91740 79. 216-290-46-07 PAUL & KANG SUSAN REUTER 7556 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 82. 216-290-46-10 CHISHCHEVOY FAMILY TRUST 7562 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 I I · aver .com atents I Easy Peel" Address Labels : Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge' l I 56. 216-290-39-02 JEROME A & MARY C SURDY 7537 GIBRALTARST CARLSBAD CA 92009 59. 216-290-39-05 JOSE JP AD ILLA 445 N BEDFORD DR BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 62. 216-290-39-08 1 DEAN-ROSS SCHESSLER 7525 GIBRALTAR ST i CARLSBAD CA92009 65. 216-290-39-11 JOHN A & DEBORAH L HALE 7517 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 68. 216-290-39-14 FITZPATRICK JAMES P REVOCABLE TR 635 HUNTER HILLS DR CLINTON OH 44216 71. 216-290-40-00 GIBRALTAR STREET LL C 4258 CORTE DE SAUSALITO ' SAN DIEGO CA 92130 74. 216-290-46-02 MEGHAN CAREY 7546 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 77. 216-290-46-05 GARY & SALDANHA-MARSTON ELEANORA MARSTON 7552 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 80. 216-290-46-08 XIWEN & NI LIN CHENG 7558 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 83. 216-290-46-11 GRIESER BRIAN & JOAN AB LIVING TR ' 7564 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Reef" : Re !iez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Po -u 1 Go to avery.com,t'templates : Use Avery Template 5160 1 57. 216-290-39-03 BIANCHI JOHN M TRUST 06-15-18 7535 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 60. 216-290-39-06 NT A ASSOCIATES 7529 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 , 63. 216-290-39-09 SIMMONDS LIVING TRUST 07-08-99 170 DEL ORO LAGOON NOVATO CA 94949 66. 216-290-39-12 REEDER SAMMY J TRUST 7515 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 69. 216-290-39-15 SCOTT FAMILY TRUST 04-17-12 7509 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 72. 216-290-45-00 BELLA LA COSTA LLC 6965 EL CAMINO REAL #105-1 CARLSBAD CA 92009 75. 216-290-46-03 BING & TING SUE ZHU 22900 SHERMAN WAY WEST HILLS CA 91307 78. 216-290-46-06 YUJIE & JIA XIANG XIAO 7554 ROMERIA ST 1 CARLSBAD CA 92009 81. 216-290-46-09 i SURAJ M & SUSHILA RA THEE 7560 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 84. 216-290-48-00 COASTAL LIVING LL C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 , LAKE FOREST CA 92630 Allez a avery.ca,x'gabarits : Utilisez le Gabaril Aver 5160 1 85. 216-300-05-00 400 GIBRALTAR LLC 3525 DEL MAR HEIGHTS RD #724 SAN DIEGO CA 92130 88. 216-300-08-00 HI LP-APARTMENTS LLC 10490 CAMINO DEL VENADO VALLEY CENTER CA 92082 91. 216-300-13-00 BNR INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT LLC 23800 VIA DEL RIO YORBA LINDA CA 92887 94. 216-300-25-02 KAREN INLOW 3004 LA COSTA A VE #A CARLSBAD CA 92009 97. 216-300-25-05 CARTER JAMES B & MARLENE MF AMIL Y TR II 958 CAMINO DEL ARROYO DR ' SAN MARCOS CA 92078 100. 216-300-26-02 JD L L AL RENTALS LLC PO BOX2767 DEL MAR CA 92014 103. 216-300-26-05 . BURKLE FAMILY TRUST 27802 HIGH VISTA DR ESCONDIDO CA 92026 I 106. 216-300-26-08 ' JD LL AL RENTALS LLC PO BOX2767 DEL MAR CA 92014 109. 216-300-26-11 JOHN E & STEPHANIE J CORNACCHIONE 7546 GIBRALTAR ST #D CARLSBAD CA 92009 112. 216-300-26-14 ERJK M & RYKER-GIST MEADOW GIST 7546 GIBRALTAR ST #G CARLSBAD CA 92009 Easy 8eel3\A.ddress Labels : Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge· I 86. 216-300-06-00 LA COSTA AL CLL C 7668 EL CAMINO REAL #104-4 CARLSBAD CA 92009 89. 216-300-09-00 HI L P-AP ARTMENTS LLC 10490 CAMINO DEL VENADO VALLEY CENTER CA 92082 92. 216-300-15-00 DERRICO & ASSOCIATES CLERICAL ' SERVICES MONEY PURCHAS 2519 COSTERO MAGESTUOSO SAN CLEMENTE CA 92673 95. 216-300-25-03 SMALL LOUISE REVOCABLE TRUST 6552 E SHEPHERD HLS TUCSON AZ 85710 98. 216-300-25-06 PHILIP THAI 3008 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 101. 216-300-26-03 JDLLALRENTALS LLC P OBOX2767 DEL MAR CA 92014 104. 216-300-26-06 ALTAMIRANO CARMEN L TRUST 7538 GIBRALTAR ST #F CARLSBAD CA 92009 i 107. 216-300-26-09 JUERGEN ZIERLER 7546 GIBRALTAR ST #B 1 CARLSBAD CA 92009 110. 216-300-26-12 IAN JTYREE 7546 GIBRALTAR ST #E CARLSBAD CA 92009 113. 216-300-28-01 VIVIENNE A & VU ANH THIKIM NA GUE 2914 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Reel's\ : R liez a la hachmeafin de revele1Ilereb0rfl P-0 -u s+-1 Go to avery.comttemplates : UseAveryTemplate5J60 1 87. 216-300-07-00 HI L P-AP ARTMENTS LLC 10490 CAMINO DEL VENADO VALLEY CENTER CA 92082 90. 216-300-12s00 BNR INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT LLC 23800 VIA DEL RIO YORBA LINDA CA 92887 93. 216-300-25-01 GUILLERMO F & EDITH M LAZO 3002 LA COSTA AVE #A CARLSBAD CA 92009 , 96. 216-300-25-04 COOPERMAN BRADLEY SEP ARA TE PROPERTY TRUST 06-14-16 P OBOX 5010 RCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 99. 216-300-26-01 RETA M PARKER 503 N TREMONT ST #A OCEANSIDE CA 92054 102. 216-300-26-04 LUCILLE A LINDSEY POBOX2767 DEL MAR CA 92014 105. 216-300-26-07 KARALBREM 7538 GIBRALTAR ST #G CARLSBAD CA 92009 108. 216-300-26-10 PETERS DAVID M & JANET MF AMILY TR PO BOX2326 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 I 111. 216-300-26-13 AARON L & CYNTHIA RUMLEY 7581 DELGADO PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 114. 216-300-28-02 GEORGE P & ASHLEY CONNORS 2916 LACOSTAAVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 Allez a avery.catgabarits : ----------~ ---Utilisezle'Gabari v -1 -- 115. 216-300-28-03 WALOCH ARTHUR A LIVING TRUST 2918 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 118. 216-300-30-00 SUNV ALE INVESTMENT LLC 5927 BALFOUR CT #112 CARLSBAD CA 92008 121. 216-300-31-03 EILEEN V DONOVAN 7555 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 124. 216-300-32-00 LA COSTA BLUFFS LL C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 127. 216-300-35-00 LA COSTA BLUFFS LL C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 130. 223-120-01-00 KEVIN STEPHENS ! 1500W llTHAVE ' #24 ESCONDIDO CA 92029 133. 223-120-04-00 HALABUK DANIEL J & JEANETTE C G FAMILY TRUST 7607 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 136. 223-120-21-00 SHRIGLEY FAMILY TRUST 11-17-14 7604 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 139. 223-120-24-00 KAREN MOSSMAN 3003 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 142. 223-120-27-00 PERRY GARCIA 3009 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 Easy Peel \A,c:lc:lress Labels : Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge· 1 116. 216-300-28-04 STEVEN A THOMPSON 40047 87TH ST W LEONAVALLEY CA 93551 119. 216-300-31-01 ORTMAN SUSAN H TRUST 05-05-98 7551 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 122 .. 216-300-31-04 CHAD J & VANDERWOUDE CARRIE PECK 7557 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 , 125. 216-300-33-00 , LA COSTA BLUFFS LL C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 128. 216-592-01-00 LC INVESTMENT 2010 L L C 4001 MAPLE A VE #600 DALLAS TX 75219 131. 223-120-02-00 KEVIN STEPHENS 1500 W llTHAVE #24 ESCONDIDO CA 92029 134. 223-120-19-00 JOHANSEN TRUST 07-31-06 3000 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 137. 223-120-22-00 MATTHEW & SONIA STAAB 7602 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 140. 223-120-25-00 RYANFAMILYTRUST 10-29-14 3005 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 143. 223-120-30-00 MCCLELLAN FAMILY TRUST 3006 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 Etiquettes c:l'ac:lresse Easy Peel® : Re liez a la ac ure Ii de rev· I r le rebord -· Go to avery.comrtemplates : 117. 216-300-28-05 BRANDON JOE UseAveryTemplate5160 1 2922 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 120. 216-300-31-02 CITRANO THOMAS G & ELIZABETH A REVOCABLE TRUST 7422 CARLINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 123. 216-300-31-05 PHILIP & LORNA COGGON 1521 FRONT NINE DR FORT COLLINS CO 80525 126. 216-300-34-00 LA COSTA BLUFFS LL C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 129. 216-592-04-00 LC INVESTMENT 2010 LL C 4001 MAPLE A VE #600 DALLAS TX 75219 i 132. 223-120-03-00 KEVIN STEPHENS 1500 W llTHAVE #24 ESCONDIDO CA 92029 135. 223-120-20-00 CHRIS VIERHEILIG 7606 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 138. 223-120-23-00 MARSHALL & ELIZABETH K SPEVAK 3001 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 141. 223-120-26-00 HODIL CHARLES REVOCABLE TRUST 07-18-18 3007 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 144. 223-120-31-00 DUST AZTEC LIVING TRUST 03-15-19 3004 AZAHAR ST 1 CARLSBAD CA 92009 Allez a avery.ca1/gabarits : +c'. • r---7 I • AVERY 6240 : 145. 223-120-32-00 NICHOLL FAMILY TRUST 03 -10-11 3002 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 148. 223-294-02-00 LINKE STEVEN P & KAREN L REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 7513 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 151. 223-294-21-00 WAGNER RONALD & PAMELA LIFE TR 7504 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 154. 223-295-02-00 WEISS BEVERLY J TRUST 04-29-00 7523 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 157. 223-295-05-00 PATRICKDASSI 7520 SOLANO ST , CARLSBAD CA 92009 160. 223-295-08-00 JOSHUA S & JAIME A GOLDMAN 7523 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 , 163. 223-295-11-00 CLARK & ERIN NEWTON 7517 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 166. 223-295-14-00 MARINO AM 2008 TRUST 05-14-08 7511 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 169. 223-295-17-00 Al~THONY P & MENZEL JESSIE EV ASil.,AS 7505 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 172. 223-295-20-00 SNYDER BEVERLY TRUST 03-08-14 7445 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 I I · aver .com atents 1 149. 223-294-03-00 WILLOUGHBY-GUY FAMILY TRUST 1 7511 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 152. 223-294-22-00 RACKLEY RONALD D & REGINA A REVOCABLE TR 7506 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 155. 223-295-03-00 DALBY FAMILY TRUST 05-22-18 7521 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 158. 223-295-06-00 ASHE-MOENCH REVOCABLE TRUST 7522 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 161. 223-295-09-00 GOLDOJARB/BROWN-GOLDOJARB FAMILY TR 5178 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 164. 223-295-12-00 LOWENSTEIN FAMILY TRUST 7515 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 167. 223-295-15-00 CHRISTOPHER E & MATTHEWS RAEGAN EROESJNK 7509 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 170. 223-295-18-00 MARGARETT DUPREE 7503 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 173. 223-295-21-00 KENNETH W & GABRIELLE K AHRWEILER 7443 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peer·· : Re liez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Po -u · 1 Go to avery.com /templates : Use Avery Template 5160 1 147. 223-294-01-00 COFFEY HOW ARD T FAMILY TRUST 7515 QUINTA ST 1 CARLSBAD CA 92009 I 150. 223-294-04-00 HUBBERT STEPHENSON TRUST 7509 QUINT A ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 153. 223-295-01-00 JOSEPHP &MARTHA CORDOVA 115 PRINCEHOUSE LN ENCINITAS CA 92024 156. 223-295-04-00 STACIE LEE 3005 CANTERO WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 159. 223-295-07-00 MANUEL & NICOLE J MARTINEZ 7524 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 162. 223-295-10-00 RICHARD E & CHRISTINE C SALAZAR 7519 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 165. 223-295-13-00 KEITH FAMILY TRUST 11 PACIFICO LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677 168. 223-295-16-00 NAIDITCH CANDICE FAMILY TRUST 7507 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 171. 223-295-19-00 WILSON SUZMTNE L TRUST 10-18-05 7501 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 174. 223-617-22-00 CENTER FOR NATURAL LANDS MANAGEMENT INC 27258 VIA INDUSTRIA #B TEMECULA CA 92590 Allez a avery.ca/gabarits : U!1lisez le Gabarit Aver 5160 1 NOTICE OF CANCELLED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council will NOT reconsider an appeal of the Romeria Pointe Apartments project on Tuesday, May 19, 2020. You are receiving this notice because you may have received a previous notice announcing a public hearing on the item. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad will still hold a meeting on May 19, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. However, the Romeria Point Apartments project will not be heard at that meeting. The project will, however, be scheduled for a future Planning Commission hearing. Once a date has been determined, the public hearing on this project will be noticed pursuant to applicable Carlsbad Municipal Code and California State Government Code requirements. Required public notices will also be posted to the city's website at www.carlsbadca.gov. The Romeria Pointe Apartments project is a proposal to construct a four-story, 23-unit residential apartment project which includes three inclusionary housing units, on property generally located at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. If you have any questions, please contact Chris Garcia in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4622 or chris.garcia@carlsbadca.gov. CASE FILE: SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) CASE NAME: ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS DATE MAILED: MAY 14, 2020 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL #10057 23-Mar-20 !600' OWNERSHIP LISTING PREPARED FOR: 216-300-12-00, 216-300-13-00 'BNR INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT LL C I GIBRALTAR & ROMERIA STREET i CARLSBAD CA 92009 I. 216-290-26-01 :DINNEEN J & MARYE ROBERT 9105 W 131STTER OVERLAND PARK KS 66213 4. 216-290-26-04 ORCUTTMARY ATRUST09-17-08 7661 NORHILL RD COLUMBUS OH 43235 10. 216-290-34-06 WILLIAMS FAMILY TRUST 1183 CALLE CHRISTOPHER ENCINITAS CA 92024 '13. 216-290-34-09 'SKA VJNSKI KIPRIAN M & BARBARAH ,REVOCABLE TRUST 17559 GIBRALTARST !#9 'CARLSBAD CA 92009 j I ' 16. 216-290-34-12 APE INVESTMENTS LLC i 753 JACQUELENE CT : ENCINITAS CA 92024 l 19. 216-290-34-15 ! FISHMAN NAOMI A REVOCABLE TR : 2929 WP ARK.RIDGE DR .PEORIA IL 61604 22. 216-290-35-02 1HATLE DEBRA FAMILY TRUST . 1419 DOMINIS ST #502 HONOLULU HI 96822 = ""' -" "" = ,.};;;:,0,="%"' """'",c;,.'Y ; ~ it: ' J • • I ~aJ: aveiy,co,m¼R~enls. . ·,.7 , ._ • •• ! SUSAN ORTMAN 7551 ROMERIA STREET CARLSBAD CA 92009 2., 216-290-26-02 SURPRISE PROPERTIES LLC 3177 WlLDFLOWERSMT ENCINITAS CA 92024 5. 216-290-34-01 WYNNE E WEISS 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #1 CARLSBAD CA 92009 8. 216-290-34-04 SEAN M & MARGUERITE N TALBOTT 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #4 CARLSBAD CA 92009 11. 216-290-34-07 KELLEY K CHRISMAN 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #7 CARLSBAD CA 92009 14. 216-290-34-10 AMERICAN ESTATE & TRUST 7152 ALMADEN LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 17. 216-290-34-13 JOHN C & KAREN SALGADO 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #13 CARLSBAD CA 92009 20. 216-290-34-16 YANG JEFF & PEARL TRUST 07-15-11 11888 MENDIOLA PT SANDlEGO CA 92129 23. 216-290-35-03 CHRISTINA L CAHALL 7526 JEREZ CT #3 CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHN ALLEN 2266 GRAND A VE STE26 SAN.DIEGO CA 92109 3. 216-290-26-03 MARI( & KARLA SKOOG 276 CHANTILLY CIR SIMI VALLEY CA 93065 6. 216-290-34-02 ROBERT R & TERESA A QUIROZ 7559 GIBRALTARST #2 CARLSBAD CA 92009 9. 216-290-34-05 HARRY J & ROBYN CLEVER 7559 GIBRALTARST #5 CARLSBAD CA 92009 12. 216-290-34-08 JAMES JIRA AGOSTINI 16 CALAIS CIR RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270 15. 216-290-34-11 ALLEN AJ FAMILY 2014 TRUST 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #11 CARLSBAD CA 92009 18. 216-290-34-14 ROSS ROBERT G FAMILY TRUST 80234 ROY AL DORN OCH DR INDIO CA 92201 21. 216-290-35-01 RANpALL J & CATT BRENDA K HOFFIUS 1133 SCRUB JAY CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 24. 216-290-35-04 GAMUS LIVING TRUST 12-13-01 7526 JEREZ CT #4 CARLSBAD CA 92009 0-"" ~ "',, ,/,,,,~ * """ 6,i'".;,;;'.;~;,&01~~_%~~YY:\f!i ,· IXllez a aver:Y.ea¼°gal:Ja'tits"..J·;f 12 , , • • • • tJtiii~ez I~ ~-a~arl! {lveri~] qOV 1,,;; 25. 216-290-35-05 DARWIN & PATRlCIA SCHUSSLER 7528 JEREZ CT #5 CARLSBAD CA 92009 · 28. 216-290-35-08 SYDNEY SERWIN 7528 JEREZ CT #8 CARLSBAD CA 92009 31.. 216-290-35-11 ANDERSON TRIO FAMILY TRUST : 7532 JEREZ CT :#11 : CARLSBAD CA 92009 ' 34. 216-290-35-14 SUSAN C MCBRIDE . 7530 JEREZ CT #14 I CARLSBAD CA 92009 I ! 37. 216-290-35-17 : CHRISTOPHER A JEFFERY 7668 EL CAMINO REAL #104-6 CARLSBAD CA 92009 40. 216-290-35-20 LENNIENGEE 7565 GIBRALTAR ST #20 CARLSBAD CA 92009 43. 216-290-35-23 POMMIER MICHELLE Y LIVING TR 7563 GIBRALTAR ST #23 . CARLSBAD CA 92009 46. 216-290-37-02 ROTT HARRY REVOCABLE TRUST 1415 PANTHERLN #318 NAPLES FL 34109 49. 216-290-37-05 MATTHEW POYMA 7520 JEREZ CT #E CARLSBAD CA 92009 52. 216-290-37-08 HUI & ZHANG YAN LI 7514 JEREZCT #B CARLSBAD CA 92009 26. 216-290-35-06 JAMESCLEE 7528 JEREZ CT #6 CARLSBAD CA 92009 29. 216-290-35-09 JEREZ COURT ASSOCIATION 906 SYCAMORE AVE #100 VISTA CA 92081 32. 216-290-35-12 REBECCA JAVENS 7532 JEREZ CT #12 CARLSBAD CA 92009 35. 216-290-35-15 MILLER LIVING TRUST 09-04-13 7530 JEREZ CT #15 CARLSBAD CA 92009 38. 216-290-35-18 ABRASSART-SHIMA TERESA A TR 6919 QUAILPL #B CARLSBAD CA 92009 41. 216-290-35-21 BRENDAN & LAMSA KATE LOPEZ 44870 CAMINO ALAMOSA TEMECULA CA 92592 44. 216-290-35-24 MANOI C & JAGRUTI MMANIAR 11625 ALDERIDGE LN SAN DIEGO CA 92131 47. 216-290-37-03 ADAMSEN PAUL B & JACQUELINE H LNINGTR 7520 JEREZ CT #C CARLSBAD CA 92009 50. 216-290-37-06 . SHARON K BENKOVIC 7520 JEREZ CT #F CARLSBAD CA 92009 53. 216-290-37-09 ROJELIO & JEANNIE M VILLALOBOS 7514 JEREZ CT #C CARLSBAD CA 92009 s"" <S ,;"°~ :;;; ~~t%'fil\'?""":::'~'lf¼~YGt~fri"';f'iff;£~"::4'~ ~if=~if11: Etig u ettet cf aaresJe Easy R~el ·-'"'~ ~Jie13l~i),J3:1 b~~lj,~ afii;i lfe rJieL~l~ ~e):lord PoB:~.Jl~J 27. 216-290-35-07 SOL SIRONA TRUST 05-06-19 11661 BLOCKER DR #100 AUBURN CA 95603 30. 216-290-35-10 EICHMAN THERESA D REVOCABLE TR 7532 JEREZ CT #10 CARLSBAD CA 92009 33. 216-290-35-13 DANIEL TYLER & ADRIENNE M BROWN 3993 PRIMA VERA RD SANTA BARBARA CA 93110 36. 216-290-35-16 LINDA S PEREZ 20351 ACRE ST WINNETKA CA 91306 39. 216-290-35-19 FRlEDBERGMICHAELSREVOCABLETR 7565 GIBRALTAR ST #19 CARLSBAD CA 92009 42. 216-290-35-22 DINA R MILLER 7563 GIBRALTAR ST #22 CARLSBAD CA 92009 45. 216-290-37-01 MARK WASHBURN 7520 JEREZ CT #A CARLSBAD CA 92009 48. 216-290-37-04 SHIHYENHSU 2020 HANSCOM DR S PASADENA CA 91030 51. 216-290-37-07 BIRMINGHAMCARDIFFLLC 1346 SUMMIT A VE CARDIFF CA 92007 54. 216-290-37-10 EL MOSTAF A RANI 7514 JEREZ CT #D CARLSBAD CA 92009 ZvK,o 0z1=" =~4::::0e ~,,, "'7¼~~~J~<"7~1W~~'"~~~'7~ti~1, ~~ERM, · @l~(!r-· 0 ·-u ;~;_"" :;!!Y3J?f=-z~:xii "2"""'-Jftflh M\1Ef.ti 2:""s;ls"":;;~Y~,;&;3r~~&:%00j¥mit".¼!l 55. 216-290-39-01 SHEA CHRISTOPHER B & STACEY D REV • 7180 A VIARA DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 I 58. 216-290-39-04 i KNIGHT LAURA D TRUST 09-02-11 I 7533 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 61. 216-290-39-07 VICKI L MCLUCAS 3 VIAZAMORA SAN CLEMENTE CA 92673 I 64. 216-290-39-10 · WHITSETT CAROLE REVOCABLE LIVING iTR : 7519 GIBRALTAR ST • CARLSBAD CA 92009 67. 216-290-39-13 1 NOV AK HOWARD & SUE A FAMILY · BYPASS TR . 7513 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 70. 216-290-39-16 DAN & ANNE KLENSKE 7507 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 73. 216-290-46-01 JOHN & BESH-STURGEON CINDY STURGEON 4450 SHOSHONI A VE ANCHORAGE AK 99516 76. 216-290-46-04 DNMPARKERLLC PO BOX 1432 GLENDORACA91740 79. 216-~90-46-b7 PAUL & KANG SUSAN REUTER 7556 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 82. 216-290-46-10 CHISHCHEVOY FAMILY TRUST 7562 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 56. 216-290-39-02 JEROME A & MARY C SURDY 7537 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 59. 216-290-39-05 JOSE J PAD ILLA 445 N BEDFORD DR BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210- 62. 216-290-39-08 DEAN-ROSS SCHESSLER 7525 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 65. 216-290-39-11 JOHN A & DEBORAH L HALE 7517 GIBRALTARST CARLSBAD CA 92009 68. 216-290-39-14 FITZPATRICK JAMES P REVOCABLE TR 635 HUNTER HILLS DR CLINTON OH44216 71. 216-290-40-00 GIBRALTAR STREET LL C 4258 CORTE DE SAUSALITO SAN DIEGO CA 92130 74. 216-290-46-02 MEGHAN CAREY 7546 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 77. 216-290~46-05 GARY & SALDANHA-MARSTON ELEANORA MARSTON 7552 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 80. 216-290-46-08 XlWEN & NI LIN CHENG 7558 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 83. 216-290-46-11 GRIESER BRIAN & JOAN AB LIVING TR 7564 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 ~~~~%~!~~{::;q~±*-"'iFK 0~~~,'¾'.~~ ~<=£; ~Y' f~ it;; .:~-t E:U!!!uetr,es]l~~clr~ss'e Basy Reel® "f i&ial~~~~~tj(dgjJiJY~!er~r~~~~JJl:'1J?d1 57. 216-290-39-03 BIANCHI JOHN M TRUST 06-15-18 7535 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 60. 216-290-39-06 NT A ASSOCIATES 7529 GIBRALTARST CARLSBAD CA 92009 63. 216-290-39-09 SIMMONDS LIVING TRUST 07-08-99 170 DEL ORO LAGOON NOVATO CA 94949 66. 216-290-39-12 REEDERSAMMYJTRUST 7515 GIBRALTARST CARLSBAD CA' 92009 69. 216-29u:39:.1s SCOTT FAMILY TRUST 04-17-12 7509 GIBRALTARST CARLSBAD CA 92009 72. 216-290-45-00 BELLA LA COSTA LLC 6965 EL CAMINO REAL #105~1 CARLSBAD CA 92009 75. 216-290-46-03 BING & TING SUE ZHU 22900 SHERMAN WAY WEST HILLS CA 91307 78. 216-290-46:.()6- YUJIE & JIAXIANG XIAO 7554 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 81. 216-290-46-09 SURAJ M & SUSHILA RATHEE 7560 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 84. 216-290-48-00 COASTAL LIVING LL C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 85. 216-300-05-00 400 GIBRALTARLLC 3525 DEL MAR HEIGHTS RD #724 SAN DIEGO CA 92130 88. 216-300-08-00 H IL P-APARTMENTS LLC 10490 CAMINO DEL VENADO VALLEY CENTER CA 92082 91. 216-300-13-00 BNR INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT LLC 23800 VIA DEL RIO YORBA LINDA CA 92887 , 94. 216-300-25-02 ; KAREN INLOW . 3004 LA COSTA A VE #A : CARLSBAD CA 92009 97. 216-300-25-05 CARTER JAMES B & MARLENE M FAMILY TR 958 CAMINO DEL ARROYO DR SAN MARCOS CA 92078 • IOO. 216-300-26-02 I JDLLALRENTALSLLC · POBOX2767 DEL MAR CA 92014 103. 216-300-26-05 BURKLE FAMILY TRUST 27802 HIGHVISTADR ESCONDIDO CA 92026 106. 216-300-26-08 . JD LL AL RENTALS LLC POBOX2767 DEL MAR CA 92014 109. 216-300-26-11 JOHN E & STEPHANIE J CORNACCIDONE 7546 GIBRALTAR ST #D CARLSBAD CA 92009 · 112. 216-300-26-14 ; ERlK M & RYKER-GIST MEADOW GIST 7546 GIBRALTAR ST #G CARLSBAD CA 92009 J. ¼ Easilreel~~JcJ[Ei~!!afrffl"s· "~:-·x1'~1 !!' Bepj:HaJC),O!:)lirl,:fo§ISOQSefoa-uaJ,ilge' -• '11 ful::x::f""= ~ i/i!?Sibiffi=,x; ":-&0;;:Ai4!0i,%0~!.S:1p~~4:'~~ji#jjp" iti~ 86. 216-300-06-00 LA COSTA AL CL LC 7668 EL CAMINO REAL #104-4 CARLSBAD CA 92009 1 89. 216-300-09-00 HI LP-APARTMENTS LLC 10490 CAMINO DEL VENADO VALLEY CENTER CA 92082 92. 216-300-15-00 DERRICO & ASSOCIATES CLERICAL SERVICES MONEY PURCHAS 2519 COSTERO MAGESTUOSO SAN CLEMENTE CA 92673 95. 216-300-25-03 SMALL LOillSE REVOCABLE TRUST 6552 E SHEPHERD HLS TUCSON AZ 85710 98. 216-300-25-06 PHILIP THAI 3008 LACOSTAAVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 101. 216-300-26-03 JD LL AL RENTALS LLC POBOX2767 DEL MAR CA 92014 104. 216-300-26-06 ALTAMIRANO CARMEN L TRUST 7538 GIBRALTARST #F CARLSBAD CA 92009 107. 216-300-26-09 JUERGEN ZIERLER 7546 GIBRALTAR ST #B CARLSBAD CA 92009 ll0. 216-300-26-12 IANJTYREE 7546 GIBRALTAR ST #E CARLSBAD CA 92009 113. 216-300-28-01-· VIVIENNE A & VU ANH TIDKJM NAGUE 2914 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 87. 216-300-07-00 HI LP-APARTMENTS LLC 10490 CAMINO DEL VENADO VALLEY CENTER CA 92082 90. 216-300-12-00 BNR INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT LLC 23800 VIA DEL RIO YORBA LINDA CA 92887 93. 216-300-25-01 GUILLERMO F & EDITH M LAZO 3002 LA COSTA A VE #A CARLSBAD CA 92009 96. 216-300--25-04 COOPERMAN BRADLEY SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST06-14-16 POBOX5010 RCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 99. 216-300-26-01 RETA MP ARl<ER 503 N TREMONT ST #A OCEANSIDE CA 92054 102. 216-300:26~04 LUCILLE A LINDSEY POBOX2767 DELMARCA92014 105. 216~J00-26-07 KARALBREM 7538 GIBRALTAR ST #G CARLSBAD CA 92009 108. 216-300-26-10 PETERS DAVID M & JANET MF AMIL Y TR POBOX2326 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 11 I. 216-300-26-13 AARON L & CYNTHIA RUMLEY 7581 DELGADO PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 114. 216-300-28-02 GEORGE P & ASHLEY CONNORS 2916 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 i' 15. 216-300-28-03 WALOCH ARTHUR A LIVING TRUST 2918 LACOSTAAVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 : 118. 216-300-30-00 ' SUNV ALE INVESTMENT LLC i 5927 BALFOUR CT i #112 ' CARLSBAD CA 92008 121. 216-300-31-03 EILEEN V DONOVAN 7555 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 124. 216-300-32-00 LA COSTA BLUFFS LL C , 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 127. 216-300-35-00 LA COSTA BLUFFS LL C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR : #150 I LAKE FOREST CA 92630 , 130. 223-120-01-00 I KEVIN STEPHENS : 1500 W 11TH AVE #24 I ESCONDIDO CA 92029 133. 223-120-04-00 HALABUK DANIEL J & JEANETTE CG FAMILY TRUST ' 7607 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 136. 223-120-21-00 SHRIGLEY FAMILY TRUST 11-17-14 7604 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 , 139. 223-120-24-00 'I KAREN MOSSMAN 3003 LA COSTA A VE i CARLSBAD CA 92009 I 1 142. 223-120-27-00 • PERRY GARCIA 1 3009 LA COSTA A VE . CARLSBAD CA 92009 116. 216-300-28-04 STEVEN A THOMPSON 40047 87TH ST W LEONA VALLEYCA93551 119. 216-300-31-01 ORTMAN SUSAN H TRUST 05-05-98 7551 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 122. 216-300-31-04 CHAD J & VANDERWOUDE CARRIE PECK 7557 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 125. 216-300-33-00 LA COSTA BLUFFS LL C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 128. 216-592-01-00 LC INVESTMENT 2010 LL C 4001 MAPLE A VE #600 DALLAS TX 75219 · 13 I. 223-120-02-00 KEVIN STEPHENS 1500W llTHAVE #24 ESCONDIDO CA 92029 134. 223-120-19-00 JOHANSEN TRUST 07-31-06 3000 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 137. 223-120-22-00 MATTHEW & SONIA STAAB 7602 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 140. 223-120-25-00 RYAN FAMILY TRUST 10-29-14 3005 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 143. 223-120-30-00 MCCLELLAN FAMILY TRUST 3006 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 117. 216-300-28-05 BRANDON JOE 2922 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 120. 216-300-31-02 CITRANO THOMAS G & ELIZABETH A REVOCABLE TRUST 7422 CARLINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 123. 216-300-31-05 PHILIP & LORNA COGGON 1521 FRONT NINE DR FORT COLLINS CO 80525 126. 216-300-34-00 LA COSTA BLUFFS LL C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 129. 216-592-04-00 LC INVESTMENT 2010 LL C 4001 MAPLE A VE #600 DALLAS TX 75219 132. 223-120-03-00 KEVIN STEPHENS 1500 W llTHAVE #24 ESCONDIDO CA 92029 135. 223-120-20-00 CHRIS VIERHEILIG 7606 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 138. 223-120-23-00 MARSHALL & ELIZABETH K SPEVAK 3001 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 141. 223-120-26-00 HODIL CHARLES REVOCABLE TRUST 07-18-18 3007 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 144. 223-120-31-00 DUST AZTEC LIVING TRUST 03-15-19 3004 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 145. 223-120-32-00 NICHOLL FAMILY TRUST 03-10-11 3002 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 ! 148. 223-294-02-00 LINKE STEVEN P & KAREN L REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 7513 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 , 151. 223-294-21-00 i WAGNER RONALD & PAMELA LIFE TR ' 7504 SOLANO ST : CARLSBAD CA 92009 154. 223-295-02~00 WEISS BEVERLY J TRUST 04-29-00 7523 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 157. 223-295-05-00 PATRICKDASSI 7520 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 ; 160. 223-295-08-00 . JOSHUA S & JAIME A GOLDMAN 7523 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 163. 223-295-11-00 CLARI( & ERIN NEWTON 7517 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 r 166. 223-295-14-00 1 MARINO AM 2008 TRUST 05-14-08 7511 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 169. 223-295-17-00 ANTHONY P & :MENZEL JESSIE EV ASILAS 7505 SOLANO ST. CARLSBAD CA 92009 172. · 223-295-20-00 SNYDER BEYERL Y TRUST 03-08-14 7445 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 146. 223-120-33-00 CITY OF CARLSBAD __,_---~-- 149. 223-294-03-00 WILLOUGHBY-GUY FAMILY TRUST 7511 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 152. 223-294-22-00 RACKLEY RONALD D & REGINA A REVOCABLE TR 7506 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 155. 223-295-03-00 DALBY FAMILY TRUST 05-22-18 7521 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 1~8. 223-295-06-00 ASHE-MOENCH REVOCABLE TRUST 7522 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 161. 223-295-09-00 GOLDOJARB/BROWN-GOLDOJARB FAMILY TR 5178 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 164. 223-295-12-00 LOWENSTEIN FAMILY TRUST 7515 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 167. 223-295-15-00 CHRISTOPHER E & MATTHEWS RAEGAN EROESINK 7509 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 170. 22~-295-18-00 MARGARETT DUPREE 7503 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 173. 223-295-21-00 KENNETH W & GABRIELLE K AHRWEILER 7443 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 fiiti i0 i:,JffF~~~":,:;t m"!""' :;,;"' "'"'~~-v~<Jt:0~<;;rt,'.;:'.~~~"§ i' Etl~ue'ttes q'aclress~ Easy Reel<,) ~, lik-Regliez1a la Jjacnure aUnlle reveler:Je rellord Ro:r;i-ui-J• l %'.P W~08L$S~"''':,r<(¾/?t,.,,,jf"\jj\~ ,sJ¾-½¥?;;;2,""J<,L ,/G.'7,J 3.:2,,,.Mb-~'"' 147. 223-294-01-00 COFFEY HOW ARD T FAMILY TRUST 7515 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 150. 223-294-04-00 HUBBERT STEPHENSON TRUST 7509 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 153. 223-295-01-00 JOSEPH P & MARTHA CORDOVA 115 PRINCEHOUSE LN ENCINITAS CA 92024 156. 223-295-04-00 STACIE LEE 3005 CANTERO WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 159. 223-295-07-00 MANUEL & NICOLE J MARTINEZ 7524 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 162. 223-295-10-00 RICHARD E & CHRISTINE C SALAZAR 7519 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 165. 223-295-13-00 KEITH FAMILY TRUST 11 PACIFICO LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677 168. 223-295-16-00 NAIDITCH CANDICE FAMILY TRUST 7507 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 171. 223-295-19-00 WILSON SUZANNE L TRUST 10-18-05 7501 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 174. 223-617-22-00 CENTER FOR NATURAL LANDS MANAGE:MENT INC 27258 VIA INDUSTRIA #B TEMECULA CA 92590 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chamber, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2020, to reconsider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Site Development Plan to allow the construction of a four-story, 23-unit resident_ial apartment project which includes three inclusionary housing units, on property generally located at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street, and more particularly described as: Lots 393 and 394 of La Costa South Unit No. 5, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 6600, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 10, 1970 · · Whereas, on July 15, 2020 the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted 7-0 to Approve of a Site Development Plan to construct a four-story, 23-~nit residential apartment project which includes three inclusionary housing units, on property generally located at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. The City Planner has determined that this project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 "In-Fill Development Projects" of the State CEQA Guidelines and wil_l not have any adverse significant impact on the environment. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after October 2, 2020. If you have any questions, please contact ~hris Garcia in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4622 or chris.garcia@carlsbadca.gov. Individuals wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to participate in this public hearing. Per State of California Executive Order N-29-20, and in the interest of public health and safety, we are temporarily taking actions to prevent and mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic by holding City Council and other public meetings electronically or by teleconferencing. The meeting can be viewed online at www.carlsbadca.gov or on the city's cable channel. The "carlsbad City Council welcomes your participation. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, the city has provided two easy ways for commanity members to provide comments during a City Council meeting: Verbally: Sign up to provide verbal comments by phone by filling out an on line registration_ form by 2 p.m. the day of the meeting. You will receive a confirmation message with instruction about how to call into the meeting. In writing: E-mail your comments to clerk@carlsbadca.gov. Emails received by 2 p.m. will be provided to the City Council prior to t he start of the meeting. Other comments will be included with the meeting record. Emailed comments will not be r~ad out loud during the meeting. Please indicate the agenda item number in your email subject line. If you cha llenge the Site Development Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing' des~ribed in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CASE NAME: SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS PUBLISH: September 25, 20~0 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SITE MAP • N NOT TO SCALE Romeria Pointe Apartments SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) June 24, 2020 600' OWNERSHCP LISTING PREPARED FOR: BNR INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT LL C GIBRALTAR & ROMERIA STREET CARLSBAD CA 92009 DINNEEN J & MARYE ROBERT 9105 W 131ST TER OVERLAND PARK KS 66213 ORCUTT MARY ATRUST 09-17-08 7661 NORHILL RD COLUMBUS OH 43235 SAISHO FAMILY TRUST 08-19-99 216 FIELDSTONE CT ROSEVILLE CA 95747 WILLIAMS FAMILY TRUST 1183 CALLE CHRISTOPHER ENCINITAS CA 92024 SKA VINSKI KIPRIAN M & BARBARA H REVOCABLE TRUST 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #9 CARLSBAD CA 92009 AP E INVESTMENTS LLC 753 JACQUELENE CT ENCINITAS CA 92024 FISHMAN NAOMI A REVOCABLE TRUST 2929 W PARKRIDGE DR PEORIA IL 61604 HATLE DEBRA FAMILY TRUST 1419 DOMINIS ST #502 HONOLULU HI 96822 SURPRISE PROPERTIES LLC 3177 WILDFLOWER SMT ENCINITAS CA 92024 WYNNEE WEISS 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #1 CARLSBAD CA 92009 SEAN M & MARGUERITE N TALBOTT 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #4 CARLSBAD CA 92009 KELLEY K CHRISMAN 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #7 CARLSBAD CA 92009 AMERICAN ESTATE & TRUST 7152 ALMADEN LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHN C & KAREN SALGADO 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #13 CARLSBAD CA 92009 YANG JEFF & PEARL TRUST 07-15-11 11888 MENDIOLA PT SAN DIEGO CA 92129 CHRISTINA L CAHALL 7526 JEREZ CT #3 CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHN ALLEN 2266 GRAND A VE STE26 SAN DIEGO CA 92109 MARK & KARLA SKOOG 276 CHANTILLY CIR SIMI VALLEY CA 93065 ROBERT R & TERESA A QUIROZ 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #2 CARLSBAD CA 92009 HARRY J & ROBYN CLEVER 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #5 CARLSBAD CA 92009 JAMES JIRA AGOSTINI 16 CALAIS CIR RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270 . ALLEN AJ FAMILY 2014 TRUST 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #11 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROSS ROBERT G FAMILY TRUST 80234 ROYAL DORNOCH DR INDIO CA 92201 RANDALL J & CATT BRENDA K HOFFIUS 1133 SCRUB JAY CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 GAMUS LIVING TRUST 12-13-01 7526 JEREZ CT #4 CARLSBAD CA 92009 DARWIN &PATRICIA SCHUSSLER 7528 JEREZ CT #5 CARLSBAD CA 92009 SYDNEY SERWIN 7528 JEREZ CT #8 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ANDERSON THIO FAMILY TRUST O 1- 03-13 7532 JEREZ CT #11 CARLSBAD CA 92009 SUSAN C MCBRIDE 7530 JEREZ CT #14 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHRISTOPHER A JEFFERY 7668 EL CAMINO REAL · #104-6 I j CARLSBAD CA 92009 LENNIENGEE 7565 GIBRALTAR ST I #20 I CARLSBAD CA 92009 POMMIER MICHELLE Y LIVING TR 7563 GIBRALTAR ST #23 I CARLSBAD CA 92009 I ROTT HARRY REVOCABLE TRUST 1415 PANTHERLN #318 NAPLES FL 34109 MATTHEW POYMA 7520 JEREZ CT #E CARLSBAD CA 92009 HUI & ZHANG YAN LI 7514 JEREZ CT #B CARLSBAD CA 92009 JAMES CLEE 7528 JEREZ CT #6 CARLSBAD CA 92009 JEREZ COURT ASSOCIATION 906 SYCAMORE A VE #100 VISTA CA 92081 REBECCA JAVENS 7532 JEREZ CT #12 CARLSBAD CA 92009 MILLER LIVING TRUST 09-04-13 7530 JEREZ CT #15 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ABRASSART-SHIMA TERESA A TR 6919 QUAIL PL #B CARLSBAD CA 92009 BRENDAN & LAMSA KATE LOPEZ 44870 CAMINO ALAMOSA TEMECULA CA 92592 MANOJ C & JAGRUTI M MANIAR 11625 ALDERIDGE LN SAN DIEGO CA 92131 ADAMSEN PAUL B & JACQUELINE H LIVING TR 7520 JEREZ CT #C CARLSBAD CA 92009 SHARON K BENKOVIC 7520 JEREZ CT #F CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROJELIO & JEANNIE M VILLALOBOS 7514 JEREZ CT #C CARLSBAD CA 92009 SOL SIRONA TRUST 05-06-19 11661 BLOCKER DR #100 AUBURN CA 95603 EICHMAN THERESA D REVOCABLE TRUST 7532 JEREZ CT #10 CARLSBAD CA 92009 DANIEL TYLER & ADRIENNE M BROWN 3993 PRIMA VERA RD SANTA BARBARA CA 93110 LINDA S PEREZ 20351 ACRE ST WINNETKA CA 91306 FRIEDBERG MICHAEL S REVOCABLE TRUST 7565 GIBRALTAR ST #19 CARLSBAD CA 92009 DINAR MILLER 7563 GIBRALTAR ST #22 CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARK WASHBURN 7520 JEREZ CT #A CARLSBAD CA 92009 SHIHYENHSU 2020 HANSCOM DR S PASADENA CA 91030 BIRMINGHAM CARDIFF LLC 1346 SUMMIT A VE CARDIFF CA 92007 EL MOSTAF A RANI 7514 JEREZ CT #D CARLSBAD CA 92009 SHEA CHRISTOPHER B & STACEY D REVOCABLE TRUST 7180 AVIARADR CARLSBAD CA 92011 KNIGHT LAURA D TRUST 09-02-11 7533 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 VICKI L MCLUCAS 3 VIAZAMORA SAN CLEMENTE CA 92673 WHITSETT CAROLE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 7519 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 NOV AK HOW ARD & SUE AF AMIL Y BYPASS TRUST 02-19-03 7513 GIBRALTARST CARLSBAD CA 92009 DAN & ANNE KLENSKE 7507 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHN & BESH-STURGEON CINDY STURGEON 4450 SHOSHONI A VE ANCHORAGE AK 99516 D NM PARKER LL C PO BOX 1432 GLENDORA CA 91740 PAUL & KANG SUSAN REUTER 7556 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHISHCHEVOY FAMILY TRUST 7562 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 F5//!J70Zff,j»x "' $ "= @ "Jf&pJ?)J !Jg Tu 0 M-;;% ~ """:Jl0¼~ '4:?100 := 07 0 /gas~ Reel ~e(f!iiIE~"sf~aiels~ £ ":&_~, \t"0 7 8e111til alg:rng:ll[rre\fo el(JJ[©seBcl;J+>-Ul(ffEilZl£1el!l 0 rs ::&; ,XL;;£ 'fu ="' >;, itJt;fu;;;Jg;:viJ 00$ --J~:' yJ:0&"""' :-~-1%¥0"'\Sk:~-.>4&1 JEROME A & MARY C SURDY 7537 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOSE J PADILLA 445 N BEDFORD DR BEYERL Y HILLS CA 90210 DEAN-ROSS SCHESSLER 7525 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHN A & DEBORAH L HALE 7517 GIBRALTARST CARLSBAD CA 92009 FITZPATRICK JAMES P REVOCABLE TRUST 635 HUNTER HILLS DR CLINTON OH44216 GIBRALTAR STREET LL C 4258 CORTE DE SAUSALITO SAN DIEGO CA 92130 MEGHAN CAREY 7546 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 GARY & SALDANHA-MARSTON ELEANORA MARSTON 7552 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 XIWEN & NI LIN CHENG 7558 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 GRIESER BRIAN & JOAN AB LIVING TRUST 08-14-06 7564 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 BIANCHI JOHN M TRUST 06-15-18 7535 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 NT A ASSOCIATES 7529 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 SIMMONDS LNING TRUST 07-08-99 170 DEL ORO LAGOON NOVATO CA 94949 REEDERSAMMYJTRUST 7515 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 SCOTT FAMILY TRUST 04-17-12 7509 GIBRALTARST CARLSBAD CA 92009 BELLA LA COSTA LLC 6965 EL CAMINO REAL #105-1 CARLSBAD CA 92009 BING & TING SUE ZHU 22900 SHERMAN WAY WEST HILLS CA 91307 YUJIE & JIA XIANG XIAO 7554 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 SURAJ M & SU SHILA RA THEE 7560 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 COASTAL LIVING LL C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 400 GIBRALTARLLC 3525 DEL MAR HEIGHTS RD #724 SAN DIEGO CA 92130 HI LP-APARTMENTS LLC 10490 CAMINO DEL VENADO VALLEY CENTER CA92082 BNR INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT LLC 23800 VIA DEL RIO YORBA LINDA CA 92887 KAREN INLOW . 3004 LA COSTA A VE ! #A I CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARTER JAMES B & MARLENE M . FAMILY TRUST 11-19-92 958 CAMINO DEL ARROYO DR SAN MARCOS CA 92078 JD LL AL RENTALS LLC P OBOX2767 DEL MAR CA 92014 BURKLE FAMILY TRUST ' 27802 HIGH VISTA DR ESCONDIDO CA 92026 JD LL AL RENTALS LLC P OBOX2767 DEL MAR CA 92014 JOHN E & STEPHANIE J CORNACCI-IlONE 7546 GIBRALTAR ST #D CARLSBAD CA 92009 ERIKM & RYKER-GIST MEADOW GIST 7546 GIBRALTAR ST #G CARLSBAD CA 92009 LACOSTA AL CLL C 7668 EL CAMINO REAL #104-4 CARLSBAD CA 92009 HIL P-APARTMENTS LLC 10490 CAMINO DEL VENADO VALLEY CENTER CA 92082 DERRICO & ASSOCIATES CLERICAL SERVICES MONEY PURCHAS 2519 COSTERO MAGESTUOSO SAN CLEMENTE CA 92673 SMALL LOUISE REVOCABLE TRUST 6552 E SHEPHERD HLS TUCSON AZ 85710 PHILIP THAI 3008 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 JD LL AL RENTALS LLC P OBOX2767 DEL MAR CA 92014 ALTAMIRANO CARMENL TRUST 7538 GIBRALTAR ST #F CARLSBAD CA 92009 JUERGEN ZIERLER 7546 GIBRALTARST #B CARLSBAD CA 92009 IAN JTYREE 7546 GIBRALTAR ST #E CARLSBAD CA 92009 VIVIENNE A & VU ANH THIKIM NAGUE 2914 LACOSTAAVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 HI LP-APARTMENTS LLC 10490 CAMINO DEL VENADO VALLEY CENTER CA 92082 BNR INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT LLC 23800 VIA DEL RIO YORBA LINDA CA 92887 GUILLERMO F & EDITH M LAZO 3002 LA COSTA A VE #A CARLSBAD CA 92009 COOPERMAN BRADLEY SEP ARA TE PROPERTY TRUST 06-14-16 POBOX5010 RCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 RETA MP ARKER 503 N TREMONT ST #A OCEANSIDE CA 92054 LUCILLE A LINDSEY P OBOX2767 DEL MAR CA 92014 KARALBREM 7538 GIBRALTAR ST #G CARLSBAD CA 92009 PETERS DAVID M & JANET MF AMIL Y TR P OBOX2326 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 AARON L & CYNTHIA RUMLEY 7581 DELGADO PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 GEORGE P & ASHLEY CONNORS 2916 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 WALOCH ARTHUR A LIVING TRUST 2918 LACOSTAAVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 SUNV ALE INVESTMENT LLC 5927 BALFOUR CT #112 CARLSBAD CA 92008 EILEEN V DONOVAN 7555 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 LA COSTA BLUFFS LL C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 LA COSTA BLUFFS LL C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 KEVIN STEPHENS 1500 W 11TH AVE #24 ESCONDIDO CA 92029 HALABUK DANIEL J & JEANETTE C G FAMILY TRUST 7607 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 SHRIGLEY FAMILY TRUSTll-17-14 7604 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 KAREN MOSSMAN 3003 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 PERRY GARCIA 3009 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 STEVEN A THOMPSON 40047 87TH ST W LEONA VALLEY CA 93551 ORTMAN SUSAN H TRUST 05-05-98 7551 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHAD J & VANDERWOUDE CARRIE PECK 7557 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 LA COSTA BLUFFS L L C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 L C INVESTMENT 2010 LL C 4001 MAPLE A VE #600 DALLAS TX 75219 KEVIN STEPHENS 1500 W 11TH AVE #24 ESCONDIDO CA 92029 JOHANSEN TRUST 07-31-06 3000 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MATTHEW & SONIA STAAB 7602 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 RYANFAMILYTRUST 10-29-14 3005 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 MCCLELLAN FAMILY TRUST 3006 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 BRANDON JOE 2922 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITRANO THOMAS G & ELIZABETH A REVOCABLE TRUST 7422 CARLINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 PHILIP & LORNA COGGON 1521 FRONTNINEDR FORT COLLINS CO 80525 LA COSTA BLUFFS LL C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 L C INVESTMENT 2010 L L C 4001 MAPLE A VE #600 DALLAS TX 75219 KEVIN STEPHENS 1500 W 11TH AVE #24 ESCONDIDO CA 92029 CHRIS VIERHEILIG 7606 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARSHALL & ELIZABETH K SPEVAK 3001 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 HODIL CHARLES REVOCABLE TRUST 07-18-18 3007 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 DUST AZTEC LIVING TRUST 03-15-19 3004 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 NICHOLL FAMILY TRUST 03-10-11 3002 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 LINKE STEVEN P & KAREN L REVOCABLE r LIVING TRUST 7513 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 WAGNER RONALD & PAMELA LIFE TR 7504 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 WEISS BEYERL Y J TRUST 04-29-00 7523 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 I PATRICKDASSI 7520 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOSHUA S & JAIME A GOLDMAN 7523 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CLARK & ERIN NEWTON 7517 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARINO AM 2008 TRUST 05-14-08 7511 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 ANTHONY P & MENZEL JESSIE E VASILAS 7505 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 SNYDER BEVERLY TRUST 03-08-14 7445 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF CARLSBAD WILLOUGHBY-GUY FAMILY TRUST 7511 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 RACKLEY RONALD D & REGINA A REVOCABLE TRUST 03-22-04 7506 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 DALBY FAMILY TRUST 7521 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 ASHE-MOENCH REVOCABLE TRUST 7522 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 GOLDOJARB/BROWN-GOLDOJARB FAMILY TRUST O 1-09-08 5178 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 LOWENSTEIN FAMILY TRUST 7515 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHRISTOPHER E & MATTHEWS RAEGAN E ROESINK 7509 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARGARETT DUPREE 7503 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 KENNETH W & GABRIELLE K AHRWEILER 7443 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 COFFEY HOWARD T FAMILY TRUST 7515 QUINTA ST .. CARLSBAD CA 92009 HUBBERT STEPHENSON TRUST 7509 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOSEPH P & MARTHA CORDOVA 115 PRINCEHOUSE LN ENCINITAS CA 92024 STACIE LEE 3005 CANTERO WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 MANUEL & NICOLE J MARTINEZ 7524 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 RICHARD E & CHRISTINE C SALAZAR 7519 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 KEITH FAMILY TRUST 11 PACIFICO LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677 NAIDITCH CANDICE FAMILY TRUST 7507 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 WILSON SUZANNE L TRUST 10-18-05 7501 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CENTER FOR NATURAL LANDS MANAGEMENT INC 27258 VIA INDUSTRIA #B TEMECULA CA 92590 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chamber, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2020, to reconsider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Site Development Plan to allow the construction of a four-story, 23-unit residential apartment project which includes three inclusionary housing units, on property generally located at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street, and more particularly described as: lots 393 and 394 of la Costa South Unit No. 5, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 6600, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 10, 1970 Whereas, on July 15, 2020 the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted 7-0 to Approve of a Site Development Plan to construct a four-story, 23-unit residential apartment project which includes three inclusibnary housing units, on property generally located at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. The City Planner has determined that this project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 "In-Fill Development Projects" of the State CEQA Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after -· If you have any questions, please contact Chris Garcia in the Planning Division at {760) 602-4622 or chris.garcia@carlsbadca.gov. If you challenge the Site Development Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CASE NAME: PUBLISH: SDP 2018-0004 {DEV2017-0151} ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS -CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL ./', GOLF . ' I _.,,.- COURSE .,.,- _.----- ,.v ~~r---- / .. ,, I / / / \ 'SLJ: . \ ) ..ri~ ' --.,., 1.---'" -~ ..... -... -------~--, -----~------,,,.---\ ______ \} ___________ ,,, ' ', \,, ----~ \ --<--, . • N NOT TO SCALE SITE MAP Romeria Pointe Apartments SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chamber, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 17, 2020, to reconsider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Site Development Plan to allow the construction of a four-story, 23-unit residential apartment project which includes three inclusionary housing units, on property generally located at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street, and more particularly described as: Lots 393 and 394 of La Costa South Unit No. 5, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 6600, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 10, 1970 Whereas, on July 15, 2020 the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted 7-0 to Approve of a Site Development Plan to construct a four-story, 23-unit residential apartment project which includes three inclusionary housing units, on property generally located at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. The City Planner has determined that this project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 "In-Fill Development Projects" of the State CEQA Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after Nov. 13, 2020. If you have any questions, please contact Chris Garcia in the Planning Division at {760) 602-4622 or chris.garcia@carlsbadca.gov. Individuals wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to participate in this public hearing. Per State of California Executive Order N-29-20, and in the interest of public health and safety, we are temporarily taking actions to prevent and mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic by holding City Council and other public meetings electronically or by teleconferencing. The meeting can be viewed online at www.carlsbadca.gov or on the city's cable channel. The Carlsbad City Council welcomes your participation. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, the city has provided two easy ways for community members to provide comments during a City Council meeting: Verbally: Sign up to provide verbal comments by phone by filling out an on line registration form by 2 p.m. the day of the meeting. You will receive a confirmation message with instruction about how to call into the meeting. In writing: E-mail your comments to clerk@carlsbadca.gov. Emails received by 2 p.m. will be provided to the City Council prior to the start of the meeting. Other comments will be included with the meeting record. Emailed comments will not be read out loud during the meeting. Please indicate the agenda item number in your email subject line. If you challenge the Site Development Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CASE NAME: PUBLISH: SOP 2018-0004 {DEV2017-0151) ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS Nov. 6, 2020 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SITE MAP • N NOT TO SCALE Romeria Pointe Apartments SOP 2018-0004 / EIR 2019-0001 (DEV2017-0151) 9/29/2020 600' OWNERSHIP LISTING PREPARED FOR: BNR INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT LL C GIBRALTAR & ROMERIA STREET CARLSBAD CA 92009 DINNEEN J & MARYE ROBERT 9105 W 131ST TER OVERLAND PARK KS 66213 ORCUTT MARY ATRUST 7661 NORHILLRD COLUMBUS OH 43235 SAISHO FAMILY TRUST 08-19-99 216 FIELDSTONE CT ROSEVILLE CA 95747 WILLIAMS FAMILY TRUST 1183 CALLE CHRISTOPHER ENCINITAS CA 92024 SKA VINSKI KIPRJAN M & BARBARA H REVOCABLE TRUST 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #9 CARLSBAD CA 92009 A PE INVESTMENTS LLC 753 JACQUELENE CT ENCINITAS CA 92024 FISHMAN NAOMI A REVOCABLE TRUST 2929 W PARKRIDGE DR PEORIA IL 61604 HA TLE DEBRA FAMILY TRUST 1419 DOMINIS ST #502 HONOLULU HI 96822 I Pat: avery.comfpatents : Easy Peel" Address Lal5els : Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge· I SURPRISE PROPERTIES LLC 3177 WILDFLOWER SMT ENCINITAS CA 92024 WYNNE E WEISS 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #1 CARLSBAD CA 92009 SEAN M & MARGUERITE N TALBOTT 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #4 CARLSBAD CA 92009 KELLEY K CHRISMAN 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #7 CARLSBAD CA 92009 AMERICAN ESTATE & TRUST 7152 ALMADEN LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHN C & KAREN SALGADO 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #13 CARLSBAD CA 92009 YANG JEFF & PEARL TRUST 07-15-11 11888 MENDIOLA PT SAN DIEGO CA 92129 CHRISTINA L CAHALL 7526 JEREZ CT #3 CARLSBAD CA 92009 Etiguettes l:l'ac.lresse Easy Reel® : Re liez iJ la nacnure afin <:!e teveler le re6ord Ro -u ,;i l Go to avery.com0templates : l.Jse Avery Template 5160 1 Streamline Development Group 2266 Grand Ave STE 26 San Diego, CA 92109 MARK & KARLA SKOOG 276 CHANTILLY CIR SIMI VALLEY CA 93065 ROBERT R & TERESA A QUIROZ 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #2 CARLSBAD CA 92009 HARRY J & ROBYN CLEVER 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #5 CARLSBAD CA 92009 JAMES JIRA AGOSTINI 16 CALAIS CIR RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270 ALLEN AJ FAMILY 2014 TRUST 7559 GIBRALTAR ST #11 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROSS ROBERT G FAMILY TRUST 80234 ROYAL DORNOCH DR INDIO CA 92201 RANDALL J & CATT BRENDA K HOFFIUS 1133 SCRUB JAY CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 GAMUS LIVING TRUST 7526 JEREZ CT #4 CARLSBAD CA 92009 lXllez a avery.ca¼igal5arits : l!Jtilisez le@abaritAve 5160 • DARWIN & PATRICIA SCHUSSLER 7528 JEREZ CT #5 CARLSBAD CA 92009 SYDNEY SERWIN 7528 JEREZ CT #8 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ANDERSON THIO FAMILY TRUST 7532 JEREZ CT #11 CARLSBAD CA 92009 SUSAN C MCBRIDE 7530 JEREZ CT #14 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHRISTOPHER A JEFFERY 7668 EL CAMINO REAL #104-6 CARLSBAD CA 92009 LENNIENGEE 7565 GIBRALTAR ST #20 CARLSBAD CA 92009 POMMIER MICHELLE Y LIVING TR 7563 GIBRALTAR ST #23 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROTT HARRY REVOCABLE TRUST 1415 PANTHERLN #318 NAPLES FL 34109 MATTHEW POYMA 7520 JEREZ CT #E CARLSBAD CA 92009 HUI & ZHANG YAN LI 7514 JEREZ CT #B CARLSBAD CA 92009 l , Bat: avery.corrl',l;;patents I Easy Peel'~'A:ddress [a6els : Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge· 1 JAMES CLEE 7528 JEREZ CT #6 CARLSBAD CA 92009 JEREZ COURT ASSOCIATION 906 SYCAMORE A VE #100 VISTA CA 92081 REBECCA JAVENS 7532 JEREZ CT #12 CARLSBAD CA 92009 MILLER LIVING TRUST 09-04-13 7530 JEREZ CT #15 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ABRASSART-SHIMA TERESA A TR 6919 QUAIL PL #B CARLSBAD CA 92009 BRENDAN & LAMSA KATE LOPEZ 44870 CAMINO ALAMOSA TEMECULA CA 92592 MANOI C & JAGRUTI M MANIAR 11625 ALDERIDGE LN SAN DIEGO CA 92131 ADAMSEN PAUL B & JACQUELINE H LIVING TR 7520 JEREZ CT #C CARLSBAD CA 92009 SHARON K BENKOVIC 7520 JEREZ CT #F CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROJELIO & JEANNIE M VILLALOBOS 7514 JEREZ CT #C CARLSBAD CA 92009 Go to avery.com:i!':ternplates ·:' UseAveryTemplate5160 1 SOL SIRONA TRUST 05-06-19 11661 BLOCKER DR #100 AUBURN CA 95603 EICHMAN THERESA D REVOCABLE TR 7532 JEREZ CT #10 CARLSBAD CA 92009 DANIEL TYLER & ADRIENNE M BROWN 3993 PRIMAVERA RD SANTA BARBARA CA 93110 LINDA S PEREZ 20351 ACRE ST WINNETKA CA 91306 FRIEDBERG MICHAEL S REVOCABLE TRUST 7565 GIBRALTAR ST #19 CARLSBAD CA 92009 DINAR MILLER 7563 GIBRALTAR ST #22 CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARK WASHBURN 7520 JEREZ CT #A CARLSBAD CA 92009 SHIHYENHSU 2020 HANSCOM DR S PASADENA CA 91030 BIRMINGHAM CARDIFF LLC 1346 SUMMIT A VE CARDIFF CA 92007 EL MOSTAFA HANI 7514 JEREZ CT #D CARLSBAD CA 92009 ~llez a ave~.ca~gali!larits :. lcltilisezle ElaoaritAll zilb0 ·1? • SHEA CHRISTOPHER B & STACEY D REVOCABLE TRUST 7180 AVIARADR CARLSBAD CA 92011 KNIGHT LAURA D TRUST 09-02-11 7533 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 NANCY STUARD 7527 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 WHITSETT CAROL E REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 7519 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 NOVAK HOWARD & SUE A FAMILY BYPASS TRUST 02-19-03 7513 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 DAN & ANNE KLENSKE 7507 GIBRALTARST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHN & BESH-STURGEON CINDY STURGEON 4450 SHOSHONI A VE ANCHORAGE AK 99516 D NM PARKER LL C PO BOX 1432 GLENDORA CA 91740 PAUL & KANG SUSAN REUTER 7556 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHISHCHEVOY FAMILY TRUST 7562 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 I -Pat: avery,comt'pafents I * Easy Reel'i\l'Aaaress l.iaoels : Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge* l JEROME A & MARY C SURDY 7537 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOSE J PADILLA 445 N BEDFORD DR BEYERL Y HILLS CA 90210 DEAN-ROSS SCHESSLER 7525 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHN A & DEBORAH L HALE 7517 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 FITZPATRICK JAMES P REVOCABLE TRUST 635 HUNTER HILLS DR CLINTON OH 44216 GIBRALTAR STREET LL C 4258 CORTE DE SAUSALITO SAN DIEGO CA 92130 MEGHAN CAREY 7546 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 GARY & SALDANHA-MARSTON ELEANORA MARSTON 7552 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 XIWEN & NI LIN CHENG 7558 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 GRIESER BRIAN & JOAN A B LIVING ' TRUST 08-14-06 7564 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 Btiguettes cl'aaresse easy Reel~ : " R liez a la nachureafin <le revelerle rebercl Po -u "' 1 Go :to avery.comZ"temglates : ! Use AvefY Template 5160 1 BIANCHI JOHN M TRUST 06-15-18 7535 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 N TA ASSOCIATES 7529 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 SIMMONDS LIVING TRUST 07-08-99 170 DEL ORO LAGOON NOVATO CA 94949 REEDER SAMMY J TRUST 7515 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 SCOTT FAMILY TRUST 04-17-12 7509 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 BELLA LA COSTA LLC 6965 EL CAMINO REAL #105-1 CARLSBAD CA 92009 BING & TING SUE ZHU 22900 SHERMAN WAY WEST HILLS CA 91307 YUJIE & JIA XIANG XIAO 7554 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 SURAJ M & SU SHILA RA THEE 7560 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 COASTAL LIVING LL C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 'Allez a avery.ca~gal5arits :: lJtilisez le €3abariHXve 5]60 h 400 GIBRALTAR LLC 3525 DEL MAR HEIGHTS RD #724 SAN DIEGO CA 92130 HI LP-APARTMENTS LLC 10490 CAMINO DEL VEN ADO VALLEY CENTER CA 92082 BNR INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT LLC 23800 VIA DEL RIO YORBA LINDA CA 92887 KAREN INLOW 3004 LA COSTA A VE #A CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARTER JAMES B & MARLENE M FAMILY TRUST 11-19-92 958 CAMINO DEL ARROYO DR SAN MARCOS CA 92078 JD L LAL RENTALS LLC P OBOX2767 DEL MAR CA 92014 BURKLE FAMILY TRUST 27802 HIGH VISTA DR ESCONDIDO CA 92026 JD L LA L RENTALS LLC P OBOX2767 DEL MAR CA 92014 JOHN E & STEPHANIE J CORNACCHIONE 7546 GIBRALTAR ST #D CARLSBAD CA 92009 ERIK M & RYKER-GIST MEADOW GIST 7546 GIBRALTAR ST #G CARLSBAD CA 92009 I Pat: avew.com¼patents : Easy Peel iil'A.dclress Eal3els : Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge' l LA COSTA A LC LL C 7668 EL CAMINO REAL #104-4 CARLSBAD CA 92009 H IL P-APARTMENTS LLC 10490 CAMINO DEL VENADO VALLEY CENTER CA 92082 DERRICO & ASSOCIATES CLERICAL SERVICES MONEY PURCHAS 2519 COSTERO MAGESTUOSO SAN CLEMENTE CA 92673 SMALL LOUISE REVOCABLE TRUST 6552 E SHEPHERD HLS TUCSON AZ 85710 PHILIP THAI 3008 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 JD LL AL RENTALS LLC P OBOX2767 DEL MAR CA 92014 ALTAMIRANO CARMEN L TRUST 7538 GIBRALTAR ST #F CARLSBAD CA 92009 JUERGEN ZIERLER 7546 GIBRALTAR ST #B CARLSBAD CA 92009 IAN JTYREE 7546 GIBRALTAR ST #E CARLSBAD CA 92009 VIVIENNE A & VU ANH THIKIM NAGUE 2914 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 ----l Go to avery.com/'.'tem plates l ! Use AVefY Template 5160 1 HI LP-APARTMENTS LLC 10490 CAMINO DEL VENADO VALLEY CENTER CA 92082 BNR INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT LLC 23800 VIA DEL RIO YORBA LINDA CA 92887 GUILLERMO F & EDITH M LAZO 3002 LA COSTA A VE #A CARLSBAD CA 92009 PRESTON & DEVEAU LILY PEEDEN 3004 LA COSTA A VE STEB CARLSBAD CA 92009 RETA M PARKER 503 N TREMONT ST #A OCEANSIDE CA 92054 LUCILLE A LINDSEY P OBOX2767 DEL MAR CA 92014 KARALBREM 7538 GIBRALTAR ST #G CARLSBAD CA 92009 PETERS DAVID M & JANET MF AMIL Y TR P OBOX2326 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 AARON L & CYNTHIA RUMLEY 7581 DELGADO PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 GEORGE P & ASHLEY CONNORS 2916 LACOSTAAVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 ~llez a avery.c:a~gaoarits l @rilfsez le:GaBarit WJ..ver SJ 60 1"it - WALOCH ARTHUR A LIVING TRUST 2918 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 SUNV ALE INVESTMENT LLC 5927 BALFOUR CT #112 CARLSBAD CA 92008 EILEEN V DONOVAN 7555 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 LA COSTA BLUFFS LL C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 LA COSTA BLUFFS LL C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 KEVIN STEPHENS 1500 W llTHAVE #24 ESCONDIDO CA 92029 i HALABUK DANIEL J & JEANETTE C G I FAMILY TRUST 7607 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 SHRIGLEY FAMILY TRUST 11-17-14 7604 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 KAREN MOSSMAN 3003 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 PERRY GARCIA 3009 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 I • Bat: avery.com0patents : Eas¥ Ree(".4;dclress Eaoels : Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge• I STEVEN A THOMPSON 4004 7 87TH ST W LEONA VALLEY CA 93551 ORTMAN SUSAN H TRUST 05-05-98 7551 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHAD J & VANDERWOUDE CARRIE PECK , 7557 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 LA COSTA BLUFFS LL C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 LC INVESTMENT 2010 LL C 4001 MAPLE A VE #600 DALLAS TX 75219 KEVIN STEPHENS 1500 W llTHAVE #24 ESCONDIDO CA 92029 JOHANSEN TRUST 07-31-06 3000 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MATTHEW & SONIA STAAB 7602 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 RYAN FAMILY TRUST 10-29-14 3005 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 MCCLELLAN FAMILY TRUST 3006 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 Go to avefy'.com,\?;te~plates ( Use Avecy Template 5160 1 BRANDON JOE 2922 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITRANO THOMAS G & ELIZABETH A REVOCABLE TRUST 7422 CARLINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 PHILIP & LORNA COGGON 1521 FRONT NINE DR FORT COLLINS CO 80525 LA COSTA BLUFFS LL C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 LC INVESTMENT 2010 LL C 4001 MAPLE A VE #600 DALLAS TX 75219 KEVIN STEPHENS 1500 W 11TH A VE #24 ESCONDIDO CA 92029 CHRIS VIERHEILIG 7606 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARSHALL & ELIZABETH K SPEVAK 3001 LACOSTAAVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 HODIL CHARLES REVOCABLE TRUST 07-18-18 3007 LA COSTA A VE CARLSBAD CA 92009 DUST AZTEC LIVING TRUST 03-15-19 3004 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 'Allez a av:efy'.ca~gal:>arits : l!Jtilisezle!tlabaritt,iXver Brno 1; NICHOLL FAMILY TRUST 03-10-11 3002 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 LlNKE STEVEN P & KAREN L REVOCABLE LIVlNG TRUST 7513 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 WAGNER RONALD & PAMELA LIFE TR 7504 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 WEISS BEVERLY J TRUST 04-29-00 7523 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 PATRlCK DASSI 7520 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOSHUA S & JAIME A GOLDMAN 7523 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CLARK & ERIN NEWTON 7517 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARINO AM 2008 TRUST 05-14-08 7511 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 ANTHONY P & MENZEL JESSIE E VASILAS 7505 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 SNYDER BEYERL Y TRUST 03-08-14 7445 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 l , Rat: ave[Y,com,!'patents : Easy Reel"n~clclress Labels ! Bend along line to expose flop-up Edge -I CITY OF CARLSBAD WILLOUGHBY-GUY FAMILY TRUST 7511 QUINTAST CARLSBAD CA 92009 PATRICK & ELIZABETH MCQUINN 7506 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 DALBY FAMILY TRUST 7521 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 ASHE-MOENCH REVOCABLE TRUST 7522 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 GOLDOJARB/BROWN-GOLDOJARB FAMILY TRUST 01-09-08 5178 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 LOWENSTEIN FAMILY TRUST 7515 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHRISTOPHER E & MATTHEWS RAEGAN E ROESINK 7509 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARGARETT DUPREE 7503 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 KENNETH W & GABRIELLE K AHRWEILER 7443 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 Go to avery.comi1itern~lates : Use Avery Template 5160 l COFFEY HOWARD T FAMILY TRUST 7515 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 HUBBERT STEPHENSON TRUST 7509 QUINTA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOSEPH P & MARTHA CORDOVA 115 PRINCEHOUSE LN ENCINITAS CA 92024 STACIE LEE 3005 CANTERO WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 MANUEL & NICOLE J MARTINEZ 7524 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 RlCHARD E & CHRISTINE C SALAZAR 7519 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 KEITH FAMILY TRUST 11 PACIFICO LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677 NAIDITCH CANDICE FAMILY TRUST 7507 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 WILSON SUZANNE L TRUST 10-18-05 7501 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CENTER FOR NATURAL LANDS MANAGEMENT lNC ' 27258 VIA INDUSTRIA #B TEMECULA CA 92590 ~llez a aMery.ca~gal:>arits :: liltilisez le @aoarit Ave a:HJO 1 • Romeria Pointe Apartments Applicant Checklist Hire Traffic Engineer to Conduct a Traffic Study Geotechnical Report Re-Review Locate and Review Additional Geotechnical Data Submit Traffic and Updated Geotechnical Reports to City for Review Traffic Study •Study conducted by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). •LLG studied the project’s traffic impact on the adjacent roadways and intersection of Romeria St and La Costa Ave based on the MMLOS and SANTEC/ITE Guidelines (CEQA). •Conclusion: Based on the City’s TIA Guidelines and thresholds of significance, and SANTEC/ITE (CEQA) Guidelines and thresholds of significance, there are no significant queueing impacts from this project. *See pages 31 & 38 of LLG Traffic Study, dated 3/9/20 ■ N:13155\Figures Date: 03/09/20 ¥1:iHII n Figure 2-1 MM LOS Study Area ROMERIA POINTE Applicant Checklist Hire Traffic Engineer to Conduct a Traffic Study Geotechnical Report Re-Review Locate and Review Additional Geotechnical Data Submit Traffic and Updated Geotechnical Reports to City for Review Geotechnical Engineering Study Geotechnical engineering review and report conducted by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) •Thorough review of site-specific report of geotechnical recommendations for the Romeria Pointe Apartments. •Area search and review of geotechnical reports and data from surrounding properties and original subdivision grading available in public records and private databases. Geotechnical Study •Regional geologic maps and landslide susceptibility and hazard maps from 1983, 1995, and 2007. •Geotechnical hazard maps prepared for Carlsbad in 1992. •Historic stereoscopic aerial photographs from a survey done in 1953. *See page 3 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Geotechnical Study 1. Subject Property •Benton Engineering, Inc, 1969 and 1970. •East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc, 2001. •Soil Pacific, Inc, 2003. •GeoSoils, Inc, 2004, 2016- 2019. *See page 3 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Geotechnical Study 2. Villa Romeria Property •Catlin and Company, Inc, 1984. •Catlin Engineering Associates, Inc, 1996 and 1998. •Helfrich Associates, 2014. 3. 7546 Romeria Street •Vinje and Middleton Engineering, Inc, 1998 and 2000. *See page 3 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Geotechnical Concerns 1.Land Instability 2.Slippage 3.Land Movement 4.Reduced Service Life of Sidewalks 5.Increased Building Height from 3 to 4 Stories 6.Using CIDH Pile Foundations Constitutes an “unusual condition” Geotechnical Issue #1 & 2 –Land Instability & Slippage •No evidence of any landslide deposits within the subject property. •Subject property does not contain high groundwater or young fill dirt that is susceptible to an earthquake. •Settlement of existing fill soil must be mitigated. •Mitigation: CIDH piles allow the building to load the stable bedrock and avoid relying on existing fill. *See pages 3 & 4 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Geotechnical Issue #1 & 2 –Land Instability & Slippage •Geotechnical engineers for Villa Romeria did not conduct subsurface explorations to identify the root cause of distress. •The suggested and implemented repair on the adjacent property may not be appropriate. •Distress due to an improperly constructed foundation or incorrect mitigation measures. *See pages 4 & 5 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Geotechnical Issue #1 & 2 –Land Instability & Slippage Romeria Pointe project will not induce slippage for the following reasons: •The subject property is down-slope and will not surcharge the Villa Romeria property. •Construction of permanent retaining walls along the property line will support the Villa Romeria property. •Stormwater treatment facilities will severely reduce the water entering the existing fill soils. •CIDH pile foundation stabilizes the soil and reduces the load on existing fill soils. •Existing fill slopes will be rebuilt with geogrid reinforcement to improve surficial stability. *See pages 4 & 5 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Geotechnical Issues #1 & 2 –Land Instability & Slippage Conclusion: There is no evidence to suggest the proposed project will experience or cause land instability on adjacent properties. The project will not have a negative impact on adjacent properties, and it will actually stabilize and improve support for the Villa Romeria property. *See pages 3 & 4 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Geotechnical Issue #3 –Land Movement Conclusion: A comparison between the Romeria Pointe property and the Marbella property cannot be made. There is no evidence to suggest the proposed project on Romeria will experience any of the landslide issues experienced at Marbella. *See page 6 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Geotechnical Issue #4 –Reduced Service Life of Sidewalks Conclusion: Standard practice is for the owner to maintain and repair any sidewalk and walkway issues on site. The possibility of distressed walkways does not constitute a site stability issue. *See page 6 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Geotechnical Issue #5 –Increased Building Height from 3 to 4 Stories Conclusion: The conclusions and recommendations contained within the report provided by GeoSoils, Inc are geotechnically feasible and appropriate for the 4 story project. *See page 7 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Geotechnical Issue #6 –Using CIDH Pile Foundations Constitutes an “Unusual Condition” Conclusion: Given existing site conditions, the CIDH pile foundation system should not be viewed as unusual. To the contrary, the currently proposed pile foundations are often implemented for in-fill type projects and are considered appropriate for this project. *See pages 7 & 8 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Applicant Checklist Hire Traffic Engineer to Conduct a Traffic Study Geotechnical Report Re-Review Locate and Review Additional Geotechnical Data Submit Traffic and Updated Geotechnical Reports to City for Review City Staff Review •Geotechnical report and traffic study were submitted on Tuesday, January 28th, 2020. •Staff conducted in-house reviews for traffic and geotechnical and hired a third-party engineering firm to review the geotechnical report. Conclusion: Staff supports the project as proposed. Furthermore, staff has indicated the project should be considered CEQA exempt and there has been no evidence to suggest any potential impact to warrant any additional CEQA studies for geotechnical engineering. Applicant Checklist Hire Traffic Engineer to Conduct a Traffic Study Geotechnical Report Re-Review Locate and Review Additional Geotechnical Data Submit Traffic and Updated Geotechnical Reports to City for Review Eileen Donovan Appeal 1.“Council deemed there were ‘unusual circumstances’ regarding Romeria Pointe” •Unusual circumstance 1: Romeria Pointe is a slope and uses CIDH piles •Unusual circumstance 2: Subject property is 1/10 of a mile from a fire hazard area 2.Requests a legal guarantee, insurance and/or bond for the project 3.Traffic study should have been VMT analysis vs. LOS analysis 4.Project is not consistent with the general plan 5.“Slippage” on Villa Romeria and poor soil in Carlsbad 6.Wants more CEQA review, EIR, engineering report, soil sampling, and traffic study. Eileen Donovan Appeal 1. “Council deemed there were ‘unusual circumstances’ regarding Romeria Pointe” •Unusual circumstance 1: Romeria Pointe is a slope and uses CIDH piles •Unusual circumstance 2: Subject property is 1/10 of a mile from a fire hazard area Response: As discussed before, CIDH pile foundations do not constitute unusual conditions, nor do sloping properties. This project does not sit within a fire hazard area.Being located within a high fire hazard area does not constitute an unusual condition, let alone being close to one. Even if the property were located in a high fire hazard area, we would be required to address it with defensible space, fire sprinklers, fuel reduction efforts, irrigation, and landscaping; NOTthrough environmental studies. Eileen Donovan Appeal 2. Requests a legal guarantee, insurance and/or bond for the project Response: The owner, developer, architects, engineers, and general contractor all carry differing levels of insurance, including course of construction and general liability insurance to cover any issues that occur on the jobsite. The general contractor also carries a license bond with the state and is held liable by the California State Licensing Board for any problems on the jobsite that occur. In the unlikely event that there was even a minor affect on the neighboring properties or the right of way, everything would be covered. There is no legal precedent to require or even request a full project bond on a privately-funded apartment project. Eileen Donovan Appeal 3. Traffic study should have been VMT analysis vs. LOS analysis Response: The application for this project was deemed complete on 10/12/2018. CEQA required VMT analysis to be used by 7/1/2020. Staff cannot retroactively apply new regulations to projects that are already vested. Furthermore, the City Council had a discussion in the first appeal hearing regarding which analysis our study should conduct, and they correctly concluded and instructed us to conduct the LOS analysis. Eileen Donovan Appeal 4. Project is not consistent with the general plan Response: The project is completely consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan and CA State Density Bonus Law, as detailed by the planning department and confirmed by the Planning Commission unanimously on two separate occasions. Eileen Donovan Appeal 5. “Slippage” on Villa Romeria and poor soil in Carlsbad Response: This has been discussed previously and studied by numerous experts in the field of geotechnical engineering and geology. The project is geotechnically feasible and will not induce any slippage on Villa Romeria, but rather support and eliminate any concerns for further slippage in the future. Eileen Donovan Appeal 6. Wants more CEQA review, EIR, engineering report, soil sampling, and traffic study. Response: The requested engineering reports, soil sampling, and traffic studies have already been completed, reviewed, fact-checked, and re-reviewed by numerous third party professionals. We followed the City Council’s prior direction and conducted the additional reports that were requested. CEQA is a very structured, meticulously organized document. In order to conduct an EIR, one must first identify a tangible environmental impact that cannot be mitigated satisfactorily using standard mitigation methods. We went through the steps requested, and all of the extensive engineering reports and studies indicate there is no impact to mitigate. Therefore, according to CEQA, this project does not qualify to conduct any further studies. Applicability of CEQA •Applicant and its legal counsel agree with the City Attorney’s Office and both Planning Commission determinations that the CEQA exemption is applicable. •Additional studies undertaken at City Council’s request confirm there’s no “reasonable possibility” the project will have significant impacts due to “unusual circumstances”. •No credible evidence has been provided to refute the numerous studies submitted and reviewed by staff. •CEQA should not be used to frustrate or slow the approval of projects that are necessary to combat the housing crisis. Our legal council supports the staff recommendation and both Planning Commission determinations of unanimous approval of the project, and agrees that the CEQA infill exemption is appropriate. Thank you! Planning Commission Appeal Romeria Pointe Apartments Chris Garcia, Associate Planner November 17, 2020 CMC 21.54.150 Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.54.150 outlines procedures for appeals of Planning Commission decisions, and states: “Grounds for appeal shall be limited to the following: that there was an error or abuse of discretion on the part of the planning commission in that the decision was not supported by the facts presented to the planning commission prior to the decision being appealed; or that there was not a fair and impartial hearing”. 2 CMC 21.54.150 Section 21.54.150 goes on to state that the City Council’s consideration is “de novo” (or “like new”) but limits the consideration to “only the evidence presented to the Planning Commission for consideration in the determination or decision being appealed.” Therefore, no new information may be considered by the City Council that was not presented to the Planning Commission. The appeal is limited to the grounds stated in the appeal. The City Council may uphold, modify or overturn the Planning Commission’s decision.3 Procedure •Staff presentation •Council opportunity to ask questions of staff •Appellant presentation •Applicant presentation •Mayor opens public hearing •Council receives comments from speakers •Mayor closes public hearing •Council discussion •Council decision 4 Location Map 5 6 Aerial Map Project Site 7 Across From Site 8 West of Site –Gibraltar Street 9 Similar Lot –Gibraltar Street 10 •Residential apartment project –23 total units in two, four-story buildings –16 three-bedroom units (1,661 –2,019 s .f.) –7 one-bedroom units (641 –942 s .f.) •Three (3) “very low-income” affordable one-bedroom units •641-676 square feet •50% Area Median Income (AMI) •Deed-restricted for 55 years 11 Project Information Site Plan 12 BUILDING A BUILDING 8 13 r ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION EAST 14 LaorD!~X1!il1~ m!~M f'IC ghbclG ,Ot 1:1Lar11,r,gi l)l!'r l.and:lcop1ng pl111n Ox ·1 n crc~tecru,01 de~n & consulling •February 2018 –Application submitted •March 2019 –Planning Commission approved –Appeal filed •June 2019 –City Council remanded to PC •July 2020 –Planning Commission approved –Appeal filed •November 2020 –City Council appeal hearing 15 Project History •GC §65915-65918 •Density Bonus Application –17 base density units –6 density bonus units (6 proposed) –23 total allowed units (23 proposed) •3 units must be affordable (3 proposed) 16 State Density Bonus Law State Density Bonus Law •Requested Waivers/Reductions –Waive 35-foot building height standard •Requested Incentive/Concession –Allocation of 9 dwelling units 17 State Housing Accountability Act •GC §65589.5(j)(1) states cities shall not disapprove a project or impose a condition requiring lower density unless the city finds based on a preponderance of evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid such adverse impact 18 Major Concerns Raised in the Appeal •Soil conditions and construction technique •Traffic analysis and Vehicles Miles Traveled •Topography •Wildfire hazard •CEQA exemption 19 Soil Conditions/Construction Methods 20 •No evidence of soil instability or landslide •Cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles common construction technique •CIDH successfully used in other projects o ViaSat Campus o Hamptons Residences Traffic Impacts / Vehicle Miles Traveled 21 •Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis only required for projects where a CEQA determination made on or after July 1, 2020 •Subject project CEQA determination November 5, 2018 •Traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared •No significant impacts to vehicular queueing Topography 22 •Topography is not unusual •Many lots in the surrounding area have been developed with similar topography •A slab-on-grade foundation would require large quantities of remedial grading and temporary shoring. •Use of CIDH piles less invasive and safer construction method versus remedial grading on this site. Wildfire Hazards 23 •Subject site is located in moderate fire hazard zone •Roughly 500 feet from a very high fire hazard zone •The construction of a residential project within a moderate fire threat area is common in Carlsbad •Must comply with fire code requirements, similar to surrounding development CEQA Exemption 24 •CEQA Guidelines Sections 15192-15195 do not apply to the project •The project was determined to be categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects Recommendation 25 Staff recommends that the City Council… ADOPT a resolution DENYING the appeal and UPHOLDING the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Site Development Plan SDP 2018-0004 Planning Commission Appeal Romeria Pointe Apartments Chris Garcia, Associate Planner November 17, 2020 Back-Up Slides 27 Growth Management 28 •Planning Commission erroneously transferred density inconsistent with city’s Growth Management Plan (GMP) Dwelling Unit Transfer 29 •Allocation of excess dwelling units is considered an “incentive” allowed by density bonus law per City Council Policy No. 43 –Excess Dwelling Unit Bank •Applicant has requested nine (9) units from the excess dwelling unit bank as one of its permitted incentives •As of September 30, 2020, 307 units remain available for allocation in the Southeast Quadrant Building Height 30 •Project not consistent with zoning since building height exceeds maximum listed in RD-M zone Building Height 31 •Applicant is requesting an allowance for increased building height as a density bonus waiver •Increased building height is an appropriate waiver as it results in identifiable cost reductions that allow the builder to develop the project at the density and affordability authorized under state law Project Consistency •General Plan and R-23 GPLU •RD-M Zoning •Density Bonus Ordinance and Inclusionary Housing •Site Development Plan •Growth Management 32 Density Bonus –Intent •Promote the construction of affordable housing •Implement goals, objectives and policies of the Housing Element •Implement California Government Code •Provide incentives to encourage developers to construct affordable housing 33 Project Information •Zoning –Residential Density –Multiple (RD-M). •GPLU – R-23 Residential 15-23 du/ac. •Lot Size –0.72 acre or 31,430 square feet. •Lot Coverage –59.5% (60% permitted). 34 Density Bonus – Parking Studio/one-bedroom: 1 space per unit (7x1=7) Two & three bedrooms:2 spaces per unit (16x2=32) Four or more bedrooms:2.5 spaces per unit (n/a) Visitor parking: None required (n/a) Total Required: 39 spaces Total Proposed: 41 spaces 35 36 37 ELEVATIION SOUTH □ ~ lacge e"stmg tcee oo neighbors lot - I planting per landscaping plan 38 39 I I 40 41 ~,.. ---- ~Ai ---- [CJ] [DJ lSI~ □ii □ □TI -------~-1'S 1111111 .. ~;=---- 42 ~;to'- ~~- ~ ,!l".:f[!'lEL~.\TICII-M..:lNl ur•r• 43 It----::::·~ --·0aoo -- DD D DD D ~ r~-•£ p ·· --,,---.------.------------, ''.~'i).';6) rl<J--z-•1----•1----~-~--:i"'•-•I', ~,:i.•••tl' [II] rn □ D □□al = ~ .am-!l?...EIIA~•lr .• Ul»Oil W•f.11' 2 -----1.l~ ~•m .. \: s 44 r I I I I I I I I A•l..EVEl.Jl:•P\ANIIIMl l'"•ff-11" 3 L---------------------~...1 -.. .,..... .. ,, L·----------- 45 2 · W/ct : · ~ ~ • I~ 3 ,_..,,.._,@.) -------.=--""==""'•Li=::.illr-,.-»-¥~4~ 46