HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-09; City Council; 16387; Livable Streets-_ -
AB# Id1387
MTG. \o-q-oI
DEPT. PLN&
b
TITLE:
LIVABLE STREETS
GPA 01 -01 RCA 01 -03
CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
DEPT.HD. bb‘$kk
CITYATTY. &%
CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 300)- 3 I a- ADOPTING the Negative Declaration issued by
the Planning Director and INTRODUCE Ordinance No. N S-& & APPROVING General Plan Amendment
01 -01 and Zone Code Amendment 01 -03.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On June 6, 2001, the Planning Commission heard a presentation on the proposed general plan amendment
and zone code amendment and continued the items to the meeting of July 18, 2001. On that date, the
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval (6-0, L’Heureux absent) of the
following two actions:
1. A general plan amendment to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan to add new
goals, objectives and implementing policies and programs related to the design of public, residential
(local) streets. The goals and policies relate to enhancing the appearance of residential streets,
reducing the speed of traffic, increasing pedestrian safety, promoting alternative transportation, improving emergency services and addressing emergency evacuation of residential neighborhoods;
and
2. A zone code amendment to Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code modifying various sections of the
zoning ordinance related to the width of public streets to ensure consistency between documents.
These actions are the next implementation steps necessary to achieve the principles of livable streets within
the City. Per City Council direction on April 3, 2001, staff was directed to pursue the concepts of livable streets
including a local public street width of 34 feet. Subsequent to a stakeholders meeting (discussed more fully in
the agenda bill on Livable Streets - Implementation Actions), the item was presented to the Planning
Commission for consideration.
The Planning Commission agreed that to achieve the City Council goal to “integrate a comprehensive, efficient
transportation system with quality of life-centered land use decisions” an integrated approach to residential
street design should be used. Policies and standards to achieve these goals are proposed to be accomplished
by narrowing public streets, installing appropriate traffic calming measures and providing parkways between
the sidewalk and street. This approach also maintains access for emergency service providers and ensures
emergency evacuation routes from residential neighborhoods. These revisions to language in the General
Plan are proposed to implement the livable streets concepts by providing a clearer vision of these principles in
the City’s primary land use document and also by modifying the Circulation Element cross-section of a
residential street to reflect a 34-foot street width.
Other implementation measures related to livable streets are discussed in the companion agenda bill entitled
‘Livable Streets - Implementation Actions.”
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The Planning Director determined that the proposed actions will not have a significant impact on the
environment and issued a Negative Declaration on March 15, 2001. Proposed additions to the Land Use and
Circulation Elements set policy that exceed existing standards with respect to environmental protection in that
7edestrian safety will be improved, vehicular traffic will move more slowly, ambient air temperature will be
incrementally decreased, emergency evacuation will be improved and surface runoff will be reduced. All future
development projects will be subject to site specific environmental review. No letters of comment were
received during the public review period for the Negative Declaration.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 1 b, 35 ’
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impacts will occur as a result of the inclusion of the proposed goals and policies in the Land Use and
Circulation Elements of the General Plan.
EXH IBlTS :
1. City Council Resolution No. 300 1 2. City Council Ordinance No. hsS - bo& (GPA 01-01 and ZCA 01-03)
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4992, 4993 and 4994
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 6,2001
5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, June 6, 2001
6. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, July 18, 2001
7. BoldlStrikeout Version of Ordinance, dated June 6, 2001
(Negative Declaration) -3u
-
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
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2001-312 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE
ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADDRESS THE DESIGN OF
RESIDENTIAL STREETS
CASE NAME: LIVABLE STREETS
CASE NO.: GPA 01-011ZCA 01-03
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of June 2001, on the
20th day of June 2001, and on the 18th day of July 2001 hold a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the day of
2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the City Council considered all factors relating to
the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 4992 constitute
That the Negative Declaration is hereby Adopted.
the findings of the City Council in this matter.
3.
Ill
Ill
Ill
111
111
111
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the
2001, by the following vote, to wit:
day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
SOLUTION NO. 2001-312 (page 2)
-2-
4.
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
ORDINANCE NO. NS-602
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 21, SECTIONS
21.04.210, 21.04.355, 21.09.160, AND 21.37.100 TO MODIFY
REGULATIONS RELATED TO STREET WIDTHS
CASE NAME: LIVABLE STREETS
CASE NO.: GPA Ol-OI/ZCA 01-03
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That Title 21, Chapter 21.04, Section 21.04.335 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
"21.04.21 0 Lot.
"Lot" means a parcel of record legally created by subdivision map, adjustment plat,
certificate of compliance, or a parcel legally in existence prior to incorporation of the lot into the
jurisdiction of the city. Any parcel created prior to May 1, 1956, shall be presumed to be lawfully
created if the parcel resulted from a division of land in which fewer than five parcels were
created. A lot shall have frontage that allows usable access on a dedicated public street
accepted by the city. This street or easement shall have a minimum right-of-way width of 42
feet. Special lot and street configurations for affordable housing projects may be allowed subject
to the provisions of Section 21 53.1 20.
SECTION 2: That Title 21, Chapter 21.04, Section 21.04.335 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
"21.04.335 Street
"Street" means a publicly dedicated and accepted thoroughfare which affords primary
means of access to abutting property and having a minimum right-of-way width of not less than
42 feet.
SECTION 3: That Title 21, Chapter 21.09, Section 21.09.160 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
"21.09.1 60 Modifications of public improvements.
(a) All public facilities, dedications and improvements shall be required in accord with this
code and adopted policies and standards of the city; however, as hereinafter provided, the city
engineer may modify certain special public improvement standards provided the design of these
modified improvements is related to the function, topography and needs of the area. Any such
modifications shall be reflected as conditions of approval to a tentative subdivision map.
(b) Street improvements and dedications for streets inside subdivisions may be modified as
follows:
(1) All or part of the required sidewalks, curbs, gutters or drainage structures may be waived or modified if it is found that such improvements are unwarranted and would distract
from the rural character of the area. If such requirements are waived, the city engineer may
require that drainage easements and/or drainage releases be made part of the tract map to
ensure proper drainage over private property. .2
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
(2) Horizontal and vertical alignment standards may be modified or waived to reduce
grading. In such cases, an adequate right-of-way shall be provided to accommodate possible
future corrections to meet city standards.
The city council shall have the option of requiring that street right-of-way be
privately maintained under a property owners’ association or may accept an offer of dedication.
If privately owned, the streets shall be open to the public by easement.
(c) Public sewer systems shall be required to serve each lot in the R-E zone unless
specifically waived by the city council. Such waiver shall be conditioned ‘on the installation of an
alternative sewer disposal system permitted by this code and found by the city council to be
feasible for each lot. The determination of the adequacy of such alternate system shall be based
on detailed soils testing on each existing or proposed lot as provided for by the county health
department. If an alternate system is approved, the subdivider shall prepare plans for a future
public sewer system as a backup system. Dedication of all easements necessary to construct
such a backup public sewer system shall be required as a condition of final map approval.
(d) Any modification pursuant to this section shall not relieve the subdivider from providing
public facilities, dedications and improvements that also provide services necessary for the
welfare of the general public, as required by the general plan, applicable specific plans or city
(3)
ordinances or policies. (Ord. 9498 5 4 (part), 1978) “
SECTION IV: That Title, Chapter 21.37, Section 21.37.
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
“21.37.100 Development standards.
A mobile home park shall comply with the following development stand
00 of the Carlsbad
-ds:
(1) A mobile home park shall be not less than five acres for a condominium or planned
unit development park and fifteen acres for a rental park. (2) Fifteen percent of the mobile home sites may be three thousand square feet in area
to accommodate a twenty foot wide mobile home. The remaining sites shall have a minimum of
three thousand five hundred square feet in area.
(3) Each mobile home lot shall have a width of not less than fifty feet.
(4) Not more than one single-family mobile home or factory-built home may be placed on
a mobile home lot. Each mobile home or factory-built house shall contain one dwelling unit only.
No mobile home or factory-built house shall be less than twenty-four feet wide, except for the
fifteen percent affordable housing units which may be twenty feet wide.
(5) Each mobile home site shall have a front yard of not less than five feet. The front
yard so required shall not be used for vehicle parking, except such portion thereof as is devoted
to driveway use.
(6) On corner mobile home sites, the side yard adjoining the mobile home park street
shall not be less than five feet.
(7) Except for corner lots, each mobile home lot shall have a side yard of not less than
three feet and a rear yard of not less than three feet. The minimum separation between mobile
homes or between a mobile home and a building shall be as follows: from side to side, ten feet;
from side to rear, eight feet; from rear to rear, six feet. Notwithstanding the separation
requirement, a private garage may be located immediately adjacent to a mobile home if the
interior of the garage wall adjacent to the mobile home is constructed of materials approved for
one-hour fire resistive construction. If there are openings in the mobile home wall adjacent to
the garage wall, a minimum of three feet separation shall be maintained between the mobile
home and a private garage which does not meet the requirements for one-hour fire-resistive
construction. Private garages shall maintain a minimum side yard and rear yard of not less than
three feet.
-2-
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
(A) CarpotWawnings must be constructed of noncombustible materials and may
be constructed to the lot line provided there is a minimum of three feet clearance from a
mobilehome or any other structures on the adjacent lots.
A maximum of two storage cabinets shall be permitted on each mobile home
lot. The aggregate floor area of the cabinets shall not exceed one hundred square feet nor shall
the height of the cabinets exceed ten feet. Storage cabinets may be located on a lot line or
adjacent to a mobilehome or mobilehome accessory building or structure or beneath an awning
or carport; provided, that it does not obstruct the required exiting or openings for light and
ventilation of a mobilehome or a cabana, or prevent service or inspection of mobilehome
equipment and utility connections or encroach within a designated open space area.
Expansion or alteration of buildings which are nonconforming by reason of
inadequate yards shall comply with Section 21 -48.090. Miscellaneous accessory structures
such as lath houses, greenhouses, storage buildings (greater than one hundred square feet in
floor area), etc., may be erected on a mobile home lot, provided they are located a minimum of
six feet from any mobile home, outside any required yard and the occupied area of a lot does
not exceed seventy-five percent of the lot.
(8) When used for access to a parking facility, a side yard shall be wide enough for a
ten-foot-wide unobstructed driveway. All such side yard driveways shall be paved with cement
or asphaltic concrete.
(9) Window awnings, not including structures, may project not more than four feet into
any front yard and the following features may be erected or project into any required yard:
(B)
(C)
(A) Vegetation, including trees, shrubs and other plants;
(B) Necessary appurtenances for utility service;
(C) Mailboxes.
(10) The area of the mobile home and all mobile home accessory structures shall not
cover more than seventy-five percent of the mobile home site.
(1 I) Each mobile home site shall include a paved area suitable for providing automobile
shelter with space for at least two automobiles. Recreation and laundry areas combined shall
have sufficient parking facilities to accommodate one automobile for every five mobile home
sites up to fifty lots and one space for each ten lots thereafter.
(12) Mobile home park streets shall be provided in such a pattern as to provide
convenient traffic circulation within the mobile home park. Such streets shall be built to the
following standards:
(A) No roadway shall be less than 34 feet in width.
(B) There shall be concrete curbs on each side of the streets.
(C) The mobile home park streets shall be paved according to standards
established by the city engineer.
(D) Mobile home park streets shall be lighted in accordance with the standards established by the city engineer.
(13) Visitor parking shall be provided at a ratio of one space per four mobile home units.
(14) The city council may permit decentralization of the recreational facilities in
(1 5) Utilities.
On-street parking may be counted towards meeting this requirement.
accordance with principles of good planning.
(A) All utilities shall be underground.
(B) Television reception shall be by means of cable television or one antenna or several common antennae if the size or configuration of the mobile home park requires more
than one. Individual TV antennas on a coach shall be prohibited.
(C) Common trash-bin enclosures shall be provided. They shall be of masonry construction and compatible with the mobile home park.
-3 -
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
(16) Service buildings and facilities shall be strategically located throughout the park
for convenient access from mobile homes. No service building shall be closer than twenty feet
to any property adjacent to the mobile home park.
Mobile home parks shall be enclosed by solid masonry fences, six feet in height,
subject to land use planning manager approval, along dedicated street frontages and interior
property lines.
All new mobile homes shall bear a valid insignia of approval issued by the State
Department of Housing and Community Development.
(17)
(18)
SECTION V: That the findings of the Planning commission as set forth in
Planning Commission Resolution 4994 constitute the findings of the City Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and
the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a
newspaper of general circulation within fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held
on the 9th day ofOCTOBE8 2001, and thereafter.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the day of 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-4-
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4992
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO AMEND
THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO
ADDRESS THE DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL STREETS
CASE NAME: LIVABLE STREETS
CASE NO.: GPA 01-01/ZCA 01-03
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of June 2001, on the
20th day of June 2001, and on the 18th day of July 2001 hold a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit "ND" dated April 24, 2001, and "PII" dated March 12,
2001, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Fin dings - :
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration GPA 01-01/ZCA
01-03 the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any
comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
B. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and 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
D. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of July 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heureux
ABSTAIN:
nA
JEFF- . EGALL&%airperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4992 -2-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: City of Carlsbad
Project Description: Revisions to engineering standards, a general plan amendment to
both the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element, as well as
a zone code amendment to revise goals, objectives, policies and
standards addressing the design of local public streets. More
specifically, proposed language addresses narrowing public streets
from a pavement width of 40 feet to a pavement width of 34 feet
and creating more pedestrian-friendly streets through the use of
traffic calming measures, parkways, trees, street connectivity and
off-set driveways.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Adrienne Landers in the Planning Department
at (760) 602-46 15.
DATED: APRIL 24,2001
CASE NO: GPA Ol-OT/ZCA 01-03
CASE NAME: LIVEABLE STREETS
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 24,2001
Planning Director
//
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZCA 0 1-03
DATE: March 12,200 1
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Livable Streets
2. APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad, CA
92008 (760) 602-4615
4. DATE EM FORM PART I SUBMITTED: NA
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revisions to engineering standards, the Zoning; Ordinance, and both
the Circulation and Land Use Elements of the General Plan modifving goals, objectives, uolicies
and standards to modifv the design of uublic streets by narrowing the pavement street width,
providing parkways and trees, and incornorating the use of traffic calming measures when
amropriate.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
Population and Housing 0 Biologcal Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
12.
-
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
lzl
0
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A(n) Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIFUMEIR 93-01
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIFUMEIR 93-01, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
3 IrC3-l 01
Planner Signature Date
4610 I
Date
2 13 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL Ihir‘ACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a sigificant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an infomation source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standzrds.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EN-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but glJ potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EJR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence
that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 ’51 Rev. 03/28/96
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EM-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
4
b)
cl
4
e>
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
4
b)
4
Cumulatively exceed offkial regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l :Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1.15) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15) e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#I :Pgs 5.1-l -
5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperaturi, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
q
cl
0
q
q
q
q
q q cl
q
0 El
q q q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than Ko
Slgnifkant Impact
Impact
q lxl
q lxl
q [XI
q IXI
q lxl
q Ix1
q IXI
q m
q q IXI q q IXI cl q El
q q lxl
0 q IXI q q Ix1
q q lxl q q Ix] q q lxl
q Ix] q
cl q Ix1
q q IXI
16 Rev. 03128196 5
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
g)
h)
i)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
4 Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- 1 - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
cl Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
4 Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a>
b)
c)
4
d
f)
g)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
‘0
q
q
q
q
q
0
0
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
rl
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
NO Impact
Ix)
lxl
Ix]
la
Ix]
lxl
El
lxl
El
lxl
lxl
lxl
Ix]
IXI
Ix]
lzl
IXI
lxl
El
6 Rev. 03128196 17
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorwrated
Less Than
Significant Impact
NO
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
q
q
q
q q
q
q
El
lxl
lxl
c)
4
e)
VIII.
4
b)
c)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
lxl
Is]
q q q lxl
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l :Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12. l-l - 5.12.8-7)
q q q Ix1
q q q lxl
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q 151
q lxl
q lxl
q
q
u
q
q IXI
q El
q q q Ia cl q q IXI q q III lxl q q q lxl
q q q Ix1
Rev. 03128196 18
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
a)
b)
c)
4
e)
f)
g)
XIII.
a)
b)
cl
XIV.
4
b)
cl
4
e)
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5:12.1-l - 5.12.1.5)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
1 - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-l -
5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. .
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Potentially Potentially Less Than KO Significant Significanl Significant Impact Impact Unless impact Mitigation
Incorporated
q
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
cl q
q
q
q
q
cl
0 0
q III q q
cl
q
q
q
0
q q
0
q
q
III
q
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
El
lxl
(XI lxl
lxl lxl lxl lxl
IXI
Ix1
El
Ia
lzl
Ix1 (XI
lxl
lxl
lxl
IXI
8 Rev. 03/28/96 17
Issues (and Supporting lnformation Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Less Than NO Significant impact
Impact
Incorporated b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? cl 0
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, q q
either directly or indirectly?
q Ix]
q El
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c> Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96 *O
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project consists of revisions to engineering standards, a general plan amendment to both the
Land Use Element and the Circulation Element, as well as a zone code amendment to revise goals.
objectives, policies and standards addressing the design of local public streets. More specifically.
proposed language addresses narrowing public streets from a pavement width of 40 feet to a pavement
width of 34 feet. Also included is new language in the General Plan intended to ensure that new streets
are pedestrian-friendly, that street designs encourage walking and contribute to a sense of neighborhood.
Measures addressing this issue include reducing vehicle speed through the use of narrower pavement
street widths; incorporating traffic calming measures to further slow traffic; minimizing the number of
cul-de-sacs; improving street connectivity; reducing parking lane widths from 8 feet to 7 feet; providing
offset driveways, and improving street aesthetics with the use of trees and parkways.
The proposed amendments apply citywide but only to local public streets, which are those found in
single-family residential developments. Proposed standards would maintain a 60 foot wide right-of-way,
create a 34 foot wide curb-to-curb street width including a 20 foot wide travel lane and two 7 foot wide
parking lanes, and a combination of sidewalks and landscaped parkways making up the remaining 13 feet.
These dimensions would maintain the necessary 20 foot travel width required by the Uniform Fire Code
and would provide access for both emergency and service vehicles. Present street standards would remain
for cul-de-sac circumstances.
The net effect of the proposed amendments would be to remain with the same 60 foot right-of-way but
revamp the design to reduce asphalt, provide parkways and trees adjacent to the curb, relocate the
sidewalk away from the street and add traffic calming measures when appropriate. No additional space
would be required for dedication or improvement, therefore no additional environmental impacts are
expected. If anything, the reduced amount of impervious surfaces, the slower traffic, and the increased
pedestrian safety created by the use of traffic calming measures and the relocation of sidewalks further
from traffic would improve safety, water quality and aesthetics.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
1. Land Use and Planning - The proposed amendments will not conflict with the General Plan or
zoning designations or any applicable environmental plans adopted by the City because they do not affect
density or allowed land uses. The amendment will not be incompatible with existing or planned land uses
in any area and will not impact agricultural uses or established communities. Implementation of these
policies and standards support and strengthen goals and policies already found in the General Plan.
2. Ponulation and Housing - Since these amendments do not propose any development or affect
allowable land uses or densities, the amendment will not affect any population projections, induce
substantial growth, or displace any existing housing.
3. Geologic Problems - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this amendment, no
changes in topography resulting in unstable earth conditions, erosion of soils, ground shaking,
landslides/mudflows, alteration of deposition patterns, or other geologic problems will occur. The
ultimate placement of future roadways will be reviewed and considered at the time of development applications as it is under current regulations. Detailed analysis of site conditions and possible
development impacts will be evaluated at the time a project application is submitted. Therefore the
proposed project will not result in any potentially significant geological impacts.
4. - Water - The proposed amendments are not specific to any site, but could apply citywide. Also,
no development is being proposed, and no sites are being identified for specific uses through these
10 Rev. 03/28/96 R’
amendments. Also, the proposed amendments will not change any regulations, policies. standards. or
guidelines already in place which adversely affect or address water conditions or the prevention/handling
of problems related to water bodies, absorption rates, hazards, discharge, turbidity, or the availability of
water. The ultimate placement of any future uses will be reviewed and considered at the time a
development application is submitted, just as it is under the current regulations. Detailed analysis of site
conditions and possible development impacts will be evaluated at the time a project application is
submitted. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any potentially significant water impacts.
5. Air Oualitv - As no site-specific project nor changes to standards or policies regarding air quality
is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, there will be no impact to air quality.
6. TransnortationKirculation - Implementation of the proposed project will not result in increased
daily vehicle trips. Proposed traffic calming features incorporated in the design of future neighborhood
streets may reduce vehicle trips by discouraging cut-through traffic. Vehicle speed will be reduced thus
minimizing the potential number and severity of accidents. Design features will be well-marked and
visible to drivers. Hazards or safety concerns will be minimized by slower vehicle speeds that provide
greater driver reaction time to recognize a problem and to either stop or take evasive action. Less
distance is required to stop’s vehicle at slower speeds.
The twenty foot width, proposed to accommodate two way traffic, is consistent with the minimum
requirements of the Uniform Fire Code. The travel lanes proposed will not impede access by large fire
apparatus or ambulances.
On-street parking will be provided. The design will permit vehicles to be parked in front of a residence.
The opportunity for on-street parking spaces may be reduced in certain circumstances where a traffic
calming measure is implemented. However, adequate overall parking capacity will remain on the street
to serve the neighborhood needs. Parking lane width will be reduced from eight feet to seven feet leaving
a minimum of twenty feet for the travel lanes. That twenty foot requirement comes from the State Fire
Code. Based on over 200 field measurements, it was verified that the seven foot width did correspond to
existing field conditions in the city. The field measurements were taken on both a forty foot width and
thirty six foot wide streets. The distance measured from the face of curb to the outside edge of the parked
vehicle. The types of vehicles measured included sub-compact cars to large SWs. It was found that the
narrower the street the closer to the curb the vehicles parked. Parking lane widths, adequate emergency
vehicle access and traffic calming measures will all contribute to slowing traffic while providing safer pedestrian environments and emergency access.
The parkway width will be increased from four and a half feet to seven feet and the sidewalk will be
placed behind the parkway instead of adjacent to the curb. City trees will be planted in the parkway
instead of outside of the right of way.
These are integrated changes that must be jointly incorporated to meet the intent of this new street design.
This change decreases the amount of hard surface and increases the amount of parkway planter within the
right of way. It also puts a greater distance between the pedestrian on the sidewalk and the streets travel
lane. The issues considered with these changes involved pedestrian safety, increase in permeable surface
and cost of maintenance of the trees in the parkway. Moving the pedestrian away from the street is safer
than being adjacent to the street. It also gives the pedestrian more of a feeling of walking with nature
instead of walking in a street. By having the trees closer to the street both the optical narrowing of the
street and the shadows cast on the street by the trees act to reduce the perceived street width, thus slowing
traffic down. Reducing speed has the direct benefit of reducing the severity of injuries of any people
involved in a vehicle related accident.
7. Biological Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code
amendment, there will be no impact to biological resources. Although the proposed regulations discourage the use of cul-de-sac streets, there. are provisions included to permit this type of street when
there are environmental features that need to be preserved. Any development application will be analyzed
11 Rev. 03/28/96 2z
in detail for potential impacts to biological resources.
8. Energv and Mineral Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code
amendment, there will be no impact to energy and mineral resources.
9. Hazards - The proposed project is not specific to any site and could apply any place within the
City. However, no development is proposed through this project. In addition, the project will not create
any new uses (i.e., uses not currently allowed in the City). Proposed policies and standards addressing
narrower street widths and relocated sidewalks are uses which typically do not present any risk of
explosion, release of hazardous substances, etc. However, any development proposed in the future will
be analyzed in detail for potential hazard impacts. Therefore, the proposed project does not result in any potentially significant hazards impacts.
Street narrowing is not expected to interfere with either emergency response to a neighborhood or the
ability of residents to evacuate. The proposed design facilitates emergency evacuation by minimizing the
use of single access street design. Connectivity, a major feature of the proposal, ensures residents will
have more than one vehicular route of escape during a major emergency event. When single point
access must be used, the number of dwelling units served will be limited to twenty in accordance with
recommendations of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. This will mitigate any concern for large
numbers of residents being unable to quickly evacuate their neighborhoods.
The proposed street narrowing could impede the ability of emergency responders to protect homes from
advancing wildland fires. For that reason, portions of developments located adjacent to open space will
require special consideration with respect to street design. The widths of single access streets (cul-de-sac)
will be maintained at the current standard of thirty-six feet.
10. Noise - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, there will be
no exposure to noise impacts and no exposure to unacceptable levels of noise.
11. Public Services - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment,
there will be no impacts to public services.
The proposed street narrowing could restrict capabilities of fire response personnel to operate upon arrival
at the scene of a residential tire. Often on narrow streets, the second and third fire engines responding are
unable to gain close access to the fire since the initial engine is parked in the street. This impediment
costs time and allows a fire to advance beyond normal expectations. The proposed elements of street
connectivity and off-set driveways mitigate this concern. Connectivity permits access to the fire scene by
tire vehicles from more than one direction. Off-set driveways will effectively widen the street at regular
intervals, providing a larger area to accommodate fireground operations. Single access street design is discouraged if not eliminated by this proposal, since it would contribute to the emergency access problem.
When single access design is unavoidable, concerns for service capability will be mitigated by the
requirement for “built-in” fire protection in the form of automatic fire sprinklers in each residence. Fire
sprinklers will prevent advancement of the fire allowing additional time for responders to negotiate the
narrower single access streets.
12. Utilities and Services Systems - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code
amendment, there will be no impacts to utilities and services systems. No development is proposed
through this project. Under the City’s adopted growth management regulations, all development in the
City is required to provide all necessary public facilities and services concurrent with development. This
requirement would not be altered by the proposed project. Underground utilities, located in the parkway, are normally placed under the edge of the sidewalk. By relocating the sidewalk away from the street, the
utilities would likewise shift with and stay under the sidewalk. This is done to protect the utilities from anyone digging in the parkway. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in potentially significant
impacts to public utilities and services systems.
12 Rev. 03/28/96 23
13. Aesthetics - The proposed amendments will improve the appearance of residential streets by
reducing the amounts of asphalt and by including parkways landscaped with trees.
14. Cultural Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment,
there will be no impacts to cultural resources. The proposed amendments are not specific to any site.
They could apply any place in the City. Any development application will be analyzed in detail for
potential impacts to cultural resources. However, the code amendments proposed currently (the
“project”) will not have any impact on cultural resources.
15. Recreational - The proposed amendment will not increase the demand for parks or other recreational facilities and will not affect existing recreational opportunities because the proposed
amendment will not induce growth in the City and will not reduce the number or amount of areas
currently planned for recreational uses.
AIR OUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result from the
build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued
development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant
impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These
subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of
nitrogen and sulfirr, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution
in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment
basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued
development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant
impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety of
mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway
and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle
trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions
to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote
energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies
when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant
Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not
required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246,
included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This
project is within the scope of that MEIR. This document is available at the Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued
development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes.
Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial
intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no
jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections
along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of
intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-
13 Rev. 03/28/96 24/
out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-ou;. numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) measures to
ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative
modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages. and
commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The
diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates
impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General
Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are
included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of
intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study”
checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan,
therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR
93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for
circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by ‘.he General Plan’s Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at
the Planning Department.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of a;:
application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is
still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago,
the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect
to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the
intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to
below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known
and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains
adequate to review later projects.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad
Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, (760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Imuact Reuort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR
93-O I), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORTNG PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
15 Rev. 03/28/96 24
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
16 Rev. 03128196. 27
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4993
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE AND
CIRCULATION ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO
ADDRESS THE DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL STREETS
CASE NAME: LIVABLE STREETS
CASE NO: GPA 01-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has filed a verified application with the City
of Carlsbad regarding property owned by various owners, “Owner,” described as citywide
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibits “W”, “X “, “Y”, and “Z” dated June 20, 2001, attached
hereto and on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department LIVABLE STREETS - GPA 01-01 as
provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 6th day of June 2001, on the
20th day of June 2001, and on the 18th day of July 2001 hold a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law to consider said request;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
4 That the above recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LIVABLE STREETS, GPA 01-01, based
on the following findings:
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
FindinPs:
1. That the proposed General Plan Amendment LIVABLE STREETS GPA 01-01
directly complements existing goals, objectives and implementing programs of the
General Plan related to enhancing the appearance of residential streets, reducing
the speed of traffic, increasing pedestrian safety, promoting alternative
transportation, providing emergency service and addressing emergency evacuation
of residential neighborhoods.
2. That the proposed policies and programs are consistent with applicable elements of
the General Plan in that they describe what “adequate circulation infrastructure”
means at the neighborhood level, how residential streets should look and how they
should function.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of July 2001 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heureux
ABSTAIN:
1.
CARLSBb PLANkNG COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4993 -2-
Exhibit “W”
June 20,200l
Land Use Element
Residential
A.
A.1
A.2
B.
B.l
B.2
B.3
B.4
B.5
C
C.16
Goal
A City which provides for a variety of housing types and density ranges to meet the diverse
economic social requirements of residents, yet still ensures a cohesive urban form with
careful regard for compatibility while retaining the present predominance of single family
residences.
A Citv with neinhborhoods that have a sense of communitv where residents including
children. the disabled and the elderlv feel safe and comfortable travelinq to dailv
destinations: where homes and trees line the streets: where central natherino places
create focal points: and where recreation areas are provided for a varietv of acre
groups.
Objectives
To achieve a variety of safe, attractive housing in all economic ranges throughout the City.
To preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas.
To offer safe, attractive residential areas with a wide range of housing types, styles and price
levels in a variety of locations.
To ensure that new master planned communities and residential specific plans contribute to
a balanced community by providing, within the development, adequate areas to meet some
social/human service needs such as sites for worship, daycare, youth and senior citizen
activities, etc.
To ensure that new development is desinned with the focus on residents instead of
the automobile bv providino: pedestrian-friendlv. tree-lined streets; walkwavs to
common destinations such as schools, parks and stores: homes that exhibit visual diversitv, pedestrian-scale and prominence to the street: and recreation amenities for
a varietv of aqe oroups
Implementing Policies and Programs
Require new subdivisions to create a unique sense of identitv and communitv throuoh
sualitv architecture, street desinn, gathering places. recreation areas and landscapino.
Exhibit “X”
June 20,200l
Circulation Element
TABLE 1: STREET CLASSIFICATIONS
Local Streets:
l Provide street connectivitv and immediate access to adjoining properties
l Are designed to discourage &through traffic
l Balance use of the riaht-of-wav between vehicles and pedestrians
l Reduce vehicle speed and “cut throuoh” traffic through the use of appropriate
street widths and traffic calming measures
l Provide access for emeroencv service providers and emerqencv egress for
residents
l Carry low volumes of traffic (estimated average daily trips: KM- 2.000 maximum)
Collector Streets:
l Provide immediate access to adjoining properties
l Serve as the connecting link for traffic between local and arterial streets
l Generally carry light to moderate traffic volumes (estimated average daily trips: W3 -te
43gMiIQ 2,000 to 10.000~
Secondarv Arterials:
l Provide limited access to adjacent properties
l Serve to move traffic between collector streets and larger arterials or the freeways
l Have two traffic lanes in each direction with a painted median
l Carry moderate traffic volumes (estimated average daily trips: 10,000 to 20,000)
Maior Arterials:
l Prohibit access to adjacent properties unless no other alternative exists
l Provide intra-city circulation and connections to freeways and regional roads
l Have a minimum of two traffic lanes in each direction with a raised median
l Carry moderate to heavy traffic volumes (estimated average daily trips: 20,000 to
40,000)
Prime Arterials:
l Prohibit access to adjacent properties unless no other alternative exists
l Provide for regional and intra-city circulation and connections to freeways and other
regional roads
l Carry very heavy traffic volumes (estimated average daily trips: 40,000 or more)
Exhibit 7”
June 20,200l
Circulation Element
STREETS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL
A. Goals
A.I. A City with an integrated transportation network serving local and regional needs which
accommodates a be+enee varietv of different travel modes based on safety, convenience,
attractiveness, costs, and environmental and social impacts.
A.2. A City with an adequate circulation infrastructure to serve the projected population.
A.3. A City with a comprehensive network of ~F&P&M prev&s-streets that maximize
appr+~& access to all neinhborhoods and land uses.
A.4. A City with properly maintained, smooth functioning and safe traffic control systems.
A.5 A Citv with inviting streetscapes that encouracle walkinq and promote a sense of
neiqhborhood in residential developments.
A.6 A Citv with streets desiqned to balance vehicular requirements with the needs of all
pedestrians includina children, the elderlv and the disabled.
A.7 A Citv committed to providing a circulation svstem that promotes the safetv and
livabilitv of residential neiqhborhoods while maintaining adequate access for
emercaencv service providers and prompt evacuation capabilities for residents.
A.8 A Citv with a circulation svstem that promotes alternative transportation such as
walkinq, bicvclinq and public transportation.
B. Objectives
B.l To provide an adequate circulation infrastructure concurrent with or prior to the actual
demand for such facilities
B.2 To design streets for the safe and efficient movement of people, goods and services within
m in the most environmentally sound -manner
possible.
B.3 To maintain a clear and consistent set of standards for the design and construction of
roads and traffic control devices.
B.4 To create a priority list for the construction of new traffic signals.
8.5 To provide safe, adequate and attractively landscaped parking facilities.
B.6 To implement and regularly update developer fee programs for financing of circulation
facilities.
8.7 To enhance the economic value of property and improve the economic competitiveness of
the City through the construction of well-designed, efficient and cost effective transportation
facilities.
8.8 To desiqn new subdivisions with streets where trees, parkwavs and traffic calming
measures beautifv neiqhborhoods, slow vehicle speeds. maintain on-street parking
and encouraae residents to walk or bicvcle.
Implementing Policies and Action Programs
C.19 Require new subdivisions to incorporate street desians, appropriate widths, traffic
calmina measures, and standards to reduce vehicle speeds and encouraae bicvcle
use.
C.20 Require new subdivisions to provide walkwavs linkina homes with stores, schools,
businesses and transportation corridors. etc.
C.21 Require new subdivisions to incorporate parkwavs to encourane pedestrian activitv.
C.22 Require residential subdivisions to provide street connectivitv to the maximum
extent feasible bv limitinq the use of sinqle access streets.
C.23 Ensure that the street desiqns of new subdivisions support the deliver-v of
emeraencv service.
F STREET DESIGN STANDARDS
PRIME ARTERIAL STREET
ie Rh’V=l26 * ,R
10 106
Q
,!,
MAJOR ARTERIAL STREET
‘I- R/W=102 ,I!
k lo’ __ 62 i 10 w ‘.
!a Q
2% , , I , ,‘.I , / f
-4 I-wp
SECONDARY ARTERIAL STREET
COLLECTOR STREET
LOCAL STREET
P R/W=60’ *
~ 13’,L
*R
34 Q
_I_ 13’ )
* FOR CUL-DE-BACB R/W REDUCED TO 58’ AND CURB-TO-CURB WIDTH TO 36
KEY These illustrations represent typical cross sections of the
streets described in the Circulation Element. They are
not intended to represent absolute standards
R/W = RIGHT OF WAY
$ = CENTERLINE
R = PROPERTY LINE
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4994
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AMENDING
SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ADDRESS
THE DESIGN OF LOCAL PUBLIC STREETS
CASE NAME: LIVABLE STREETS
CASE NO: ZCA 0 l-03
WHEREAS, the Planning Director, “Developer,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by various property owners, “Owner,”
described as citywide (“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, -the proposed amendment is set forth in the draft City Council
Ordinance, Exhibit 7” dated, June 20, 2001, and attached hereto LIVABLE STREETS,
ZCA 01-03; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of June, 2001, on the
20th day of June 2001, and on the 18th day of July 2001 hold a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Zone Code Amendment; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LIVABLE STREETS, ZCA 01-03, based
on the following findings:
FindinPs:
1. That the proposed Zone Code Amendment LIVABLE STREETS ZCA 01-03
directly implements goals; objectives and implementing programs of the General
Plan related to enhancing the appearance or residential streets, reducing the speed
of traffic, increasing pedestrian safety, promoting alternative transportation, 3,s
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
2.
providing emergency service and addressing emergency evacuation of residential
neighborhoods.
That the proposed ZCA reflects sound principles of good planning in that the proposed
zoning definitions and development standards provide consistency between City
policies and standards related to the width of public and private streets. Future
streets in the Rural Residential Estate Zone and the Residential Mobile Home Park
Zone will have street widths consistent with private and public residential local
streets in other residential zones.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 18th day of July, 2001, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heureux
ABSTAIN:
n //
JEF&& N. SEGmhairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4994 -2-
EXt-BlT 4
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 0 1
July 18,200l 1
Application complete date: N/A
P.C. AGENDA OF: Project Planner: A$i;;;x&nders, 1
Project Engineer: Bob Johnson, Bob Wojcik
SUBJECT: GPA Ol-Ol/ZCA 01-03 - LIVABLE STREETS - Request for approval of amendments
to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan and to various sections of
the Zoning Ordinance to revise goals, objectives, policies and standards addressing the
design of residential streets.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4992
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and
ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4993 and 4994 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of
GPA 0 1-O 1 and ZCA 0 1- 03 based on the findings contained therein.
II. BACKGROUND
This item was scheduled for June 20,2001, and was continued to July 18,200 1.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4992
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4993
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4994
4. Staff Report dated June 6,200l with attachments
37
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department >
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONm
Item No. 0 5
Application complete date: N/A
P.C. AGENDA OF: June 6,200l Project Planner: Adrienne Landers,
Mike Smith
Project Engineer: Bob Johnson, Bob Wojcik
SUBJECT: GPA Ol-Ol/ZCA 01-03 - LIVABLE STREETS - Request for approval of amendments
to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan and to various sections of
the Zoning Ordinance to revise goals, objectives, policies and standards addressing the
design of residential streets.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4992
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and
ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4993 and 4994 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of
GPA 0 1-O 1 and ZCA 0 1 - 03 based on the findings contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The proposed project includes the addition of several goals, objectives, and implementing policies and
programs to both the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan. The new policy statements
are proposed for inclusion to incorporate the principles of livable neighborhoods into the General Plan,
the City’s primary land use document. The project also includes a zone code amendment addressing
residential street widths and street designs that appear in several sections of the Zoning Ordinance. All
new policies are consistent with existing policies and programs in the General Plan.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AN-D BACKGROUND
Over the past two years, staff has been engaged in an effort to respond to a City Council goal that focuses
on creating more livable neighborhoods. To address this issue, City staff in the Planning, Engineering
and Fire Departments have been preparing a number of revisions to City policies, procedures and
standards. Some of the proposed changes focus on the appearance and size of homes and are being
addressed primarily through changes to City Council policies and the Planned Development Ordinance.
Actions addressing this goal are noted in Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 as discussed below in Table A, Livable
Neighborhoods Implementation. A companion City Council goal is to “integrate a comprehensive,
efficient transportation system with quality of life-centered land use decisions”. To achieve this goal,
staff is proposing an integrated approach to residential street design that promotes neighborhood livability
and encourages safer streets by slowing vehicle speeds. This is proposed to be accomplished by
narrowing public and private street widths, installing appropriate traffic calming measures and providing
parkways that separate sidewalks from the street. At the same time, access is maintained for emergency
service providers and emergency evacuation routes from residential neighborhoods are ensured. Actions
addressing this second goal are noted in Items, 4 and 5 below. The proposed project addresses Item 4 as
one of the components in achieving more livable neighborhoods, and more specifically with this
GPMZCA, to achieve the development of more “livable streets”.
GPA 0 1 -Ol/ZCA 01-03 - LIVABLE STREETS
June 6,200l
Pane 2
r
Table A
Livable Neighborhoods Implementation
Proposed Action
4.
A new City Council policy on Livable Neighborhoods outlining the City’s
vision for residential neighborhoods (Attachment 4)
Revisions to City Council Policy 44 (Small Lot Architectural Guidelines,
now called Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines) to address
architectural concerns related to new single-family development projects
(standard and infill subdivisions);
Revisions to the Planned Development Ordinance to address development
standards such as lot size, setbacks, lot coverage, private streets,
recreational open space, etc.
Revisions to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General
Plan and to various sections of the Zoning Ordinance to add new
goals, objectives, and standards addressing Livable Neighborhoods,
Livable Streets and emergency egress;
Revisions to public residential street standards to narrow street widths, to
provide parkways, trees, traffic calming measures, connected streets and
off-set driveways. Revisions to public residential street standards will
include language to address emergency egress from residential
neighborhoods to limit the number of units on cul-de-sacs to 20 and to
require residential fire sprinklers and fire resistant construction when
necessary;
Vision statements in master plans to create unique neighborhoods
addressing Livable Neighborhoods and Livable Streets concepts.
T 1 Decisi;zE: Body
City Council
Public Works Director
I
Master plan review by
Planning Commission and
City Council
On April 3, 2001, the concept of livable streets was endorsed by the City Council which directed staff to
initiate the implementing steps necessary to create more livable streets. Attachment 4 provides a copy of
the agenda bill approved by the City Council on April 3, 2001 that outlines and details the proposed
streets program. Specifically, these changes relate to narrower residential street widths, parkways,
secondary egress and traffic calming measures. Implementation steps include the following:
1. Endorsement of the proposed street designs by the Public Works Director, Fire Chief, and
Planning Director;
2. Recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission of amendments to the Land Use and
Circulation Elements of the General Plan to add goals, objectives and policies on livable streets
and to modify the street cross-section exhibit; and an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
revise relevant code sections addressing street widths;
3. Adoption by the City Council of the proposed General Plan and Zone Code Amendments; and,
4. Engineering Department revisions to Engineering Standards to reflect approved actions regarding
street widths, street designs, and policies related to emergency evacuation of residential
neighborhoods.
The Public Works Director, Fire Chief, and Planning Director have already endorsed the proposed street
designs. Therefore, the next implementation step includes Planning Commission review of goals,
objectives and implementing policies proposed for addition to the General Plan. Modifications to the
street cross-section exhibit found in the Circulation Element are also included in this phase. Proposed
General Plan language should be reviewed to ensure consistency with the concepts of livable streets as
well as existing policies of the General Plan and to ensure that the proposed zone code revisions reflect
these changes. The intent of the proposed General Plan amendments is to provide a clearer vision of the
livable streets concepts in the City’s primary land use document. Rather than process two General Plan
Amendments (another separate amendment with the Planned Development Ordinance revisions to address 39
GPA 01-O 1 /ZCA 0 l-03 - LIVABLE STREETS
June 6,200l
Paw 3
Livable Neighborhoods), one amendment is proposed to address both Livable Streets and Livable
Neighborhoods. The proposed street cross-section exhibit is found within as Attachment 5. Proposed
goals, objectives, and implementing policies and programs are listed below:
A. Proposed General Plan Element Additions
Goals
4
b)
c)
4
e>
Objectives
4
b)
Land Use - A City with neighborhoods that have a sense of community where residents
including children, the disabled and the elderly feel safe and comfortable traveling to
daily destinations; where homes are in scale to their surroundings and trees line the
streets; where central gathering places create focal points; and where recreation areas are
provided for a variety of age groups.
Circulation - A City with inviting streetscapes that encourage walking and promote a
sense of neighborhood in residential developments.
Circulation - A City with streets designed to balance vehicular requirements with the
needs of all pedestrians including children, the elderly and the disabled.
Circulation - A City committed to providing a circulation system that promotes the
safety and livability of residential neighborhoods while maintaining adequate access for
emergency service providers and prompt evacuation capabilities for residents.
Circulation - A City with a circulation system that promotes alternative transportation
such as walking, bicycling and public transportation.
Land Use - To ensure that new development is designed with the focus on residents
instead of the automobile by providing: pedestrian-friendly, tree-lined streets; walkways
to common destinations such as schools, parks and stores; homes that exhibit visual
diversity, pedestrian-scale and prominence to the street; and recreation amenities for a
variety of age groups
Circulation - To design new subdivisions with streets where trees, parkways and traffic
calming measures beautify neighborhoods, slow vehicle speeds, maintain on-street
parking and encourage residents to walk or bicycle.
Implementing Policies and Programs
a) Land Use - Require new subdivisions to create a unique sense of identity and community
through quality architecture, street design, gathering places, recreation areas and
landscaping.
b) Circulation - Require new subdivisions to incorporate street designs, appropriate widths,
traffic calming measures and standards to reduce vehicle speeds and encourage bicycle
use.
c> Circulation - Require new subdivisions to provide walkways linking homes with stores,
schools, businesses and transportation corridors, etc.
GPA Ol-Ol/ZCA 01-03 - LIVABLE STREETS
June 6,200l
Pane 4
4 Circulation - Require new subdivisions to incorporate parkways to encourage pedestrian
activity.
4 Circulation - Require residential subdivisions of greater than 20 dwelling units to
provide multiple emergency evacuation routes.
0 Circulation - Ensure that the street designs of new subdivisions support the delivery of
emergency services.
B. Proposed Zone Code Revisions
In addition to the proposed General Plan amendments, several sections of the Zoning Ordinance are also
proposed for amendment. The Zone Code Amendment addresses several references in the code related to
the width of public streets. These include the definitions of a “lot” and a “street” as well as references to
pavement width in the Rural Residential Estate (R-E) Zone and the Residential Mobile Home Park
(RMHP) Zone. The proposed language will again provide consistency between documents and ensure
that a standard curb-to-curb width of 34 feet is also provided in these zones. This language is provided in
a redline/strikeout format as Attachment 7.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this General Plan Amendment/Zone Code Amendment was
developed by analyzing their achievement of the City Council goals to create livable streets and
neighborhoods as well as their compliance/consistency with the General Plan.
A. General Plan
The General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements include a number of community and neighborhood
design objectives and policies. The proposed Planned Development Ordinance amendment and associated
City Council Policies on Livable Neighborhoods and Architectural Design are consistent with applicable
objectives and policies of the General Plan as discussed below in Table B, General Plan Compliance:
Land Use Element
A new goal, new objective, and a new implementing policy and program are proposed to be added to the
Land Use Element to clarify the City’s intent to .create more livable neighborhoods. Livable
neighborhoods are defined as neighborhoods that are designed to encourage social interaction between
residents. Such neighborhoods are designed with a focus on residents instead of the automobile by
providing: pedestrian-friendly, tree-lined streets; walkways to common destinations such as schools, parks
and stores; homes that exhibit visual diversity, pedestrian-scale and prominence to the street with direct
access to centrally-located neighborhood gathering places. There are already policies and programs in the
General Plan that generally address some of these concepts; however, existing policies address livability
at the community scale. The proposed text found under Land Use on page 3 brings these concepts down
to the neighborhood level and focuses more clearly on the components the City would like to see included
in new residential development. These concepts correlate to the new City Council policy, Principles for
the Development of Livable Neighborhoods (Attachment 4). This policy will be shortly be brought
forward to the City Council along with a proposed amendment to the Planned Development Ordinance.
Circulation Element
Proposed language addresses methods to create more livable streets in residential neighborhoods. As
noted earlier, these concepts and the proposals to achieve them are described more fully in the attached
GPA Ol-Ol/ZCA 01-03 - LIVABLE STREETS
June 6,200l
Page 5
City Council Agenda Bill. Proposed General Plan policies also bring the concept of street design from
the community level down to the neighborhood level and more specifically address the concepts of livable
streets.
Element I
Table B
General Plan Compliance
Canal Ohiective. nr Pnlicv Ordinance Cnnsintencv -I
4
- _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ ---- -- ----.-, -- - ___- -_-___-__-- -- ______ -__-
Land Use Goal A.1 - The City should have a The proposed goal is consistent with this language in that
balance of land uses at convenient while the existing goal focuses on the community at large
locations designed to protect the the proposed text carries these concepts down to the
environment and character of the neighborhood level and begins to create a vision of how
City. livable neighborhoods should look.
Land Use Objective B.l. - Neighborhoods The new objective and new policy more clearly define
should have a distinctive sense of elements of distinctive neighborhoods.
place and identity.
Circulation Goal A.2 - City with an adequate The four new circulation goals bring the words “adequate
circulation infrastructure to Serve the circulation infrastructure” down to a neighborhood level
projected population. and describes what residential streets should look like, that
they should serve the needs of all pedestrian, that
emergency access and egress should be provided, and that
the circulation system should promote alternative
transportation.
Circulation 0 Objective B.2 - Streets should be New objectives and policies supplement existing text that
designed to be aesthetically does not actually address the appearance and design of
pleasing. neighborhood streets. New text further supports the use of
0 Objective B. 1. - Streets should linking walkways, parkways, and traffic calming measures.
accommodate pedestrians and Language is also added to address the issue of multiple
bicycles. emergency evacuation routes and that new street designs do 0 Goal - Encourage alternative not impact emergency response times.
forms of transportation
1
J
In addition to the proposed street width changes, three housekeeping changes are also proposed on
Exhibit X, TABLE 1: STREET CLASSIFICATIONS. Under Local Streets, “a minimum amount of
traffic” was replaced with “low volumes of traffic” to reduce confusion created by having minimum and
maximum in one sentence. The increase in capacity on local streets from a maximum of 1,200 to 2,000
updates standards related to the average daily trips that a residential street can normally service. The
2,000 average daily trips (ADT) more accurately reflects existing traffic volumes on properly operating
streets and is consistent with engineering standards utilized by other jurisdictions. The change on
collector streets from 500 - 5,000 to 2,000 - 10,000 is also being proposed because it too more accurately
reflects existing traffic volumes and engineering standards utilized by other jurisdictions. These revisions
do not mean that new streets will be handling greater traffic volumes. Instead, the revisions represent the
traffic volumes that local and collector streets are designed to accommodate.
B. Proposed Zone Code Revisions
The proposed text changes provide consistency between the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the
proposed City Council policies. The RE Zone currently allows modifications to narrow street widths
down to 28, 30, and 32 feet to address rural character and hillside topography. Staff is recommending
that this language be deleted and a standard width of 34 feet be implemented. Rural areas are most often
found in locations surrounded by native vegetation and thus more susceptible to wildland fires. For this
reason, accessibility and the provision of fire prbtection becomes an important issue directly related to the
width of streets. Existing language creates an impediment to providing such services. Staff is
92
GPA Ol-Ol/ZCA 01-03 - LIVABLE STREETS
June 6,200l
Page 6
recommending a 34 foot street width believing that such a width is the minimum necessary in rural areas
to provide adequate emergency services.
The RMHP Zone currently includes provisions allowing street widths of 32 feet with parking on one side
and 40 feet with parking on both sides of the street. However, mobile home parks typically are designed
without on-street parking; resident parking is provided in carports with visitor parking provided in bays.
The reduction in street width from 40 feet to 34 feet provides consistency with other residential street
widths while still allowing the adequate provision of emergency services and maintaining adequate
maneuvering area for mobile home installation. Additionally, the reduction in asphalt will incrementally
decrease air temperatures and reduce surface runoff to lessen pollution of drainage courses.
V. ENVIRONMENTALREVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this General Plan Amendment/Zone Code Amendment (GPA
0 1-O l/ZCA 0 l-03) will not have a significant impact on the environment and therefore issued a Negative
Declaration on March 15, 2001. The environmental analysis (EIA Part II) concluded that this
ZCA/LCPA will not result in any physical, biological or human environmental impacts. The additions to
the Land Use and Circulation Elements set policy that exceed existing standards with respect to
environmental protection in that they will promote the development of more livable neighborhoods where
visually interesting homes are prominent to the street and in better scale to lot sizes with narrower
landscaped streets that are safer and more pedestrian-IYiendly. Therefore, no significant environmental
impacts are anticipated to occur. All future development projects will be subject to site specific
environmental review. There were no letters of comment received during the public review period for this
Negative Declaration.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4992 (Neg. Dec.)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4993 (GPA)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4994 (ZCA)
4. Proposed City Council Policy on Livable Neighborhoods
5. City Council Agenda Bill, dated March 27,200 1
6. Ordinance Redline/Strikeout version, dated June 6,200 1
AL:cs:mh
At tactunent 4
Jute 6,2001
CITY OF CARLSBAD /Policy No.
/D
ate Issued
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Effective Date
bancellation Date
puperseded No.
General Subject: LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS
Specific Subject: PRINCIPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee
Bulletin Boards, Press, File.
PURPOSE:
The City wishes to establish principles for the development of livable neighborhood. Livable
neighborhoods have a sense of identity and community where residents are encouraged to walk
instead of using their cars; where homes are in scale to the size of their lots; where streets are
pedestrian-friendly with walkways to common destinations such as schools, parks, stores, and transit;
where houses are interesting to look at with strong architectural elements; and where open spaces
form focal points, gathering places, and recreational spaces for a variety of age groups.
1. Building Facades, Front Entries, Porches
Facades create interest and character and should be varied and articulated to provide visual
interest to pedestrians. Clearly identifiable front doors and porches enhance the street scene
and create opportunities for greater social interaction within the neighborhood. Building entries
and windows should face the street. Front porches, bay windows, courtyards and balconies are
encouraged.
2. Garaqes
Homes should be designed to feature the residence as the prominent part of the structure in
relation to the street. A variety of garage configurations should be used to improve the street
scene. This may include tandem garages, side-loaded garages, front-loaded garages, alley-
loaded garages and recessed garages.
3. Street Desion
An interconnected, modified (grid) street pattern should be incorporated into project designs
when there are no topographic or environmental constraints. Interconnected streets provide
pedestrians and automobiles many alternative routes to follow, disperse traffic and reduce the
volume of cars on any one street in the neighborhood. Streets should be designed to provide
both vehicular and pedestrian connectivity by minimizing the use of cul-de-sacs.
The street network should also be designed to create a safer, more comfortable pedestrian and
bicycling environment. Local residential streets should have travel and parking lanes, be
sufficiently narrow to slow traffic, provide adequate access for emergency and service vehicles and emergency evacuation routes for residents and include parkways with trees to form a
pleasing canopy over the street. Local residential streets are the public open space in which
children often play and around which neighborhoods interact. Within this context, vehicular
movement should be additionally influenced through the use of City-accepted designs for traffic
calming measures.
4.
5.
6.
Parkways
Street trees should be planted in the parkways along all streets. Tree species should be
selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk
damage and minimize water consumption.
Pedestrian Walkwavs
Pedestrian walkways should be located along or visible from all streets. Walkways (sidewalks
or trails) should provide clear, comfortable and direct access to neighborhood schools, parks/plazas and transit stops. Primary pedestrian routes should be bordered by residential
fronts, parks or plazas. Where street connections are not feasible (at the end of cul-de-sacs),
pedestrian paths should also be provided.
Centralized Communitv Recreation Areas
Park or plazas, which serve as neighborhood meeting places and as recreational activity centers
should be incorporated into all planned unit developments. As frequently as possible, these
parks/plazas should be designed for both active and passive uses for residents of all ages and
should be centrally-located within the project. Parks and plazas should be not be sited on residual
parcels, used as buffers from surrounding developments or to separate buildings from streets.
45
Attachment 5
CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
4B# I&‘: i-.3 / TITLE- . ACCEPT REPORT ON
LIVABLE STREETS AND DIRECT STAFF TO IIITG. 3/27/01 HOLD A STAKEHOLDERS MEETING AND INITIATE cantql3 q-3-41
DEPT. ENG REVISIONS TO THE GENERAL PLAN,
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE AND CITY STANDARDS
1
&
CITY Al-N. @-
CITY MGR.m
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council accept the report on Livable Streets and direct staff to meet with stakeholders and adopt Resolution No. Q;7Gf;li - c e 3 + Carlsbad Municipal Code and approving the initiation of revisions to the General Plan, sty standards.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
For many years the focus of streets in residential neighborhoods has been oriented towards the automoblle. Priority has been given to individuals in cars, to the extent that walking and bicycling have been made to seem less important. In recent years, however, throughout the United States there has been a reconsideration of steps that can take place to make City streets more conducive to walking, bicycling and using public transit.
The Carlsbad City Council has a strategic goal to “Integrate a comprehensive efficient transportation system with quality of life-centered land use decisions”. To that end, one of the 2000-2001 goals for staff is to develop the concept of Livable Streets for Carlsbad for incorporation into the design of new subdivisions.
Staff is proposing the introduction of Livable Streets concepts because the design and function of residential streets (local streets) are key determinants of neighborhood livability. Livable streets provide places for human interaction where children play and neighbors meet and where residents can walk and ride bicycles. Access is provided to homes and nearby destinations. The perception of safety and a sense of community exists, in part, because streets have slower vehicle speeds. Neighborhood character is enhanced through the use of parkways and street trees. Access for emergency service providers is maintained. Impervious surfaces are reduced and water quality is improved.
The width of a local street has many tangible and intangible aspects associated with livability. With about 20,000 dwelling units remaining to be constructed in Carlsbad and various master plans to be developed and processed for approval, an opportunity exists to incorporate features of Livable Streets into future Carlsbad housing locations.
There is a growing appreciation for the relationship between street width, vehicle speed, the number of crashes and resulting injuries or fatalities. As vehicle speeds increase, death and serious injury to pedestrians increase significantly. For instance, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle traveling at 40 miles per hour has about a 10 percent chance of surviving, whereas, at 20 miles per hour chances of survival are 95 percent.
Staff proposes an integrated approach to local street desi 9 n that promotes neighborhood livability and encourages safer streets by slowing vehicle speeds. his can be accomplished by narrowing public street widths (including private streets), installing traffic calming measures and providing parkways that separate sidewalks from the street.
The current standard for a local street is one with a curb-to-curb width of 40 feet. On a cul-de-sac the width is 36 feet curb-to-curb. This width provides for two traffic lanes (one in each direction), parking on both sides of the street and maintains the minimum width required by the Uniform Fire Code of 20 feet so as to not impede access by a large fire apparatus or ambulance. A local street width standard of 34 feet is recommended by staff. This satisfies the need for:
0 Narrower streets in new residential subdivisions 0 Two lanes (one in each direction) 0 Parking located on both sides of the street 0 Minimum Uniform Fire Code requirements 0 Opportunities for parkways 446
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No.
A 34-foot street helps to achieve an incremental reduction in vehicle speeds and, combined with
some traffic calming measures, helps to further reduce speeds. The proposal maintains the 20-foot
width required by the Fire Department and, when combined with offset driveways, further ensures
that fire vehicles can access the neighborhood and have sufficient area in the street to perform fire
suppression activities.
The 34-foot curb-to-curb width is partially achieved by changing the parking lane width from eight
feet to seven feet. Staff obtained information on parking lane widths from other agencies and
conducted a literature search of parking lane widths. The survey revealed that there is a general
acceptance of seven feet as a standard for parking lane widths. Additionally, field measurements of
more than 200 vehicles parked on residential streets in Carlsbad confirms that seven feet will satisfy
on-street parking needs.
Although a narrower street is a key component of creating a Livable Street, an integrated approach is proposed in the street design. This includes, in addition to a 34-foot width, providing:
a A parkway seven feet wide adjacent to the curb 0 City trees planted in the parkway (within the right-of-way) 0 Sidewalks located between the parkway and front yard setbacks 0 Offset driveways 0 Street connectivity (fewer cul-de-sac@ 0 Traffic calming measures
Several areas of concern may be generated by the Livable Street concept. One relates to street
connectivity and offset driveways. Connectivity permits access to the fire scene or scene of incident
by emergency service providers from more than one direction. Offset driveways, in effect, widen the street at regular intervals and provide a larger area to accommodate fire ground operations. A single
access street design is discouraged since it would contribute to the emergency access problem. However, where single access design is unavoidable, fire service concerns can be mitigated by the requirement for “built-in” fire protection in the form of automatic fire sprinklers in each residence.
The length of single access streets will be limited to ensure that residents are able to evacuate
efficiently during large-scale emergency events. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
recommends, and staff concurs, that the number of dwelling units on single-access streets must be
limited to 20 to support the concern for the safety of residents. Also, the current standard of 36 feet
for the width of a cul-de-sac street will remain.
Provisions for utilities not placed in the street can be made under the sidewalk. This is similar to
current practices utilized in many jurisdictions. Careful selection of parkway trees will be necessary to minimize future maintenance requirements or root damage.
The construction of narrower streets achieves an overall cost savings to developers. This results
from six feet less of pavement width to construct as compared to the current street standard. Future
street maintenance expenditures by the City are reduced by having less pavement to overlay or
slurry, repair cracks or potholes. However, trees planted in the parkway have the potential to cause
uplift problems from the roots and therefore damage sidewalk, curb and gutter or the pavement.
Careful tree selection and the use of root guards will reduce the potential for tree root disturbance.
Maintenance costs for the trees could be a responsibility placed upon the homeowners association
through the masterplan of the development.
Page 3 of Agenda Bill No. / cb: I I :s 1
If the concept of a Livable Street is acceptable to the City Council, staff should be directed to meet
with stakeholders. The purpose of the stakeholders meeting would be for staff to explain the
concept and receive feedback on its acceptability or concerns with implementation, function,
practicality or operational/design parameters. Stakeholders include, but are not limited to:
0 Land development professionals 0 U.S. Postal Service 0 Building Industry Association a Utility companies 0 Solid waste haulers 0 Transit officials 0 Carlsbad maintenance staff for streets, 0 School districts
sewer, and water
After the Stakeholders Workshop, staff will prepare the documents necessary to present the proposal to the Planning Commission and City Council as a proposed General Plan Amendment
and revisions to the Carlsbad Municipal Code incorporating Livable Streets concepts into the General Plan. Additionally, required Engineering Department standards would be subsequently
changed, all of which would implement the Livable Streets concept.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
As a planning study, this report to the City Council qualifies as a statutory exemption under Section
15262 of the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, does not require consideration of
environmental factors. At a future time, any formal revisions to standards, policies, and programs
will undergo environmental review when brought forward to the Planning Commission and
City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Continued processing by staff of the Livable Streets concept will not result in a significant
administrative fiscal impact. However, expenditures of staff time is required. Although reduced street maintenance costs can be realized as a result of the narrower street, there will be a need to
develop a funding mechanism for parkway tree maintenance.
EXHIBITS:
1. Existing City standard cross-section of a 40 (36)-foot local street.
2.
3.
Cross-section of the proposed 34-foot local street.
Resolution No. <Aa/ - 3 g directing staff to initiate the processing of a General Plan
Amendment and revisions to the Carlsbad Municipal Code and City Standards to implement the concept of Livable Streets and to hold a stakeholders meeting.
R R,w- 6 0 ’
10’ 40 ‘(36 ‘) < HI’
“....</ G
l. I 2.y ,’
L/9
PROJECT NAME EXISTING CROSS SEC T/ON EXHIBIT
40t36FfOOT LOCAL STREET 7
60’ROW
A: CONS?i?UC7?ON& REPAfRS#B4CK
B: 5’ WZDES~DEWHlK
c= ZBPMKMAY
D: ?’ WIDEMRMIVG SPACE
E- 20’2-WAY TRAH5! LANES
u- u7iwYLlNEs
PROJECT NAME CROSS SECT-/ON
I
EXHIBIT
PROPOSED 34 -FOOTLOCAf STREET 2
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-9s
2
3
4
5
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING STAFF TO INITIATE THE
PROCESSING OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
REVISIONS TO THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE AND CITY
STANDARDS TO IMPLEMENT THE CONCEPT OF LIVABLE STREETS AND TO HOLD A STAKEHOLDER’S MEETING.
6 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined that to
7 mprove neighborhood livability, the concept of Livable Streets should be incorporated into the
6 subdivision design process; and
9 WHEREAS, a Livable Street is visually pleasing and balances the use of the roadway
10 >etween vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists; and
11 WHEREAS, a Livable Street has a street design that provides for human interaction,
12 sduces vehicle speeds, provides parkways and trees, limits the use of c&de-sacs and provides
13 walkways to link homes with schools, stores, businesses and transportation corridors; and
14 WHEREAS, revisions to the General Plan, Carisbad Municipal Code and City Engineering
15 standards are required to facilitate the implementation of the Livable Street concept.
16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
17 Zalifornia, as follows:
16 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
19 2. That staff is directed to hold a stakeholder’s meeting to receive input on the
20 .ivable Street concepts.
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
3. That the Planning Director and Public Works Director are directed to prepare
revisions to the General Plan, Carlsbad Municipal Code and City Engineering Standards, and set
the matter for public hearing before the Planning Commission and the City Council.
4
5 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council
6 held on the
7 AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard and Hall.
8
9
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3rd day of April ,200l by the following vote, to wit:
52
Attachment 6
June 6,200l
GPA 01-01 REDLINE/STRIKEOUT VERSION
SECTION 1: That Title 21, Chapter 21.04, Section 21.04.335 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
“21.04.210 Lot
“Lot” means a parcel of record legally created by subdivision map, adjustment plat,
certificate of compliance, or a parcel legally in existence prior to incorporation of the lot into
the jurisdiction of the city. Any parcel created prior to May 1, 1956, shall be presumed to be
lawfully created if the parcel resulted from a division of land in which fewer than five parcels
were created. A lot shall have frontage that allows usable access on a dedicated public
street H accepted by the city. This street or easement shall
have a minimum right-of-way width of #i+44 feet. Special lot and street configurations for
affordable housing projects may be allowed subject to the provisions of Section 2153.120.
SECTION 2: That Title 21, Chapter 21.04, Section 21.04.335 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
“21.04.335 Street
“Street” means a publicly dedicated and accepted thoroughfare which affords
primary means of access to abutting property and having a minimum right-of-way width of not
less than 42 feet”.
SECTION 3: That Title 21, Chapter 21.09, Section 21.09.160 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
“21.09.160 Modifications of public improvements.
(a) All public facilities, dedications and improvements shall be required in accord with this
code and adopted policies and standards of the city; however, as hereinafter provided,
the city emmit-enaineer may modify certain special public improvement standards
provided the design of these modified improvements is related to the function,
topography and needs of the area. Any such modifications shall be reflected as conditions of approval to a tentative subdivision map.
(b) Street improvements and dedications for streets inside subdivisions may be modified
as follows:
be waived or modified if it is found that such improvements are unwarranted and
would distract from the rural character of the area. If such requirements are
waived, the city engineer may require that drainage easements and/or drainage
releases be made part of the tract map to ensure proper drainage over private
pwerty. (6) QJHorizontal and vertical alignment standards may be modified or waived to
reduce grading. In such cases, an adequate right-of-way shall be provided to
accommodate possible future corrections to meet city standards.
(7) @ The city council shall have the option of requiring that street right-of-way be
privately maintained under a property owners’ association or may accept an offer
of dedication. If privately owned, the streets shall be open to the public by
easement.
(c) Public sewer systems shall be required to serve R-E zone unless specifically waived
by the city council. Such waiver shall be conditioned on the installation of an
alternative sewer disposal system permitted by this code and found by the city council
to be feasible for each lot. The determination of the adequacy of such alternate system
shall be based on detailed soils testing on each existing or proposed lot as provided
for by the county health department. If an alternate system is approved, the subdivider shall prepare plans for a future public sewer system as a backup system. Dedication of
all easements necessary to construct such a backup public sewer system shall be
required as a condition of final map approval.
(d) Any modification pursuant to this section shall not relieve the subdivider from providing
public facilities, dedications and improvements that also provide services necessary for
the welfare of the general public, as required by the general plan, applicable specific
plans or city ordinances or policies.”
SECTION IV: That Title, Chapter 21.37, Section 21.37.100 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
“21.37.100 Development standards.
A mobile home park shall comply with the following development
standards:
(1) A mobile home park shall be not less than five acres for a condominium or planned
unit development park and fifteen acres for a rental park.
(2) Fifteen percent of the mobile home sites may be three thousand square feet in area to
accommodate a twenty foot wide mobile home. The remaining sites shall have a
minimum of three thousand five hundred square feet in area.
(3) Each mobile home lot shall have a width of not less than fifty feet.
(4) Not more than one single-family mobile home or factory-built home may be placed on
a mobile home lot. Each mobile home or factory-built house shall contain one dwelling
unit only. No mobile home or factory-built house shall be less than twenty-four feet
wide, except for the fifteen percent affordable housing units which may be twenty feet
wide.
(5) Each mobile home site shall have a front yard of not less than five feet. The front yard
so required shall not be used for vehicle parking, except such portion thereof as is
devoted to driveway use.
(6) On corner mobile home sites, the side yard adjoining the mobile home park street shall
not be less than five feet.
(7) Except for corner lots, each mobile home lot shall have a side yard of not less than
three feet and a rear yard of not less than three feet. The minimum separation
-2-
between mobile homes or between a mobile home and a building shall be as follows:
from side to side, ten feet; from side to rear, eight feet; from rear to rear, six feet.
Notwithstanding the separation requirement, a private garage may be located
immediately adjacent to a mobile home if the interior of the garage wall adjacent to the
mobile home is constructed of materials approved for one-hour fire resistive
construction. If there are openings in the mobile home wall adjacent to the garage wall,
a minimum of three feet separation shall be maintained between the mobile home and
a private garage which does not meet the requirements for one-hour fire-resistive
construction. Private garages shall maintain a minimum side yard and rear yard of not
less than three feet.
(A) Carports/awnings must be constructed of noncombustible materials and may be 5
constructed to the lot line provided there is a minimum of three feet clearance
from a mobilehome or any other structures on the adjacent lots.
(6) A maximum of two storage cabinets shall be permitted on each mobilehome lot.
The aggregate floor area of the cabinets shall not exceed one hundred square
feet nor shall the height of the cabinets exceed ten feet. Storage cabinets may be
located on a lot line or adjacent to a mobilehome or mobilehome accessory
building or structure or beneath an awning or carport; provided, that it does not
obstruct the required exiting or openings for light and ventilation of a mobilehome
or a cabana, or prevent service or inspection of mobilehome equipment and
utility connections or encroach within a designated open space area.
(C) Expansion or alteration of buildings which are nonconforming by reason of
inadequate yards shall comply with Section 21.48.090. Miscellaneous accessory
structures such as lath houses, greenhouses, storage buildings (greater than one
hundred square feet in floor area), etc., may be erected on a mobile home lot,
provided they are located a minimum of six feet from any mobile home, outside
any required yard and the occupied area of a lot does not exceed seventy-five
percent of the lot.
(8) When used for access to a parking facility, a side yard shall be wide enough for a ten-
foot-wide unobstructed driveway. All such side yard driveways shall be paved with
cement or asphaltic concrete.
(9) Window awnings, not including structures, may project not more than four feet into any
front yard and the following features may be erected or project into any required yard:
(A) Vegetation, including trees, shrubs and other plants;
(B) Necessary appurtenances for utility service;
(C) Mailboxes.
(10) The area of the mobile home and all mobile home accessory structures shall not cover
more than seventy-five percent of the mobile home site.
(11) Each mobile home site shall include a paved area suitable for providing automobile
shelter with space for at least two automobiles. Recreation and laundry areas
combined shall have sufficient parking facilities to accommodate one automobile for
every five mobile home sites up to fifty lots and one space for each ten lots thereafter.
(12) Mobile home park streets shall be provided in such a pattern as to provide convenient traffic circulation within the mobile home park. Such streets shall be built to the
following standards:
(A) No roadway shall be less than G#-@ve-s feet in width. if c-, parl&@s
-3- 55
(B) There shall be concrete curbs on each side of the streets.
(C) The mobile home park streets shall be paved according to standards established
by the city engineer.
(D) Mobile home park streets shall be lighted in accordance with the standards
established by the city engineer.
(13) Visitor parking shall be provided at a ratio of one space per four mobile home units.
On-street parking may be counted towards meeting this requirement.
(14) The city council may permit decentralization of the recreational facilities in accordance
with principles of good planning.
(15) Utilities.
(A) All utilities shall be underground.
(B) Television reception shall be by means of cable television or one antenna or
several common antennae if the size or configuration of the mobile home park
requires more than one. Individual TV antennas on a coach shall be prohibited.
(C) Common trash-bin enclosures shall be provided. They shall be of masonry
construction and compatible with the mobile home park.
(16) Service buildings and facilities shall be strategically locate throughout the park for
convenient access from mobile homes. No service building shall be closer than twenty
feet to any property adjacent to the mobile home park.
(17) Mobile home parks shall be enclosed by solid masonry fences, six feet in height,
subject to land use planning manager approval, along dedicated street frontages and
interior property lines.
(18) All new mobile homes shall bear a valid insignia of approval issued by the State
Department of Housing and Community Development. ”
-4- 56
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l
EXFBIT 5
Page 27
5. GPA Ol-Ol/ZCA 01-03 - LIVABLE STREETS - Request for approval of
amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan and to
various sections of the Zoning Ordinance to revise goals, objectives, policies and
standards addressing the design of residential streets.
Mr. Wayne stated that Item No. 5 is a request by the City for a General Plan Amendment and a
Zone Code Amendment dealing with the Livable Streets concept. He introduced Principal
Planner, Dee Landers, assisted by Fire Marshall, Mike Smith, the Deputy City Engineers Bob
Johnson and Bob Wojcik.
Ms. Landers shared that Item No. 5 includes the addition of several goals, objectives and
implementing policies and programs to both the Land Use Elements and the Circulation
Element of the General Plan. She stated that the new policy statements are proposed for
inclusion to incorporate the principles of Livable Neighborhoods and Livable Streets and to the
General Plan, the City’s primary Land Use document. She said that the project also includes a
Zone Code Amendment addressing residential street widths and street designs that appear in
several sections of the Zoning Ordinance and the intent here is to basically provide consistency
between documents. Ms. Landers stated that last year the City Council adopted a goal to create
more Livable Neighborhoods in the City. Staff has been preparing a number of different
programs to address this goal, of which Livable Streets is one component. She pointed out that
staff wanted to start out by giving the Planning Commission an overall picture of the types of
things that they have been working on to address this issue. She referred to the screen and
stated that the items shown in red represent those that she will be speaking about now; she will
be talking about General Plan Goals, emergency egress and Livable Streets with this particular
item. She said that with the Planned Development Ordinance, a new Council Policy, delineating
the City’s neighborhood, their Vision for Residential Neighborhoods, Revised Council Policy 44
on Architectural Guidelines and the Planned Development Ordinance itself. She expressed that tonight they would be looking at and considering goals, programs and policies for both Livable
Streets and Neighborhoods and the intent for that was to do just one General Plan Amendment
rather than to do two. She said that the Engineering Department has a Traffic Management
Program for Residential Neighborhoods that has been going on for some time now and was
approved by City Council a couple months ago that will incorporate some of the Livable Streets
concepts via the Traffic Calming Measures, in existing Residential Neighborhoods. Ms. Landers
stated that this topic though is being addressed only at the Council level. She went on to say
that new development in in-fill areas will be impacted by some of the issues that they will be
discussing tonight, primarily that of City Council Policy 44 related to Architectural Guidelines.
She stated that in the Planning Commission’s actions this evening she will be asking them to act
by Resolution on the General Plan Amendments and then by minute motion on the City Council
Policies. Staff will be taking forward the Planning Commission’s comments and
recommendations on those policies to the City Council and they will be the decision-making
body on those particular items. Ms. Landers stated that the action on Livable Streets basically
was confirmed by the City Council in its action on April 3rd of this year. At that time they did direct staff to pursue the Livable Streets concept and to meet with the various stakeholders
including the Development Community, the trash companies, the Post Office and anyone staff thought would be impacted with the City’s decisions on the street widths. She said City Council
also then directed staff to present the document revisions to the Planning Commission, which staff is doing this evening, and then return to City Council.
57
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 28
Ms. Landers pointed out that this is a fairly new topic to some of the audience and stated that
tonight she would like to give them a brief overview of what is included there. She discussed the
Planning Commission Actions that will be before them tonight which includes a General Plan
Amendment and the Zone Code Amendments. Ms. Landers stated that when they are talking
about Livable Neighborhoods, they are talking about creating a new vision for Carlsbad with
regards to streets, creating streets where there is access to homes and designations for
pedestrians so they can go from one daily destination to the other comfortably on safe,
attractive streets; and they provide a place for human interaction even though we say kids
should not play in the streets, they do anyway. She added that this is really an old approach to
planning and designing urban environment, as it is something that has been on the East Coast
for years and years and is not a cutting edge idea. It is a return to the past in some sense. She
said that it also provides a strong sense of community, neighborhood feeling and perceptions of
safety and comfort and when some of these things happen, community is established. She
quoted Phelton Harris, “Community happens when people are in the street, when people are
speaking to each other and when there are activities that bring people together.” She went on to
say that when we talk about Livable Neighborhoods, we are talking about neighborhoods
designed to encourage interaction between residents, where homes have the visual prominence
on the street rather than the garages; where homes are in scale to the size of their lots, there
are not the big monster houses on small lots; where pedestrians can walk freely on tree-lined
streets; where there are walkways to common destinations; and where there are central
gathering areas.
Bob Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, pointed to the slides as an example of a Livable Street with
the relatively narrow street, tree-lined parkways and non-contiguous sidewalks. He pointed out
the question of ‘why promote Livable Streets, why would the City want to consider such a
concept?’ He stated that here in Carlsbad there is an opportunity because of the number of
remaining units to be built in Carlsbad, (about 20,000 dwelling units). He said that currently
there are speeding concerns in existing neighborhoods that have been addressed by the City
Council by adoption of the Carlsbad Residential Management Program last month. There was a
citizen’s committee that worked on that for almost a year; there are a lot of good
recommendations in that document that should help with the speeding that currently occurs. He
shared that what the City would like to do is not repeat the problems they have had in the past
with our streets so that we have to implement retrofit-type measures to control speeding or cut
through traffic. He said that Livable Streets and the concepts contained therein is one way to do
that. We then have the opportunity to deal with the emergency evacuation capabilities and that
will be addressed by Fire Marshal Smith in a minute. He also said that some of the character of
our neighborhoods can be changed and improved through these concepts. Mr. Johnson shared
some examples of what Livable Streets look like as visually it is easy to see it is conducive to
speeding whereas a tree-lined street with non-contiguous sidewalks does promote the Livable
Street concepts and encourages pedestrian activity, walking, neighborhood interaction and
establishes community.
He pointed out that current street designs are wide, 40 feet curb-to-curb and fairly stark with no
trees lining the streetscape and are more conducive to speeding under this type of existing
design. He said on the Livable Streets with the cars parked on both sides of the streets, it does
help slow the vehicles down, not everyone, but it is getting to where the City would like to see
vehicular travel on the streets meaning slow speeds. Mr. Johnson said that some of the
considerations that staff has been working on for over a year, and rewgnize with slower
speeds, if there is an incident, an accident, injuries are less severe. For instance, the pedestrian
has a much greater chance of survival, being involved in an incident at 20 - 25 mph range than
35 mph or 40 mph. He shared that the emergency vehicle access had to be considered in the
58
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 29
Livable Streets concept on the narrower streets and one way to address that was to make sure
that the 20 foot minimum access width as required by the Fire Code has been provided. That
has been accomplished in what staff is proposing and to provide the area on the street that is
needed by the Fire Department for their efficient operations in taking care of the emergency. He
noted staff looked at impacts to the Livable Streets concept by the construction of cul-de-sacs and the proposal was to try to limit and minimize the number of cul-de-sacs in a new
development. He stated that there are environmental issues such as asphalt versus parkways,
the benefits and the costs, cost savings, trade-offs. He said regarding maintenance issues with
parkways and parkway trees that generally most of the developments will be Master Plans so
the concept is that the Homeowners Association would maintain the trees and the parkways and also the sense of pride by each homeowner would also be involved in the maintenance of the
parkway and the frontage in front of the homeowner. He said root barriers will help with the
protection of the infrastructure when the trees are planted. Underground utilities can be placed
under the sidewalk as they currently are in many locations today. Drainage can be an issue,
providing more pervious surfaces versus impervious surfaces improves drainage, helps with the
ground water recharge and that is a positive environmental benefit.
Mr. Johnson pointed out that one of the bigger issues, the marketing issue with developers, is
limiting cul-de-sacs and he stated that having multiple points of ingress and egress is a benefit
to be achieved. He stated that the proposed Livable Street Design is a reduction in curb-to-curb
width from 40 feet to 34 feet, which is accomplished by providing two seven-foot parking lanes,
which is parking on both sides of the street. They currently assume an eight foot wide parking
width, but in doing research from other agencies, measuring a number of cars in Carlsbad in
parking situations, staff has determined that they are quite comfortable with assuming that
seven feet adequately represents a parallel parking space in a residential street. He said that
the street design would have to incorporate trafftc calming measures as the street design will
not work without them. He said simply narrowing the street to 34 feet is not going to do the job
as far as vehicle speed, so the Livable Street Design does propose that there be traffic calming
measures to be determined at the time of design subject to the approval of the Fire Department and with fewer cul-de-sacs and parkways with the non-contiguous sidewalks (meaning
sidewalks are not adjacent to the curb as they are now in our current standard) they can provide
that necessary street calming activity. He showed examples of the current standard. He stated
that the 34 foot cross section has the 20 foot minimum which the Fire Department needs to
meet the Fire Code and to meet their operational needs. The 34 foot cross-section also provides
the 7.5 foot parkway and the five foot sidewalk with a half foot utility strip on each side within a
60 foot right-of-way.
Mike Smith, Fire Department Battalion Chief, stated that street connectivity is a very important
element of the Livable Streets and cul-de-sacs are counter to the objective of the Livable Street
concepts for two reasons; one having to do with the social concerns, encouraging neighbors in
Livable Neighborhoods to interact and create a sense of community and they are more
confining and tend to isolate portions of the neighborhood which runs counter to the Livable
Street concept. He stated that the other two items to which cul-de-sacs run counter have to do with safety-for the ability of the Fire Department and other emergency agencies to access and
provide the necessary services to the community; and the other is the impairment that the
residents experience when trying to evacuate, having only one direction by which to evacuate. If
that evacuation route takes them closer to the incident or closer to the danger, then it is
questionable as to whether that is effective. Chief Smith shared that during their research they
determined that the Institute of Transportation Engineers has had a long-standing
recommendation to limit the number of residential units on cul-de-sacs and the City has used
that standard for many years of which the limit is 20 residential units. He said that the concern of
59
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 30
the ITE is with the potential for limiting the access to or the egress from a street that could be
blocked for any number of reasons.
Chairperson Segall apologized for interrupting and pointed out that it is almost IO:00 p.m. Due
to the lateness of the hour, he asked the Commission to extend to IO:10 p.m. and pointed out
that the Commission has to have a motion.
Commissioner Heineman asked if the Commission would have a discussion and try to make a
decision tonight?
Chairperson Segall asked what the Commission’s preference is? He stated that there were
more people shaking their head no than yes and he stated that they would end the presentation
at IO:10 p.m. and then they will have to have a motion to continue to the June 20th meeting.
DISCUSSION
None.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, that tonight’s meeting will
end at 1O:lO p.m. and that Item No. 5 (Livable Streets) will be continued to the
June 20th, 2001 meeting.
VOTE:
AYES:
6-O-O
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners, L’Heureux, Heineman, Baker, Nielsen,
Trigas
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
None
None
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Wayne if the motion was acceptable. He asked if the individual
who had a 20 minute presentation was present and asked if Mr. Piro could do that on June 20th,
2001?
Mr. Piro stated that Jamie Streelow is President of Walk San Diego and also from SDSU and
Andy Hamilton is Vice President of Walk San Diego and also from the Air Pollution Control
District. He said he does not need to speak, but if they could have 10 or 15 minutes as they
have a power point presentation and they have come all the way from San Diego and they have
been here for four hours if you could just extend it for 10 or 12 minutes to hear that as he has
the power point all set up.
Chairperson Segall stated that he has to look to the Commission and three people say yes and three people say no. He stated the Commission is in a stalemate. He apologized and asked if
they could come back?
Mr. Smith continued that the staff recommendation for cul-de-sacs are that the units are limited
to 20 or fewer, street width remains at 36 feet and the only change would be the addition of fire
sprinklers in each of those homes to mitigate their concern for access. He said that they expect
there to be a topographic and environmental conditions that would create a problem for the
development community and in some cases when those are demonstrated, the number of units
can be extended to fifty. In those cases the street width needs to be widened to 40 feet and
Planning Commission Minutes June 6,200l Page 3 1
again the homes need to be protected by sprinklers. He said that all streets will incorporate the
use of traffic calming devices, of which he shared a couple of examples via slides; one
measures the traffic circle, median island, and the bulb-out, all of which are very common traffic
calming measures.
Ms. Landers stated that they are looking at adding some goals, objectives and policies to address Livable Streets and Livable Neighborhoods concepts in both the Land Use Element
and the Circulation Element. She said they are very general goals and policies relating to some
of the items that were discussed today in attempting to create these features and setting them
forward in the primary Land Use document. She pointed out that they have a Zone Code
Amendment that addresses several issues, one of which is to revise definitions and Code
sections to create consistent reference to the 34 feet as the width of public streets. She said
these reference are found in the definition of Lot and Street in Rural Residential Estate which
typically now allows somewhat narrower street such as the Residential Mobile Home Park Zone,
which actually has the requirement for a little bit wider street. Staff feels that it would be
preferable to have consistent references to 34 foot streets in both of those Code sections. She
also said these basically address the width of public residential streets and the private
residential streets will be addressed in the Amendment to the Planned Development Ordinance,
which is the way it has always been and will remain. She concluded that staff is therefore
recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment and the Zone Code Amendment.
Chairperson Segall stated that we do not have time for questions and answers and already
have made the motion to continue this item. He asked if any Commissioner had anything they
wanted to bring up.
Chairperson Segall closed Public Hearing on this item.
Planning Commission Minutes July 18,200l DRAFT P:F’
1. GPA 01-Ol/ZCA 01-03 - LIVABLE STREETS - Request for approval of
amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan and to
various sections of the Zoning Ordinance to revise goals, objectives, policies and standards addressing the design of residential streets.
Ms. Landers stated that Item No. 1 includes the addition of several goals, objectives,
implementing policies and programs to both the Land Use and the Circulation Elements of the
General Plan. She stated that the new policy statements are proposed for inclusion to
incorporate the principles of Livable Streets and Neighborhoods into the General Plan, the City’s
primary Land Use document. She said the project also includes a Zone Code Amendment
addressing residential street width and street designs that appear in several sections of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Landers said the intent with these actions is basically to provide consistency between
documents, so in certain areas where there is a reference to street width, they have been
modified to simply reflect what staff is proposing tonight.
She stated that staff did give a presentation to the Planning Commission some time earlier. She
then introduced Bob Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, to go over the highlights of that previous
presentation.
Mr. Johnson stated that on June 6, 2001 staff did give a presentation. He showed a power point
presentation and stated that the proposed Livable Street Design, the concept that is being
discussed, reduces the current street width of 40 feet to 34 feet. He stated that the City’s current
standard is 40 feet curb-to-curb and staff is proposing 34 feet curb-to-curb. Mr. Johnson said in
order to achieve the 34 foot curb-to-curb staff is proposing a seven foot parking lane to help
effect the reduction in speeds that do occur on new residential streets. He said staff is proposing
that traffic calming measures be included in the concept, that street connectivity be a big part of
the concept which means there would be fewer cul-de-sacs and more streets connected, so
there are two points of ingress and egress. He further stated that on the new street design there
would be a parkway and non-contiguous sidewalks, meaning the sidewalk would not be
immediately adjacent to the curb and gutter as it currently exists with our standards.
Mr. Johnson stated that the cross section for a 34 foot street and the seven foot parking lane
would allow parallel parking on each side of the street and would maintain 20 feet of clear width
which is required by the Fire Code and the Fire Department. He shared that the parkway has
sidewalks provided as non-contiguous sidewalks and a short construction repair area just behind the sidewalk that is only a narrow six-inch width. He stated that this entire cross section
would still be placed within the City’s current 60-foot right-of-way, so the 60-foot right-of-way is
not changing, it is just the curb-to-curb width.
Mr. Johnson stated that for the street connectivity, cul-de-sacs would be the exception and
when new projects come in for review, staff will scrutinize those projects and make sure that to
the greatest extent possible, there are no or very few cul-de-sacs. He further stated that the key
reason why our Fire Department can support the concept is because of the street connectivity and several other issues. He pointed out where street connectivity cannot be achieved due to
terrain and topography etc. there obviously has to be a little flexibility and judgment and cul-de-
sacs would be included in the project.
Mr. Johnson stated that the Institute of Transportation Engineers, a professional organization of
transportation engineers and planners, (ITE) suggests that 20 units be the maximum on a
Planning Commission Minutes July 18,200l Page 6
particular street or cul-de-sac which is to help facilitate evacuation under emergency conditions.
He stated that the recommendation by staff is in the condition where there are 20 or fewer units
on the street that they increase the width slightly up to 36 feet, which is the City’s current
standard for cul-de-sacs, and that sprinkling of each residential unit be required.
Mr. Johnson stated that if there are the topography and environmental issues and there is a
situation where the City goes from 21 to 50 units, (50 units would be the maximum number of
homes on a cul-de-sac and 50 units is our current standard) then staff is recommending that the
street width be increased to 40 feet curb-to-curb and that sprinkling again be required in each
and every one of those units. He stated that in order to achieve the reduction in speeds, which
is a concern on a number of streets, cul-de-sacs would also incorporate traffic calming
measures.
Mr. Johnson concluded with recommending going from 40 feet to 34 feet, providing a seven foot parking lane, parallel parking on each side of the street, providing traffic calming measures on
each of the streets, reducing the number of cul-de-sacs in a development and providing
parkways and parkway trees in conjunction with non-contiguous sidewalks. He stated that the
recommendation tonight is for the Planning Commission to approve GPA Ol-Ol/ZCA 01-03,
which is the Livable Streets and Neighborhoods Concept.
Ms. Landers added that one of the things the Commission is acting on tonight are the goals, the
policies and programs, and how that interfaces with the street widths is that there is a cross
section provided in the General Plan that provides cross sections for the various circulation
element roadways. She stated that, as a follow-through to this action that the Commission
would be taking tonight, at some time in the future there will be a set of standards developed
that more specifically denote all of the characteristics of these particular streets. She also stated
there would be more specific language related to cul-de-sacs, which will reflect the policies that
are being brought forward this evening. She added that there is an errata sheet given to the
Commissioners and that they will be acting on the proposed items as well as the errata sheet.
Chairperson Segall verified that what Ms. Landers was saying is that on this particular item the
Commission is looking at the General Plan Amendment and the Zone Code Amendment, but
asked if the Commission is also doing Council Policy 44?
Ms. Landers replied that Council Policy 44 is being brought forward with the Planned Development Ordinance. She stated that Council Policy 44 was provided to the Commission
just as an information item with Item No. 1 packet to basically illustrate the fact that staff is trying
to present Livable Streets and Livable Neighborhoods. She said in this way they can do one
General Plan Amendment rather than two.
Chairperson Segall confirmed that Ms. Landers is referring to Attachment 4 and that the
Commission is not acting on it here but will on the next item.
Commissioner Compas asked when these new standards are developed, if they will be brought before the Planning Commission again.
Mr. Johnson replied that the action the Commission is taking tonight is to review the concepts
that staff is proposing, but the City Engineer will incorporate those standards into their
Engineering Standards and it will not require bringing them before the Commission. He stated
that staff can give copies to the Commission after the changes are made, but it is not necessary
for the Commission to act on it.
63
Planning Commission Minutes July 18,200l Page 7
Commissioner Nielsen thought that the maximum number of homes on a cul-de-sac was 20
homes but then it went to 50 homes. He asked who makes that judgment and if it is a variance
condition or if it comes before the Commission to make that call?
Mr. Johnson stated that the concept of going from 20 up to 50 is based upon terrain, topography
and environmental conditions, so it is a function of the design which is something that the
developer’s engineer would be proposing and then reviewed by staff.
Ms. Landers stated that this is an item that would be reviewed by the project planner and the
project engineer during project review and is negotiated by the staff and the developers on a
regular basis. In a case where a developer proposed a cul-de-sac when staff did not feel that it
was necessary, staff would be negotiating a connected road system and saying that basically
cul-de-sacs are more appropriate when there are topographic constraints or environmental
constraints, but it should not be something that is regularly used on a flat piece of ground.
Mr. Wayne stated that it does not require a variance, but it requires meeting certain conditions
and those conditions are environmental, so staff would be making a recommendation and the
Planning Commission would be making the call.
Chairperson Segall asked how many streets are in Carlsbad that have 50 homes on cul-de-
sacs?
Mr. Johnson concluded with recommending going from 40 feet to 34 feet, providing a seven foot
parking lane, parallel parking on each side of the street, providing traffic calming measures on
each of the streets, reducing the number of cul-de-sacs in a development and providing
parkways and parkway trees in conjunction with non-contiguous sidewalks. He stated that the
recommendation tonight is for the Planning Commission to approve GPA 01-Ol/ZCA 01-03,
which is the Livable Streets and Neighborhoods Concept.
Ms. Landers added that one of the things the Commission is acting on tonight are the goals, the
policies and programs, and how that interfaces with the street widths is that there is a cross
section provided in the General Plan that provides cross sections for the various circulation
element roadways. She stated that, as a follow-through to this action that the Commission
would be taking tonight, at some time in the future there will be a set of standards developed
that more specifically denote all of the characteristics of these particular streets. She also stated
there would be more specific language related to cul-de-sacs, which will reflect the policies that
are being brought forward this evening. She added that there is an errata sheet given to the
Commissioners and that they will be acting on the proposed items as well as the errata sheet.
Chairperson Segall verified that what Ms. Landers was saying is that on this particular item the
Commission is looking at the General Plan Amendment and the Zone Code Amendment, but
asked if the Commission is also doing Council Policy 44?
Ms. Landers replied that Council Policy 44 is being brought forward with the Planned
Development Ordinance. She stated that Council Policy 44 was provided to the Commission
just as an information item with Item No. 1 packet to basically illustrate the fact that staff is trying
to present Livable Streets and Livable Neighborhoods. She said in this way they can do one
General Plan Amendment rather than two.
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 8
Chairperson Segall confirmed that Ms. Landers is referring to Attachment 4 and that the
Commission is not acting on it here but will on the next item.
Commissioner Compas asked when these new standards are developed, if they will be brought
before the Planning Commission again.
Mr. Johnson replied that the action the Commission is taking tonight is to review the concepts
that staff is proposing, but the City Engineer will incorporate those standards into their
Engineering Standards and it will not require bringing them before the Commission. He stated
that staff can give copies to the Commission after the changes are made, but it is not necessary
for the Commission to act on it.
Commissioner Nielsen thought that the maximum number of homes on a cul-de-sac was 20
homes but then it went to 50 homes. He asked who makes that judgment and if it is a variance
condition or if it comes before the Commission to make that call?
Mr. Johnson stated that the concept of going from 20 up to 50 is based upon terrain, topography
and environmental conditions, so it is a function of the design which is something that the
developer’s engineer would be proposing and then reviewed by staff.
Ms. Landers stated that this is an item that would be reviewed by the project planner and the
project engineer during project review and is negotiated by the staff and the developers on a
regular basis. In a case where a developer proposed a cul-de-sac when staff did not feel that it
was necessary, staff would be negotiating a connected road system and saying that basically
cul-de-sacs are more appropriate when there are topographic constraints or environmental
constraints, but it should not be something that is regularly used on a flat piece of ground.
Mr. Wayne stated that it does not require a variance, but it requires meeting certain conditions
and those conditions are environmental, so staff would be making a recommendation and the
Planning Commission would be making the call.
Chairperson Segall asked how many streets are in Carlsbad that have 50 homes on cul-de-
sacs?
Ms. Landers and Mr. Johnson replied that they do not have that number available.
Commissioner Trigas asked why 50 is being used when there was 20 and now looking at
Livable Neighborhoods saying we do not like cul-de-sacs, but are now allowing 50 instead of 20
if the conditions are right. She asked why is it being increased on a cul-de-sac at the same time
it is trying to be discouraged?
Ms. Landers stated that the City presently allows 50 units on a cul-de-sac, so this is not an increase, but what staff is saying they would like to see are less units on a cul-de-sac and
connected roadways, but they are not adding additional units to a cul-de-sac street length. She stated that it is desirable to provide street connectivity, but in some circumstances it is
impossible to develop a piece of roadway, for instance, along a ridgeline where it is difficult to
get up to the ridgeline with more than one roadway, so you typically have a long cul-de-sac to
achieve accessibility to the end of that ridgeline.
Commissioner Trigas confirmed that they are talking about quite a length, not a density of
increasing that to a point where there is a small cul-de-sac that is increasing, but a long cul-de-
65
Planning Commission Minutes July 18,200l Page 9
sac which is a whole street that ultimately ends in a cul-de-sac where 50 units is permissible.
She stated that she is aware that the road is being expanded in this circumstance to a 40 foot
width.
Ms. Landers agreed and further stated that the variation of the cul-de-sac may be due to the lot
width perhaps but a maximum number of 50 units on the cul-de-sac would mean the street will
be widened out to 40 feet in such a case to provide better accessibility for the fire trucks and
better egress for the residents in an emergency situation. She affirmed Commissioner Trigas’
concern that it would be the whole length of street.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the City goes to a 40 foot street if it would be Livable, with the
boulevards on the side and also with sidewalks, or will this be eliminated on this type of street?
Mr. Johnson stated that the concept would stay the same with the parkways and non-
contiguous sidewalks. He stated that the 40 feet is more than what the City currently has on a
cul-de-sac, the standard being 36 feet even though the City does allow up to 50 units currently.
He said that staff is going an additional four feet because of Fire Department concerns and
because of concerns with potential speeding on the street as it will incorporate the traffic calming measures.
Commissioner Heineman asked if the main differences for the longer streets are the sprinklers
and street width, or are there any other changes?
Mr. Smith stated that any cul-de-sac would be sprinklered in the future, of any length, because
the shorter ones that serve 20 or fewer units are more narrow in width, as the standard for those
is 36 feet.
Chairperson Segall asked, in Livable Communities, about bringing people out into the front, he pointed out that cul-de-sacs, from his experience, get people out in the front and they do a lot of
activities such as Fourth of July parties and kids playing. He stated that in his opinion it
promotes a sense of a Livable Community and yet it is being put under Livable Streets or
Livable Communities. Are saying we do not want the cul-de-sacs. He asked staff to address
this.
Ms. Landers stated that it is one of the aspects of why people choose to live on cul-de-sac as
there is that perception it is rather secluded and secure and people may or may not have Fourth
of July events and close off the street. She stated that it also provides fewer or no connections
at all to other pedestrian routes to schools and stores or have to walk in a more circuitous route around their neighborhood which prevents some of the elderly from walking to churches etc.
and the handicapped kids from walking to school etc. She stated that ideally our communities
should have more pedestrian connections than they have, but we have a rather hilly city which
does not have a lot of commercial integrated into our neighborhoods, so there are not those
locations to walk to, but people do like to walk around their neighborhoods and they have a much longer way to walk when they have to walk down a cul-de-sac.
Ms. Landers stated that they are basically allowing opportunities for cul-de-sacs to occur and if
home buyers choose to buy homes on cul-de-sacs, that opportunity will be available to them
and other people would prefer not to because they see it as basically a self-imposed confined
area.
QG
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page IO
Chairperson Segall stated that in this Livable Street Amendment, you are trying to discourage
construction of cul-de-sacs.
Ms. Landers stated that staff is trying to encourage walking and pedestrian connections and by
encouraging some principles and some philosophies that in turn does discourage other
concepts like cul-de-sacs.
Chairperson Segall asked if it is true that you could develop a community where it still could be
walkable even if it is a cul-de-sac by putting a path between two houses at the end of the cul-de-
sac or just the way the circulation in the community goes?
Ms. Landers stated that it is difficult to achieve and people do not like strangers walking that
close to their homes, down side yards, and it does not encourage walking. She stated that open
walkways, sidewalks with trees does encourage walking and pedestrian connections, which is a
principle which is pretty widely spread in the United States and in Europe everywhere, and there
are not many cul-de-sacs there; it seems to be an American invention.
Commissioner Baker asked Ms. Landers as a follow-up question to the cul-de-sac, is it
considered as a part of our definition just the circle part of it or is it just the whole stretch.
Ms. Landers stated it is considered a cul-de-sac when you only have one access point, so when
you turn off the main collector street and there is only one way in and one way out, that
becomes the cul-de-sac.
Commissioner Baker agreed with Chairperson Segall that people who happen to live in the circle part of the cul-de-sac tend to socialize and get together, but those who live on the street
that everyone zips by do not.
Chairperson Segall opened public testimony.
Robert Wilkinson, Wilkinson Design Group, PO Box 875, Carlsbad stated he is also a resident.
He apologized that he had missed the workshops staff had on this item. He asked if the street
standards for both public streets and private streets? He stated that he is personally against residential streets that are over 36 feet curb-to-curb. He stated he lives in a cul-de-sac and said
he thinks cul-de-sacs are a nice place. He asked why the street needs to get larger as it gets longer and if they have to be wider as they get longer, can they get narrower as you come to the
end, so the last 20 homes on the street are on a 36 foot street and then to 34 feet, so that not
everybody on a long cul-de-sac is on a 40 foot street.
Chairperson Segall seeing no one else to speak closed public testimony.
Mr. Smith replied, regarding the length of the street - which is actually the number of units on
the street, the need to make it wider came from staffs concern for people to be able to evacuate
in a timely manner should a catastrophic event occur such as the Harmony Grove Fire where
they saw gridlock in some cases on the narrower streets. He stated that because the people on
the cul-de-sac have only one means of egress, it is very important to ensure that they are going to be able to move from the street in a timely manner and staff felt that the 36 foot standard was
the same standard that they would use for the 20 or fewer units was not satisfactory for the
extra units and this is intended to provide a better means of egress.
Planning Commission Minutes July 18,200l Page 11
Chairperson Segall stated that he has questioned Mr. Smith on this in briefing. He explained
that if you have parking on both sides of the street and an engine company coming down, laying
the line, bringing the hose out and the ladder dropping out on the other side, by the time you are
done with all that, you have little room for apparatus to get past, so that is why you want a 40
foot or wider street. He asked if Mr. Smith could elaborate on that?
Mr. Smith responded that he would like to see all the streets 50 feet wide personally because it
makes the Fire Departments job a lot easier, but it is not what the City needs. He stated that
what they are trying to deal with is speed, the quality of the neighborhoods and also trying to get
emergency services into the streets in a timely manner. As Chairman Segall pointed out, on a
36 or 34 foot street, once a fire truck drives into that cul-de-sac, no other fire truck is going to be
able to get in there because of the large supply lines that the fire engines drop in the streets. He
further stated that it is not possible for that second or the third engine to get in and that impedes
the Fire Departments ability to serve. He also stated that when the fire truck is parked in front of
the house, no other cars are going to be able to pass.
Mr. Smith stated that their concern on the cul-de-sac issue is that they need to reduce the
likelihood of having to have those second and third engines in there by sprinkling the homes,
but that also on the longer cul-de-sacs they need to be able provide a means for people to get
out and that 40 feet will do that.
Chairperson Segall stated that currently the ordinance says they can have 50 homes. He asked
what size street is that now?
Mr. Johnson stated that it is not an ordinance, but it is an Engineering Standard, that the City’s
cul-de-sac policy does allow up to 50 homes and it is a 36 foot wide street. Staff is proposing to
going up to 40 feet to take care of the issues that Mr. Smith mentioned about the fire concerns
and emergency evacuation and fire fighting capabilities etc. and this is a way to improve
operations on the street from a fire perspective.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Compas stated that he very much likes this livable streets proposal and he thinks
it is absolutely the right way to go. He has attended workshops for the League of California
Cities in which national experts have talked about this and very eloquently explained why it is
the right way to go and he is glad to see Carlsbad is doing this.
Commissioner Heineman stated that a comment is called for regarding cul-de-sacs in that there
are a number of ways to handle cul-de-sacs as he is speaking from experience as manager of
an association which has nine of them. He stated that there are many ways of handling them
without causing the problems which staff seems to think are absolutely unavoidable. He stated
that there could be a parkway in the center which provides turn-around and he has three of
those in his association. There are ways to connect them for pedestrian use and he suggested
staff come and see how his association does it. He stated that the portion on cul-de-sacs is definitely an overkill except perhaps in the case of fire. He stated that in spite of that, he did not
want to hold up the resolution but will vote in favor though they are over-simplifying some things
and talking about problems which can be made not to exist.
MOTION
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 12
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4992 recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopt Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 4993 and 4994 recommending approval of GPA 01-01 and ZCA
01-03 based upon the findings contained therein and in addition the errata sheet
Exhibit Y, page 2.
VOTE:
AYES:
6-O-O
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compaq Heineman, Baker, Nielsen, Trigas
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
None
None
Attachment 7
June 6,200l
GPA 01-01 BOLD/STRIKEOUT VERSION
SECTION 1: That Title 21, Chapter 21.04, Section 21.04.335 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
“21.04.210 Lot
“Lot” means a parcel of record legally created by subdivision map, adjustment plat, certificate of compliance, or a parcel legally in existence prior to incorporation of the lot into
the jurisdiction of the city. Any parcel created prior to May 1, 1956, shall be presumed to be
lawfully created if the parcel resulted from a division of land in which fewer than five parcels
were created. A lot shall have frontage that allows usable access on a dedicated public
street md casement accepted by the city. This street or easement shall
have a minimum riqht-of-way width of thirty44 feet. Special lot and street configurations for
affordable housing projects may be allowed subject to the provisions of Section 21.53.120.
SECTION 2: That Title 21, Chapter 21.04, Section 21.04.335 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
“21.04.335 Street
“Street” means a publicly dedicated and accepted thoroughfare which affords
primary means of access to abutting property and having a minimum right-of-way width of not
less than 42 feet”.
SECTION 3: That Title 21, Chapter 21.09, Section 21.09.160 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
“21.09.160 Modifications of public improvements.
(a) All public facilities, dedications and improvements shall be required in accord with this
code and adopted policies and standards of the city; however, as hereinafter provided, the city eetmeitenqineer may modify certain special public improvement standards
provided the design of these modified improvements is related to the function,
topography and needs of the area. Any such modifications shall be reflected as conditions of approval to a tentative subdivision map.
(b) Street improvements and dedications for streets inside subdivisions may be modified
as follows:
be waived or modified if it is found that such improvements are unwarranted and
would distract from the rural character of the area. If such requirements are
waived, the city engineer may require that drainage easements and/or drainage
releases be made part of the tract map to ensure proper drainage over private
property.
(6) &Horizontal and vertical alignment standards may be modified or waived to
reduce grading. In such cases, an adequate right-of-way shall be provided to
accommodate possible future corrections to meet city standards.
(7) (3J The city council shall have the option of requiring that street right-of-way be
privately maintained under a property owners’ association or may accept an offer
of dedication. If privately owned, the streets shall be open to the public by
easement.
(c) Public sewer systems shall be required to serve R-E zone unless specifically waived by the city council. Such waiver shall be conditioned on the installation of an
alternative sewer disposal system permitted by this code and found by the city council
to be feasible for each lot. The determination of the adequacy of such alternate system shall be based on detailed soils testing on each existing or proposed lot as provided
for by the county health department. If an alternate system is approved, the subdivider
shall prepare plans for a future public sewer system as a backup system. Dedication of
all easements necessary to construct such a backup public sewer system shall be
required as a condition of final map approval.
(d) Any modification pursuant to this section shall not relieve the subdivider from providing
public facilities, dedications and improvements that also provide services necessary for
the welfare of the general public, as required by the general plan, applicable specific
plans or city ordinances or policies.”
SECTION IV: That Title, Chapter 21.37, Section 21.37.100 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
“21.37.100 Development standards.
A mobile home park shall comply with the following development
standards:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
A mobile home park shall be not less than five acres for a condominium or planned
unit development park and fifteen acres for a rental park.
Fifteen percent of the mobile home sites may be three thousand square feet in area to
accommodate a twenty foot wide mobile home. The remaining sites shall have a
minimum of three thousand five hundred square feet in area.
Each mobile home lot shall have a width of not less than fifty feet.
Not more than one single-family mobile home or factory-built home may be placed on
a mobile home lot. Each mobile home or factory-built house shall contain one dwelling
unit only. No mobile home or factory-built house shall be less than twenty-four feet
wide, except for the fifteen percent affordable housing units which may be twenty feet
wide.
Each mobile home site shall have a front yard of not less than five feet. The front yard
so required shall not be used for vehicle parking, except such portion thereof as is
devoted to driveway use.
On corner mobile home sites, the side yard adjoining the mobile home park street shall
not be less than five feet.
Except for corner lots, each mobile home lot shall have a side yard of not less than
three feet and a rear yard of not less than three feet. The minimum separation
-2-
between mobile homes or between a mobile home and a building shall be as follows:
from side to side, ten feet; from side to rear, eight feet; from rear to rear, six feet.
Notwithstanding the separation requirement, a private garage may be located immediately adjacent to a mobile home if the interior of the garage wall adjacent to the
mobile home is constructed of materials approved for one-hour fire resistive
construction. If there are openings in the mobile home wall adjacent to the garage wall,
a minimum of three feet separation shall be maintained between the mobile home and
a private garage which does not meet the requirements for one-hour fire-resistive
construction. Private garages shall maintain a minimum side yard and rear yard of not
less than three feet.
(A) Carports/awnings must be constructed of noncombustible materials and may be
constructed to the lot line provided there is a minimum of three feet clearance
from a mobilehome or any other structures on the adjacent lots.
(B) A maximum of two storage cabinets shall be permitted on each mobilehome lot.
The aggregate floor area of the cabinets shall not exceed one hundred square feet nor shall the height of the cabinets exceed ten feet. Storage cabinets may be
located on a lot line or adjacent to a mobilehome or mobilehome accessory
building or structure or beneath an awning or carport; provided, that it does not
obstruct the required exiting or openings for light and ventilation of a mobilehome
or a cabana, or prevent service or inspection of mobilehome equipment and
utility connections or encroach within a designated open space area.
(C) Expansion or alteration of buildings which are nonconforming by reason of
inadequate yards shall comply with Section 21.48.090. Miscellaneous accessory
structures such as lath houses, greenhouses, storage buildings (greater than one
hundred square feet in floor area), etc., may be erected on a mobile home lot,
provided they are located a minimum of six feet from any mobile home, outside
any required yard and the occupied area of a lot does not exceed seventy-five
percent of the lot.
(8) When used for access to a parking facility, a side yard shall be wide enough for a ten-
foot-wide unobstructed driveway. All such side yard driveways shall be paved with
cement or asphaltic concrete.
(9) Window awnings, not including structures, may project not more than four feet into any
front yard and the following features may be erected or project into any required yard:
(A) Vegetation, including trees, shrubs and other plants;
(B) Necessary appurtenances for utility service;
(C) Mailboxes.
(10) The area of the mobile home and all mobile home accessory structures shall not cover
more than seventy-five percent of the mobile home site.
(1 I) Each mobile home site shall include a paved area suitable for providing automobile
shelter with space for at least two automobiles. Recreation and laundry areas
combined shall have sufficient parking facilities to accommodate one automobile for
every five mobile home sites up to fifty lots and one space for each ten lots thereafter.
(12) Mobile home park streets shall be provided in such a pattern as to provide convenient
traffic circulation within the mobile home park. Such streets shall be built to the
following standards:
(A) No roadway shall be less than #%+&e-H feet in width. if c-- perk&g+
-3-
(B) There shall be concrete curbs on each side of the streets.
(C) The mobile home park streets shall be paved according to standards established
by the city engineer.
(D) Mobile home park streets shall be lighted in accordance with the standards
established by the city engineer.
(13) Visitor parking shall be provided at a ratio of one space per four mobile home units.
On-street parking may be counted towards meeting this requirement.
(14) The city council may permit decentralization of the recreational facilities in accordance
with principles of good planning.
(15) Utilities.
(A) All utilities shall be underground.
(B) Television reception shall be by means of cable television or one antenna or
several common antennae if the size or configuration of the mobile home park
requires more than one. Individual TV antennas on a coach shall be prohibited.
(C) Common trash-bin enclosures shall be provided. They shall be of masonry
construction and compatible with the mobile home park.
(16) Service buildings and facilities shall be strategically locate throughout the park for
convenient access from mobile homes. No service building shall be closer than twenty
feet to any property adjacent to the mobile home park.
(17) Mobile home parks shall be enclosed by solid masonry fences, six feet in height,
subject to land use planning manager approval, along dedicated street frontages and
interior property lines.
(18) All new mobile homes shall bear a valid insignia of approval issued by the State
Department of Housing and Community Development. “
-4-
73
The Coast News
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court
of San Diego County.
Mail all correspondence regarding public
notice advertising to
The Coast News, P.O. Box 232-550,
Encinitas, CA 92023 (760) 436-9737
Proof of Publication
I/-
.' ;; -{
_I-
Space above for County Clerk's Filing Stamp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss I
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or
interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of The Coast News, a
newspaper printed and published weekly and which news-
paper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation
for the cities of Del Mar, Solana Beach, EncinitasKardiff,
Carlsbad, Oceanside, San MarcosNista and the County
Judicial District by the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego (8/4/94, #677114, B2393,
P396); and that the notice, of which the annexed is a print-
ed copy, has been published in, each regular and entire issue
of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the
fol1 owing dates, to-wit :
September 20. 2001
NOTfCE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE tS HEREBY GIVEN that the public hawing originally scheduled for Tuesday, September 18,2001 by the €Xy Council &the City of Carlsbad has been rescheduled to Tuesday, Octobef 9,2001 at 6:OO p.m. at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad WLege Drive, Carlsbad. California, to consider a request for adop- tion of a tive declaration; approval af amendments to the Land Use and Ciulatd% of the Generat ptan and to various sections of the Zoning Ordinance to goals, &jacths, pslioies and standards addressing the design of tewmlal streets.
Those personswishing to speak OR this pmposakare cordially invited to attend the Dubiii hearirm l%nies of the 8fMJlda bin w#l be ttvailabk on and after &mtember i4.2001. If-jku have any qtktims, ptease ~au ~aty Wayne in the Planning Department at (wo) 6Q2-4601.
It yw Ohalbqp t)le.qqxwal of the negative declaration and/or amendments to ttle~~~rfr)d~ Elermn& at the General Ptan in court, you may be pu OT ~RIAW##LB else raised at the puMic hear- delivered to the Carlsbad ClerKaOdflobat or priar to ttKl publk heartng. I CASE FILE: GPA Ol-Ol/ZcA 01-03 I CASENAME: LtVABLESTREETS
PUBLISH: THURWAY, SEPTEMBER 20,2001
CN: 4863
I I J -7_ 'I I
I certify under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at
Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of
California on the 20th day of September, 2001.
7 Clerk of the Printer
I
PROOF OF PUBLIC JON
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
I'
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of
the printer of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newapapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the County of San Diego,
that the notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has
been published in each regular and entire issue of
said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof
on the following dates, to-wit:
September 16, 2001
I certie (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
San Marcos Dated at , California
17th
this day
September, 2001 of
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
-
This space is f ;he County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearinq
REVISED
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public
hearing originally scheduled for Tuesday,
September 18, 2001 by the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad has been rescheduled
to Tuesday, October 9, 2001 at 6:OO p.m. at
the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, to
consider a request for adoption of a
negative declaration; approval of
amendments to the Land Use and
Circulation Elements of the General Plan
and to various sections of the Zoning
Ordinance to revise goals, objectives,
policies and standards addressing the
design of residential streets.
Those persons wishing to speak on this
proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill
will be available on and after September 14,
2001. If you have any questions, please call
Gary Wayne in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4601.
If you challenge the approval of the negative
declaration and/or amendments to the Land
Use and Circulation Elements of the
General Plan in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described
in this notice or in written correspondence
delivered to the Carlsbad City Clerk's Office
at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 01-01lZCA 01-03
CASE NAME: LIVABLE STREETS
Legal 71 01 5. September 16,2001
The Coasl News
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court
of San Diego County.
Mail all correspondence regarding public
notice advertising to
The Coast News, P.O. Box 232-550,
Encinitas, CA 92023 (760) 436-9737
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or
interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of The Coast News, a
newspaper printed and published weekly and which news-
paper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation
for the cities of Del Mar, Solana Beach, EncinitasICardiff,
Carlsbad, Oceanside, San MarcosNista and the County
Judicial District by the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego (8/4/94, #677114, B2393,
P396); and that the notice, of which the annexed is a print-
ed copy, has been published in, each regular and entire issue
of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the
following dates, to-wit:
Auaust 30.2001
Icertify under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at
Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of
California on the 30th day of August, 2001.
I ’ ’ ‘ c- Clerk of the Printer
Space ahove for County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
- PROOF OF PUBLIC. IION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the Co,uncil Chambers,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:OO p.m, orl Tuesday,
September 18, 2001 to Gonsider a request
for adopOion of a negative dedarWibn;
approval of amendrnentsl
and circulation Elements
Plan and to various sections 01 the Zoning 1 Ordinance to revise goals, objectives,
policies and standards addressing the
design of residential streets.
Those persons wishing to speak on this
proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will
be available on and after September 14,
2001. If you have any question$, please call
Gary Wayne in the Planning Department at
!f you challenge the approval of the negative
declaration and/or amendments to the Land
Use and Circulation Elemenis of the
General Plan in court, you may be limjted to
raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described
in this notice or in written correspondence
delivered to the Carlsbad City Cierk's Office
at or prior to the public hearing.
1 (760) 602-4601.
I
I
CASE FILE: GPA 01-01ZCA 01-03
CASE NAME: LIVABLE STREETS' 11 Legal 7087f. September 1 , 2001
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of
the printer of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newapapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the County of San Diego,
that the notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has
been published in each regular and entire issue of
said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof
on the following dates, to-wit:
September 1, 2001
I certiG (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
San Marcos Dated at , California
this 4th
day
September, 2001 of
/ NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space is the County Clerk's Filing Stamp J
-. .
Proof of Publication of
Notice ofpublic Hearing
., - 1( E