The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1986-02-04; City Council; 8507; APPEAL - PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF 18 UNIT TENTATIVE MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT. CT 84-43 | CP-302 - CASA LOMA CONDOS* 'AB# p577 TITLE: APPEAL - PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL c 2 4/86 - OF 18 UNIT TENTATIVE MAP AND CONDO- MTG. MINIUM PERMIT. DEPT. PLN CT 84-43/CP-302 - CASA LOMA CONDOS DEP' CITY CITY -4 c N ; w cd do *rl w cd Ll al a -rl m 8 0 N 0 w E m -4 m 0 U I 2 '2 5 5s rl PI. ala h m OLI alcl GCd ala, N5 m rdw a0 uw 0 -4 aw MLl lJJ u 50 LIG w vi cdal aJE so % E-CU \o co I e I hl 2 0 F 2 4 5 z 3 0 0 qb' ClWF CARLSBAD - AGENWILL RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the Council direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare documen DENYING CT 84-43/CP-302 without prejudice. ITEM EXPLANATION The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract mal condominium permit to develop 18 units on 1.5 acres, located north side of Luciernaga east of Cebu Street. The General P the site is Medium High Density, 8-15 du's/ac. The project proposed is at a density of 12 du's/ac which is near the mid of this range. Project ainenities include large units, priva patios, pool, spa and enriched pavement. This project was heard by the Planning Commission on January 1986. The Planning Commission felt they could not approve t project because it contributed to traffic impacts on La Cost Avenue and solutions to these impacts were not available. T consistent with the Planning Commission feeling on several o Costa projects heard the same evening. The Commission conti these other projects for 90 days when the results of the La Traffic Study should be available. On this project, however did not feel that the project, which is constrained by a larc slope, justified the mid-range of the RMH category and, then did not grant a continuance. The Planning Cornmission was also unwilling to send the projec to staff for redesign. They felt the applicant should resubi work with staff to revise the project. Staff also supports recommendation because of the amount of staff time already u for this project and the length of time the application has submitted. Should the Council adopt the recommendation of tl Planning Commission, the applicant could not reapply immedia and would have to wait until the termination of the recently. approved six month moratorium on the submittal of new applications. ENVIRONMENTAL REV1 EW The Planning Director has determined that this project will I cause any significant impacts and, therefore, has issued a NF Declaration, dated August 24, 1985. Because the project was denied, the Planning Cornmission did not recommend approval ol Negative Declaration on January 8, 1986. 4- * .: 8 1 1 ‘4 r Page 2 of Agenda Bill No, 8507 FISCAL IMPACT The increased need for city capital facilities resulting fro development will be offset by the payment of the public faci fee. Any capital facilities related directly to this develo will be constructed and paid for by the developer. Increased operating expenses related to this development wil offset to some extent from increased tax or fee revenue gene by the development. No detailed economic impact analysis of development has been conducted at this time so predictions c portion of operating expenses covered by additional operatin revenue created as a result of this project cannot be made. EXHIBITS 1. Location Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2489 3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 11, 1985 w/attachments _-. .. MEADOW VILLA H MULTIPLE FAMILY mVACANT * c 1 \ "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 X? 13 l4 15 16 l7 I.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 m e L PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2489 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND CONDO- MINIUM PERMIT FOR 18 UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LUCIERNAGA STREET, AT THE FIRST UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY EaST OF CEBU STREET. APPLICANT: CASA LOMA CONDOS CASE NO: CT 84-43/CP-302 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain prop€ wit: Lots 393 and 394 of La Costa Meadows Unit No. 2, County of San Diego, State of California, accordi Map thereof No. 6905, filed in the Office of the Recorder of San Diego, April 21, 1971, has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; ant WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 11th December, 1985, an on the 8th day of January, 1986, hold a noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, to consider si request; and I WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all pel desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all facto] relating to the Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planr Commission as follows: (A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. (B) That based on the evidence presented at the public heE the Commission DENIES CT-84-43/CP-302, without prejudi based on the following findings: ///I /I// I 1 & - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 L V c Findings: 1 ) The project is not consistent with the City's General because it does not meet the criteria in the Land Use to justify 12 du's/acre. The site is not physically suitable for the type and of the development since a steep slope exists which c development and density on the site. The proposed project is not consistent with the City' Development Ordinance because the project design is n compatible with site constraints. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, h the 8th day of January, 1986, by the following vote, to wi AYES : Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners: Mar McFadden, Holmes, Hall, Smith & McBane. NOES : None. ABSENT: None . ABSTAIN: None. 2) 3) a CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chai CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISE /ATTEST: 1 I IMICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER PLANNING DIRECTOR c 28,PC RES0 NO. 2489 -2- I e e Y I + w STAFF REPORT DATE : DECEMBER 11, 1985 TO : PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CT 84-43/CP-302 - CASA LOMA CONDOS - Request for approval of a tentative tract map and condominium permit to develop 18 units along the north side of Luciernaga Street, at the first undeveloped property east of Cebu Street. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission continue this item until an analysis of the problems and potential solutions to the circulation problems in the La Costa area have been completed 11, PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map and condominium permit to develop 18 units on 1.5 acres, loca as described above, The overall project density would be 12 du's/acre. This dens is in conformance with the General Plan Land Use designation this site of RMH, Residential Medium High, 8-15 du/ac. The project will consist of 18 residential condominium units proposed to be developed as one 4-plex unit, four 3-plex unit and one 2-plex unit. The condominium units will range in siz from 1,244 square feet to 1,669 square feet. A recreational area, consisting of a pool, spa, and open grass area will be included in the project's design. The project site is currently vacant and level, with a variet weeds and grasses covering it. A steep 1.5:l slope is locate at the northern property boundary. The property to the north and west of the project site is developed with multi-family housing. The property to the south is developed with single family and duplex units and the property to the east is vacan 111, ANALY S IS Planning Issues 1) Does the proposed project comply with all development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance and with development standards of the underlying RD-M zone? e 0 J I 4 - 2) Does the proposed project satisfy all design criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance? 3) Does the proposed project's design adequately mitigate concerns associated with the onsite 1.5:l slope? Discussion Staff believes that the proposed project satisfies all of the development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance and the development standards of the underlying RD-M zone. All of the condominium units will be set back a minimum of 15 feet fr the fronting Luciernaga Street and all. structures will be set back a minimum of five feet from the side property lines. Eac condominium complex will have a minimum 31 foot separation. All of the proposed condominium units will have a two-car gar; which includes a 392 cubic foot storage area. Sufficient visitor parking will be provided in parking spaces located in the condominium units. A private yard or covered deck will be provided with each unit. In addition, a recreation area whicl includes a swimming pool, spa and grassy area is proposed to k located within the west central portion of the property. A 24 foot wide, two-way driveway off of Luciernaga Street is propo: to handle all internal circulation. This driveway has been designed in a meandering pattern throughout the property to enhance the visual appearance of this access. The project also conforms with the design criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance at the density proposed. As discussed earlier, the proposed driveway has been meandered throughout the site and designed with enriched pavement to enhance the appearance of this accessway. The project also includes separate fountain and recreation areas with textured pedestrian pathways extending from them to adjacent residentiz units. Landscaping will be utilized to soften the appearance justifies the density proposed. During review of the project, City engineering staff had concerns regarding the existing 1.5:l slope located at the northern property boundary. It was their recommendation that slope be treated as though it were 2:l whereby no development would be allowed in that area of the assumed 2:l slope. In accordance, the project has been designed to keep all development out of this area. the center of the property adjacent to the recreation area and the structures, For these reasons, staff fee1.s that the proja -2- e e 4 TRAFFIC Staff has identified an increasing number of traffic concern within the City and particularly within the La Costa area. is currently undertaking a study to more clearly identify an resolve them. The proposed project is not a major traffic contributor in itself but will incrementally contribute to t traffic problems in the area. In accordance, the proposed project will be responsible for contributing a proportionate share towards the solution of identified problems, The prop project does comply with all of the relevant City standards policies, however until the aforementioned traffic study is completed and the details of the appropriate solutions are identified, staff is unwilling to recommend approval and is providing three alternatives for the Planning Commission to issues. These include: 1. A continuance of the project until the traffic study ha 2. Approve the proposed project based upon the finding th consider in dealing with the proposed project relative to tr been completed by staff . the project will contribute only incrementally to the existing traffic problems and have staff return with documents. 3. Approve the project, with the inclusion of a condition requiring that the final map not be approved until the traffic study has been completed for the La Costa area the applicant has agreed to perform or participate in a solution. There may be some concerns with this alterna in that it may be difficult to make the finding for ade public facilities. In conclusion, staff is recommending Alternative No, 1, continuance of the project until after the traffic study for La Costa area has been completed. Staff's recommendation is it would be more appropriate to delay a decision on this pro until the traffic study is completed, letting us know the ex of the existing problems and possible solutions. The study should be completed some time in February 1986. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this proje will not have a significant impact on the environment and, therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration on August 24, 1 ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Vicinity Map 4. Disclosure Form 5. Environmental Document 6, Exhibit "A" - "H" , dated August 28, 1985 7, Traffic Volumes CDD : ad 11/22/85 3, Background Data Sheet -3- - ()-GENERAL PLAN PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL LOW (0-1.5) a SINGLE FAMILY HRE~~DENTIAL LOW MEDIUM ( 0-4 IM MULT~ FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (4-8 1 a OPEN SPACE e 0 I 4 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE JKI: CT 84-43/8-302 APPLICANT: C?SA LOMA CONDOS REQUEST AND LOCATION: 18 townhouse condos with swhning pool and spa. North side of Luciernaga Street, easterly of Cebu Street LM;AL DESCRIPTION: lots 393 & 394 of La Costa Meadows Unit No. 2, in the COUI of San Diego, State of CA, according to Map thereof No. 6905, filed in the office of the Cty. Recorder of San Diego, April 21, 1971 APN: 215-330-16,17 Acres 1.5 Proposed No. of Lotsflnits 2/18 townhouse condo units GENE!RE PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RMH (8-15) Density Allowed 8-15 Density Proposed 12 du/ac Existing Zone DM Proposed Zone DM Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site RD-M Vacant North RD-M Multi-family housing South RD-M Single-family & duplex East RD-M Open Space West R-2 Multi-family housing PUBLIC FACILITIES san Marcos School District Unified mter San Marcos Sewer bucdaia mu's Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated EBiiRO?&"TAL IMPACT ASSESS= X Nqative Declaration, issued August 24, 1985 December 13, 1984 E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, - - -- -- -0 *-- _-- ---- m.- -..UC. ..----- - 1 4 ' K & K Devlopment Company APpLI-: Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corpration, sym 4305 Gesner street, Suite 200 Business Address TeLepbsnr Nuaim San Diego, CA. 92117 276-2113 RoNA\ o M.FEEN5TPA CALIF8 RE=,\ S TEZE 0 t7Uu)ING Name AGENT: .. 4550 KEAP.NY \\UA I2 O-SUITE 'L\Z (a~ 01s 0. (A 5 (6 t>\ 560 -0666 Business Address I .I T~leph6am Nuaber 3571 Millikin Ave. San Die( Gregory D. Kasai MEMBERS : ITama .(individual, partner, joint - venture, cor_Dozation, syndication) Erne Bddress 4305 Gesner Street. Suite 200 Sari Diego. CA. 92117 Biisiness Address 276-2113 455-5984 Telephone Jlumber 8911 Via Andar, San Diego, Telephone Number (5WU) Jaw smr Kang eta1 Borne Address fax= 8911 Via Andar, San Diego, CA. 92122 3rrsiness Address 457-0708 . 457-0708 Telepkne Xunber Ttiephor.e Nu&= Jing rong Hsu 8911 Via Andar San Diego, CA. 92122 457-0708 (Attach more sheets if necessary) I/tre doclze uzder penalty Of perjury that t5e infomation contained in thi: closure is true and correct and that it: will remain true and correct and ma; relied upon as being true and correct until aaended, K.+ 9&v..p.P.- i- /:. App1 ican t BY A- - - , dm&, Parenet 0 0 1 4 DEVELOPMENTAL 1200 ELI SERVICES CARLSBAD, LAND USE PLANNiNG OFFICE (619) 4 aitp o€ UCsrlSbab I N%ATIVE , DECLARATICJN PFWECT ADDRESS/LocATIGN: si6.e of Luciernaga Street at the first undeveloped property east of Cebu Street. The project is located along the north PFWECT DESCRIPTION: cordominium units with associated recreational facilities aver 1.5 acres , The City of Carlsbad has cronducted an enviromental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Enviromental Quality Act and the Enviromental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. AS a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not hme a significant impact on the enviroment) is hereby issued for the subject project. i and Use Planning Office, A ropy of the Neyative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Land Use Plannirg Office, City Hall, 1200 E~IP Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. 92008. Ccmments fran the public are invited, Please submit comments in writirq to the r,and use plannirq Office within ten (10) days of date of issuance. This project, CL' 84-43, will include 18 Justification for this action is on file in the DATED: August 24, 1985 CASE NO: CT 84-43/cP.302 Land Use Planning Elanager APPLICANT: CASA EMA COJES PUBLISH DATE: August 24, 1985 ND-4 5/8 1 LI,IIIL I n i I p- a.". 1.. - I. YI ..I _. ,., -.A \ I --- ---_s_ I[ 1118- i I - I _I.. . L I. = ___._....._.__._... ~ - ..I..,. .” 111.8 i I Ill %A# - n UII I uii 1 ll3fP - Yl u I I 1 I AFR; VOLUM CASA LOMA CONI PROJECTED TRAFFIC CT 84-43 24 UNITS 0 * EXISTING CAPASITY 192 TRIPS EXISTING TRAFFIC e. OTHER PROJECTS TRAFFIC d) m 'F] WQA~ pwb Qcid Abb- &&I\ TRAFFIC 8 TRANSPORTATION E December 18, 1985 Mr. Gregory D. Kasai Urban Equities RECEIVEG 4305 Gesner Street San Diego, Ch 92117 Dear Mr. Kasai: This letter summarizes our review of traffic factors related to your proposi Casa Loma condominium development in the City of Carlsbad. The study is ba upon information provided by you, previous studies and standard analysis prl cedu res. The project includes 18 residential condominium units and is located on the northerly side of Luciernaga Street in the La Costa area of the City of Carl All vehicle access is via Luciernaga Street. The project would have an ovet density of 12 DU's per acre which is in the RMH, Residential Medium High, li use designation. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the project and surt-c road system. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITXONS Luciernaga Street is a local street with residential development. Access ta the arterial street system is via Corintia Street to Alga Road and easterly El Fuerte Street. Alga Road is fully developed as a Major Arterial wester1 to El Camino Real. To the east, it is partially developed to Melrose Avenue El Fuerte is developed as a Secondary Arterial southerly of Alga Road. In order to quantify existing traffic conditions, recent PM peak hour traffi volumes for the intersections on El Camino Real at Alga Road and La Costa Av were obtained from previous studies and Intersection Capacity Uti1 iZatiOn (I analyses completed. (The ICU methodology and relationship of ICU to Level o Service is described in Appendix A.) These ICU analyses are contained in Appendix B and indicate an existing ICU value of 0.45 (Level of Service A) a El Camino Real and Alga Road and an ICU of 0.98 (Level of Service E) at Ei Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. DEo c 19 1385 -- -- --p 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE SUITE 110 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 (714) 87 e a I- zu ox FIX 3Q m -x =Q I- ca n> az Ea kl- .I -J 0 w 3 0 U [1 m W . TRIP GENERATION The estimated daily and PM peak hour trip generation for the project is SL marized in Table 1. For the daily trip generation rate, the City's Traff- Model input was utilized. The peak hour rates conform to rates utilized 1 similar land uses in the City. As indicated in Table 1, the project is e! mated to generate 150 daily trip ends with 15 occurring during the PM peal hour. TRIP ASSIGNMENT As a part of the City's Staff Report for this project, a trip distributioi pattern was developed. This distribution is illustrated on Figure 1 and v utilized to assign estimated project traffic to the circulation system. F daily and PM peak hour traffic assignments are also illustrated on Figure These trip assignments were uti1 ized to analyze potential project traffic impacts. ANALY S IS Project traffic has been analyzed for conditions upon completion of the pi and at build out of the General Plan. In addition, traffic from approved not constructed projects has been considered in the project completion ant These two analyses are described below. The intersection on El Camino Real at Alga Road and at La Costa Avenue anc Rancho Santa Fe Road at Melrose Avenue were analyzed at project completior These intersections were selected as they are in areas indicated to have d cient volume/capacity ratios on a daily basis in the Staff Report. Since hour analyses are better measures of actual conditions, these provided a m detailed evaluation of potential impacts. The intersections on El Camino analyzed with existing plus other approved projects and with existing plus plus the project. Since the Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Avenue intersec does not exist in its proposed form, it was only analyzed with planned imp ments. These improvements are related to currently approved developiiient i the area of that intersection. The ICU analyses are contained in Appendix a 0 - Table 1 TRIP GENERATION Casa Lorna Condos TIME PERIOD TRIP ENDS PER GENERATE DWELLING UNIT (18 ICU' Daily 8 1E PM Peak Hour In 0.6 I out 0.2 - - Total 0.8 1 - e e and sumarired in Table 2. Also indicated in Table 2 are the other projec included on the analysis. These other projects are approved but not consti projects where data were available. Review of Table 2 indicates that the current El Camino Real/Alga Road inte section can accommodate both other and project traffic and remain at Level Service B. The El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection is currently o ing at unacceptable conditions and will be further impacted by other devel Addition of project traffic will not alter the ICU value due to the minor volumes and additions to non-critical movements. With improvements curren being proposed by City Staff, the ICU value is reduced to 0.65 and Level 0. Service B. The Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Avenue intersection is also pl jected to operate at Level of Service A with an ICU value of 0.34 at projec completion. These analyses have indicated that the circulation system can accommodate the project and other planned development in the near term wit1 currently proposed circulation improvements. The City has developed a Traffic Model which projects traffic volumes at GI Plan Build Out. This Model provides intersection volumes for peak hours wl can be utilized with the ICU procedure to examine future conditions. analyses were completed for three intersections at buildout based uppn Tral Model projections. These analyses are contained in Appendix C and sumari; in Table 3. As indicated in Table 3, some improvements in addition to stat street geometrics would be required. With improvements such as dual left 1 lanes, separate and/or free right turn lanes and other design consideratior the ICU values can be reduced to near acceptable conditions. There is a ne further evaluate these ultimate conditions from both the traffic projection intersection design viewpoints. A study of these type is currently underwa and is expected to be completed in early 1986. SUMMARY This study has examined traffic factors related to the Casa Loma condominili impact upon the street system evaluated. Consideration was given to other ICU project, Estimates were made of trips to be generated and the potentital rn -1 Table 2 ICU SUMMARY At Project Completion Casa Loma Condos INTERSECTION ICU/LOS(l) txisting txisting txisting +Project +Other(2) +Other( 2) ~l Camino Real/ta Costa Avenue ICU 0.98 1.21 1.21 LOS E F F El Cami no Real /A1 ga Road-Col 1 ege Bl vd ICU 0.45 0.61 0.61 LOS A B B Me1 rose Awenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road- Cori n t i a - - ICU - LOS - - - (1) ICU=Intersection Capacity Uti1 ization; LOS=LeveI of Service (2) Other Projects: La Costa Southwest Phase 1 (SW-4) La Costa SE 16 Parcel 095 The Meadows Meadow Ridge SW Corner Alga/Mel rose Alicante Views A1 icante Hills Crossroads Alicante View Apartments La Costa SE 18-21 0 e -1 I Table 3 ICU SUMMARY At General Plan Build Out Casa Lorna Condos INTERSECTION General General P1 an P1 an W/ Irnprv. El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue ICU 1.50 1.01 LOS F F El Camino Real/Alga Road-College Blvd ICU 1.56 0.88 LOS F D Me7 rose Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road-Corintia ICU - 1.04 LOS - F (1) ICU=Intersection Capacity Uti1 ization; LOS=Level of Service I , e 0 -1 1 projects in the area which are approved but not constructed. Intersection analyses were completed at project completion and at General Plan build ou These analyses indicated that the project could be accomodated by the pla street system. Principal findings of the study are the following: 1. The proposed project would generate 150 uaily trip ends with 15 oc during the PM peak hour. 2. The existing intersection at El Camino Real and Alga Road could ac modate near term traffic and operate at an ICU value of 0.61 or Le of Service €3. 3. With currently proposed improvements the El Camino Real/La Costa A intersection would operate with an ICU value of 0.65 (Level of Ser and the Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Avenue intersection would ope with an ICU value of 0.34 (Level of Service A). 4. At build out conditions, some additional circulation improvements n be required as will be identified in the study currently underway. 5. No traffic mitigation measures are required for this project. * * * * We trust that this study will be of assistance to you and the City in proc this project. If you have any questions or require additional informatior contact us. Respectful ly submitted, WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES He@ Weston S. Pring e, P.E. Registered Professiona? Engineer State of California iiumbers C16828 & TR565 WSP :bas #85300 cc: Mr. Bill Hofman 0 , APPENDIX A EXPLANAT ION OF INTERSECT I ON CAPACITY UT% LI ZATION LEVEL OF SERVICE AND ,I 6 0 APPENDIX A EXPLANATION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION The capacity of a street is nearly always greater between intersections and 1 at intersections. The reason for this is that the traffic flows continuously between intersections and only part of the time at intersections. To study intersection capacity, a technique known as Intersection Capacity Uti1 ization (NU) has been developed. ICU analysis consists of (a) determinin the pro- portion of signal time needed to serve each conflicting movement; 9 b) summing the tinies for the movements; and (c) comparing the total time required to the time available. For example, if for north-south traffic the northbound traff is 1,000 vehicles per hour, theuxrthbound traffic is 800 vehicles per hour, a the capacity of either approach is 2,000 vehicles per hour of green, then the northbound traffic is critical and requires 1,000/2,000 or 50 percent of the signal time. If for the east-west traffic, 40 percent of the signal time is required, then it can be seen that the ICU is 50 plus 40, or 90 percent. Whe left-turn phases exist, they are incorporated into the analysis. As ICU's approach 100 percent, the quality of traffic service approaches Level of Serv (10s) E, as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 87, Highwa: Research Board, 1965. Level of Service is used to describe quality of traffic flow. Levels of Serv' A to C operate quite well. Level of Service D is typically the Level of Serv. for which an urban street is designed. Level of Service E is the maximum voli a facility can accommodate and will result in possible stoppages of momentary duration. Level of Serwice F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by stop-and-go traffic with stoppages of long duration. A des- cription of the various levels of service appears on the following page. The ICU calculations assume that an intersection is signalized and that the signal is ideally timed. A1 though calculating ICU for an unsignal ized inter- section is not valid, the presumption is that a signal can be installed and tt calculation shows whether the geometrics are capable of accomodating the ex- pected volumes. It is possible to have an ICU well below 1.0, yet have severe traffic congestion. This would occur because one or nnre movements is not getting enough time to satisfy its demand with excess time existing on other moves. Capacity is often defined in terms of roadway width. However, standard lanes have approximately the same capacity whether they are 11 foot or 14 foot lanes Our data indicates a typical lane, whether a through lane or left-turn lane ha a capacity of approxiniately 1600 vehicles per lane per hour of green time. Th Highway Capacity Manual found capacity to be about 1500 vehicles per lane per hour of green for through lanes and 1200 vehicles per lane per hour of green for left-turn lanes. However, the capacity manual is based on pre-1965 data, and recent studies and observations show higher capacities in the southern California area. assumed for through traffic, and 1600 vehicles per 'lane for turning lanes. For this study a capacity of 1600 vehicles per lane has beer c Level of Service A 8 C 8) E F Nominal Of IC1 0.00 Low volumes; high speeds; speed not restricted by other vehicles; all signal cycles clear with no vehicles waiting through iiiore than one signal cycl e. Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; between one and ten percent of the signal cycles have one or inore vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. Operating speeds and inaneuverabil ity closely controlled by other traffic; between 11 and 30 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through niore than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; reconmiended ideal design standard. of the signal cycles have one or iiiore vehicles which wait through iiiore than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; often used as design standard in urban areas. Capacity; the maximum traffic volumes an inter- section can accommodate: restricted speeds; 71 to 100 percent of the signal cycles have one or inore vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. Long queues of traffic; unstable flow; stop- pages of long duration; traffic volume and traffic speed can drop to zero; traffic volume will be less than the volunie which occurs at Level of Service E. 0.61 0.71 Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent 0.81 - 0.91 - Not me 0 8 I APPENDIX B ICU ANALYSES PROJECT COMPLET I ON , i.I e 0 1 c ** * \V 3\ mr-l hm OOhCr)*b cocumm p. .. .. .... 0000 +ai 00 00 00000 OCL +E w- > 0- 0- rcrcCT)o- WmOIOUl ..... * c ** n +v bm mm CDm em03 rDomrc +> 0. .. ....... w 00 00 00 000 000- o\ -- -cw m*‘9 OdO bhOcuLL n L 3 2 e c cc Y 00 hm ma mm wmo3 UDOrnrc tu aJ u> n 00 00 00 000 000- = n v) Y v) +\ -r-l -&I m?rc, OdO *hONLL .. .. ... .... * c *c CI *- 5” mm om mm .sac0 ommc0 E! E 2 0-I mm -J u\ dr( dm cub OdO *rnomw U X> .. .. ... .... z w w oc 00 00 000 0000 U =r e z 7 C 0 v, ZO Q Cn- 0 nw 2 no 2 zn- U on t- => 00 V n cz z 9 wa om ommooo om 3 IO om hh*LnrcIO curc “Z \ I-> -rc- m 2 0 * 2” 2 c, -Ju aJ cr: w e.3 3 0 t- II P mo 2, ?5 -0 m~u-Jw-$U7-Mw~~w dL d z C, 4: =w z 0 -l OC, 0 e V)J e~~ehbbtx3oC~o x=- Ne rCeCr)zt*m cud VCL u e 3 0 U u t- 0 w w CA OQ 00 00 00000 cz .. =e Nco Nco CUcuIcaw u z nu me m=t mmertm I- 2 4 m n 08 00 oocoo 5 2 I1 II w -I- 3=cz Oc3W =e0 -4: 0 --J WIU co ecb m=3- nu 0- -0l- ~mGNCQChNddNG w me- IO It ZIP: I- 3CV =I-w 0 II OW0 mcm CAWZ I mu OWZ 2 I- m II nz v, me 00 oc 00 coo CAS: 3 m-> a x0 CDN aDr\i ua maw w w rtm dm rt- Mer( dv, I- 4: I- II I: z U-l 3p: E u z;cL 00 00 00 000 3CA r ZCW LE I1 au W U sz ad kt& I-v, \=a c/J LJ I \ PL I1 II 8-2 ~cUO~NCF4F4O~F4~ t-+q 2525 ZAW =-I* ev)w=>Ln OU-JVC 11 II 0 zw0m-l I ml- >x -ll-md+m-ll-a-l+m ow zzztAtAwLLiww3~~ ET c 7 e 0 L ** ** n +v arc Oh dcu bNWd +> 0. .. .. .. .... n w 00 00 00 00 0000 L o\ 0- Ocv 80 2z *Moa- I 0 X ** ** A ClJ ou 40- Oh dcu b’(ULn& n w> 0. .. .. .. ... .a 00 00 00 00 0000 r p. Q) +\ 0- OW 00 z= *-ow v 2 v) * -l 4 * * ** n z I- z WU a0 *m .-(cu mo Olrcmm x n -\ 04 rcN 00 00 (U40W-e 0 < z 5 x> .. .. .. .... m -I w 00 00 00 00 ooco I- w 3 z cp v, !z v)*- a 3 II N w oc, w 0-I mu, v) -I p:O A a> n c( z#- I- oa 0 z 0 23 0 I m a CL + V -Iv a IO ma-* am e U Q, I-=- -mP( w 0 II CT 4 0 sw 3, d nw “e != Ocr n w-l am00 00 m - 3” 3 II w 22 2- e m II LC, c, \ L rJa-msl-4D~FlFlWam xm 3XZ <A 5 E -4 oe oc oc o =I- (n3- -I L z II z+w Uci aa=3-d~~cuFlemFlm cr)r OCYW x> 0eCUID Lud 3 a-z- w dm ICLO E I- U I- ll r co p: VA =a u w p: MU 0 --I w O I- b-0 mIe v)n ococc oc o c UCI II av zc xu rDC0 acu tow cu V- -0 I- 4 u Fle ccm rtm M a aczu u IO I1 ZXQL I- XI-0 -I =I--w C ll w omv m+m OWL I -&I OLLIZ z crz dmeFlNCdNCcuCe I-I-4 0 x< L L CLmw=Jv, ZdW - w.d oe-100 II II n I- ZW0-A Zd* u w I m wI- w OLJ zzz(nmmwwkl333 2zz s Y .. kZ k! k! I\cL \31d 11 11 kkk p: =-z -l~-=~~-a-l+p:-l~-z 5 c.l - 0 0 n L 3 0 z ** ** X no- +zv ww *- ow Floc0 wmme Y OM\. 00 00 00 NOH OWGOU a +\> e. .. .. ... .... aJ w3 00 00 00 000 0000 n n r Y p: ** ** n n z v) oxu " w- ow -000 amme 3 +-\ 00 00 00 NOH ONOme 0 v, * c w\> .. .. ... .... a z 00 00 00 000 0000 + A z ps 0 U u 3 I Od v) =c L n CZO m cL> n I- 0 a e L0.r w LL a d zr- I- 3 0 5 c( 4n c( ? 9 E2 r p: 2 8': ZE * PV c, st: P 2 z 0 cz 0V)mom 5 5 cum--8-8 N wcoz s w-1 so ll mmm0v) r IO c> 4 * U II W -C v, II Pi + X ZI-L < *- z m,l om~EDNooooEDoo xv, x19 x> h 3 m-, < + II a 0 a V UL s < V un \ 4J z -0 < -a heme 5: =: v)5 OW: w J4n zss w :$ 0 -- > 00 00 00 0 0 +u c-(u v)I* 3K II a< d. n 4nac 0- 00 00 00 8 0 =I- mol. w WDCO NED aa ED a v+l p: a=+ 0 I 0 I1 ZIC t- =I=-< -I XI-w 0 I1 OW0 mt-c E WWZ I mu v) w \=< ++I- p:e L OCv,WDv, ZdLl -2 oe:-rvo II 11 c t- zw0w-I z-1* 4 0 U E v, v, =e nu mu mu AH e & w Q: w s + z w CI aw Flm~wmoFlFlomoFi w c+-Q X\aIl H eL5 .. OW4 z OZ z = -I- 2-z J+UdCCZdt--Cz,l p: u OW zzrmnv,wwu&3 z V w 1 fA c t5: ,. e 0 APPENDIX C ICU ANALYSES BU I LDOUT - I. 0 0 I ** * * uz \n hahah cub .-corn bruu)~ WE O*O~cu cuF4 om- ro000L n.\ ddddd 00 000 000- .... .. ... a= ** * * A LJ ha am sh gh mcUv)o cowo-~ h nu ow m-=t .... .. .. .. L o\ 3 51 00 00 00 00 0004 0 v) X n. c1 c3 v) ;Y ). (0 -l W d U L c, U n 0 m 3 nr 0- n+ n ww cQbObh~wrn.-cmm&o nz oo-whh~em-ou E o=> dCUMrnNCOhrnCr) ow n EA cu r) z 3 0 t- vr 9 E 0 a I ? s mu = z 0 I- e wl- -Z ow zcz Oc32 X== 0 n ==A z w V-l 0 -< mv, w w UU CnXU II a- vr=3c. V O< LL LL =I- 0- -0 - nzz -l a. a zxv w x v II .. OCnU m+w nu \2U I-+O I-t-U OWW aww3m z-la w c3 O<AVO II II I- u v) ZWUU-l p: w U n- w we oooco 00 OCO d z3 > mu 00000 GO 000 a n c1 om U ov ~ocowDcuco cum -ONID I- u oq: -u-mu 00 -0- on 3 m t; no V m 4 =e 1 E 0 >- is2 L I:" 2 z d c, c, w 5 5 z> u e UaJ < SE s =cL 00 00 00 00 w II v) E2 z " 2IW ZE aa-0 00 00 00 00 nv wa wm wcu w(u u uc \ < -* s-u dm dm II au d 4 < z 7 dm e I- I1 &I vr z U w < r OW nz r)m-Nmzcuwznmr) w w LE =I- c II v, z 9v, mwz I *I- 2 z s-mo-mo-cuo~cuo I\P:II II =LLz E5 5 Gw U 5: zzzvrmmwww3~3 w-l U t- 3t-w z ZAC Acz-lczAc~A z w > 0 SI I 0 0 ** ** n \n osb cocOcOos~ mCOQI N-tnm L >;E om -mrc~- -ON ~OOQOP 3 k .. ..... e.* e... 0 n\ 00 ooooo ooo 0000 I a3 Y (II aJ n. r: ** ** n 4 Y w hN he ma am mNma VCT av rrcn md om NCU CQID0mOLL o\ .. .. .. zcs 00 00 00 00 dddr; v, n n c( > CI v, 4 * m d A U w ww h~tnmcooaco~osh~ n z CY taz huacomcoucn~.-um z w 03 NwcGmaoJ~m~~~~ 3 3 U 5 0 I 0 U 0 V c3 I- I U mu N 0- a> U n- n WI- 00 00000 000 3 d z3 CL: m- 00 00000 000 .I ou cuco NaDIDIOCU NCUa n ne mb mercrrm 00- z - om I- V U on 3 =< 0 Q-V m = c .- 4 =d a> L c, i I ? 3 > 22 U t,s \ 9L 80" 00 00 00 2 SL" SE z: c) c, E mT OcI> w w OW w mxv It CY- I- nz Nmacum--cuomm~ LE z, .. z 0 K ntzcL c, E zwu-d Zd* t;; 5 n u c z> 00 00 00 I1 v, w nv aa acn a- acu I1 wl- A =x = < -e M* -- 40 *Z zn v, 11 nu z CJ 0 UU E TI-5: CJV =>m 3IW 0 I- e r. D mho u U Av) xnzz w V n < k- I1 v, w u-l 3a-J p: d v)m w -< 0 -a OU LL =I- m=I- =A u- -0 - IU 11 ZIO F at t =)I-w 0 I1 v) 4 ornv mk-w Av, v)WZ I *I- v, OW \x=x k-b0 CT z ~mos-4mo-~oMNo I\cLII 11 LZLZ w 24: I-+< OUW aJ 0 c. w I- Wd =v)wxv, zdn a OUAVO ll ll G w 222v)v)v)www3L w ZE dI-=J+CL:JI-=A p: > 0 E 0 0 b .. . n L 7 0 X Y a aJ L), \ a\ tu* ha 06 moo CD 0 mdmd n n om N(*) 00 m (3 muooLL z oe . . .. .. . .... 3 =u ** ** z z -I !z CLU I- 9 2 0 OD Mh=rCDuJ CD u II CI Li 3 r we GO 00 00 0 0 32 II v) %g s% u- 3xw 5 5 ac= 00 00 00 0 0 OOOM Y v) ). t U a v) z w 0 3 -1 II U u L c, ww mommo~mommom 3 c I n E2 HH H H z a mu p: 0 v) II 3 0 a N or- nz- r U n- w a am 2 za LL v)3= w om => I- u -1v) a CE 3 n)- oo oc 00 o o U Lo- CDDCO moo -DID oo a -e LE aw m ou Me me Md u H * si2 L2 ne &I- Zl-aZ R rnL 0 PU a Oc1> xu 11 cnuo t- ==E s si!! 5 z a w OLoV ==A \ mw w mwz 0 -a w LZ --4m=NmO--4~OmO~ Jz\all ll O< LL I-+< m3e =a &mw3v) -0 b-4 a> c u ncTQ: oe2uo a w ZWVUA ZIO w v) w v) =e c O e G II m z & z m+w U 2 w I -k- w r AceAI-eJ#-eA I-I-0 OWU =-In .. 0 z sc II II Z-IC c u w v) z w 3 I nr oohcv~hmmoom~oo .I n. W r- 0 U <a I al & a =em I- II E c, OW w \2=< cnxv II a- <cL w ZZZv)v)v)WWW&% CLLZ => E ki U @ a - . 4. c- JOHN V. STANLEY ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 204 AREA COI 7682 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-6086 TELEPHONE February 3, 1986 Major Mary Casler, and Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California 92008 DELIVERED BY MESSENGER Re: CT-43/CP-302, Casa Loma Condos 1200 Elm Avenue AB NO, 8507 Ladies and Gentlemen: The owners and applicant, and the owner's architect request tl your Council uphold this appeal and adopt the recommendation < your staff which would direct that the matter be referred bacl to your Planning Commission with directions that it be contini subject to and until the current traffic study has been complt by staff and an opportunity for redesign to meet the concerns your Commission. This request is made in light of the recommendation of your Cc mission that the application be denied without prejudice, Bel the moratorium prevents reconsideration, the denial is with p: dice. It is submitted that the owners have been unduly prejudiced b! delays in excess of one year over which they had no control. This application was submitted on December 5, 1984, after foul months of pre-application review and approval in concept by yc staff . The initial application requested 24 units. At that time, thc allowable density was 10/20 per acre. The resulting density F 16.9 units per acre. Delays in processing were caused by changes in your planning i engineering staff and by changes in the City's processing, wh: included a reduction of the applicable land use density. )L - *.. -' 35-m =*am r = - = CI =E II rn m - . - d 1 0 @ 17 . 1 - .PC R Mayor and Council Members Page Two February 3, 1986 As a result, and to meet the requests of your staff, density was reduced by four units to a total of 18 units. The result density became 12 units to the acre. In the meantime, other projects in the area were completely p cessed prior to imposition of the new density requirements; approved by your Council on September 3, 1985, which allowed 136 condominium units on 9.95 acres at a density of 13.7 unit per acre. You will note from the attached exhibit that the subject prop is immediately surrounded by constructed projects with an ave density of 14.9 per acre. The owners and applicant believe that they can meet the conce of your Planning Cornmission and staff, and request the opport to do so without additional undue prejudice. Furthermore, as your Planning Commission granted other simila situated project continuances, it is submitted that equal tre ment should be afforded to this project. V 4 truly yours, notably, CT-85-7, which was filed on February 18, 1985, and jL:dA hibit attached cc: La2d Use Planrring Directm City Attorney