ATTACHMENT H
VMT LETTER DATED APRIL 10, 2025
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
LAWYERS
2762 Gateway Road
Carlsbad, California 92009
760.431.9501
760.431.9512 gdandb.com
T
F
April 10, 2025
Via Mail, and Email ([email protected])
Punam Prahalad
Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak
960 Canterbury Pl # 300
Escondido, CA 92025
760.743.1201x137
Re: Lanikai Residential Project – VMT Issue
Dear Punam:
During our phone conference last month, we discussed whether the Lanikai project would require a VMT analysis as part of its CEQA package. I indicated that, based on IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100, 123-124, a VMT analysis is not required where a project’s Level of Service (LOS) traffic study was undertaken before the effective date of CEQA Guidelines section 1506 4.3. The question – which neither of us could answer at the time – was whethe r Lanikai had conducted an LOS traf fic analysis prior to July 1, 2020, i.e., the effective date of the VMT guideline.
I can now answer that question. Attached is a le tter from the City of San Marcos (“City”), dated November 19, 2018. On page 5 under “CEQA”, it states “You submitted Biological Resources Letter Report prepared by Helix Environmental Planning and Traffic Report prepared by Urban Systems Associates with your second submittal on October 25, 2018.” The City initially rejected the biology and traffic reports on grounds that Helix and Urban Syst ems were not on the City’s approved consultant list. However, after Lanikai objected to the City’s position, the City approved the two consultants and accepted their reports.
The traffic items submitted to the City on 10/25/18 include: (1) Traffic Impact Analysis; (2) Line of Site Study; and (3) Driveway Memo (left out at Woodward). Here’s a link to those files:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/mgss03n99sxu6agysa7f7/AEYD-rWAq2rc34- aGauZHUY?rlkey=o1qsgolclxh1qb4wszeoq9dqy&st=y934037g&dl=0
Based on this information, it is clear that Lanika i prepared and submitted its LOS traffic study in the fall of 2018, well before the July 1, 2020 effective date of CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3.
It is equally clear that the City accepted that traffic study prior to July 1, 2020 as well. Therefore, under IBC Business Owners, Lanikai is not required to prepare a VMT analysis for its project. See, Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 926, citing IBC Business Owners.
Punam Prahalad
Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak
April 10, 2025
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
LAWYERS
Please review these materials and let me know if you agree with my position. If you would like to discuss the matter, I am happy to do so.
Sincerely,
David P. Hubbard
of
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
cc: Larry Jett
Greg Scaduto
Rick Gittings
Attachment: Letter from the City, dated November 19, 2018
November 19, 2018 VIA Email: [email protected]
VI
A U.S. Mail
Matt Simmons
Consultants Collaborative
160 Industrial Street, Suite 200
San Marcos, CA 92078
RE
: SP17-0004/GPA17-0003/SDP17-0010 – Development of a 115 unit age-restricted residential apartment units
APN: 220-063-04
M
r. Simmons,
T
hank you for re-submitting the proposed project to the City for processing of your application.
Pursuant to Section 65943 of the California Government Code, the above referenced application has been deemed incomplete per the minimum standard submittal requirements. In order to continue processing your application, please submit the following items:
• G
eneral Plan Amendment: The City’s General Plan – Mobility Element identifies a bridge to be constructed at the site to improve overall connectivity in this region of the City. As your project is designed without this bridge, you would have to process a General Plan Amendment to remove the requirement of the bridge at your site . The requested General Plan Amendment to remove the bridge from the Mobility Element should be substantiated with studies to determi n e
any
city-wide or area specific impacts.
• S
pecific Plan Amendment: The Heart of the City Specific Plan (HOC SP) identifies the project site as “Commercial”, which is now proposed to be developed as a Senior Residential Project.
This change in land use requires supplemental studies to be submitted as listed in t he at
tachment. Please submit the supplemental studies identified in the attachment (Public Benefit Analysis, Land Use Analysis, Infrastructure and Community Services Impact Analysis, Redline d H
OCSP and General Plan). Note that the City will retain its own consultants to conduct Fiscal and Market Analysis. Once a scope of work is established for the Fiscal and Market Analysis, it will be forw arded to you. You will be responsible to pay the cost of the study plus the City’s 25% administration fees.
ATTACHMENT
2 • The CAP consistency checklist, as submitted remains incomplete pending information from the project architect and completion of GHG analysis.
In addition to the incomplete items identified above, the following comments must be addressed:
• The Citywide Zoning Ordinance’s Senior Residential (SR) Zone’s development standards are specific to housing and assisted life care facilities for the older adults. The development standards are designed to allow for residential care facilities and other similar uses. Your proposed project is essentially a multi -family residential project which is age restricted. The standards for care faciliti es are not intended to be applicable to residential/apartment projects.
Additionally your project’s density is not consistent with Section 20.220.020- ‘Senior Residential Zone” which states that this zone implements Medium Density Residential (MDR2) land use designation of the General Plan. The allowed density in MDR2 is 15 – 20 units per acre. Your project’s proposed density is 29 units/acre.
• Pursuant to Section 20.220.050 (B) (1) a MFSDP will be required to be processed for this project, instead of an SDP since the project will function similar to a multi-family project.
• The project site is currently designated for Commercial uses in the HOC SP. The proposed project, however is a residential/apartments project for seniors. Although your project is asking to change the designated land use of the site, the project still needs to be designed to be in compliance with the HOC SP’s overall vision and development standards that are specific to the structure’s massing, scale and design features and should maintain com patible scale with the surrounding development. A similar zone in HOC- SP is High Density Multi- Family Residential (HOC SP-HDMFR).
• Density: The project is proposing a density of 29 units per acre, which is higher than what is allowed in the Citywide SR zone (15-20 units/acre) and HOC SP-HDMFR zone (15-20 units per acre).
• Height: The project’s height (50 feet) and massing (4 stories) is not consistent with HOC SP’s standards of 45 feet for the HDMFR zone and 35 feet for Commercial Zone. The allowed height of 50 feet/4 stories in the City-wide SR zone is intended for institutions that provide for extended care for older adults such as residential care facilities and is not applicable to apartment projects, as is the case with this project. As seen from the submitted visual sims for the project’s four stories high structure is not compatible with the surrounding development.
• Massing: The project is proposing four stories with a height of 50’, above a proposed pad which is 5 feet higher from the current adjacent grade of Mission Road. As seen from the submitted elevations, site sections and visual sims, the project is massive and out of scale with the surrounding development. City’s suggestion is to break up the massive structure and provide a plaza in the middle to provide improved pedestrian connections to the street, emphasize pedestrian scale by creating a central entry point along the street and break up the mass of the
3 structure. The plaza will connect pedestrians from the interior of the project/central access into the project to the sidewalk at the intersection of Mission Road and Woodward Street.
• Setbacks: Your proposed setbacks are not consistent with the Commercial and HOC SP - HDMFR zones. As the project is designed as an apartment/residential project, the setbacks should be consistent with a residential zone as stipulated in the Specific Plan. Please revise the project design.
• Please confirm (on site plan) how lot coverage, landscaping coverage and FAR are calculated for the project. Are you including gross lot area of 3.96 acres, inclusive of Open Space? Which areas are considered “landscaping” to be counted in landscaping coverage?
• Parking: Please identify the size of a typical parking stall on your plans (9’x18’). Please show wheel stops in the middle parking isles and identify if there will be any conflicts with tree planters with clear space of 9’x18’.
• Show sufficient back out space for cars for the parking spaces proposed across temporary loading/unloading areas and adjacent to the pool area.
• Show the location and infrastructure of EV spaces as required by Cal Green Code.
• Site Design: Please show the location of HVAC room. Is water heating provided at a central location? Please show the location of water heating room.
• It is unclear where the above ground utilities are proposed and how they are screened from the public view. Please provide an exhibit to show all the proposed dry utilities, above ground utilities boxes , fire hydrants and identify if there is any conflict with sidewalks and proposed landscaping. The landscape plans should be revised to be consistent with this information.
• Per your responses provided to City’s first incomplete letter, a mater meter room might be provided to house electric and gas met ers for the units. Please show the location of this room.
If they are proposed outside the building, please show how these will be screened.
• It is unclear why the elevator shaft is not identified on the roof plan and elevations. Please show details of the elevator to confirm if the elevator shaft is not going to extend above the roofline.
• Architecture: The project is not consistent with the architectural guidelines as provided in the HOC SP. Provide a table to list all the architectural details that you are proposing and compare it with the requirements in the HOC SP. In general, the project design needs to be enhanced to provide variations in the façade to break the monotony of the design, articulation of wall planes to avoid large expanses of plane walls, combination of heights to break up the mass and use of architectural finish materials on the exteriors.
4 • Confirm the size of balconies is 50 sf. And provide a note on the plans.
• Please note the project is subject to Art in Public Places and Landscaping guidelines of the HOC SP. Please confirm how your project will comply with these requirements.
• The engineering plans need to be stamped by a registered engineer.
Redlined Specific Plan (HOC SP):
• Table 1: Include “intensity” and “type” of the proposed project in the table. • It is unclear why you are inserting a new land use ‘Senior Residential” in the 2.3-Business Districts instead of 2.1-Residential Districts?
• Chapter 3.3 - Architectural Guidelines: The Senior Residential architectural guidelines are proposed in 3.3.3 – Business Park. The guidelines should be added in section 3.3.1- Residential.
• Architectural Character: The description of architectural character should define a style which is compatible with other similar projects (multi-family) in the HOC SP area and multi-family residential project along Mission Road.
• Although you have included “Large expanses of flat wall planes vertically or horizontally” as prohibited in the design guidelines, your project is designed with flat walls. • Solar panels cannot be allowed to supplement share trees within parking areas. More discussion is needed if your project is considering solar panels on share structures and how it will be designed to be integrated in the overall design. The number of trees required for parking areas shall not reduced.
• Chapter 4-Development Standards: Please see comments on various development standards in this letter, which would have to be included in the amended SP. The new Development Standards should be included in the Residential Districts or create a new table specific to this site.
• Please confirm why you are including “Health and Athletic Gyms and Weight Reduction Clinics - Accessory Health/Athletic” and “Medical Emergency Care Facilities” as conditionally permitted uses and “Private Recreation Buildings or Facilities” as permitted use in the proposed SR zone.
Landscaping Plan:
• Landscaping: Please correct conflicting items regarding the water efficiency projections, including (but not limited to):
• Proposed plants water-use listed as less than presented on the wucols list • Declaring lower Plant Factor for hydrozones than indicated by the plants • Hydrozone keymap misidentification of a several areas
• Please use the City’s Water Efficiency Worksheet, rather than your version. It is helpful in ensuring the information is logically (and consistently) presented and calculations can be
5 checked easily. This also assists in City’s record keeping. Please see redlined comments on the plans
Lighting Plan:
• Please include height of the lighting fixtures in the table provided on E 1. Please provide colored cut sheets to determine the lighting fixtures color scheme and to show how it complies with the overall architectural/design theme for the project.
CEQA:
• As disclosed to you in the previous letter dated January 16, 2018, the project is not exempt from the provisions of CEQA and therefore needs technical studies for the appropriate CEQA document. At a minimum the project will need Biological Resources Analysis, Noise Repor t, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Cul tural Resources Analysis and Traffic Impact Analysis. The previous letter informed you that y ou have the option to retain a CEQA consultant from the City’s qualified consultant’s lists, however the project description and scope of studies should be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to any work on any of the studies is done.
• You submitted Biological Resources Letter Report prepared by Helix Environment Planning and Traffic Report prepared by Urban Systems Associates with your second submittal on October 25, 2018. The City is rejecting these studies since the two consultants are not on the City’s qualified consultants list and the studies scope was not submitted to the City for approval.
• Please comply with the information provided in this letter and on the City’s web site on the process to retain qualified CEQA consultants and conduct environmental analysis.
• Alternatively, if the City were to prepare the CEQA document, note that the City will hire a CEQA consultant. The applicant will be responsible to pay the cost of the CEQA document, any technical studies and administrative fees of 25% of the total contract to the City.
Engineering Department:
• Utility crossing data shall be provided on the proposed sewer line as it crosses the storm water culvert.
• An easement is required for construction of the sewer line on the adjacent property to the west. • The infiltration rate provided by the geotechnical report did not analyze the infiltration at the location of the proposed infiltration basin. Additional testing will be required during final engineering to confirm infiltration rates and suitability. • Please provide the necessary worksheets for DMA -2 to ensure the pervious pavement proposed is adequately sized for pollutant control.
• Please provide details of the permeable pavement on the plans. • The Simple Method Infiltration calculations for the proprietary infiltration basin shall be revised to incorporate the porosity value of stone aggregrate which is included with the infiltration size of
6 the BMP and the actual storage volume per inch of depth within the stormtech chamber. The simple method worksheet is intended to be used for a conventional infiltration basin. • Infiltration basins require a forebay with a volume of at least 25% of the DCV to trap sediment.
Please clarify how this design criteria is achieved in the proposed design. • Please provide a detail on the plans which illustrates the outlet from the stormtech chambers above the water quality volume storage depth.
• The SWMM Model will be reviewed and approved during the final engineering phase. Please note that the City requires the use of the Escondido rain gage, not the Oceanside rain gage for hydromodification analysis.
• Section B-B of the underground chambers does not match the plan view. The section provided shows seven rows whereas only six rows are drawn on the plan view. Please review and revise accordingly.
• It is recommended that a grading variance be added to the entitlement pac kage for review and approval. The current grading scheme includes slopes and walls in combination of 20' and potentially slightly over 20'. This can be illustrated by drawing section A -A on the civil drawings through the high point of the driveway entrance to the proposed parking stalls. • Based on the current contours depicted on the plans, it appears that a 0" curb is proposed along the northerly driveway. Please confirm and consider adding guardrail along the edge of the driveway.
• Proposed trees are shown on-site within steep slopes adjacent to the right of way lines. Please provide adequate setback from the right of way to ensure the tree roots do not damage the sidewalk and any appurtenances for the tree are contained entirely on the project site. • The elevation for the discharge pipe from the infiltration chambers to the creek is set at the creek's 10-year water surface elevation. A flap gate may be required to be installed on this discharge pipe during final engineering review to prevent backwater eff ects during larger storms.
• The proposed development indicates construction within the 100- year floodway. Based on the Twin Oaks Valley Creek Conditional Letter of Map Revision dated 11/2017 prepared by NV5, Inc., the base flood elevation increases by 0.24'. As such, all requirements from Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations shall be complied with on the CLOMR submittal. Please provide additional materials as required by aforementioned section including, but not limited to the evaluation of alternative development designs which would NOT result in a base flood elevation increase and discussion why this alternative is not feasible.
Vallecitos Water District:
• Please keep the City informed on when the water and sewer study is completed to be included in the CEQA analysis for the project.
If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (760) 744- 1050, extension 3222.
7 Sincerely,
Saima Qureshy, AICP
Principal Planner
[email protected]
Attachments:
Supplemental Requirements for Specific Plan Amendment
Redlined landscape plans and sample WELO worksheet