HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-19; City Council; 8740; REQUEST FOR TENTATIVE MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR 18 UNITS ON LUCIERNAGA STREET. CT 84-43 | CP -302 - CASA LAMA CONDOSAB# t?7q 19 TITLE: REQUEST FOR TENTATIVE MAP AND CONDO-
.I
Q MTG. 8/19/86 MINIUM PERMIT FOR 18 UNITS ON
LUCIERNAGA STREET. 03 a 4 DEPT.h CT 84-43/CP-302 - CASA LOMA CONDOS .\n
DEPT
CITY
CITY
h t
rlcn a4
kv) a5
a3
L
w4
QM
oa a, mu ucd ea a, Eo 3E oa, a OGg
a, -4
kQcd QCQ
ah e.2: ko C4v)a cn 00
a,5U
uobo
-rl kZ 4 waa,
v) RJ -d OQ
ha 4J a,aa
oaa LIS
Udal U? a .rl -4
Udcd
uoa,
CS
$2:
E *s
u Q4
-4 bo-;
-rl 5.22 a 0 u3o 4
w -rl cd
W
co I
cn 4
W I
a, ow ACG
.. z 2 6 4 d 0 z 3 0 0
/-; /' Cl-F CARLSBAD - AGENDeILL
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Both the Planning Commission and the staff are recommending th the City Council ADOPT the Negative Declaration issued by the
Planning Directoranddirect the City Attorney's Office to prepare documents APPROVING CT 84-43/CP-302.
ITEM EXPLANATION
The applicant is requesting approval of an 18 unit tentative n and condominium permit located on 1.5 acres on the north side Luciernaga Street just east of Cebu Street. The General Plan the site is RMH 8-15 du's/ac and the zoning is RD-M. The den: of the project is at 12 du's/ac, in the mid-range of the RMH designation.
This project was originally denied by the Planning Commission because it was felt that the design, particularly architecturt did not justify the density proposed. The applicant appealed denial to the City Council. The project was sent back to sta for redesign.
The applicant has redesigned the project eliminating the form, "box-like" structures. More visual relief has been added to
structures. The Planning Commission felt that the revisions this project now enable the project to justify the density proposed. All other aspects of the project are essentially t same except that open areas have been expanded. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval to the City Council.
Staff did not apply the growth control points to this project because it is a small project and they were originally heard the City Council before those numbers were adopted. If the Council wishes to apply these numbers the project can be conditioned to lose 1 unit.
For further information please see the attached reports to th Planning Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this project will I cause any significant environmental impacts and, therefore, € issued a Negative Declaration, dated August 24, 1985, which 1 recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on July 2 1986. A copy of the environmental documents is on file in tl Planning Department.
Traffic Impact Fee
Bridge & Thoroughfare District
Development Zone
City-wide-Local Program
Required Required 6
Required '.
I
LOCATION MAP
I
- CT 84
CASA .- LOMA CP-3
L a MULTIPLE FAMILY 0
0 n
O (VJVACANT
1 'r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l1
I.2
13
l4
15
l6
l7
18
l9
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2548
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN EIGHTEEN UNIT
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT ON PRO1
STREET, AT THE FIRST UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY EAST OF
STREET. APPLICANT: CASA LOMA CONDOS
GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF LUCIERNi
CASE NO.: CT 84-43/CP-302
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain propel
wit:
Lots 393 and 394 of La Costa Meadows Unit No. 2,
County of San Diego, State of California, accordii Map thereof No. 6905, filed in the Office of the I
Recorder of San Diego, April 21, 1971,
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to I
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a 1
as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; an(
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 25th
June, 1986, and on the 23rd day of July, 1986, hold a duly
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said reques
1 1 considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all per i desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factor
relating to the Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planr
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
Commission as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct. ' B) That based on the evidence- presented at the public hea
the Commission hereby APPROVES CT 84-43/CP-302, based
following findings and subject to the following condit
////
////
t t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0 0
Findings:
1) The project 1s consistent with the City's General PI? the proposed density of 12 du's/acre is within the de range of 8 - 15 du's/acre specified for the site as i on the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
2) The site is physically suitable for the type and den: the development since the site is adequate in size an to accommodate residential development at the density
posed.
3) The project is consistent with all City public facili icies and ordinances since:
a) The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project, ensured th final map will not be approved unless the City Cc
finds that sewer service is available to serve th project. In addition, the Planning Commission ha condition that a note shall be placed on the fina that building permits may not be issued for the p unless the City Engineer determines that sewer se available, and building cannot occur within the p unless sewer service remains available, and the P Commission is satisfied that the requirements of Public Facilities Element of the General Plan nav met insofar as they apply to sewer service for th project.
b) The San Marcos School District has written a lett November 13, 1984, stating that school facilities available to this project.
proval . 1 c) Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of
1 d) All necessary public improvements have been provi
21
22
23
24
e) The applicant has agreed and is required by the i of an appropriate condition to pay a public facil fee. Performance of that contract and payment of will enable this body to find that public facilit be available concurrent with need as required by General P1 an.
f) Assurances nave been given that adequate sewer fo
25
26
27
28
project will be provided by the Leucadia County W I District. 1 //// 1 PC RES0 NO. 2548 I i
-2-
b 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24'
25
26
27
28
e 0
4) The proposed project is consistent with the City's Pl Development Ordinance and also complies with the Desi Guide1 ines Manual.
5) The proposed project is compatible with the surroundi land uses since surrounding properties are designated residential development on the General Plan.
6) This project will not cause any significant environmei impacts and a Negative Declaration has been issued by Planning Director on August 24, 1985 and approved by . Planning Commission on July 23, 1986.
7) This project requires the construction of the improver
facilities listed in the conditions of approval or thc of fees in lieu of construction. This project create: direct need for the improvements or facilities for thc stated in the staff report. If the improvements or fi are not provided the project will create an unmitigatc on existing improvements and facilities. Further, thc improvements and facilities are necessary to provide - adequate and appropriate service to future residents (
project consistent with City goals, policies and plan:
8) The applicant is by condition, required to pay any inc public facility fee, or new construction tax, or devel fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requir established by a development management or public faci program ultimately adopted by the City of Carlsbad. - ensure continued availability of public facilities an( mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the projecl
Conditions:
1) Approval is granted for CT 84-43/CP-302, as shown on E
"A" - "G", dated June 10, 1986, incorporated by referf on file in the Planning Department. Development shall substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
I I
2) This project is approved upon the express condition tf final map shall not be approved unless the City Counci
as of the time of such approval that sewer service is available to serve the subdivision.
3) This project is approved upon the express condition tk
building permits will not be issued for development of subject property unless assurances have been given by Leucadia County Water District in writing, if sewer fa are located in the Leucadia County Water District.
////
PC RES0 NO. 2548 -3-
4 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
m 0
41 Inis project is also approved under the express cond
City Council on April 22, 1986 and any development fl
established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter ; the Carlsbad Municipal Code to implement the growth system or public facilities phasing plan and to fulf subdivider's agreement to pay the public facilities June 16, 1986 a copy of which is on file with the Ci and is incorporated by this reference. If the fees paid this application will not be consistent with th Plan and approval for this project shall be void.
5) The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the Cit to the approval of the final map as required by Chap
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
of overcrowding as part of building permit applicatic fees shall be based on the fee schedule in effect at
the applicant pay the public facilities fee adopted
6) The applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate
of building permit appl ication.
7) Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other appli( ordinances in effect at time of building permit issu,
8) Water shall be provided by the San Marcos Municipal 1 District.
9) All visitor parking spaces shall be striped a differ1 than the assigned resident parking spaces and shall marked with small pole signs to be approved by the P Director.
P1 anni ng Department:
10) The applicant shall prepare a 24" x 36" reproducible
the final site plan incorporating the conditions con herein. Said site plan shall be submitted to and ap, the Planning Director prior to the issuance of build. permits.
11) The applicant shall establish a homeowner's associat corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions CC&R's shall be submitted to and approved by the Plai Director prior to final map approval.
12) The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and tion plan which shall be submitted to and approved b ' Planning Director prior to the issuance of grading o permits, whichever occurs first.
1
////
PC RES0 NO. 2548 -4-
9 I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I-5
16
17
3.8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
13) A 500' scale map of the subdivision shall be submitt6 Planning Director prior to the recordation of the fin Said map shall show all lots and streets within and 2 to the project.
14) All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthj
thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debri
15) Any signs proposed for this development shall be desi conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs.
16) Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foo
masonry wall With gates pursuant to City standards.
of said receptacles shall be approved by the Planning Director.
17) All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, s
architecturally integrated and concealed from view an sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, to Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisf the Directors of Planning and Building.
18) Building identification and/or addresses Shall be pla all new and existing buildings so as to be plainly vi from the street or access road; color of identificati addresses shall contrast to their background color.
19) If any condition for construction of any public impro or facilities, or the payment of any fees in lieu tne imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this pr challenged this approval stlall be suspended as provid
Government Code Section 65913.5. If any such conditi determined to be invalid this approval shall be inval the City Council determines that the project without condition complies with all requirements of law.
20) This project is being approved as a condominium permi residential homeownership purposes. If any of the un the project are rented, the minimum time increment f rental Shall be not less than 26 days. A condition s
this shall be placed in the C.C.&R's for the project.
21) Before obtaining a final map or building permit, WhiC occurs first, the applicant shall: a) agree to pay an increase in the public facilities fee or additional t construction and/or new development fees established I City Council prior to July 20, 1986; b) agree to abidi additional requirements establ ished by the developmen. management system or phasing plans which may be ultim adopted by the City of Carlsbad. This condition comp City Council Ordinance No. 9791.
!
PC RES0 NO. 2548 -5-
I
1 t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
211 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
22) All retaining wall greater than four feet required on property shall be designed and constructed in a crib and shall be appropriately landscaped to the satisfac the Planning Director. Retaining walls less than fou Shall be of a color coordinated slump stone with red cap. All crib wall planting shall be properly mainti Shall be the responsibility of the homeowner's associ The CC&R's shall state this clearly.
23) CC&R's shall contain a provision prohibiting the park storage of recreational vehicles onsite.
24) The homeowner's association shall be responsible for 1 andscape maintenance of all common recreation areas,
and other open areas including the existing large fil at the rear of the lot.
Engi neer i ng Department:
25) The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to commencement of any clearing or grading of the site.
26) The grading for this project is defined as "controlle ing" by Section 11.06.170(a) of the Carlsbad Municipa Grading shall be performed under the observation of a engineer whose responsibility it shall be to coordina inspection and testing to ensure compliance of the wo the approved grading plan, submit required reports to Engineer and verify compliance With Chapter 11.06 of Carlsbad Municipal Code.
27) Upon completion of grading, the developer shall ensur "as-graded" geologic plan Shall be submitted to the C Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geolog exposed by the grading operation, all geologic correc measures as actually constructed and must be based on tour map Which represents both the pre and post site This plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer engineering geologist. The plan Shall be prepared on or similar drafting film and Shall become a permanent
I ,/ I
/I//
//I/
//I/
///I
///I
I///
PC RES0 NO. 2548 -6-
I
I 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
28) Prior to processing any development plans for this pro the applicant shall submit and receive the City Engine approval of a revised tentative map, clearly delineati proposed grading, retaining walls, and sight distance r equ i r emen t s .
29) No grading shall occur outside the limits of the subdi unless a letter of permission is obtained from the owr the affected properties.
30) A separate grading plan Shall be submitted and approve
separate grading permit issued for the borrow or dispo if located within the city limits.
31) All slopes within this project shall be no steeper th2
32) Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to anj proposed construction site within this project the dev shall submit to and receive approval from the City En5 for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comF all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may
With regards to the hauling operation.
construction phase of this project to prevent any offs siltation. Tne developer shall provide erosion contro measures and shall construct temporary desil tation/det
Engineer. The basins and erosion control measures Sha shown and specified on the grading plan and Shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer p the start of any other grading operations. Prior to t removal of any basins or facilities so constructed the served Shall be protected by additional drainage facil slope erosion control measures and other methods requi approved by the City Engineer. The developer shall ma the temporary basins and erosion control measures for of time satisfactory to the City Engineer and Shall gu their maintenance and satisfactory performance through deposit and bonding in amounts and types suitable to t Engineer.
provided or installed as may be required by the City Engineer.
33) The developer shall exercise special care during the
basins of type, size and location as approved by the C
34) Additional drainage easements and drainage structures
35) Tne owner of the subject property Shall execute a hold narmless agreement regarding drainage across the adjac property prior to approval of the final map for this p
36) The design of this project shall include offsite drain repair if necessary to provide adequate drainage of tn drain at the rear of this site.
PC RES0 NO. 2548 - 7-
I l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
m e
37) The developer shall make an offer of dedication to th for all public streets and easements required by tnes conditions or shown on the Tentative Map. The offer made by a Certificate on the Final Map for this proje land so offered shall be granted to the City free and
all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the Ci Streets that are already public are not required to b rededicated.
38) Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for a' improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of Engineer. Prior to approval of the final map, the SUI Shall install, or agree to install and secure with api security as provided by law, improvements shown on thl tentative map and the following improvements to City to the satisfaction of the City Engineer:
a) All sewer, water and storm drain improvements reqi
b) Onsite circulation and access of this project, c) The re-design of access at Luciernaga Street to pr
serve this project,
clear site distance,
tne grading plan. d) The retaining wall (concept only) as incorporated
39) Improvements listed above shall be constructed within months of final map approval and/or improvement plan ? whichever occurs first.
40) Unless a standard variance has been issued, no varianc City Standards is authorized by virtue of approval of tentative map.
41) The developer shall install street lights along a11 pu private street frontages in conformance with City of c St and ard s .
42) The developer shall install street trees at the equiva 40-foot intervals along all public street frontages in conformance With City of Carlsbad Standards. Tne tree be Of a variety selected from the approved Street Tree
43) The developer shall install sidewalks along all public frontages in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standar to occupancy of any buildings.
44) The developer shall comply With all the rules, regulat design requirements of the respective sewer and water regarding services to the project.
I
~
////
//I/
PC RES0 NO. 2548 -8-
4 l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 e
45) The design of all private streets and drainage system be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of final map for this project. The structural section o private streets shall conform to City of Carlsbad Sta based on R-value tests. All private streets and drai systems shall be inspected by the city, and the stand improvement plan check and inspection fees shall be p to approval of the final map for this project.
46) The developer shall provide an acceptable means for maintaining the easements within the subdivision and streets, sidewalks, street lights, storm drain facili sewer facilities located therein and to distribute th
of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the the units within the subdivision.
47) All concrete terrace drains shall be maintained by thc homeowner's association (if on commonly owned propert: individual property owner (if on an individually ownec An appropriately worded statement clearly identifying responsibility shall be placed in the CC&R's.
48) All private driveways shall be kept clear of parked vc at all times, and shall have posted "No ParkingIFire L Away Zone" pursuant to Section 17.04.040, Carlsbad Mur Cod e.
49) All plans, specifications, and supporting documents fc
improvements of this project Shall be signed and seal€ Engineer in responsible charge of the work. Each She€ be signed and sealed, except that bound documents may signed and sealed on their first page. Additionally t sheet of each set of plans shall have the following cert i f i cate:
"DECLAPATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE"
I hereby declare that I am the Engineer of Work for th project, that 1 have exercised responsible charge over design of tne project as defined in Section 6703 of th Business and Professions Code, and tnat the design is consistent with current standards.
I
///I
/I//
//I/
////
/I//
PC RES0 NO. 2548 -9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
I understand that the check of project drawings and specifications by the City of Carlsbad is confined to only and does not relieve me, as Engineer of Work, of responsibilities for project design. (Name, Address and Telephone of Engineering firm)
Firm:
Address:
City, St.:
Telephone:
BY Date: - (Name of Engineer)
R.C.E. NO. #
50) The developer shall provide the City with a reproduci copy of the tentative map as approved by the Plannins Commission. The tentative map shall reflect the conc approval by the City. The map shall be submitted to Engineer prior to improvement plan submittal.
51) Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire twc months from the date of City Council approval unless map is recorded. An extension may be requested by ti applicant. Said extension shall be approved or denit discretion of the City Council. In approving an extt the City Council may impose new conditions and may rt
52) Developer shall, prior to building permit approval, 1 traffic impact fee established by Chapter 18.42 of tl Carl sbad Municipal Code.
53) Before and as a condition of obtaining a final map, ( development permit or site plan approval under Title Carl sbad Municipal Code, the subdivider shall enter contract with the City whereby the subdivider covenai behalf of the subdivider and subdivider's successors interest to the following:
a) Not opposing and consenting to the formation of
existing conditions.
~
and major thoroughfare district in the area of t
project.
b) Payment of the bridge and major thoroughfare fee area of the district in which this development i
1 ocated.
(A note reflecting a. and b. shall be placed on
map. 1
PC RES0 NO. 2548 -10-
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
a
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
I 24
25
26
27
28
0 e
54) Pursuant to the provisions of Section 20.20.050(1) of Carlsbad Municipal Code, a parcel map may be filed in a final map. Whenever reference is made in these con to a final map, the reference shall apply also to a p map filed in lieu thereof.
Fire Department:
55) Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete b plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department.
56) Additional public and/or onsite fire hydrants shall b provided if deemed necessary by the Fire Marshal.
57) The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of a site p' showing locations of existing and proposed fire hydra1 onsite roads and drives to the Fire Marshal for appro'
58) An all-weather access road shall be maintained througl construc ti on.
59) All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurtenai shall be operational prior to combustible building mat being located on the project site.
key operated override switch, as specified by the Fire
61) All private driveways shall be kept clear of parked vc at all times, and shall have posted "NO Parking/Fire L Away Zone" pursuant to Section -17.04.040, Carlsbad Mun Code.
60) Proposed security gate systems shall be provided with
par tmen t.
62) Brush clearance shall be maintained according to the specifications contained in the City of Carlsbad Lands Gui del i nes Manual .
163) All fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, extinguishing s automatic sprinklers, and other systems pertinent to t project shall be submitted to the Fire Department for prior to construction.
64) Building exceeding 10,000 sq.ft. aggregate floor area sprinklered or have four-hour fire walls with no openi therein which shall split the building into 10,000 sq. less) areas.
65) Decks overhanging the driveway shall be protected by a automatic sprinkler system designed to specifications dictated by the Fire Marshal.
I
//// PC RES0 NO. 2548 -11-
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
l2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
W e
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, he
the 23rd day of July, 1986, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners: McBan
Marcus, McFadden, Holmes & Hall,
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Schramm.
ABSTAIN: None.
&E;; EhiE%M:!s: ai
ATTEST:
&"$& L &-I *@
PLANNING DIRECTOR
I I
-
1
PC RESO NO. 2548 -12-
I 0 0
K STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 23, 1986
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CT 84-43/CP-302 - CASA LOMA CONDOS - Request for approval ot a tentative tract map and condominium pr to develop 18 units along the north side of Lucierni Street, at the first undeveloped property east of Cc
Street.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL of the Negati Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolut No. 2548 recommending APPROVAL OF CT 84-43/CPO30*based on th
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
DISCUSSION
On April 23, 1986, this project, CT 84-43/CP-302 was heard be
the Planning Commission. At that time, staff was recommendir
denial of the project based upon the project applicant's unwill ingness to adequate1 y redesign the project Is archi tectb
in order to justify the density proposed. A project redesigr
earlier requested by the Planning Commission, in their reviek
this project at the January 8, 1986 Planning Commission heari
At. the April 23rd hearing, the Planning Commission concurred
staff's recommendation of denial for the project, based upon
projects unimaginative architecture. During this hearing the
project applicant's representative, stated that the appl icant now willing to redesign the project's architecture and had in
fact already hired a new architect and site planner for purpo of undertaking this redesign. In accordance, the applicant's representative requested a 60 day continuance. The Planning Commission approved this request and passed a motion to conti
CT 84-43/CP-302 for 60 days.
As shown on Exhibits "A" - 'IF'' the projects total architectur
and to a lesser extent its site plan have been redesigned in
response to the direction of the Planning Commission.
The project's former box-li ke architecture has been effective
addressed through the new design. Architectural re1 ief featu
incorporated into the structures include; (1) vertical ins an
outs along the front and side facades; (2) angled and varied
e 0
rooflines, (3) curvilinear recessed entries, and (4) muntin windows. The architecture will otherwise be comprised of li
colored stucco and red tile. Staff feels that these architectural revisions do respond to the concerns exprc;sed the Planning Commission with regard to the original pr 3ctl unimaginative architecture.
The dwelling units will be of a comparable size (1,225 to 1,
sq. ft.) as the original project, however each unit will als include a private deck or patio varying in site from 80 to 3
square feet. Sixteen of the proposed 18 units will have a t
car garage Hhich includes a 392 cubic foot storage area. Th
other two units will have a single-car garage with storage a
along with an uncovered parking space. Both of the uncovere
parking spaces will be within 100 feet of the unit they are
assigned to. Eight guest parking spaces will be provided a1
will be in total compliance with the City's revised parking
standards.
Two common recreation areas have been maintained within the
center of the project. The amenities within these areas hav however, been changed in order to provide more open, green s
for the project as well as to provide a greater diversity of
recreational amenities for potential project residents. The common recreation area along the western side of the site no
includes a spa, barbecue, and landscaped grassy area, instea a swimming pool. The common recreation area along the easte
side of the site now includes a tot-lot, barbecue and landsc
grassy area, instead of solely a grassy passive recreation z
Overall, because the project applicant has been willing to
redesign the project's architecture and site plan to a poinl where it now justifies the density proposed, staff recommenc
the attached reports to the Planning Commission dated Oecernt
11, 1985, January 8, 1986 and April 23, 1986.
A T T A C H M E N T S
1) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2548
2) Staff Report dated, December 11, 1985, Memorandum dated!
January 8, 1986 and Memorandum dated, April 23, 1986
3) Exhibits "A" - "G", dated June 10, 1986
CDD:bn
6/4/86
the projects central driveway. With these revisions, the pr
approval of CT 84-43/CP-302. For additional details please
-2-
a 0
G5 MEMORANDUM
DATE : JANUARY a, 1986
TO : PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CT 84-43/CP-302 - CASA LOMA CONDOS
At their December 11, 1985 meeting the Planning Commission he
approval . the above project, and returned it to staff for conditions oj
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Report dated December 11, 1985 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2489 3. Traffic Study dated December 18, 1985
*.
e e
MEMORANDUM
DATE : APRIL 23, 1986
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 pel to develop 18 units along the north side of Luciernac Street, at the first undeveloped property east of Cel: Street.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2548 DENYING CT 84-43/CP-302.
DISCUSSION
Th.is project, CT 84-43/CP-302, was heard before the Planning
Commission on January 8, 1986. The Planning Commission expres
several concerns over the proposed project includina: (1) the
adequacy of the 24-foot wide driveways, and (2) that the proje design, in particular, the amount of open space and the projec
unimaginative architecture, did not justify the density (12 du in 8-15 du/ac range) requested. The Planning Commission
recommended denial of the project without prejudice.
On February 4, 1986, the City Council heard the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. The City Counci granted the appeal and returned the item to the Planning Commission for redesign and to await possible mitigation to
traffic impacts based on the La Costa Area Traffic Study.
In response to some of the Planning Commission concerns regard site design and architecture, the project has been redesigned. (See Exhibit "A" and "B".) As shown on Exhibit "B", the changl made to the site plan include:
(1) the 24-foot wide internal driveways have been widenel
to 26 feet, (2) bomanite pavement treatment has been added to the projects central driveway,
(3) the former tiled picnic area adjacent to the spa has been converted to a grassy, open passive recreation area,
(4) the former fountain area located between buildings fc and six has been converted to a grassy, open passive recreation area, (5) the projects swimming pool has been converted to a 1; pool, and
0 0
(6) additional landscaping has been provided along the
existing manufactured slope at the rear of the
property .
Staff feels that these site plan revisions do respond to the concerns that the Planning Commission expressed relative to
specific site design.
The project applicant has also made an attempt to address the
concerns expressed regarding architecture by providing design treatments such as tiled awnings and window shutters (see Exh
"A"). However, based upon the concerns that the Planning Commission expressed regarding the oriuinal projects elevatio
staff is not comfortable with this architectural redesign. T structure still appears very box-like, without adequate relie
and contrast. Since the applicant has not been willing to
undertake any further architectural redesign, staff cannot
recommend approval. Staff does, however, feel that with some additional effort, the project could be redesigned to satisfy Planning Commission's concerns. These changes would include followinq:
(1) Rework the floor plans on the units to reduce their boxiness and to provide more architectural relief a contrast. The provision of balconies and overhangs along the front elevations could help to accomplish this goal.
incorporated into the project. (2) Bay or recessed windows with muntins could also be
La Costa Traffic Study
Besides design, this project was also continued because of th
pending traffic study in La Costa.
An executive summary of the La Costa area traffic study is
attached. The above referenced project was considered as a
"committed" project by the study, meaning that the study assui
possible approval of this project.
The study indicates that there will be failing intersections
La Costa at peak hours even after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. These intersections include
- La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real - Alga Road and El Camino Real - Interstate 5 and La Costa Avenue - La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road
The traffic report will be reviewed by the City Council on Ap
22. An oral summary of Council action will be given to the
Commissioner at the April 23 Planning Commission meeting. In
addition, traffic impact conditions established by Council on
April 22 will also be presented to the Commission at that tim
-2-
0 0
In conclusion, the project applicant has not been willing to
to justify the density proposed. Staff recommends denial of
project as proposed.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2548
2) Memorandum, dated January 8, 1986 and Staff Report, date
3) Exhibits "A" - "H", dated April 10, 1986 4) Traffic Analysis, Executive Summary
CDD:bn
4/7/8 6
redesign the projects architecture to a point where it will h
December 11, 1985
-3-
--------*a- y- __ ____ -~ ---.
DECEMBE~ , 1 9 8 4 e
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 propert: 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 completec
11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract mal and condominium permit to develop 18 units on 1.5 acres, locz 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 si:
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 1.5:1 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 vacac
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?
0 e
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 ar the development standards of the underlying RD-M zone. All c the condominium units will be set back a minimum of 15 feet 1 the fronting Luciernaga Street and all structures will be set
back a minimum of five feet from the side property lines. E; 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 ir
the center of the property adjacent to the recreation area ar
the condominium units. A private yard or covered deck will k
provided with each unit. In addition, a recreation area whic
includes a swimming pool, spa and grassy area is proposed to located within the west central portion of the property. A 2
foot wide, two-way driveway off of Luciernaga Street is propc 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 texturec
pedestrian pathways extending from them to adjacent residenti
units. Landscaping will be utilized to soften the appearance
the structures. For these reasons, staff feels that the pro] justifies the density proposed.
During review of the project, City engineering staff had concerns regarding the existing 1.5~1 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.
-2-
0 0
TRAFFIC
Staff has identified an increasing number of traffic concerr
within the City and particularly within the La Costa area.
is currently undertaking a study to more clearly identify ar 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 proportionatc share towards the solution of identified problems. The pro1 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 consider in dealing with the proposed project relative to ti issues. These include:
1 . A continuance of the project until the traffic study hz
2. Approve the proposed project based upon the finding tl 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 Casta area the applicant has agreed to perform or participate in i solution. There may be some concerns with this alterni in that it may be difficult to make the finding for ad( public facilities.
In conclusion, staff is recommending Alternative No. 1, continuance of the project until after the traffic study fo La Costa area has been completed. Staff's recommendation ii i't would be more appropriate to delay a decision on this prc until the traffic study is completed, letting us know the e: 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 projt will not have a significant impact on the environment and,
therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration on August 248
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map 2. Vicinity Map
3. Background Data Sheet
4. Disclosure Form
5. Environmental Document 6. Exhibit "A" - "H", dated August 28, 1985
7. Traffic Volumes CDD: ad 11/2 2/85
-3-
0
VICINITY MAP
()-GENERAL PLAN
RESIDENTIAL LOW (0-1.5) SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (4-8 ) a OPEN SPACE
RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH( 8- 15) c COMMERCIAL WNEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
0
mmln
0 0
BACKGROUND DATA SEiEET
CASE ND: CI' 84-43/CP-302
APPLICANT: CFSA LOMA CONDOS
REQU3ST AND IOC.A!TIm: 18 townhouse condos with swimning pool and spa. North
side of Luciernaga Street, easterly of Cebu Street
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: bts 393 & 394 of La Costa Meadows Unit No. 2, in the Coi
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,l'
Acres 1.5 Proposed No. of hts/Units 2/18 townhouse condo units
GENEFUUL PLhN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RMH (8-15)
Density Allowed 8-15 D2nsity Proposed 12 du/ac
Existing Zone RD-M Proposed Zone RD-M
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning Land Use
Site RD-M Vacant
North RD-M Multi-family housing
South RD-M Single-family 6 duplex
East RD-M @en space
West R-2 Multi-family housing
PUBLIC FACILITIES san Marms School District Unified Water San Marcos Sewer bucdaia Ew's
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated
ENVIRONMENTAI; IMPACT ASSESSMENT
- X Negative Declaration, issued August 24, 1985
December 13, 1984
E.I,R, Certified, dated -
Other,
it is detw -f after the informati -bt fmg infoatio O@ requiz&, you will M so a@e:'
ou nave submitted has been r
*
K & K Devlopment Company
Nam. (individual, partnership, joint venture, corpration, SY
4305 Gesner Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA. 92117
BUS~SS Address
APPLfcANT:
276-2113
Telephone Nllmhrr
Row,\ (3 M .FF.F=NwEA, QL!JF~ l21X-t s TEEFU l3 uh~~r46 AGENT: Nma
.. 50 Id,&%tLNY V\UA R O-SU\TE 2-12 $AN firm u. a Businus Address I J
fGir\ 5 60 -0666
T&hphdn8 Number
Gregory D. Kasai 3571 Millikin Ave. San Dil MEMBERS:
Name 4iadividua1, partner, joint. Home Address
venture, corporation, syndication)
4305 Gesner Street. Suite 200 San Diego. CA. 92117
Business Address
276-2113 455-5984
Telephone N-r Telephone Slumbet <sur*)
Jaw swr Kang eta1 8911 Via Andar, San Diego
Sse Borne Addtess
8911 Via Andar, San Diego, CA. 92122
22sin6Ss Addrass
457-0708 . 457-0708
Tsiephoce NusrSer Telephone Xunber
Jing rong Hsu 8911 Via Andar San Diego, CA. 92122 45 7-0 7 01
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/We docliim? uzder Senalty Of perjury that the infoneation contained in thj
closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and nz
relic? upoa as being true and correct until anended.
/Y+k JLAp7-- -rf
ALee, k- __ -.\
Applicant
I
I BY
-h-- e' - J
0 0
1200 E SERVICES CAALSBAI
DEVELOPMENTAL
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE IS19
Citp of Carkbab
NM;ATTVE ,DECLARATION
PFWECT ADDRESS/WA!TION: side of Luciernqa Street at the first undeveloped property east of Cebu Street.
The project is located along the north
PFWECT DESCRIPTICN: cordminiurn units with associated recreational facilities mer 1.5 acres.
The City of Carlsbad has mrducted an enviromental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environnental Quality Act and the Emirormental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will mt have a significant impact on the environnent) is hereby issued for the
subject project.
Land Use Planning Office.
A capy of the Negative Declaration with supprtive documents is on file in the Lard Use Planniq Office, City Hall, 1200 E~IF Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. 92008. Canments fran the public are invited. Please shit ccmments in writiq to the tand use Planning Office within ten (10) days of date of issuance.
This project, CT 84-43, will include 18
AS a result of said
Justification for this action is on file in the
DATED: August 24, 1985
CASE No: CT 84-43/cP.302 Land Use Planning Manager
APPLICANT: CASA U3MA CCNCOS
PUBLISH IXTE: August 24, 1985
NB4 5/8 1
0 0 TRAFFIC VOLU
..e387
0.0 37000
12000
a. 14204
.e. 37000
O* 6005 0.0 20000
CASA LOMA CON
PROJECTED TRAFFIC CT 84-43
24 UNITS
**' EXISTING CAPACITY 192 TRIPS
EXISTING TRAFFIC
e' OTHER PROJECTS TRAFFIC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
a 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2489
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
PREJUDICE A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND CONDO-
MINIUM PERMIT FOR 18 UNITS ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
PROPERTY EAST OF CEBU STREET.
APPLICANT: CASA LOMA CONDOS
CASE NO: CT 84-43/CP-302
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain prop
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT
LUCIERNAGA STREET, AT THE FIRST UNDEVELOPED
wit:
Lots 393 and 394 of La Costa Meadows Unit No. 2, County of San Diego, State of California, accord
I'
l2
13 e..
15
l6
I?
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred tc
Planning Commission; and
I
..
WHEREAS, said verified applicatibn constitutes 2
'*"as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; a
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the llt
1 '
December, 1985, an on the 8th day of January, 1986, hold
,noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, to consider
21
22
23
24
25
ldesiring to be heard, said Commission considered all fact
/relating to the Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permi
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P1z
Commission as follows:
I(A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
... -13
14
15
16
17
'. . ..
0 e
Findings:
1) The project is not consistent with the City's Genera because it does not meet the criteria in the Land Us
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 development and density on the site.
The proposed project is not consistent with the Citi
Development Ordinance because the project design is compatible with site constraints.
2)
3)
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meetir
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California,
the 8th day of January, 1986, by the following vote, to o
AYES : Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners: Mi
McFadden, Holmes, Hall, Smith & McBanc
NOES : None: , .
ABSENT : None .
ABSTAIN: None .
.. . .. .. .. .. -
t2L-L @ CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, C i I CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMIZ 18 I/
21
22
23
24
PLANNING DIRECTOR
EXHl Augu: 0 0
I m
-
\I i
\ I
I
~mmnnr'luranruPlr
,.- . -I" "I
-- -. -- - -. .- . .. - ..
I
IY*m.rm 'mu -1 nuns
L 'f ' ,.,- .- iisaa vi II twniiiwmia iiiiim~i wwna iimaim I P I
11m1 - 11111 I1Ib
I
L .. I I 4 Y
c .. 1 Y
z
I c, - ..
I = z c
z
E
- Y L
I - - I
fL
i I
i a -
- a
L
3
3 - . .
I
9 - I " a Y
9 .. I)
f
:
L .. - m
I
LZ.
r...n .- I 1118111181 W@I E H I B I T .. ( umna~numau II10~111
1
“a?. - I1113 11 a1 111111
\
s. 0
' R\ &-A Wedk Pkk~b Qlul AbbWbkb
TRAFFIC a TRANSPORTATION
December 18, 1985
Mr. Gregory 0. Kasai Urban Equ i ties 3EcEfVc~
4305 Gesner Street San Oiego, CA 92117
Dear Mr. Kasai:
t)El) 19 1985
-. -_.I -P-- This letter summarizes our review of traffic factors related to your propc
Casa Lorna condominium development in the City of Carlsbad. The study is t
upon information provided by you, previous studies and standard analysis r
cedu res.
The project includes 18 residential condominium units and is located on tt
northerly side of Luciernaga Street in the La Costa area of the City of Ci
All vehicle access is via Luciernaga Street. The project would have an 01
density of 12 DU's per acre which is in the RMH, Residential Medium High,
use designation. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the project and SUI
road system.
EXISTING TMFFIC CONDITIONS
Luciernaga Street is a local street with residential development. Access
the arterial street system is via Corintia Street to Alga Road and easter;
El Fuerte Street. Alga Road is fully developed as a Major Arterial westt
to El Camino Real. To the east, it is partially developed to Melrose Aver
El Fuerte is developed as a Secondary Arterial southerly of Alga Road.
In order to quantify existing traffic conditions, recent PM peak hour tral
volumes for the intersections on El Camino Real at Alga Road and La Costa
were obtained from previous studies and Intersection Capacity Uti1 ization
analyses completed. (The ICU methodology and relationship of ICU to Leve'
Service is described in Appendix A.) These ICU analyses are contained in
El Camino Real and Alga Road and an ICU of 0.98 (Level of Service E) at E'
Camino Real and La Costa Avenue.
Appendix B and indicate an existing ICU value of 0.45 (Level of Service A
2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE SUITE 110 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 9 (714
C C
C I
zc 3
-
at
a 100 oz =-I= i‘ v,d
a)
“Z Ec
+k
-
c IJ
C
a
a a
W 0
TRIP GENERATION
The estimated daily and PM peak hour trip generation for the project is 5
Model input was utilized. The peak hour rates conform to rates utilized
similar land uses in the City. As indicated in Table 1, the project is f
mated to generate 150 daily trip ends with 15 occurring during the PM pei
hour.
marized in Table 1. For the daily trip generation rate, the City's Trafi
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
As a part of the City's Staff Report for this project, a trip distributic
pattern was developed. This distribution is illustrated on Figure 1- and
utilized to assign estimated project traffic to the circulation system.
daily and PM peak hour traffic assignments are also illustrated on Figurc
These trip assignments were uti1 ized to analyze potential project traffic
impacts .
ANALYSIS
Project traffic has been analyzed for conditions upon completion of the 1
and at build out of the General Plan. In addition, traffic from approvec
not constructed projects has been considered in the project completion ai
These two analyses are described below.
The'intersection on El Camino Real at Alga Road and at La Costa Avenue ai
Rancho Santa Fe Road at Melrose Avenue were analyzed at project completi(
These intersections were selected as they are in areas indicated to have
hour analyses are better measures of actual conditions, these provided a
detailed evaluation of potential impacts. The intersections on El Caminc
analyzed with existing plus other approved projects and with existing plr
plus the project. Since the Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Avenue intersc
does not exist in its proposed form, it was only analyzed with planned ii
ments. These improvements are related to currently approved developiiient
the area of that intersection. The ICU analyses are contained in Append
cient volume/capacity ratios on a daily basis in the Staff Report. Sincc
m m
Table 1
TRIP GENERATION
Casa Lorna Condos
TIME PERIOD TRIP ENDS PER GENERA1 DWELLING UN IT (18 ICU
Daily 8 1
PM Peak Hour
In 0.6
out 0.2
Total 0.8
- -
L e e
and sumrized in Table 2. Also indicated in Table 2 are the other proje
included on the analysis. These other projects are approved but not cons
projects where data were available.
Review of Table 2 indicates that the current El Camino Real/Alga Road intc
section can accomnodate both other and project traffic and remain at Leve
Service 8. The El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection is currently (
ing at unacceptable conditions and will be further impacted by other deve
Addition of project traffic will not alter the ICU value due to the minor
volumes and additions to non-critical movements. Mi th improvements curre
being proposed by City Staff, the ICU value is reduced to 0.65 and Level L
Service 8. The Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Avenue intersection is also i
jected to operate at Level of Service A with an ICU value of 0.34 at projt
completion. These analyses have indicated that the circulation system cat
accomnodate the project and other planned development in the near term wii
currently proposed circulation improvements.
The City has developed a Traffic Model which projects traffic voiulnes at G
PJan Build Out. This Model provides intersection volumes for peak hours w
can be utilized with the ICU procedure to examine future conditions. ICU
analyses were completed for three intersections at buildout based uppn Tra
Model projections. These analyses are contained in Appendix C and sumari
in Table 3. As indicated in Table 3, some improvements in addition to sta
street geornetrics would be required. With improvements such as dual left
lanes, separate and/or free right turn lanes and other design consideratio
the ICU values can be reduced to near acceptable conditions. There is a n
further evaluate these ultimate conditions from both the traffic projectio
intersection design viewpoints. A study of these type is currently underw,
and is expected to be completed in early 1986.
SUMMARY
This study has examined traffic factors related to the Casa Lorna condominir
project.
impact upon the street system evaluated. Consideration was given to other
Estimates were made of trips to be generated and the potentital
0 0
Table 2
ICU SUMMARY
At Project Completion
Casa Lorna Condos
INTERSECTION ICU/LOS( I) txi sting txi sti ng tx i s ti ng
+Project +Other( 2) +Other( 2)
El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue
ICU 0.98 1.21 1.21
LOS E F F
El Camino Real/Alga Road-College Blvd
ICU On45 On61 0.61
LOS A B 8
Me1 rose Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road- Cori nt i a
I cu - - -
LOS - - -
(1) ICU=Intersection capacity Uti1 ization; tOS=LeveI of Service
(2) Other Projects:
La Costa Southwest Phase 1 (SW-4)
La Costa SE 18-21 Parcel 095 The Meadows Meadow Ridge
SW Corner A’lga/Mel rose A1 icante Views Alicante Hills Crossroads Alicante View Apartments
La Costa SE 16
0 e
Table 3
ICU SUMMARY
At General Plan Build Out
Casa Lorna Condos
INTERSECTION Genera 1 Genera' Pl an P1 an W/ Irnpri
El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue
ICU 1.50 1.01
10s F F
El Camino Real/Alga Road-College Blvd
I cu 1.56 0.88
LOS F D
Me1 rose Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road-Corintia
ICU - 1.04
LOS - F
(1) ICU=Intersection Capacity Uti1 iration; LOS=LeveI of Service
i
, .* 0 0
projects in the area which are approved but not constructed. Intersectio
analyses were completed at project completion and at General Plan build o
These analyses indicated that the project could be accomodated by the pl
street system.
Principal findings of the study are the following:
1. The proposed project would generate 150 daily trip ends with 15 c
during the PM peak hour.
2. The existing intersection at El Camino Real and Alga Road could a
modate near term traffic and operate at an ICU value of 0.61 or L
of Service B.
3. With currently proposed improvements the El Camino Real/La Costa
intersection would operate with an ICU value of 0.65 (Level of SE
and the Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Avenue intersection would OF
with an ICU value of 0.34 (Level of Service A).
4. At build out conditions, some additional circulation improvements
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 pr
this project. If you have any questions or require additional informati
contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES #&e Weston S. Pring e, P.E.
Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565
WSP: bas
#85300 cc: Mr. Bill Hofmi
m
APPENDIX A
EXPLANATION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
LEVEL OF SERVICE
AND
I
&
e 0
APPENDIX A
EXPLANATION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
The capacity of a street is nearly always greater between intersections and
at intersections. The reason for this is that the traffic flows continuousl. between intersections and only part of the time at intersections. To study
intersection capacity, a technique known as Intersection Capacity Uti1 itatioi (IN) has been developed. ICU analysis consists of (a) determinin the pro-
portion of signal time needed to serve each conflicting movement; 9 b) sunmini
the times for the movements; and (c) comparing the total time required to thr time available. For example, if for north-south traffic the northbound traf is 1,000 vehicles per hour, thesouthbound traffic is 800 vehicles per hour, t 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. Wh left-turn phases exist, they are incorporated into the analysis. As ICU's
approach 100 percent, the quality of traffic service approaches Level of Ser (LOS) E, as defined in the Hiqhway Capacity Manual, Special Report 87, Highw
Research Board D 1965
Level of Service is used to describe quality of traffic flow, Levels of Ser A to C operate quite well. Level of Service D is typically the Level of Ser for which an urban street is designed. Level of Service E is the maximum vo
a facility can accommodate and will result in possible stoppages of momentar duration. Level of Service 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. Although calculating ICU for an unsignalized inter section is not valid, the presumption is that a signal can be installed and
calculation shows wbther the geometrics are capable of accomnodating the ex pected volumes. It is possible to have an ICU well below 1.0, yet have seve
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 lane
have approximately the same capacity whether they are 11 foot or 14 foot Ian Our data indicates a typical lane, whether a through lane or left-turn lane a capacity of approximately 1600 vehicles per lane per hour of green time.
Highway Capacity Manual found capacity to be about 1500 vehicles per lane pe 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 dat? and recent studies and observations show higher capacities in the southern California area. For this study a capacity of 1600 vehicles per lane has bc assumed for through traffic, and 1600 vehicles per lane for turning lanes.
*
Level of Nominal Service Of I(
A Low volumes; high speeds; speed not restricted 0.00
by other vehicles; all signal cycles clear with no vehicles waiting through wore than one signal cycle.
6 Operating speeds beginning to be affected by 0.61 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.
controlled by other traffic; between 11 and 30 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; reconmiended ideal design standard.
0 Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent 0.81 of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through iiiore than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; often used as design standard in urban areas.
section can accommodate; restricted speeds; 71 to 100 percent of the signal cycles have one or inore vehicles which wait through more than
C Operating speeds and inaneuverabi 1 i ty closely 0.71
E Capacity; the maximum traffic volumes an inter- 0.91
one signal cycle during peak traffic periods.
pages of long duration; traffic volume and traffic speed can drop to zero; traffic volume will be less than the volume which occurs at Level of Service E.
F Long queues of traffic; unstable flow; stop- Not IT
e I)
APPENDIX B
ICU ANALYSES
PROJECT COMPLETION
9 e 0
* ** *
oocumm \V 3c\ a- hm 03hrc)bb
P .. .. .... +p: 00 00 00000 0000 OP +E w-
> 0- 0- -*-e??-, NC')OIDrn
* * ** P +o ha v)QI -Io dQIc0 mom- o\ -- -N ma 0-0 QhOcuLL +> 0- w 00 00 00 000 000- .. .. ... ....
n L 3 0 X * * **
A 4m Q) p.
00 hQ rnQI rnQ *moo kDomncl 1'9 979 S",S"fL +\ C.t- ocu w> '0 ..
00 00 00 000 000- E v, Y
M * * ** m * -1 < r U
z
b- 0
u02a 0mmCO
w w OG 00 00 000 dddd > U
zz %S 0-0 *moQIw $0 v)m u\ dd x> .. .. ...
3 E! E e 0-1 Lnm Z a0 i?i
o€ \ * 2" d t;
2
z c, =u U
m- 0 P> 00 u
d ZF e A I- =>
na - on
c(
Q r 0 w-1 om ommoo0 om 3
t- Lo
II 3
nz
IO *m hhbm-a N- t-> 0 2
s
f
2
II w,
v) II 05 zl--LL 3xz Oak D m-> ICTC k II I xu 52 5% 52 s1oz dm
0 -- 9-1 -U E2 st- v)=* U- p: Io I1 ZICL b- =I-c 3l-w 0 II m+u OW0 cnwL \= U I \ = II II Fv)
ow2 UZ v+Cuo-Cucmmod~~ +fie. amw3v) ZdL4 OQ-JUC II II c XU
ZkJUWd Z-!d w-1
-Ad 00 4 -10 w u Q, u'3 v)o 0 I- UL U
a
z Cn-I bma*hobaoCHo
x> cud ,c*(r?c)d)o &Jd
u UQ. n no mdmQwul-~QF-u2N D
= 0
I- m
If
0 e u
d w F u w n 00 00 oocoo on 00000 v)
p.0 mu 06 mm--m w. Z k z
CI m
.. au ZZ ZZ CuwIcaw
fi
+c az
!E
a
U V W WQ 00 00 00 000 =3v) m
W w
uu 00 OG 00 coo cns a
30:
U Cnxu II ac
-0: v, PW oa cumONmChm~~WC zz nd ZfE
VJ w
I Uk >z -J+oL-l+oc-!+oL2+= ow zzzmmmwww333 ZLZ
c
I 0 0
** ** 0 +v &DM mh ClcU 00 *(urn-
+r ** .. .. .... o\ OH c*)N 00 wo ercoum
n w 00 do 00 00 0000 L = 0 I
a a
Q) +\ OH n w>
** **
ou a- mh Hcu 00 UWUv)rr *HOW
00 00 00 00 0000 .a ow 00 ?? .. .. ...
h v)
v) Y
). -I
z U L
Cv-0'pe 0 .. .. .... m n -\ 0- U
z > xw A w 00 00 00 00 ooco t-
w t-
CI 3
M
* * ** n
!Flu a0 om -cu a0 U3-m- =>
z m Ln
7t, 3 v).r xtu
"g
a c 2" 5% E2 IO P n u q-7 e s 22 2
<-1 5
z,
9
-cu 0.0. 00
? E 0
c, w O-I mv) m
n -I a0
c1 z- 2 0s d + =>
w
z 3 0
u) =x w II It w
at- = zt-u 3XZ ma U3eIur-IhmcuPIubndm LOT: Oc3W x> uucua cud 3 mu>
on 0 0
I P sg UJ U30Ln60 OIPHO em-
Y 0 Q,
v) II nz on U r I- 0
t-
Ln e V-1 XU
u w
oc MU w 0
r
c, \ Wd meI-aear-Ir-IdaaU3 3v)
Y -Iv) I- XP:O It r
c(
e
0 -2 LnI< II av -3- VU mot-
ZIP: IO I1 XI-0 C I1 t- 3t-W mi--v, OCnU I nu V)WT w \XU I-++ .. v)w w x\= II II =LO OLJZ LL c*V)w3v) ZJw OU-100 zd* II II n
I-
mu 00 OG oc 0 s<u a040 rC)m aDcu cu w
Cnn ooocc oc 0 c :E
e* clm -m m a nu-
5 U
d w
w w
LL
I-v)
crz F4oedNC-(uCNC= I-c4 ace z
c u w I
v) wc p: >z -leedke-Ie=at-P:
7tw0m-l Ef wa
e E
py ZZZi4i4~WWW333
0 0
n L 3 0 PL ** ** X nn +TU ww *- ow r(oo0 mmm*
;Y Om\- 00 00 00 NO- OcUGmU cr) +\> ** .. .. ... .... aJ wzE 00 00 00 000 0000 n E
5 k 3 00 00 00 000 0000
Y e ** ** n a L OTV wcu *- ow -0a mom* 3
0. ... m W\> +-\ ?? 0.0. 00 N.0." 0cuom.u 0
5;
7
!2 cn * d
p: W U. z U 0 V c3 z I 02 m 7: n a0 .) Q: EL* a z w 3 N ow LL 0 d
m e t w-1 v)rc)v)Ov) ommom v) e w IO
U d
e*
U I-
ll U W
3 0
0 00 -
h
G
52: zg
* 2"
2 2 -3 z Cnd omcnawooooalo~ 3cn =I
2
cnc +
(ucr)dLnr( a was;
.-) * s
30 z
!z do I v, I1 n 0 aJ V c x TC
-0 --a* 0 v)T 00 m4 = mu e <L Qs x* h V vn w -1Cn X= \ U I- II L 0 u-1 =ET 0 e W -U 0- CnI U > II a cn3 00 00 00 0 0 Qcc e
-0 w aDC0 WUQO mm co m vu
ZX Qc t XI- d =I-W 0 II w OW0 VlWL v, w \=a .. nw W X\ZU H r OZ =U
0 e
n co 00 00 0 0 E2 OL t;
E E r
w cn cn LV w' ne me H- e r( a na a 0 xu I
gt !x r(meNoOr(r(OmOr( cce OW LL amuxv) =A O<-r00 II II ZbJUHd 2-J U O ad
g
W Ow >z LZZv,Wv,WWW&3
I- '+ 2I-aa+aa+aa e v, p:
c tE L -
0 0
APPENDIX C
ICU ANALYSES
BU I LDOUT
1 I e 0
** * * uoc \a hrDhQ3h (uh -om ewm-
CL\ 00000 00 000 000- a3
>E o*ortcu'w- om- rDmooU- ..... .. ... ....
** * * -1 w ha mrn rnb -b m,Nmng
n gq oe me b-cu, ?? a.CbelnLL
3 5) 00 00 00 00 OOOA L
0 v) X a. m CI v) Y 3- da d -1 Q, U z U z c, Y 0
n a. ww Q3uOuhaam-mma ns: oo-sahh~um-oe r ox rrCu-Lncuahmm mw 3 (u H 0 a E 5-1
t;
u ne &*-mu mm rtm- z s 4 eu t; a.u
\ a2 2s 2s 40 rrm
I n>
n*
ou aDcoa(uc0 cu(u @WID n
on
E 0 CI
I- mu 3
> 22 E
sz
z
: I
3 Or n- w wc oooco 00 OCO 2 za > v,- 00000 GO 000 L
U om u 3 t- x E
l- 0 v, oa. -1 u F z* e. eda U et- 00 00 00 00 w
W'
V
a V)L -I a- 00 00 00 00 < *cu *(u u V
II vl II Wl- --Z m II nb a -1 UU r: ZI-Z 3SU 0-3 am lAs a 2 m-c -1m X==
w 0-1 =ad CnfA w w -U 0 -e W W WIU II a- OW
u ou LL l& el- m3C- e
-0 c ad v- -1 0 a OWCL ZIC IV II xi- c II VI c 3k-w ml-w mwz I -+ \3
OWLL
za. 0,
U c1u w E
Y P u W 0 n U. t- I1
v) a w E
X CLZ -mdNrne"e-w- LE 5 c1
w .. U z
r omv
-1m &LE 2
+ u zs k:S;Sf3v) zac &!!w
nu z ~mo-~o-woHeJo =\dl1 11
ou-1vo ZUU*-J W CI v) a
AI-a-11-a~t-a-1 a EL c(
E w zzzmCnv,www3L > 0 E
0 e
** **
n \a. mrt aoOaQIco mcom w4mCO up:
L >E om rtmrco.-C 4 0 N. “i me 0. a. 0 3 .. ..... ..
X ax
a
0 n\ 00 ooooo ooo 0000
5
%_I
L
*I cc
Y w hN hrt mu mwmm
O\ .. .. .. .... x> 00 00 00 00 0004
no yy me om E2 oObD0-L
v) n n
c( a a v) d * m -1 d
L e
w 03 NbDamoON-mAeNt 3 d =-I 4 r( 0 u
L c, d 0 m
Y ww hrcmmcoObDaQmhbD n L c3 nz h-raamatmh~em
G E2
e u mu I 3 2k
3 0 n>
n+
ov cum cua(DIDcu wwID n
on
0 V c3 I w
N 0- - n- 0 we 00 00000 000 d z3 OL w- 00 00000 000
CI om t- 3 c
oa
a< me c*)ercrcm mmrc r 3 -1 0 m U CLu t-
V P z* e
mZ u UE a < Mt -e 4- dm
U
T+11 r CI 0 we sc au 3m ZSW
00-0 3 dvl c a r
t-u e 0-J
u w v) w 0 -u OL d v)v) w -u w w OW W wIu I1 a- LL a+ v,=l- c
-0 -
TI0 x u II 3t- 0 II v, c 3t-w OW0 m+w r
v)WZ I It- Am I-t-0 w nw \x< nCLZ v)
OWW w ze Wd
0 u
a =e * Pz! E 4 \ v)
11 $ 9 i2c roc0 O0 SS? ss Ss! II uE 9 Yw
Ef G E ml: Oc3>
d u+ 00 00 00 00 w
Y
ZCL v) II nw QI
xaz
a=-l Sn
.. OLd VU ncLa
E
t;e
Gc3
5
E zzrv)wv)www3ss
nz wmewmh-woww- Ez
n a
ou E L
OL L rcmorcmorc~o~wo =\a11 II
=--In It II k5Lv) oe-100 xw0Wd r-1* w
W
> 0
-1ca-1c0~-1+e-1
E
1 0 0
n L 3 0 X
Y
Q)
r
Y -I\
m
n
n
\ x 0 ** **
w> hm o* ma w 0 m*m* n
a
om Wm 00 0 m muooLL L .. .. .... 3 0
c v) w 3
v) a
* J e z 4
L c, ww u7ommomu7ommom
c-
U oa
v) 5 TP 00 00 00 d d 000- z z
M c3 + n-
O_I V
a s
n
m Is
mJm U
0 I I nT: 00hcvthmu7mmr-a 03 -h*wm (0 d II I =-I -r( r( r( z 0 v) II 3 0
On c. = mu
or w c3 =bm A z3 LL WE
U om =b
k W+ GO 00 88 8 8 S-J k 0 5
wn LIc+ zt-z ZIW u- a Oc3>
SeZ +
==a 0 -e WIV
mx+ -0 - a== a w LWVU-I ZXU
w m
2t- c II v, w m + O I-
x -I- z CI: z
U a w ~~-e-l+aataa +k-0
OWW ZACI II I1 Z-IC
0- na 3
b- on v, cn- aa %$ 22 s rg d cw -e eg q ou MU
* Pr"
O I =u d SL
Sn =I-w I- II s SE
2 G <=- 0e LL
e&
w E zIzv)v)v)wuw3ss =>
E
F
U 5;
q 6% ee ec w 11 v) U
nu
x0 II a-o
Y 2 ae on V F
V nu
Q)
Q,
m
z
z%z
ZSt;Lv)
z (3 w \ cnm w
w eLz 4mWWmOH-OmO- X\ZIl u 4 ow w \3 e II (3-
aa oe-Ivo
m+w
akz .. 0 r r
I- 0 w v) Ly.
z
c(
E>
1 W 0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Carlsbad Traffic Impact Fee Study
by
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
April, 1986
Transportation system improvements are needed and will be neec
in the future based on development trends in the La Costa are;
the City of Carlsbad. The City retained,Barton-Aschman
Associates, Inc. to determine the necessary roadway requireme1
to meet existing and future traffic demand, and to recommend i
financing method to implement the improvements.
In sequence, the study determined appropriate area boundaries,
identified short and long-range developments within the study
area, calculated present and future levels of service on the
transportation network, determined what improvements would be
needed to correct deficiencies, estimated how much money woulc
needed to fund the improvements, and finally, evaluated
alternative funding mechanisms for raising the needed revenue:
The geometrics of the existing roadway network were taken as t
starting point, with all needed improvements to be added to tt
existing street system. When so considered, some 46 different
construction projects were recommended. The projects were plt
into two categories: (1) Those needed now or to satisfy alreac
approved or committed projects, and (2) those additionally ne(
in the future as development proceeds to General Plan buildout
-_ 1
1 W e
The study determined that projects in the first category tota:
$1 1 .S million, while those needed ultimately total an additiot:
$22.5 million. Thus, the total street improvement needs, to
buildout of the General Plan, will cost $34 million.
A dollar assessment per trip generated, to be called a Traffic
Impact Fee, is the recommended financing mechanism, It provid
the most direct tie between new traffic generated by area
development and funds needed to improve roadways to accommodat
new traffic demand. The amount of the fee can be calculated t
dividing the number of future trips to be generated into the
amount of money to be raised. As an example, the $34 million
General Plan buildout could be divided by SANDAG's estimate oi
141,242 future trips to be generated, and would result in a pe
daily trip fee of $240.
In setting the per trip fee, the City has several options:
1) The project list might be reduced depending on other fundi
sources that might be available.
2) There could be a differentiation between residential trips
and other trips such as commercial or industrial, due to t
phenomenon of "double-counting'. -_.
3) The project list might be reduced through the City's
willingness to accept a level of service lower than
'average".
2
L W 0
4) The future needs (and future trips generated) might be
reduced through a reduction of allowable density in the
General Plan.
Because actual development may take place differently than
assumed under the General Plan, the analysis of the Traffic
Impact Fee should be frequently renewed, no less than once ev
two years,
Finally, this type of analysis could be expanded to determine
appropriate roadway improvements and financing mechanisms for
other areas in the City of Carlsbad.
-_.
3