HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-25; City Council; 17115; Villa Francesca CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04" ".-
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. I I ,I13
jurisdictions researched. The statistics and studies concluded that variables such as the age of
residents, proximity of the project to public transportation, the economic status of occupants, and
ownership vs. rental units all have a bearing on the anticipated parking needs. Based on staffs
analysis of the data, a combined residenthisitor parking requirement of 1 to 1 .I spaces per unit was
recommended. Also, during the interim, the applicant reconfigured the layout of the parking garage
and was able to increase the number of parking spaces from 55 to 61 which results in a parking ratio
of 1.19 spaces per unit. Again, there were a number of residents from the surrounding areas that
were still concerned about on-street parking impacts and were also concerned that the project would
not remain a senior affordable housing project. There were also a number of people supporting the
project, who pointed out that it was a unique and desirable project since it would provide an
opportunity for ownership within a senior development.
More detailed information is included regarding the development proposal and public testimony is
included in the attached staff reports to the Planning Commission and Planning Commission
minutes.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Based on an environmental impact assessment conducted by staff, potentially significant noise
impacts from the roadway were found to impact the project. Mitigation measures have been
imposed to reduce those impacts to below a level of significance. The Planning Director issued a
Mitigated Negative Declaration on November 4, 2002. No comments were received during the 30-
day public review period.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All public infrastructure required by this project would be funded by the developer. No monetary
incentives are being requested by the developer for the affordable housing or senior housing
components of the project.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
Facilities Zone
be withdrawn from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank.
* The project is 42 units above the Growth Management Control Point. These units would need to
N/A Special Facility Fee
61 du/ac Net Density*
11.5 du/ac Growth Control Point
1
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2003-079
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 531 8, 531 9, 5320, 5321, and 5322
4. Planning Commission Staff Reports, dated December 18,2002 and February 5,2003
5. Letters and petitions submitted at the December 18, 2002 public hearing
6. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 18, 2002 and February 5, 2003.
SITE
EXHIBIT 2
VILLA FRANCESCA
CT 02-10/CP 02-051
SDP 02-04/CDP 02-1 5
5
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
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5318
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
UNIT SENIOR HOUSING AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
JEFFERSON STREET, NORTH OF LAGUNA DRIVE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: VILLA FRANCESCA
CASE NO.: CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15
WHEREAS, Anthony De Leonardis, “Owner/Developer,” has filed a verified
PROGRAM TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 51-
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, in Block 1 of Sunny Slope Tract, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No 486, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, February 7,1888
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS,, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of December, 2002
and on the 5th day of February, 2003 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
6
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
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to
Exhibit "ND" dated November 4, 2002, and "PII" dated October 15, 2002,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinm:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
VILLA FRANCESCA - CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
The Mitigated 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
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Villa Francesca
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
. ..
...
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5318 -2- 7
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
C ommis si
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
.on of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of February, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson
SBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 53 18 -3-
- City o’f Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: East side of Jefferson Street, north of Laguna Drive in the City of
Carlsbad, California, County of San Diego (APN 155-271-19, 29,
21, & 22)
Project Description: Fifty-one (5 1) unit senior citizen condominium project.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an mvironmental 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, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified. potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments fkom the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4626.
DATED: NOVEMBER 4,2002
CASE NO: CT 02-1 O/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-1 5
CASE NAME: VILLA FRANCESCA
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 4,2002
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 9@
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 02- 1O/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15
DATE: October 15.2002
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: Villa Francesca
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad, Planning DeDartment: 1635
Faraday Ave., Carlsbad. CA 92008
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Barbara Kennedy, 760-602-4626
PROJECT LOCATION: East side of Jefferson Street. north of Laguna Drive (APN 155-27 1-19,
20.21, & 22) 2642 - 2646 Jefferson Street
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Robert Richardson Karnak Planning &
Desim 2802 State Street, Suite C Carlsbad, CA 92008
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium-High (1 1.5 ddac)
ZONING: R-3
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan,
and Coastal Development Permit for a 51-unit air-space condominium project for senior
residents. The project will require approval of a density bonus. The site is located on the east
side of Jefferson Street, north of Laguna Drive and currently consists of three lots totaling 0.84
acres with three-single-family residences and three rental units. The lots will be consolidated and
the condominium project will be re-subdivided as air-space condominiums. The site is
surrounded by a mix of multi-family and single-family residential development.
1 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
0 Aesthetics
0 Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
0 Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
0 Geology/Soils
0 HazardskIazardous Materials
0 HydrologyAVater Quality
Land Use and Planning
[7 Mineral Resources
0 Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Noise
0 Population and Housing
Public Services
0 Recreation
Ix] TransportatiodCirculation
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
Ix1
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 “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 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 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
3 Rev. 07/03/02
/a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
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 significant 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.
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately
supported by an information 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 standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential
impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and
policies. ’
0 “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.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significantly adverse.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse
effect on the environment, but gJ potentially significant adverse 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.
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to
prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 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 adverse effect on the environment.
0 If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse 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.
4 Rev. 07/03/02 /3
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not
limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse 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 adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a
“Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made
pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to
less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-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.
5 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
in the area?
0 0 OIXI
0 0 OB
0 0 OIXI
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views 0 0 ON
11. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
0 0 OH
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 UIXI
Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in 0 0 OH
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 0 0 OB
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
0 0 IXIO
6 Rev. 07/03/02 h-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
El
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO
Impact
0
Ix1
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
(XI
IXI
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Q 15064.5?
0
0
0
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
$15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial. evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
UKI
0 OKI
0
0
OKI
IXIO
uIx1
8 Rev. Ql/O3/O2 17
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
I7
0
0
0
o
n
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact o
I7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Impact
IXI
IXI
Ixl
Ixl
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
Ixl
9 Rev. 07/03/02 /B
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff!
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
10
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
0
El
0
0
0
0
cl
0
I7
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
I7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant
lmpact
0
0
IXI
IXI
IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
lrnpact
IXI
lxl
0
0
0
IXI
Ix1
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
Rev. 01/03/02 /P
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction?
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of, a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundboume vibration or groundboume noise
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
11
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0 o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
'0
0
0
0
Ix1
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
.o
0
0
0
IXI
txl
No
Impact
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
Ixl
txl
IXI
Ixl
0
Ixl
0
0
Rev. QI/O3/02 20
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially Significant
Impact
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
0
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
I7
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
0
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
0
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
0
0
0
0
0
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other 0
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant No
Impact Impact
om
om
OB
om
12 Rev. Q7IQ3lQ2 A/
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATIONR'WFIC - Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(eg, sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tum-
outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
IXI
IXI
0
0
0
0
0
I7
0
0
No
Impact
[XI
0
0
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
13 Rev. 01/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Result in a detexmination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
XVIII.
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?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula-
tively 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?)
Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
17
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
17
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
IXI
Ixl
IXI
(x1
IXI
Ixl
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.
14 Rev. 01/03/02 23
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS
No Impact. The project will have not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista since the site is
located in an urbanized area and will be constructed to meet the maximum 35’ height limitation allowed
in the R-3 zone. Although the project is located in the coastal zone, the project would not obstruct any
coastal views from 1-5. The site is currently developed with older residential units and no scenic
resources exist on the site or in the surrounding area. The project would upgrade the existing visual
character and quality of the site through the demolition of the older fun-down residential properties and
construction of a new building and associated landscape improvements.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. There will be no impact on agricultural resources due to the proposed project as the site is
not designated as or used as farmland. The subject site is zoned for multi-family residential projects (R-3)
and is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The project would not result in other changes to the
environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.
AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-
attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to
10 microns in diameter (PMlo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards
(AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that
a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San
Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies
(RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association
of Governments (SNAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the
1991 state-mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans fiom all other California non-
attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November
9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog
problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid- 1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP andor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that
are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each
city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan,
then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such
consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains
specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the
applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS.
The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal
ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining
whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following:
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
15 Rev. 07/03/02
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is
being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and
the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way
conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City
of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air
quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and
2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state
standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been
recorded recently.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and
suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively
considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however,
emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions
potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not
the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the
proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minintus. Any impact is
assessed as less than significant.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or
concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the
vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. Construction of future residential development could generate fumes from the operation of
construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would
be short-tern or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not
considered substantial.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No Impact. The subject site is a previously graded and developed infill site and there will be no impacts
on biological resources. The subject site is designated as an “UrbadDeveloped” area on the City’s Draft
Habitat Management Plan.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. The subject site is a previously graded and developed infill site which is surrounded by
urban development and there will be no impacts on cultural resources. There are no known historical,
archeological, paleontological, or human remains on the project site.
16 Rev. 07/03/02 3 5
GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact (a.i. to a.iii.) - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within
the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City.
However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes
could affect Carlsbad. The project site is located in an area of stable soil conditions and the risk of
seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad
Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992). In addition, a project specific
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation was prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., dated April 10, 2002. The
GeoSoils Inc. report states “The possibility of ground acceleration or shaking at the site may be
considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole”. The report also states
the potential for Liquefaction, Dynamic Settlement and Surface Fault Rapture at the project site is no
greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in the immediate vicinity.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact. The report prepared by GeoSoils Inc. showed no evidence of deep seated landsliding on the
subject site. The site is relatively flat and according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards
Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is in an area of stable soil conditions that
are not subject to landslides.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than significant impact. Although the soils on the site are relatively prone to erosion, the site is
relatively flat and erosive velocities are not expected to be obtained in site runoff. A preliminary Storm
Water Management Plan for the project was prepared by Conway & Associates, Inc. A grading and
erosion control plan will be required prior to any construction and it is anticipated that the latest
technologies will be used to eliminate the potential of soil erosion and sedimentation from the site, both
during and post construction.
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
No Impact. The report prepared by GeoSoils Inc. showed no evidence of deep seated landsliding on the
subject site. The subject site as well as surrounding sites are relatively flat and according to the City of
Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is in an
area of stable soil conditions that are not subject to landslides.
d. Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
17 Rev. 07/03/02 dd
No Impact. The report prepared by Geosoils, Inc. included laboratory test results of soil samples taken
from the site. These results showed the onsite soils are generally very low to low in expansion potential.
No substantial risk to life or property is anticipated due to hazards typically found in expansive soils.
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
No Impact. Sewers are available to the subject site and the project will be served by a public wastewater
system.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No Impact. Based on the nature of a residential land use, there is no routine transport, use or disposal of
hazardous materials associated with residential uses. Therefore, there is no potential of a significant
hazard associated with the project from accidents involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment, or from the emission of hazardous substances within the proximity of a school.
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted.
However, the project site is located approximately 4 miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport (public
general aviation airport). The project site is not located within any flight, crash, or safety hazard zones
associated with the airport. Therefore, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing on
the project site.
The project will not impair the implementation or physically interfere with any adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation since the project site is an infill site surrounded by urban
development which is adequately served by emergency services. There are no wildlands adjacent to the
site that could expose people to significant risk from wildland fires.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
No Impact. An erosion control plan and storm water management plan will be prepared prior to
construction of the project. These plans will ensure acceptable water quality standards will be maintained
both during the construction phase as well as post-development.
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater. The project will be served
via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site.
c. Impacts to groundwater quality?
No Impact. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the exploratory borings made during the soils
investigation. The majority of the site will drain to an existing storm drain system within Jefferson Street.
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
18 Rev. 07/03/02
Less than significant impact. The Preliminary Hydrology Calculations and Hydraulic Analysis prepared
by Conway & Associates, Inc. shows existing drainage patterns are primarily maintained within and
adjacent to the subject site. Erosion and siltation will be controlled both during construction and post-
construction.
e. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner,
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less than significant impact. The Preliminary Hydrology Calculations and Hydraulic Analysis prepared
by Conway & Associates, Inc. shows the site will be designed to retain any potential increase in runoff
during a ten year six-hour storm event. An existing storm drain system within Jefferson Street will
convey runoff away from the subject property.
f. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less than significant impact. The existing storm drain system as well as the planned system as
identified in the City’s Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan will adequately
convey runoff from the subject site. The Preliminary Hydrology Calculations and Hydraulic Analysis
prepared by Conway & Associates, Inc. shows this project is less than 3% of the tributary basin therefore
runoff from this site will not have a significant impact on the stormwater system.
g. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact. The proposed project will not substantially degrade water quality of adjacent receiving
waters.
h. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map?
i. Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
No Impact (h & i) - The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the
Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in housing or structures within
a 100-year flood hazard area.
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact (j & k) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping
Study, November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation area, or area
subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami.
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives,
synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving
19 Rev. 07/03/02
surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following
construction?
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water
Act Section 303(d) list?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
No Impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located immediately adjacent to any body of water.
Drainage from the site is subject to the City’s drainage and storm water pollution control standards
(NPDES and best management practices), which ensure that sediment and pollutants discharged from
development of the site will be reduced to the maximum extent possible. Also, the City’s drainage and
storm water pollution control standards ensure that development does not reduce water quality of any
marine, fresh or wetland waters or groundwater. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact water
quality.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
No Impact. The subject site is a previously graded and developed infill site which is surrounded by
multi-family and single-family residential development. Future residential development of the site will be
compatible with and will integrate into the existing community.
The project does not conflict with the property’s General Plan designation (RMH) and although the
project will require approval of a density bonus, the project will not exceed local population projections.
The density permitted on the site (1 1.5 du./ac.) would allow 9 units. The proposed 51 unit senior
condominium project would require an increase in density to 61 units per acre (466 % density increase) as
an incentive to enable the reservation of 23 of the proposed 5 1 units to be made affordable to low income
households. The City’s inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that 15% if the total units (8 units) be
reserved as affordable housing units for low income households (80% of the AMI). The proposed
reservation of the 23 affordable units exceeds the minimum inclusionary housing requirement and the
requested incentive (density increase) to enable the provision of more affordable units is consistent with
the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
The proposed density increase is also consistent with City Council Policy 43 which sets priorities for the
allocation of excess dwelling units existing in each quadrant in the City to avoid exceeding the Growth
Management maximum dwelling unit cap. A finding that excess units are available must be made prior to
granting density increases and the project must qualify as a priority project. The project satisfies criteria
established by Policy 43 for first and second priority projects: it is an affordable housing project (first
priority); and it is a Senior Citizen Housing as defined by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.18.045
(second priority).
The property is located in the Mello I1 Segment of the City’s Local Coastal Program and is subject to the
requirements of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone. In the Coastal Zone, senior citizen
housing projects must be consistent with the certified local coastal program provisions, with the exception
of density. The project will be conditioned to comply with all applicable coastal zone policies, including,
but not limited to a winter grading restriction, and the project will be conditioned to adhere to the City’s
Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased
runoff and soil erosion.
20 Rev. 07/03/02 a9
The subject site does not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural communities plans in that
the property is designated as an “UrbadDeveloped” area in the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan.
MINERAL RESOURCES
No Impact. According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project
will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site.
NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. An acoustical Analysis report was prepared
for the proposed project by Douglas Eilar & Associates which indicates that the project site will be
subject to a traffic noise level ranging fiom 73 dBA CNEL at the western property line to 60 dBA CNEL
at the eastern property line. The outdoor recreation areas proposed for the project will be located inside
the courtyard style building. Since the project will utilize building placement for acoustical purposes, the
traffic noise impacting the outdoor recreation space will be reduced to an overall noise level of
approximately 55 dBA CNEL which is less than the City’s exterior noise level threshold of 60 dBA
CNEL. The interior noise levels are required to be no greater than 45 dBA CNEL. The report indicates
that although portions of the project will be subjected to exterior noise levels of up to 70 dBA CNEL,
mitigation of the interior space is feasible and attainable through standard construction practices and
materials. Therefore, prior to issuance of a building permit, a supplemental acoustical analysis will be
required to insure that the plans have been designed so that interior noise levels are mitigated to 45 dBA
or less.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne
noise levels?
No Impact - Based upon the nature ofthe proposed residential use, the project will not result in any
activity that would generate excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels. In addition,
the project site is not located adjacent to any use that generates excessive groundbourne vibration or
groundbourne noise levels.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Less than Significant Impact (c & d) - Other than traffic generated noise, typical residentiaI land uses
do not generate a substantial amount of noise. With regard to temporary or periodic increase in noise
levels, the only potential increase in noise would be from construction activity associated with a future
development project. The City incorporates standard regulations on all project construction activity to
ensure that noise and other potential impacts to surrounding properties are not significant. Therefore, the
proposed land use and zone change will not result in a substantial permanent or temporary increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
21 Rev. 07/03/02 30
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact (e & f) - The project site is located approximately 4 miles fiom the McClellan-Palomar
Airport. However, the site is not located within an area impacted by excessive noise levels generated by
the airport. The site is not located near any other public or private airport. Therefore, the proposed
project will not expose people to excessive noise levels generated from an airport.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
No Impact. The project would result in 51 dwelling units on an infill site that is served by existing roads
and utilities and therefore, the project would not induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly.
The project would demolish 3 single-family units and 3 rental units, however this housing stock would be
replaced by 5 1 senior housing units. Displacement of the existing residents is not considered significant,
nor would it necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
PUBLIC SERVICES
No Impact. Because of the proposed density increase, the project will result in 42 additional dwelling
units above the Growth management Control Point which would allow 9 units on this site. These
additional units can be provided for through the City’s “excess dwelling unit bank” which ensures that the
dwelling unit limitations in the City’s Growth Management Program, and those of the Local Facilities
Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 1 will not be exceeded. The provisions of public facilities within the
Zone 1 LFMP including fire & police protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities, have been
planned to accommodate the projected growth of that area. Because the project will not exceed the total
growth projections anticipated within the Zone 1 LFMP, all public facilities will be adequate to serve
residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to
or result in the need for additional government facilities.
RECREATION
No Impacts. As part of the City’s Growth Management Program, a performance standard for parks was
adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park and Special Use Area
per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided.
The project site is located within Park District #1 (Northwest Quadrant). The necessary park acreage to
achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #1 was based upon the GMP
dwelling unit limitation for the Northwest Quadrant, which is 15,370 units.
Although the proposed project will result in additional residential units in the NW Quadrant, those units
will be provided for through the “excess dwelling unit bank”, which ensures the GMP dwelling unit limit
will not be exceeded. In addition, the Parks and Recreation Element states that the park acreage demand
for the NW Quadrant, based on the GMP dwelling unit limit, is 106.87 acres, and the anticipated park
acreage to be provided at build-out will be 120.12 acres. Therefore, there will be adequate parkland
within the NW Quadrant, and the proposed land use change will not cause additional demand for parkland
or expansion of recreational facilities. Because park facilities will be adequate to serve residential
development on the site, any increase in use of park facilities generated from development of the site will
not result in substantial physical deterioration of any park facility.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system?
22 Rev. 01/03/02 3/
Less Than Significant Impact. Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 204 ADT
A Traffic Impact Study was prepared by Federhart & Associates for the subject project. The Study is
dated July 22, 2002. The traffic study analyzed the proposed project’s trip generation and distribution on
the surrounding roadways. Two critical intersections, Jefferson StreeULaguna Drive, and Jefferson
Street/Flores Drive were also analyzed. The study showed this project will not have a significant impact
on the roadway segments or intersections. The existing Level of Service (LOS) at each of the
intersections is “B” during the PM peak. Because this number of vehicles generated by this project is
less than 2% of the volume in any given direction at either of the intersections, the LOS will remain at
“B” after project buildout.
The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are,
therefore, less than significant.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has
designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway
segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily
traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Existing ADT* Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43
El Camino Real 21-50 “A-C” 32-65
Palomar Airport Road 10-52 ‘‘A-B” 29-77
SR 78 120 “F’ 144
1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-249
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or
LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990).
Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable
standard LOS.
Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and
community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was
used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS)
“E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies)
of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at
acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent
with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore,
result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
23 Rev. 07/03/02 32
No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards;
and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s
general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact
assessed.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire
and Police Departments. No impact assessed.
0 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The project will provide more parking than required by the City’s parking requirements for
senior citizen housing to ensure that more than adequate parking is supplied. No impact assessed.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. The project is located in an area which is served by public transportation and will be
required to make improvements to the nearby bus stop to the satisfaction of NCTD.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
No Impact - The proposed residential development will be required to comply with all Regional Water
Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 1 LFMP anticipated that the project site
would be developed with a residential use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed
to accommodate residential uses on the site. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater
treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth
projections for the City at build-out. The proposed increased density on the site will increase the demand
for these facilities. However, the proposed density increase would not result in an overall increase in the
City’s growth projection in the NW quadrant. Therefore, the project will not result in development that
will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilitieshpplies, wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage facilities.
The project has been reviewed by the local solid waste disposal provider (Coast Waste). Existing waste
disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed residential use on the site without exceeding landfill
capacities. In addition, the proposed residential development will be required to comply with all federal,
state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
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?
No Impact -The proposed residential project will not degrade the quality of the environment. The
project site does not contain any fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species.
The project site is currently developed with older residential structures and the site.has been previously
disturbed by grading, and is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare
24 Rev. QllQ3IO2 33
or endangered plant or animal community. Therefore, the project will not threaten or reduce the number a
plant or animal community.
In addition, there are no historic structures on the site and there are no known cultural resources on the
site. The project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California History or
prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“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?)
Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional
growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into
SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water
quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are
established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development
standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The City’s standards and
regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat
and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within
the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a
cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed
above, the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions
throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the residential
development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the residential
development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the residential
development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the project’s
contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than
significant.
Also, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads
(Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad
as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth
projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of
service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City’s growth projections,
and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than
significant.
With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will
ensure that residential development of the site will not result in a significant cumulative considerable
impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Based upon residential nature of the project
and the fact that future development of the site will comply with City standards, the project will not result
in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. However, the project
site is located in an area where human beings could be exposed to significantly high noise levels
generated from traffic on adjacent roadways. As discussed above, any potential impact fiom noise can be
mitigated to a level less than significant. Those mitigation measures will be incorporated as conditions of
project approval. Any future residential development on the site will be required to comply with all
25 Rev. 07/03/02
applicable federal, state, regional and City regulations, which will ensure the development of the site will
not result in an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
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.
1. Final Master Environmental Imuact Reuort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR
93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994.
2. Draft Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, City of
Carlsbad, December 1999 with addendum.
3. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Maming. Study, November 1992.
4. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Carlsbad Senior Condominium Project 2642 through 2646
Jefferson Street, GeoSoils, Inc., April 10,2002.
5. Acoustical Analysis Reuort Villa Francesca Senior Condominium Project, Douglas Eilar &
Associates, April 30,2002.
6. Traffic Impact Study Villa Francesca Senior Condominium Project, Federhart & Associates, July
22,2002.
26 Rev. 07/03/02 33j
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner shall submit an acoustical analysis which
demonstrates that the architectural plans comply with the State of California interior noise
standard of 45 CNEL. The architectural plans shall incorporate any additional measures
(thicker glazing, sound absorption material, shielding of vents, or artificial circulation system)
to attenuate the noise to an acceptable level. Where windows are required to be unopenable or
kept closed in order to meet the interior noise standards, mechanical ventilation and cooling, if
necessary, shall be provided to maintain a habitable environment. The system shall supply
two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% (one-fifth) fresh make-up air
obtained directly from the outdoors. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating
construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct of six feet
plus one sharp 90" bend.
27 Rev. 07/03/02 36
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.
28 Rev. 07/03/02 37
..
0 rY
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 1
i U C
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. 5319
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 02-10 TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 51-UNIT SENIOR
HOUSING AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
JEFFERSON STREET, NORTH OF LAGUNA DRIVE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: VILLA FRANCESCA
CASE NO.: CT 02- 10
WHEREAS, Anthony De Leonardis, “Owner/Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, in Block 1 of Sunny Slope Tract, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No 486, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, February 7,1888
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map as shown on Exhibits “A-B,” and “F-Q” dated December 18, 2002, and revised Exhibits
“C, D, and E” dated February 5, 2003 on file in the Planning Department VILLA
FRANCESCA - CT 02-10 as provided by Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of December, 2002
and on the 5th day of February, 2003 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 persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Tentative Tract Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 5.
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF VILLA FRANCESCA - CT 02-10 based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as
conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any
applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State
Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the
project is consistent with all regulations governing airspace subdivisions and the
design of multi-family condominiums.
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for Residential High (RH), Residential Medium
High (RMH) and Residential Low-Medium (RLM) density development on the
General Plan, and are developed with multi-family projects or single-family
residences which would be compatible with a senior housing project.
That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density
proposed, in that all required development standards and design criteria required by
the R-3 zone and senior citizen housing standards are incorporated into the project
without the need for variances from development standards and the lot coverage of
54% is below the maximum 60% lot coverage allowed.
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court .judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in
that the project has been designed and conditioned and that there are no conflicts
with established easements.
That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that structures is designed
in a courtyard configuration to maximize the exposure of each unit to natural light
and ventilation.
That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed
by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs
against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental
resources.
That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that the project site has been previously graded and is surrounded by
existing development.
That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project is
served by existing storm drain and sewer collection facilities. The project is
PC RES0 NO. 5319 -2- Lfo
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
I
conditioned to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System I I
Standards to prevent any discharge violations.
9. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in
the staff report dated December 18,2002 including, but not limited to the following:
Land Use - The project complies with the criteria established in the General
Plan Residential Implementing Policies C.2 allowing density increases as
outlined in detail in the staff report dated December 18, 2002, the project is
appropriate for a higher residential density of 61 du/ac as allowed by
Chapter 21.53 and Council Policy 43, and the project complies with the
City’s General Plan goal to provide additional senior citizen housing for
seniors of different income groups.
Circulation - The project is served by an existing fully improved public
street, Jefferson Street, which operates at an acceptable level of service. On-
site circulation consists of a private driveway which provides access to
basement level resident and guest parking spaces designed in accordance
with City standards,
Noise - The project is consistent with the 60 dBA exterior CNEL and is
conditioned to incorporate noise mitigation measures to ensure compliance
with the 45 dBA interior CNEL noise standards.
Housing - The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General
Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the project is requesting a
density increase from 11.5 du/ac to 61 du/ac in exchange for providing a
100% senior housing “for-sale” condominiums with 51% of the units
affordable to low and moderate income senior households.
10. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer
collection and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other
recreational facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space,
related to the project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent
with need.
A. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified
School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities.
B. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and
will be collected prior to issuance of building permit.
C. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be
collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
PC RES0 NO. 5319 -3- 41
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
11.
12.
13.
14.
The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B).
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of a
final map.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Tentative Tract Map.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map (CT 02-10) documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code
Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be
invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies
with all requirements of law.
5. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Villa Francesca Project
PC RES0 NO. 53 19 -4-
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
44
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
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Tentative Tract Map, (b)
City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c)
Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation
survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s
approval is not validated.
Developer shall submit to the Planning Department a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar
copy of the Tentative Map and Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final
decision making body.
Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24” x 36” blueline drawing
format (including any applicable Coastal Commission approvals).
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its
obligation to provide school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CP 02-05, SDP 02-04, and CDP
02-15 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No.
5318,5320,5321 and 5322 for those other approvals incorporated by reference herein.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect
shall be placed on the Final Map.
This project is being approved as an air space condominium. There will be no
individual ownership of land. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map
with the exact wording to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Housing
14. Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, or where a map is not
being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the
PC RES0 NO. 53 19 -5- L/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
Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide
and deed restrict 26 dwelling units as “for-sale” affordable units for a minimum of
thirty (30) years or in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter
21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Eight (8) units shall be reserved for low
income households (maximum 80% AMI) and eighteen (18) units shall be reserved
for moderate income households (maximum 120% AMI). The developer must have
an assumed household size of no more than 2 persons for 2-bedroom units within
the project for the purposes of calculating the allowable sales price for the
affordable units. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the
Planning Director no later than 60 days prior to the request to final the map. The
recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and i successors in interest.
15. Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the project’s
market rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the City and the
Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule for
development.
~ Landscape
16. Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape and
Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and
the City’s Landscape Manual. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as
shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and
thnving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
I A. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
Miscellaneous
17. Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the
Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official
CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning
Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions:
A. General Enforcement bv the City. The City shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in
favor of, or in which the City has an interest.
B. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to
the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have
the right to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be
transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record.
I( PC RES0 NO. 53 19 -6- w
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
C. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the
event that the Association fails to maintain the “Common Area Lots and/or the
Association’s Easements” as provided in Article , Section
the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary
maintenance. If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give
written notice to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project.
setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required
and requesting the same be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty
(30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to
carry out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association’s
Easements within the period specified by the City’s notice, the City shall be
entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to
reimbursement with respect thereto from the Owners as provided herein.
D. SDecial Assessments Levied by the City. In the event the City has performed the
necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association’s
Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs
incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and
or Association’s Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to
each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails
to pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue
collection against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this
Section. Said invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty
(20) days of receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such
invoice in full within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent
and shall be subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the
amount of the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the
Association by means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and
remedies available to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the
Owners of each Lot in the Project for an equal prorata share of the invoice, plus
the late charge. Such special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and
shall be a continuing lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is
levied. Each Owner in the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power
to levy such special assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to
bring all legal actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any
Owner and hisher respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special
assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this
Declaration.
18. Developer shall provide bus stops to service this development at locations and with
reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District and the
Planning Director. Specifically, the developer shall install a new bus stop. bench,
trash receptacle, and boarding pad approximately 60’ north of the project entrance.
Approximately 80’ of frontage must be “red-curbed” to the satisfaction of NCTD
and the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department. The developer shall be
responsible for the upkeep of the bus stop. Said facilities shall be free fiom
advertising.
PC RES0 NO. 53 19 -7- 45-
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
19.
20.
21.
22.
Notice -
23.
24.
25.
26.
This project is being approved as a condominium permit for senior citizen residential
homeownership purposes. If any of the units in the project are rented, the minimum time
increment for such rental shall be not less than 26 days. The CC&Rs for the project shall
include this requirement.
Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxedfees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxedfees are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Planning.
Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all passive and
active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and recreational
facilities.
Developer shall report, in writing, to the Planning Director within 30 days, any address
change from that which is shown on the permit application.
Prior to the issuance of the Final Map, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of
Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of
the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the
City of Carlsbad has issued a Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, Site
Development Plan, and Coastal Development Permit by Resolutions No. 5319, 5320,
5321 and 5322 on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property
description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of
approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of
Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment
to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by
the Developer or successor in interest.
Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map, or an alternative, suitable to
the Planning Director, in the sales office at all times. All sales maps that are distributed
or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, future and
existing schools, parks and streets.
Developer shall post a sign in the sales office in a prominent location that discloses which
special districts and school district provide service to the project. Said sign shall remain
posted until ALL of the units are sold.
PC RES0 NO. 5319 -8- 46
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
27.
28.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice
that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing
Transportation Comdor, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and
City Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file in the Planning Department).
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice
that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from
McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and
the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
Onsite Conditions - Saecific
29. Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas enclosed by a six-foot high
masonry wall with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal
Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Planning
Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Enpineering Conditions:
General
30. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
3 1. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is
formally established by the City.
32. Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs orland other
recorded document, for maintaining the common areas within the subdivision and all the
private improvements: streets, sidewalks, landscaping and storm drain facilities located
therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the
owners of the properties within the subdivision. Storm drain facilities within the
subject property are privately owned and maintained. The project CC&Rs shall
include provisions for periodic observation and permanent maintenance of the
detention facilities and storm drain system.
33. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install rain gutters to convey roof drainage to an
approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
FeedAgreements
34. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation, the City’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
35. Pursuant to section 20.16.040 (d), The Developer shall execute and cause to be
recorded a covenant running with the land, not to oppose an improvement district
for underground placement of the existing overhead utilities.
PC RES0 NO. 5319 -9- 47
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
36. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation the City's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding
drainage across the adjacent property.
37. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street
Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
Grading
38. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and
obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit
for the project.
Dedicationsfimprovements
39.
40.
41.
42.
Any placement of any water meters or other public utilities outside of the existing
right-of-way will require dedication of additional easements. Developer shall make
an offer of dedication to the City for any necessary easements at the time of final
design. Developer shall dedicate easements by a certificate on the final map. All
land so offered shall be offered free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and
without cost.
Developer shall execute and record a City standard Subdivision Improvement Agreement
to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements
shown on the tentative map including, but not limited to: removal and replacement of
existing driveways, curb, gutter and sidewalk; paving and base; fire hydrants; sewer
and water laterals; and traffic control.
Developer shall have the entire drainage system designed, submitted to and approved by
the City Engineer, to ensure that runoff resulting from 10-year frequency storms of 6
hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are equal to or less than the
runoff from a storm of the same fkequency and duration under existing developed
conditions. Both 6 hour and 24 hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determine the
detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results.
Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, latest version. Developer shall provide
improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the
"California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface
pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such
improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and. properly dispose of toxic and
PC RES0 NO. 5319 -10-
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
hazardous waste products.
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into stornl drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
Final Map Notes
43. Developer shall show on Final Map the net developable acres for each parcel.
44. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data:
A. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above
the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified
as sight distance comdors.
- Fire
45. CFD shall allow the installation and use of the basement level storage areas with the
following conditions:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
The walls separating the U occupancies (storage closets) from the parking garage
shall be masonry construction. All cells shall be fully grouted.
Entry doors to the storage closets shall be metal frame, metal door, listed 1 '/z hour
assemblies that have an integral window for viewing inside the storage closets.
The entry doors to the closets shall be master keyed so that the HOA has access to
the areas for routine inspections. There shall be no electrical outlets within the
storage closets. There may be general lighting within the closet installed in
conformance with the National Electric Code.
Signage shall be installed at each closet door noting that storage of flammable
liquids or gasses is prohibited.
Fire extinguishers shall be installed at a minimum 100 feet travel distance
throughout the parking garage and storage closet areas.
Automatic fire protection in storage units shall be upgraded to quick response
heads and the fire sprinkler head for each closet shall be separated from the
storage closet with a chain link ceiling assembly which will prohibit storage
PC RES0 NO. 5319 -1 1- 49
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
above the ceiling level and allow full operation of the sprinkler head and access to
the light fixture for maintenance. ’
G. The storage closets shall be owned by and managed by the HOA. The HOA shall
have the responsibility and duty to ensure that all closets uses are limited to
storage of ordinary household goods, which are consistent with the operation of a
dwelling unit. There shall be no storage of flammable liquids or gases of any type
in any type of container.
H. There shall be gravity ventilation to the exterior from each individual storage
closet.
I. The proposed elevator be of sufficient design to accommodate an ambulance
gurney in the prone position.
Code Reminders
- Fees
46. Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as
required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
47. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
General
48.
49.
50.
51.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map
approval becomes final.
Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
PC RES0 NO. 5319 - 12- 50
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
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of February, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
An
Chairperson
COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HWZMKLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 53 19 -13-
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. 5320
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF CONDOMINIUM PERMIT CP 02-05 TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 51-UNIT SENIOR
HOUSING AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
JEFFERSON STREET, NORTH OF LAGUNA DRNE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: VILLA FRANCESCA
CASE NO.: CP 02-05
WHEREAS, Anthony De Leonardis, “Owner/Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, in Block 1 of Sunny Slope Tract, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No 486, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, February 7,1888
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Condominium
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A-B” and “F-Q” dated December 18, 2002, and revised
Exhibits “C, D, and E” dated February 5, 2003, on file in the Planning Department, VILLA
FRANCESCA - CP 02-05, as provided by Chapter 21.45 and Section 21.18.045(a) of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of December, 2002
and on the 5th day of February, 2003 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 persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Condominium Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
3-2
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
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VILLA FRANCESCA - CP 02-05, based on
the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with the
Municipal Code, the General Plan and all adopted plans of the City and other
governmental agencies, in that the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance allow an
increase in density for affordable housing and senior housing projects, therefore,
with approval of the requested density increase, the 61 du/ac senior housing
condominium project will be considered consistent with the adopted plans of the
City. The project complies with the R-3 zoning standards and is incompliance with
the senior citizen housing development standards and design criteria.
That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the
neighborhood and the community, in that the senior housing project provides housing
designed to meet the needs of senior residents and is a housing type that is needed
for the development of the community. The site is in a desirable location due to its
close proximity to the Carlsbad Village area and Senior Center, the site will
incorporate a bus stop within the project frontage, and the site is level and suitable
for development of this type. The project is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood which consists of single-family and multi-family residential projects.
That such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity, in that the project is compatible with surrounding residential uses; provides
all necessary public improvements to serve the demand generated by the project; as
designed provides adequate. setbacks, landscaping and circulation improvements;
and complies with all City ordinances and standards.
That the proposed 51-unit senior citizen airspace condominium meets or exceeds all of
the minimum development standards set forth in Chapter 21.18.045 which sets forth
the mechanisms and standards for the development of rental or for-sale senior
housing.
That the proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural
topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on the
site, in that the site has been previously graded and is relatively level and can
accommodate the proposed development consisting of a three-story building and
underground parking garage. The site contains no natural resources or varied
natural topography.
That the proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site is
compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or
disruptive element to the neighborhood, in that the project design is consistent with the
height, mass and scale of many of the nearby multi-family projects and is consistent
with the density allowed for other nearby senior citizen housing projects. The
project exceeds the density permitted by the RMH General Plan designation by 42
units, however, the increased density is permitted pursuant to Chapter 21.53. The
PC RES0 NO. 5320 -2- 5”
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
project is also consistent with Council Policy 43 priorities in that is a first and
second priority project since it will provide 15.7% of the housing units for low
income households, 35.3% of the units for moderate income households, and the
project will be developed as senior housing.
7. That the project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with
the project and does not dominate the project, in that the project has a private driveway
that provides direct access to the underground resident and guest parking spaces.
Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
...
...
. ..
...
...
...
...
If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Condominium Permit.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Condominium Permit document(s), necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits, Any proposed development
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall submit to the Planning
Director a recorded copy of the Condominium Plan filed with the Department of
Real Estate which is in conformance with the City approved documents and
exhibits.
This approval is granted subject to the approval oflhe Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CT 02-10, SDP 02-04 and CDP
02-15 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No.
5318,5319,5321 and 5322 for those other approvals incorporated by reference herein.
PC RES0 NO. 5320 -3- 54
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
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of February, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
IE AKER, Chairperson WAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5320 -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. 5321
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 02-04 TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 5 1-UNIT SENIOR
HOUSING AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
JEFFERSON STREET, NORTH OF LAGUNA DRIVE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: VILLA FRANCESCA
CASE NO.: SDP 02-04
WHEREAS, Anthony De Leonardis, “Owner/Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lots 6, 7, 8, 9,10, and 11, in Block 1 of Sunny Slope Tract, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No 486, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, February 7,1888
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Plan as shown on Exhibit(s) “A-B” and “F-Q” dated December 18,2002, and revised Exhibits
“C, D, and E” dated February 5, 2003, on file in the Planning Department, VILLA
FRANCESCA - SDP 02-04, as provided by Chapter 21.06/Section 21 ~3.120 and Section
21.18.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of December, 2002
and on the 5th day of February, 2003, 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 Site Development Plan.
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad 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 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VILLA FRANCESCA -
SDP 02-04, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
Findinm:
1. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental
settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will
not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which
the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or
traffic circulation, in that the proposed site is located in close proximity to a range of
commercial retail, professional, social and community services patronized by senior
citizens; the project will incorporate a new bus stop within the frontage of the site;
the project is located in a topographically level area; and the project would not be
detrimental to public health, safety, and general welfare. The project exceeds the
density permitted by the RMH General Plan designation by 42 units; however, the
project satisfies the criteria set forth in Chapter 21.53 and Council Policy 43 for
allowing a density increase in that the project will be developed as 100% senior
citizen air-space condominiums, 15.7% of the units will be available to low income
senior households with incomes that are 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI)
and 35.3% of the units will be available to moderate income senior households with
incomes that are 120% of the AMI. The project is also consistent with Council
Policy 43 priorities to allow senior housing and affordable housing projects to utilize
excess dwelling units available in the northwest quadrant.
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that all of the project’s parking, open space, and other amenities can be provided on-
site without any reduction in the required setbacks. The lot coverage of 54% is
below the maximum 60% lot coverage allowed.
3. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust
the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that all required minimum setbacks are provided, twice
the parking required for senior citizen projects will be provided, the third story of
the building has been stepped-back to reduce the overall building mass; new fencing
and landscaping will be provided around the perimeter of the site; and the
architectural design is finished on all sides with similar roof and wall materials,
colors and architectural accent features.
4. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the additional ADT generated by the senior
PC RES0 NO. 5321 -2- 57
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
5.
6.
7.
8.
citizen housing project is not likely to occur during normal “peak hours” and mill
not reduce the road segment or intersection levels of service to below the City’s level
of “B” during the PM peak.
That the senior citizen housing project helps achieve the City’s senior and
affordable housing goals as set forth in the housing element of the General Plan by
providing a for-sale senior citizen condominium project with 15.7% of the units
designated as affordable to low income households and 35.3% of the units
designated as affordable to moderate income households.
That the density increase and/or additional incentive(s) are necessary to make the
project economically feasible in that the Housing Policy Team has reviewed the
applicant’s pro forma, and has recommended that the density increase is necessary
to allow the project to be developed to satisfy the City’s need to provide housing
which is affordable to lower income households and senior citizens.
That the senior citizen project does not result in a density or design that is
incompatible with other land uses in the immediate vicinity in that the project
density of 61 du/ac is consistent with three other senior citizen housing projects
nearby in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area which have densities ranging
from 63.5 du/ac to 75 du/ac, and the project has a similar building mass appearance
as several surrounding multi-family apartment projects.
That the senior citizen housing project complies with the General Plan, zoning,
certified local coastal program and development policies of the City of Carlsbad.
Conditions:
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Site Development Plan.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Site Development Plan document(s), necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CT 02-10’ CP 02-05 and CDP
02-15 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No.
5318,5319,5320 and 5322 for those other approvals incorporated by reference herein.
PC RES0 NO. 5321 -3- 3-8
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
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The project shall be developed as a Senior Citizen Housing project. To ensure
compliance with the age requirements for a senior citizen housing development, all
applicants/owners of senior citizen housing projects shall be required to submit, on
an annual basis, an updated list of all project tenants and their age to the City’s
Housing and Redevelopment Department.
Required parking spaces shall be available to the tenants/owners of the project at no
additional fee.
Senior citizen housing projects which do not have an on-site manager shall provide
a posted phone number of the project owner or off-site manager for emergencies or
maintenance problems.
At the time of plan submittal for building permits, the applicant shall submit a set of
detailed drawings for kitchens and bathrooms indicating counter and cabinet
heights and depth, type of pulls, faucets, grab-bars, tub and/or shower dimensions,
and handicapped turn space where appropriate.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 18 months from the date of final map approval.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
. ..
...
PC RES0 NO. 5321 -4- 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1.5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of February, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dorninguez, Heineman,
Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
R, Chairperson
COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H&&iILL!&
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5321 -5-
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. 5322
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP
SENIOR HOUSING AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
JEFFERSON STREET, NORTH OF LAGUNA DRIVE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: VILLA FRANCESCA
CASE NO.: CDP 02-1 5
WHEREAS, Anthony De Leonardis, “Owner/Developer,” has filed a verified
02-15 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 5 1-UNIT
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, in Block 1 of Sunny Slope Tract, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No 486, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, February 7,1888
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhbits “A-B” and “F-Q” dated December 18, 2002, and
revised Exhibits “C, D, and E” dated February 5, 2003 on file in the Planning Department,
VILLA FRANCESCA - CDP 02-15 as provided by Chapter 21.201.040 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of December, 2002
and on the 5th day of February, 2003, 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 CDP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
41
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) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VILLA FRANCESCA - CDP 02-15 based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That the .proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal
Program and all applicable policies in that the project is consistent with Section
21.18.045(~)(3)@) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code which requires senior citizen
housing projects to be consistent with all certified local program provisions, with the
exception of density; the development consists of the demolition of six units and the
construction of 51 senior citizen airspace condominium units on previously graded
and developed property; the development does not obstruct views of the coast line as
seen from public lands or public right-of-way or otherwise damage the visual beauty
of the coastal zone; and no agricultural activities, sensitive resources, geological
instability or coastal access opportunities exist on the previously graded and
developed site.
The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will
adhere to the City’s Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan
and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased runoff and soil erosion, no steep slopes
or native vegetation is located on the subject property and the site is not located in
an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or
liquefaction.
The project is not located in the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone, according to Map X of
the Land Use Plan, certified September 1990 and, therefore, is not subject to the
provisions of the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.202 of the Zoning
Ordinance).
The project is not located between the sea and the first public road parallel to the sea and,
therefore, is not subject to the provisions of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay
Zone (Chapter 21.204 of the Zoning Ordinance).
The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of
Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that there are no public recreation or access
requirements for this property.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to Final Map
approval (CT 02-1 0).
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
PC RES0 NO. 5322 -2- la
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.
3.
4.
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Coastal Development Permit.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make
them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CT 02-10, SDP 02-04 and CP
02-15 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No.
5318,5319,5320 and 5321 for those other approvals incorporated by reference herein.
If a grading permit is required, all grading activities shall be planned in units that can be
completed by October 1st. Grading activities shall be limited to the “dry season”, April
1st to October 1st of each year. Grading activities may be extended to November 15th or
beyond upon written approval of the City Engineer and only if all erosion control
measures are in place by October 1st.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance ‘with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5322 -3- L3
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
Commi ssi on
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of February, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
~n iL
JUL@ BWR, Chairperson
Cw PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOEMILmR
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5322 -4-
EXHIBIT 4 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: August 28, 2002
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 18,2002 Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy
Project Engineer: John Maashoff
SUBJECT: CT 02-10KP 02-05/SDP 02-04KDP 02-15 - VILLA FRANCESCA - Request
for a recommendation for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a recommendation of
approval for a Tentative Subdivision Map, Condominium Permit, Site
Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit for a 51-unit senior
condominium project located on the east side of Jefferson Street, north of Laguna
Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5318, 5319,
5320, 5321 and 5322 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of
CT 02-10, CP 02-05, SDP 02-04, and CDP 02-15 based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The applicant proposes to consolidate and develop three lots totaling 0.84 acres with a 51-unit
senior housing air-space condominium project. Six existing units will be demolished as part of
the proposal. The project will require approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit,
Site Development Plan, and Coastal Development Permit. The applicant is requesting a density
increase of 42 units as an incentive to develop the site for senior housing and to reserve 51% of
the units as affordable to low and moderate income households. The project has been reviewed
by the City’s Housing Policy Team and the team is supportive of the senior housing project, the
affordability component, and the proposed density increase. The project would not have a
significant effect on the environment and a mitigated negative declaration has been issued for the
project. The project complies with City standards and all necessary findings can be made for the
approvals being requested. Because the project contains over 50 units, the project will require
finel approval by the City Council.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The 0.84-acre project site currently consists of three rectangular-shaped lots which are currently
developed with two units on each lot. The lots all front on Jefferson Street and are surrounded
by single-family development to the east, and multi-family development on the north, south and
west. The site is relatively level and slopes gently from the northeast comer of the property to
the southwest corner. The project will require approximately 9,800 cu. yds. of cut, 400 cu. yds.
CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15 - VILLA FRANCESCA
December 18,2002
Page 2
of fill, and 9,400 cu. yds. of export generated primarily from the excavation of soil for the
subterranean garage.
The project consists of the demolition of the six existing units on three lots, and the construction
of a 51-unit senior housing air-space condominium with a 55-space subterranean parking garage.
The three-story building is designed around a central courtyard and features a Mediterranean
architectural theme. A centralized entry feature faces towards Jefferson Street and provides a
direct pedestrian connection to the street. The existing bus stop just south of the site will be
moved near the entrance to the project and will be upgraded with a new bench and trash
receptacle. The building is well articulated and includes “tower” accent elements, variations in
the roof plane, and numerous balconies which provide a desirable combination of both recessed-.
and projecting elements that result in an attractive architectural design. The building will have a
two-tone off-white stucco exterior and terra cotta colored concrete roof tiles. A number of
decorative elements are incorporated into the architectural design and include features such as
arched windows, balconies with cast stone railings, and foam trim details at the eave line and
under the windows. This high level of detail is incorporated in all four elevations. Mechanical
equipment will be roof-mounted and screened by the roof parapet. The overall building height
ranges from 32 to 34 feet and is below the 35-foot height limit. The three-story building has
been designed so that the third story is stepped-back 15 feet on the fiont elevation and stepped-
back 10 feet on the rear elevation so that the mass of the building is greatly reduced and the
building appears to look more like a two-story structure.
The units range in size from a 636 square foot 1-bedroom, 1-bath unit to a 1,179 square foot 2-
bedroom, 2-bath units. Each unit has either a private balcony (ranging in size from 42 sq. ft. to
350 sq. ft.) or a view into the courtyard area, or both in some instances. The project also features
over 11,800 sq. ft. of common open space which includes a library and interior lounge area, a
recreation room with kitchen facilities, an arts and crafts room, a gwexercise room, “garden
patio deck” in the courtyard area, and an outdoor lap pool. The project also features a
subterranean parking garage and each unit will be allocated one parking space. Four parking
spaces will be available for guest or handicap parking. Several storage closets are also available
in the basement parking area and will be managed by the HOA.
The site is zoned R-3 as are the sites north, south and east of the subject property. The project
will require approval of a tentative map and condominium permit to allow the subdivision of the
project into air-space condominiums. This would be one of the few senior housing projects that
allows private ownership of the units. The project also requires approval of a site development
plan for the proposed density increase, to review the project against the senior housing standards,
and for the inclusionary housing component of the proposal. The permitted density yield for the
property is 9 units based on the Growth Management Growth Control Point (GCP) dwelling unit
allowance of 11.5 du/acre. The applicant is requesting an additional 42 dwelling units as an
incentive to construct the project as senior condominiums and to reserve 5 1 % of the units for low
and moderate income households. The 5 1-unit project would result in a density of 61 ddac.
City Council approval of the SDP is required pursuant to Section 21.53.120 of the Zoning
Ordinance since the project proposes over 50 dwelling units.
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards, and policies:
A. General Plan RMH (Residential-Medium High) designation;
I7
D.
E.
F.
J. A
CT 02-1 O/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-1 5 - VILLA FRANCESCA
December 18,2002
Page 3
B. Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance);
C. Chapter 21.45 - Planned Development (Condominium Permit)
1. Chapter 21.18.045 - Senior Citizen Housing
2. Chapter 21.16 - R-3 Zone
3. Chapter 2 1.44 - Parking
4. Chapter 21.85 - Inclusionary Housing
5. Section 21.53.120 - Site Development Plan
Local Coastal Program (Mello 11);
Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the C.M.C.); and
Growth Management (Chapter 21.90 of the C.M.C).
.NALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of
the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
A. General Plan
The project is consistent with the following elements of the General Plan as indicated by the
following table:
GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT
Land Use
USE, CLASSIFICATION,
GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR
PROGRAM
RMH - Residential Medium-
High Density:
8- 15 ddacre
GCP: 11.5 ddacre
Zoning consistency with
General Plan
CONSISTENCY
Proposed density = 61 du/acre
(9 units + 42 unit density increase
= 51 units).
The project exceeds the growth
control point of 1 1.5 ddacre
however the findings required by
the City’s Growth Management
Plan can be made to exceed the
Growth Control Point.
R-3 Zone:
Senior Citizen Housing is
permitted by Site Development
Plan in the R-3 designation.
COMPLY
?
Yes*
Yes*
Yes
CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15 - VILLA FRANCESCA
December 18,2002
Housing
Circulation
Open Space
&
Conservation
GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE, continued
USE, CLASSIFICATION,
GOLA, OBJECTIVE, OR
PROGRAM
Provide additional senior
housing for seniors of different
income groups
Density Increase Policy
Minimum Inclusionary
Housing requirement of 15%
of all units approved shall be
affordable to lower income
households.
Require new development to
dedicate and improve all
roadways, utilities, and
drainage facilities
Minimize environmental
impacts to sensitive resources
within the City
Implement Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to avoid
degradation of water quality
that are necessary to serve
development.
CONSISTENCY
~~~~ ~ The project will provide 51 one
and two bedroom “for-sale”
senior condominiums. 26 units
will be affordable to low and
moderate income senior
households.
100% of units are for senior
housing. 8 units (15.7%) will be
reserved for low income
households and 18 units (35.3%)
will be reserved for moderate
income households.
The project satisfies the 15%
inclusionary housing requirement
of 8 units which are affordable to
low income families and also
provides 35% of the units
affordable to moderate income
households.
All public facilities including
curb, gutter and sidewalk exist
along the property frontage on
Jefferson Street.
The project will not result in any
environmental impacts to the
existing developed site.
The project is conditioned to
prepare and implement a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) plan that will ensure
BMPs are imposed.
COMPLY
?
Yes
-
Yes
Yes
CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15 - VILLA FRANCESCA
December 18,2002
ELEMENT
Noise
Public Safety
GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE, continued
USE, CLASSIFICATION,
GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR
CONSISTENCY
PROGRAM
Residential interior noise
standard of 45 dBA CNEL
The project is conditioned to
comply with the 45 dBA CNEL
interior standard. Common open
space recreation areas are subject
to noise levels less than the City’s
60 dBA CNEL exterior noise
standard.
Provide project review that
impacted by geologic or seismic and geologic hazards
significantly impact or be allows consideration of seismic
Project improvements will not
conditions.
COMPLY
?
Yes
Yes
*A finding of compliance with the RMH land use designation is contingent upon approval of the
density increase to 61 du/ac requested as an incentive for developing the project as a senior
citizen housing project and for preserving 26 inclusionary units affordable to low and moderate
income households. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Growth Management
Ordinance and General Plan Residential Implementing Policy C.3 for density increases in that
there are excess dwelling units in the northwest quadrant; the project is compatible with
surrounding development; adequate public facilities are provided; and a major roadway,
commercial center, and transit center are in close proximity to the development.
B 1’2, 3 & 4. Planned Development (Condominium Permit)/Senior Citizen Housing
Regulations/R-3 Zone/Parking Ordinance
The project requires approval of Condominium Permit, pursuant to the Planned Development
(PD) Ordinance, to enable the project to be developed as “for-sale” airspace condominiums. A
number of development standards are included in the PD Ordinance, however, Section 2 1.18.045
of the CMC allows rental or “for-sale” senior citizen housing subject to a different set of
development standards which are more applicable to senior needs. Therefore, although the
findings required for a Planned Development Permit (Condo Permit) are still required, the
project will be evaluated for compliance with the senior citizen housing standards and not the PD
standards. The table below illustrates how the project complies with the applicable senior
housing development standards, parking requirements, and the R-3 zone standards.
Setbacks:
Front :
Side:
Rear: I Height
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Senior housing Provided R-3 Standards
Requirement
N/A I 207
10’
1 207
107
207 207
N/A 32’’-34’ 3 5 ’ Maximum
19
CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15 - VILLA FRANCESCA
December 18,2002
Page 6
Standard
Building
Coverage
Parking:
Resident:
Guest parking:
Total reauired:
Common Areas
Architectural
Design
Elements
Laundry
Facilities .
Add ’1 design
criteria
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, contin
Senior housing
Requirement
NIA
1 space/2 units
1 resident manager space
(if appl.)
1 guest space
27 spaces required
20 sf;/unit(1,020 sf.
req’d)
Areas should be useful
and functional for
residents. (recreation
social room, common
cooking and dining
facility, passive open
space, reading/TV
rooms.)
Architectural harmony
with the neighborhood to
the maximum extent
feasible.
Equal level of
architectural treatment
on all building
elevations.
1 washer & 1 dryer for
every 25 dwelling units.
Buildings over two-
stories require an
elevator.
R-3 Standards
60% Maximum
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
ued
Provided
54%
1 space per unit
4 guest spaces
55 spaces provided
Over 1 1,800 sq. ft. of
common open space
including a library and
interior lounge area, a rec.
room with kitchen
facilities, an arts and crafts
room, a gyndexercise
room, “garden patio deck”
in the courtyard area, and
an outdoor lap pool.
The building does not
exceed the 35’ height limit
for the R-3 zone. The third
level has been stepped
back to reduce the mass of
the building. The building
size is similar to other
multi-family projects in the
vicinity.
All elevations have the
same roof and wall
materials, colors, and
similar level of
architectural features.
Washer & dryer provided
in each unit.
An elevator is proposed.
CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15 - VILLA FRANCESCA
December 18,2002
Page 7
In addition, the senior citizen housing standards also require that tubs are equipped with at least
one grab bar; that tub or shower bottoms are slip resistant; that peepholes are installed in entry
doors; and that all projects must conform with disabled access regulations. The project will be
conditioned to comply with these regulations.
B 5. Inclusionary Housing
The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that a minimum of 15% of all approved
units in any qualified residential project must be reserved as affordable to low income
households with incomes that are 80% of the AMI. The Inclusionary Housing requirement for:
this project is 8 units. In addition to reserving the 8 units for lower income households, the
applicant also proposes to reserve 18 of the units (35.3%)for moderate income households with
income levels at 120% of the AMI. This will result in 51% of the units being set aside for low or
moderate income households. The remaining 25 units (49%) will be market rate units.
The sale price for the inclusionary units will be set as a price affordable to the target income
level group, based on an assumed household size of no more than 2 persons for a two bedroom
unit. After the initial sale of the units, the inclusionary for-sale units must remain affordable to
subsequent income eligible buyers pursuant to a resale restriction with a term of thirty (30) years,
or for-sale units may be sold at a market price to other than targeted households provided that the
sale shall result in the recapture by the city or its designee of a financial interest in the units equal
to the amount of subsidy necessary to make the unit affordable to the designated income group
and a proportionate share of any appreciation.
B 6. Site Development Plan
The Zoning Ordinance requires approval of a site development plan for affordable housing
projects of any size and for projects which propose senior citizen housing. Incentives such as
development modifications and density increases to enable the reservation of affordable units are
permitted pursuant to Section 21.53.120 (Site Development Plan Requirements). The project is
requesting a 42 dwelling unit increase which would result in a density of 61 ddac. The density
increase is requested in exchange for reserving 5 1% of the units as affordable to low and
moderate income households. The site development plan must be processed pursuant to Chapter
21.06 (Qualified Overlay Zone) and findings must be made to ensure that the use is consistent
with the General Plan and will not adversely impact the site or surrounding uses, and that the site
and street system are adequate to accommodate the use. In addition, findings required for
development of senior citizen housing projects require that the project help achieve the city’s
senior and affordable housing goals as set forth in the General Plan; that the density increase is
necessary to make the project economically feasible; that the project shall not result in density or
design that is incompatible with other land uses in the immediate vicinity; and that the project
complies with the General Plan, zoning, certified local coastal program, and development
policies of the city. Therefore, approval of the proposed site development plan involves the
overall project, the senior housing component, and the affordable housing proposal.
The proposed site is located in close proximity to a range of commercial retail, professional, and
social and community services patronized by senior citizens. The existing bus stop just south of
the site will be relocated onto the site and will be upgraded to include a loading pad, bus bench,
and trash receptacle. The bus route provides service to the senior citizen complex, local mall, w
CT 02-1 O/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-1 5 - VILLA FRANCESCA
December 18,2002
Pa.3e 8
shops, restaurants, downtown village, Carlsbad Company Stores, Costco, the Poinsettia Village
Shopping Center, and the Village and Poinsettia coaster stations. The topographically level site
is suitable for the proposed development and would not be detrimental to public health, safety,
and general welfare.
The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use since all of the project’s parking,
open space, and other amenities can be provided on-site without any reduction in the required
setbacks. The project provides over twice the parking required for senior citizen projects. The
lot coverage of 54% is below the maximum 60% lot coverage allowed. All required minimum
setbacks are provided, and the third story of the building has been stepped-back to reduce the
overall building mass. The architectural design is finished on all sides with similar roof and
wall materials, colors and architectural accent features. The project has been designed so that ii
will be compatible with the surrounding land uses and the building mass will be similar to
several of the surrounding multi-family apartment projects. The proposed project density of 61
du/ac is consistent with three other senior citizen housing projects nearby in the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Area which have densities ranging from 63.5 du/ac to 75 du/ac.
With the site’s current density allowance, the project could be developed with nine units
resulting in an estimated 72 Average Daily Trips (ADT). Although the project will result in an
overall traffic increase of 204 ADT, the additional ADT generated by the senior citizen housing
project is not likely to occur during normal “peak hours” and will not reduce the road segment or
intersection levels of service to below the City’s level of “By’ during the PM peak.
The project exceeds the density permitted by the RMH General Plan designation by 42 units.
The project complies with General Plan policies requiring that projects requesting density
increases above the density range satisfy the following criteria: that the project is compatible in
density and design with surrounding development; the infill project is served by or conditioned
to construct adequate public facilities; the site is in proximity to a major roadway and NCTD
services; and commercial services are provided by nearby neighborhood and regional shopping
centers. Since the proposed density increase requires the allocation of 42 units from the City’s
“Excess Dwelling Units,’’ findings that the project is consistent with City Council Policy 43 must
also be made. Policy 43 establishes priorities for the allocation of excess dwelling units existing
in each quadrant of the City to avoid exceeding the Growth Management maximum dwelling
unit caps. A finding that excess units are available must be made prior to granting density
increases and the project must qualify as a priority project. There are excess dwelling units
available in the northwest quadrant and the project satisfies criteria established by Policy 43 for
first and second priority projects: 8 units (15.7 %) are reserved for low income households (first
priority) and an additional 18 units (35.3 %) will be reserved for moderate income households;
and the project will be developed entirely for qualified senior households (second priority).
The Housing Policy Team has reviewed the applicant’s pro forma and has recommended
approval of the density increase in order to make the project economically feasible for the
developer. The density increase is a necessary incentive to offset the subsidy required for the
project to be developed as senior housing with 51% of the units affordable to low and moderate
income senior households. The increased density from 11.5 du/ac to 61 ddac will allow the
project to be developed to help achieve the City’s senior and affordable housing goals as set forth
in the Housing Element of the General Plan by providing housing which is affordable to lower
income households and senior citizens.
CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15 - VILLA FRANCESCA
December 18,2002
Page 9
C. Local Coastal Program compliance
The proposed project site is located outside the appeal area of the City’s Coastal Zone and lies
within the Mello I1 segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP).
Mello I1 Segment
The proposed project is consistent with the Mello I1 segment of the LCP which contains land use
policies for development and conservation of coastal land and water areas within the segment
boundaries. The policies of the Mello I1 segment emphasize topics such as preservation of
agriculture and scenic resources, protection of environmentally sensitive resources, provision of
shoreline access and prevention of geologic instability and erosion.
The project is consistent with the coastal act policies as follows: a) no agricultural lands exist. on
the project site, therefore no impacts to such will occur; b) the site does not contain
environmentally sensitive habitats, water or marine resources; c) the site is geologically stable
and the proposed grading for the site has been limited to the area necessary to develop the site; d)
the project has been designed to reduce the amount of off-site runoff by surface drains and has
been conditioned to implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
standards to ensure the quality of the water leaving the site; e) the project meets the parking
requirements for senior housing; f) the project does not preclude any recreational opportunities
or shoreline access as the property is located on the east side of Jefferson Street; and g) the
development does not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or public right-
of-way. Since the project is in an area of very low risk of impact to sensitive costal resources, an
extension of the grading season beyond the normal November 15th deadline may be permitted
and is included as a condition of approval in Resolution No. 5322. Given the above, the project
is consistent with the Mello I1 segment land use policies.
D. Subdivision Ordinance
The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and concludes that the
subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s
Subdivision Ordinance. The project is conditioned to install all infrastructure improvements
concurrent with development. Access to the site will be from a private driveway off of Jefferson
Street to an underground parking garage. The proposed building setbacks and interior courtyard
design will allow for adequate air circulation and the opportunity for passive heating and
cooling.
E. Growth Management
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest
quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance
with the adopted perfonnance standards are summarized in the following table.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE I STANDARD I IMPACTS I COMPLIANCE I
City Administration
Yes 94.57 square feet Library
Yes 177.31 square feet
73
CT 02-1 OICP 02-05lSDP 02-04/CDP 02-1 5 - VILLA FRANCESCA
December 18,2002
Pape 10
I Waste Water Treatment I51 EDU I Yes
Parks Yes 0.35 acre
Drainage Basin A
Yes NIA Schools
Yes NIA Open Space
Yes Station No. 1 Fire
Yes 204 ADT Circulation
Yes
Sewer Collection System
*The project is 42 units above the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance
Yes 11,220 GPD Water
Yes 51 EDU
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a
potentially significant impact on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. As a result of
said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the
environment, but mitigation measures agreed to by the applicant would avoid or mitigate the
effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and there is
no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project “as revised” may have a
significant impact on the environment.
A rate of 204 Average Daily Trips (ADT) would be generated by the proposed project. This
ADT is higher than the generation rate analyzed for the site in the MEIR, however, because
excess dwelling units exist within this quadrant, the ADT is within the range anticipated for the
affected road segments and intersections. The traffic study prepared for the project showed that
the project will not have a significant impact on the roadway segments or intersections, and
therefore, no mitigation measures in the form of roadway improvements are necessary.
The project site has been disturbed by previous development and grading. The adjacent
properties are developed with residential land uses and all the support utilities and infrastructure
has .been constructed or has been conditioned to be constructed. Since the project is subject to
noise impacts from Jefferson Street, an acoustical analysis was prepared for the project. The
required common recreation areas located within the courtyard and at the rear of the site are
protected by the building placement and noise levels within theses areas do not exceed the City’s
exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL. Interior noise levels may exceed 45 dBA CNEL,
therefore, a mitigation measure is included which requires the applicant to submit a supplemental
acoustical analysis prior to issuance of a building permit to insure that the plans have been
designed so that interior noise levels are mitigated to 45 dBA or less.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the project on November 4, 2002. No comments were received during the 30-day public
review period.
7Lf
CT 02- 1 O/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02- 15 - VILLA FRANCESCA
December 18,2002
Page - 11
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 53 18 (Mitigated Negative Declaration)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5319 (CT)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5320 (CP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5321 (SDP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5322 (CDP)
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form
Disclosure Statement
Reduced Exhibits
Exhibits “A” - “Q” dated December 18,2002
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-1 5
CASE NAME: VILLA FRANCESCA
APPLICANT: Anthony De Leonardis
REQUEST AND LOCATION: 51 unit senior housing air-space condominium proiect located
on the east side of Jefferson Street, north of Laguna Drive
LEGAL, DESCRIPTION: Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, in Block 1 of Sunny Slope Tract, in
the Citv of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. State of California, according to Map thereof No
486. filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego - County. February 7, 1888.
APN: 155-271 -19,20,21 & 22 Acres: 0.84 Proposed No. of LotsKJnits: 5 1 unitdl lot -
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RMH
Density Allowed: 1 1.5 ddac Density Proposed: 61 du/ac
Existing Zone: R-3 Proposed Zone: N/A
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning General Plan
Site R-3 RMH
North R-3 RMH
South R-3 RMH
East R-2-Q & R- 1-7,500 RMH & RLM
West R-3 RH
.5 Current Land Use
SFWulti-family
Multi-family
Multi-family
Small-lot SFR & SFR
Multi-familv
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 5 1 EDU
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued November 4.2002
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
0 Other,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1 GENERAL PLAN: RMH
FILE NAME AND NO: VILLA FRANCESCA - CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDl? 02-15
ZONING: R-3
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Anthony De Leonardis
ADDRESS: 2802 State St., Suite C Carlsbad. CA 92008
-
PHONE NO.: 760-738-8388 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 155-271-19,20,21. & 22
QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 0.84 acres/51 units
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 177.3 1 sf
B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = 94.57 sf
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) n/a
E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = 2.17 CFS
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = 0.35 acres
Identify Drainage Basin = Basin A
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 204 ADT
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 1
Open Space: Acreage Provided = n/a
Schools: n/a
Sewer: Demands in EDU 51 EDU
Identify Sub Basin = VistaKarlsbad -
Interceptor Sewer
Drainage Basin
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD = 1 1,220 GPD
The project is 42 units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
- City of Carlsbad
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.”
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a cornoration or Dartnership, include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned cornoration, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
COrpPart
Title dud* Title
Address &&‘L !%?flfl-$- Gj)%c Address
cdw.-f3w 1 0- 7290d
2. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
comoration or Dartnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned cornoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person 4,- OH& 6 CorpPart
Title owps Title
Address *@Q ‘Z 5mS 57 SujjWC Address
C’/?&L+blW
If any person identified pursuanr to (1 ) or (Zi above 1s a nonutofir or~an~zat:on or 3 R-JZ:. i:~: ::lL
names and addresses of A!?’ person sening as an officer or direcror of the non-p;o!i:
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non ProfirTrusr
4. Have you had more than S2SO worth of business transacted with any member of Cln staff.
Boards, Commrssions, Committees and/or Council wittun the past wehe (1 2) months?
Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s): BA -! p& x-
I
1 certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of &er/date Signature of applicanvdate
Print or type name of owner
Signature of owner/appIicant’s agent if applicablddate
Ant or type name of applicant
Print or rype name of owncr/applicant’s agent
39
x
k
r I I
ai
J
b
- '1-
I I
-I
! .i
I
4 i
b 5!
f c -
I
I I
I I
"" t "A
86
L 0 0 ii E E l-
." " ""
a
I i \I . I'
"
n
r II
89
8
3.r zp
r
Y
"
i
." ." ""
E 0 2
" " "
4"
93
0 x
.- 1 I I I I I I I I I
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I
I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I
I I I mi
I I I I I I
1- I I-
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
95
jg: 96
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: August 28,2002
P.C. AGENDA OF: February 5,2003 Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy
Project Engineer: John Maashoff
SUBJECT: CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15 - VILLA FRANCESCA - Request
for a recommendation for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a recommendation of
approval for a Tentative Subdivision Map, Condominium Permit, Site
Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit for a 5 1-unit senior
condominium project located on the east side of Jefferson Street, north of Laguna
Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 53 18, 5319,
5320, 5321 and 5322 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of
CT 02-10, CP 02-05, SDP 02-04, and CDP 02-15 based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
At the December 18, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission made a motion to continue this
item to the February 5, 2003 meeting so that staff could research the resident and guest parking
requirements for senior housing projects in other jurisdictions. Several of the Commissioners
were concerned that there may not be adequate parking for the project, particularly with regard to
guest parking. The Commission was also concerned about traffic and the existing on-street
parking problems in the area and asked staff to look at these issues to see if something could be
done with the traffic and parking. Staff was able to research the parking requirements for a
number of jurisdictions and also surveyed several built projects, including the four senior
projects in the northwest quadrant of Carlsbad. A number of statistics and reports were also
reviewed to help determine what parking requirements would be suitable for this project. The
applicant also had an opportunity to layout the parking garage in a more efficient manner and 61
parking spaces are now provided. The new layout is included as an attachment for the Planning
Commission’s review.
Staff surveyed other cities both within and outside of San Diego (SD) County. The results were
inconclusive in that there was a wide range of parking requirements for senior housing projects
with no one set of standards which appeared to be prevailing. A number of jurisdictions had no
special standards for senior housing. In other words, the standard parking rates, which would
typically be 2 spaces per unit, would apply to senior projects. However, it is important to note
CT 02-1 O/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02- 15 - VILLA FRANCESCA
February 5,2003
Page 2
that modifications to reduce standard parking requirements can be granted for senior citizen
housing projects requesting a density increase under the State Density Bonus Law. Other
jurisdictions recognized that senior projects may have unique parking requirements and
specifically allow a parking reduction at the discretion of the Planning Commission or City
Council. In jurisdictions where special parking standards have been developed for senior
projects the parking requirements ranged from 1.2 spaces per unit (which included resident
parking) to 1/2 space per unit. Two jurisdictions outside SD County had even lower parking
rates of only 1/4 space per unit, however these rates applied to rentals units and units which were
deed restricted for low or moderate income households. With regard to guest parking spaces, the
requirements ranged from none required to 1 space for every 5 units.
Staff was able to obtain limited information for several existing senior projects to see if there was
a difference in parking requirements for owner vs. rental projects. There appear to be a limited
number of “for sale” projects and data is generally not available which distinguishes between
ownership and rental units. In the projects surveyed, the “for sale” projects all had at least one
parking space per unit with a high of 1.76 spaces per unit (resident/guest parking combined).
Rental projects on the other hand showed that parking was provided at a maximum rate of 1.14
spaces to a low of 0.1 1 spaces per units in the SD Gaslamp district. The survey seems to indicate
that more parking is generally required for a “for sale” project, however, the survey group was
rather small to come up with any conclusive evidence.
-
SANDAG was able to assist staff by generating data which shows the number of vehicles owned
by households categorized by age group (55-64, 65-74, and 75 or older) and by housing type
(single family vs. multi-family/mobile home). It is important to note that the data does not
indicate the number of persons in the household. Furthermore, the age range is for head of
household and could include persons outside of that range such as teenagers living at the home.
Nonetheless, the data showed that the average number of cars owned by persons living in multi-
family projects was less than the number of cars owned by occupants in single-family dwellings.
The average number of vehicles also dropped dramatically as the age of the household increased.
The results showed that the average number of vehicles owned by families with the head of
household at 55 years old or older in multifamily/mobile homes is 1-1 vehicles.
The four projects in the northwest quadrant of Carlsbad were studied and it was found that the
average age of residents in these senior housing projects ranged from 70 to 73 years old. The
average number of vehicles owned per household is 0.53 vehicles. This average is lower than
figures shown in the SANDAG data, probably because the households in the SNAG report
may include persons other than just “senior qualified” residents. Surprisingly, the number of
vehicles per household was higher for the 100% affordable project on Tyler Court than for the
market rate projects.
A senior housing parking study was also prepared by SANDAG for the City of San Diego in
1984. The survey included a random selection of 12 complexes with a total of 1,274 units. The
survey indicates that the average vehicle ownership rate for senior citizens is around 0.56
CT O2-1O/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15 - VILLA FRANCESCA
February 5,2003
Page 3
vehicles per unit. Based on this study, the City of San Diego increased the parking requirements
for senior housing to 1 space per unit with no additional guest parking required.
Staff was also able to obtain a report prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE),
prepared in 1996, analyzing senior housing trip generation rates and parking demand
characteristics. Five categories of senior housing were identified, ranging from senior single-
family homes to congregate care facilities. However, the report states that the data does not
distinguish between the categories listed. This is a problem that staff has consistently found
when trying to research data for senior housing. The report identifies some key points that are
important to keep in mind when evaluating a senior project:
1. As the average age of residents increases, the number of trips and parking demand
decreases.
2. The economic well-being of residents increases the likelihood that they will own a car
and thus drive and park.
3. The peak hour traffic volumes for seniors occur between 11 :00 am and 4:OO pm.
These peak hour times do not coincide with the peak hour of adjacent street traffic
because residents do not have to or want to travel during the rush hour.
4. Bus, shuttle, or chauffeur service provide an option to owning an auto.
5. The report found that the peak parking demand at most senior facilities occurred at
mid-day with an average peak demand of 0.40 vehicles per dwelling unit for
residents, employees, and visitors.
6. The peak parking day of the year is Mother’s Day when many facilities run out of
visitor parking.
In evaluating this information, there was no one answer that surfaced as the optimal number of
parking spaces for a senior housing project. Variables such as the age of residents, location of
the project to public transportation, economic status of occupants, and ownership vs. rental units
all have a bearing on the anticipated parking needs. Based on the information gathered, the
following conclusions were drawn to try to determine what would be an adequate parking
requirement for this project.
1. Residents of senior housing projects in Carlsbad are 70.75 years of age on the average so
the likelihood of car ownership is beginning to decrease.
2. Since 51% of the units will be affordable to low and moderate income households, the
likelihood for car ownership should be less than if the project was 100% market rate.
99
CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15 - VILLA FRANCESCA
February 5,2003
Pane 4
3. The Villa Francesca project is within walking distance of downtown Carlsbad and is
adjacent to a bus stop, thereby providing an alternative to automobile ownership.
4. It is anticipated that there will be at least 0.56 cars per unit, but it will most likely be
closer to 0.7 cars per unit.
5. The peak parking demand occurs at mid-day. If overflow guest parking was necessary, it
would most likely occur during the day when other residents in the vicinity that use the
streets for parking are at work or away. Staff visited the site several times during
working hours and never experienced any difficulty finding a parking space.
Carlsbad senior housing projects have an average of 0.53 vehicles per dwelling unit with a high
of 0.73 vehicles per dwelling unit, but these are rental projects and the rates may be higher for
ownership properties. Staff suggests that 80-90% of the owners may have a vehicle and a rate of
0.8 to 0.9 spaces per unit would apply to the project. Parking rates of 0.2 spacejunit (1 space per
every 5 units) appear to be the most common rate for visitor parking. This results in a combined
parking rate for residenthisitor parking of 1 .O to 1.1 spaces per unit. Staff believes that this
would provide more than adequate parking for the project. This rate correlates with the
SANDAG data showing an average of 1.1 vehicles owned in households with head of household
as 55 years or older (multi-family/mobile home), taking into consideration that these are not
“senior only” households so the rate of vehicle ownership shown is probably higher than it
would be for “seniors only”. The ITE data showing a parking demand of 0.4 vehicles per
dwelling unit is probably too low since this includes the entire range of categories of senior
projects. With a combined residenthisitor parking requirement of 1 .O to 1.1 spaces per unit, the
51 unit project would require 51 to 57 (56.1) spaces.
The applicant was able to redesign the parking garage and developed a more efficient use of
space. As shown on the plan, 61 spaces are now provided in the parking garage for a rate of just
under 1.2 spaces per unit. 51 spaces would be available for residents with 10 spaces for guests.
As discussed previously, if resident parking spaces are not utilized by an owner, those spaces
would also be available for guest parking. The project provides from 3 to 10 additional parking
spaces over the 51 to 57 spaces recommended by staff, and is well over the 27 parking spaces
required by the zoning ordinance. Therefore, staff still supports the recommendation for
approval, subject to the revisions shown on the revised Exhibits “C, D, and E.”
With regard to the existing on-street parking problems, the Planning Commission could
recommend, by minute motion to the City Manager or City Council, to direct staff to prepare a
comprehensive parking study for the area to analyze the existing situation. A number of
alternatives could be examined in the study including permit parking or time limits for parking.
If it is found that there are safety issues involved, then additional traffic signals or signs may be
warranted. The Engineering Department will be commencing their 2003 traffic counts in
designated locations and this neighborhood could be added to that scope of work.
CT 02- 1 O/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02- 15 - VILLA FRANCESCA
February 5,2003
Page 5
At the February 5,2003 meeting, staff will have diagrams showing the turn lane proposed in the
traffic study and how it would impact the on-street parking in the area. Staff does not
recommend adding a mid-block turn lane since it would result in the loss of on-street parking in
the area.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 53 18 (Mitigated Negative Declaration)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5319 (CT)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5320 (CP) -
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5321 (SDP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5322 (CDP)
Location Map
Reduced Revised Exhibits “C, D, and E”
Other City Parking Requirements for Senior Citizen Housing
Existing Senior Housing Projects (rental vs. ownership)
SANDAG 1990 Census Data - Households by Vehicle Available by Age of
Householder
Comparison of Carlsbad Senior Housing Projects in the Northwest Quadrant
City of San Diego Senior Housing Parking Needs Survey
Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Demand Characteristics
Staff Report dated December 18,2002
Minutes of the December 18,2002 Planning Commission Meeting
Full Size Revised Exhibits “C, D, and E’ dated February 5,2003
I
', Y"
e Q 60
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I !
ATTACHMENT 8
OTHER CITY PARKING REQUIRMENTS FOR SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING
RESIDENT PARKING
REOUIREMENT
VISITOR PARKING
REOUIREMENT
CITY
WITHIN
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Chula Vista
Coronado, Del Mar,
El Cajon, Escondido,
La Mesa, Lemon Grove
Encinitas
No special standards for senior housing
Standard residential parking requirement
none
1 space per every 4 units
(multifamily)
none
No special standards for senior housing
Standard residential parking requirement
2 spaces per unit (standard residential)
May be reduced at discretion of Planning
Commission and City Council for senior
housing
Special Senior Citizen Housing Zone
Parking determined through Planned
Development Permit
1.2 spaces per unit
1 space per unit
Imperial Beach
Determined through Planned
Development Permit
National City
Oceanside
(included in resident parking ratio)
none
Poway
San Diego
San Marcos
No special standards for senior housing
Standard residential Darking reauirement
1 space per unit (multifamily) Santee
1 space per every 5 units
.33 space per unit (multifamily)
1 space per unit
No special standards for senior housing
Standard residential parking requirement
Solana Beach
Vista
OUTSIDE
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Dana Point 1 space per every 2 units, plus 1
space for a resident manager
(included in resident parking ratio)
1 space per unit
1 space per studio or 1-bedroom unit
2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit
.5 mace Der bedroom
Duarte
1 space per every 2 units Foster City
Irvine
Long Beach
Parking Studv
1 space per each 2 bedrooms (low rent); or
1 space per each 1 bedroom (market rent)
1 space per every 2 units
1 space per every 2 units
none
Los Angeles
Manhattan Beach
none
1 guest space per every 5 units,
1 space per employee, and
1 loading space
none .8 space per studio or 1-bedroom unit
space must be provided on-site to provide a
minimum .2 space per unit should need arise
(equivalent to 1 space per unit)
2 spaces per unit
1 space per every 4 rental units;
1 space per each for-sale unit
1 space per every 2 units; or
1 space per every 4 units if deed restricted for
low or moderate income
Marina
San Dimas none
none San Mateo
Santa Monica 1 space per every 5 units
Seaside 1 space per unit
1 space per every 2 units
none
1 space per every 5 units Temecula
ATTACHMENT 9
TTACHMENT 10
W-
F
$ n co
7
?I
9 0 r al
.. i! 7 0 v)
/D 7
a a 0,
l-
l-
I s
XI
cu 0 0 cu
9 E s 8
l- "
ATTACHMENT 11
DEC, -31' 02 (TUE) 16~56 SANDAG
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
SENIOR HOUSING PARKING NEEDS SURVEY
NOVEMBER, 1984
ATTACHMENT 12
Survey Conducted by: San Diego Association of Governments
1200 Third Avenue, Suite 524 San Diego, CA 92101
DEC. -31' 02 (TUE) 16:57 SANDAG P. 003
I
_.
htroduction
T
Tbe City Df Sam Diego currently grants conditional we permits for the construc-
tion of eeaior housing projects. Developers of these projects are given two incen-
tives: (1) they are allowed to build at a density 50% greater than that provided
for h t be Community Plea, and (2) t bere la a reduction in t be amount of off-atreet
parking required. Normally, the amount of off-street parking required is 1.3
spaces for each one-bedroom unit aad 1.6 spaces for each two-bedroom unit.
These requhementa are ?educed for senior housing projects to one *ace for every
two one-bedroom units and one qace for each twa-bedroom unit. AB ma example,
a non-senior bauslng project of 14 one-bedroom units would require 18 parking
+aces; B eimilar housing project for senior citizens would require only 7 parking
spaces.
In July, 1984, the City's 'haasportation and Land Uee Committee beard public
testimony on parking requirement6 for sed& citizen housjng projects. Several of
tbOBe testifying complained that inadequate parking was provided. Due to these
comments and other indications of a parking ehortage in these complexes, the
Committee ditected tbe PIannCng Department staff to prepare a study of this
situation. ,
A6 part of tbls etudy, the City requested that SANDAG conduct a uurvey of resf-
dart6 of senlor housing complexer. The mey was designed to determine a pro-
file of the residents relative to their vehicle ownershlp, persona per unit, assigned
parking Lpaces, and attitudes about the parking supply.
Met bodolqy
At the. time of tbie moey, there were 48 senior bowing projects in tbe City with
a total of 4,544 occupied units. (This figure changes constantly, M new projects
me built.] It was decided that completed surveys from ten percent of the total
units would give an adequate representation of the total.
eimilar surveys, a response rate of 35% to 45% was expected,
DEC. -31' 02 (TUE) 16: 57 SANDAG
.-
A similar suroey was cardwted for the City in '1982, although It was a survey of
all condominium projects, not specifically senior citizen projects.. Since the
object of both ramreps was the same (to evaluate tbe dequacy of parking
requiremate) many of the same questions were used. A comparison of respmses
to both muveys can be found in the last section of this report.
Twelve complexes containing 1,274 units were randomly eelected from a list of
eenior busing projects provided by City etaff. Puring tbe flrst part of October, -
the eumeys were banddelivered to each unit after obtabing permieelan to do EO
from the walte merager or owner of each complex. In ordet to improve the
response rate, the surveys were printed with the City seal on the front along with
a ehort paragraph describing the survey and requesting participation. Abo, each
rurvey WM left with a poetage-paid return envelope, Survey response6 were
received shortly after tbe survey was delivered. A cut-ff time period of twenty
days from emey delivery was established.
After the survey was conducted, it was determined that one of the projects
(Midway) contaiaiag 255 'units was built before the City implemented the 62 and
over age requirement. Since 73% of the units in this complex did not. have a
resident age 62 or over, It bae been eliminated from this analysir.
DEC. -31' OZITUE) 16:57 SANDAG P. 005
TABLE 1
SELECTED SENmIOA CITIZEN. HOUSING PROJECTS
Address
3776 Alabama St. 6106 Beadnell Wy, 3681 Fairmount Ave.
6884 Golfcrest Dr.
3940 Park Blvd.
1220 Robinson Ave. 7707 Tommy Dr.
740 S. 36th St. 4260 44th St. 260 50th St. 5207 52nd PI.
No. of No. of
Units Responses -
164
88 lo
126
101
35
160 76
36
148
75 -
75
34
4
67 44 15 52
47 16
70 50 -
1,019 474
he paeslble area of coafusiorr in this survey wa8 the underetandhg of the term
. "unit.' Thla was not a problem on tbe previously-conducted suroq; however, Borne
of the respondents to this eurtrep apparently misuaderstood questjaw such 86 "Are
there parkiag spaces asrsigned mpecifically to your unit?" Some respondents gave
such amwere as "Yea - 57 garage spaces," leadiag one to believe tbat they
thought "unit" meant "complex." While tMs relatloely minor problem does not
. affect the usefulness of tbe surrey results, it does causes Borne difficulty when
calculating averages (for esample, average number of rchkles per &nit). This
situation is discussed in greater detail at the end of this report,
One of tbe requirements placed on tbe owner of theee eenior citizen complexes by
tbe City is that at )eat one person in every unit must be age 62 ar over. How-
ever, 18% of the unlta rumeyed report& not .having myone aver 62 years of age
living there. The range was from 35% with no one over -e 62 ia the 50th Street
complex down to 0% kr the Fairmount project. (See Table 2.1
3
%
Remonee
46%
39
40
53
44
43
33
62 44
47 67
47%
-
DEC. -31' 02 (TUE) 16:57 SANDAG P. 006
TABLE 2
PERCENT OF UNITS WITH NO RESIDENT AGE 62 OR OVER BY PROJECT
3776 Alabama St.
6106 BeadaeU Way
3681 Fairmount Ave.
6684 Golfcrest Dr.
39'40 Park Blvd. 1220 Robinson Ale.
7707 Tommy Dr.
740 S. 36th. St. 4260 44th St. 260 50th St.
5207 52nd PI.
15%
24
0
8
5 27
14
29
33
35
11 -
Average 10%
Tbe average number of people llviag in each unit was 1.3, compared to .a regional
average of 2.6 persoma per unit. Nearly all of tbe wits (96%) have only one bed-
room; 91% are renter-ccupied,
Tbe average number of veMcb8 awned by respandents is 1.0. This figure can be
compared ta tbe region as a kmlc as well as the 62 years old apd over population
ia the Cjty of San Diego by processing a sample of 1980 Census respondente (see
Table 3).
Nane
*e Two Three t
TABLE 3
VEHICLE OWNERSHIP (Percent of Total)
Saa Diego
Region W-Y (All
Rewondents Houeeholds)' 42 9
45 37
2 33 12
1 00% - 21
100% -
Avg. vehicles *
owned 1.O2 1.7 ,
8
100% 2
160%
1 .o .7
'Source: U.S. Census 1980 Public Use Microdata Sample for San Diego
2Re~~ving the responses "Three +" from the computation of average vehktes
owned reduces it to .56 vehicles per unit.
I
DEC. -31' 02 (TUE) 16:57 SANDAG
I.
P. 00:
It was felt by City staff tbat some of the residents may have had to sell a vehicle
ha order to move into these Complexes. Sirteen respondents, or three percent,
rtattd that they did sell a vebicle before moving in.
Four percaat of the reopondcnta own a recreational vehicle and 75% of tbose atore
their recreational vehicle in the oeigbborhood.
Thirty-one percent of tbe units bave no Hcensed drivers, while 57% have one I
person licensed to drive. Twelve percent have two 01 more licensed drsvers.
About one quarter of the respondents have parking spaces assigned epecifically to
theit ult. Nearly all of those assigned spaces are uncovered spaces (rather than
garage 01 carport spaces).
Fartg-eight percent of the total respondents park on the eweetrs wounding their
project. Flfty-tao percent do not park rm tbe etreete; less than one percent live
in complexes wbere patking is not allowed an surrounding streets.
As far as the reddenta' feeling6 about the adequacy of available visitor parkhg,
only 21% felt that tbere was enough ViBhO? parking within the project. Just over
half (55%) thought that there WBB enough street parking to accommodate their
visitors.
Only me tldrd (36%) of the respondents were rratirfied with the amount of parking
available to them withia tbck project. When cross-tabulating those responses
with tbe respanses to Question 8 ("Are tbere parking spaces aadgned specifically
to your unit7"), 73% of those who bad adgned parking felt that tbere wu ade-
quate parking prodded. However, 74% of those without aarigned parking felt that
the amount of parking avaUable to them waa inadequate.
In amslyzing the survey results, it wa8 found that a small percatage of the re-
rpondents apprentlg mbundetstood tbe tw 'unit,c confusing It with "complex."
This problem became upparart ' wben maswets to two or more questions were
compared, mcb as pereons per dt and number of licensed drivers. A few reepon-
dents gave answers rucb as 'one puson in this unit" and "four OD more licensed
drivers." This is Pot a migriificant problem in terms of tbe overall value of the
BUrvey reaults. HOWWM, it does have M dfect when computing arerages because
even a few high respmacs skew tbc results of such computations, .
!
.
DEC. -31' OZ(TUE) 16:58 SANDAG P. 008
"
Table 4 shows the average bounehold size, vehicles owned, and licenbed drivers pet
unit, for unit6 with an occupant age 62 or over and for units with ao one of that
age living there. The table ale0 ahows those values after climinatlng the highest
responses for pereons per unit (five or more), vehicles owned (three ar more) and
licensed drivers (five or more) to compensate for the mtsunderutanding of the
term 'unit," discussed above. It can be aem that t be elimination of the "high"
reeponses can drasticdiy lower the average numbe!r bf rehiclee owned (84
veMclee compared to .56 vehicles per unit). While the .56 vehicles per unit may -
appear to correlate better with the me parking space per two one-bedroom units,
it does not take into account tbe need for adequate visitor parking.
As stated previously, €he City of Saa Diego places Borne restrictions on the owners
of senior housing projects in dell for them to receive the duaeity and parking
allowances described earlier. One of the moat Importaut requirement6 is that at
least one pereon fa each unit be age 62 or over. Since 16% of the respondents
krdicated that no one in that age group lived h their unit, the information con-
taiaed in Table 4 may be useful in determiaing whetbet or not tbe exietfng parking
requirements would be adequate if the age requirements were more etrictly en-
forced. Table 4 indicates that atdle households without a person 62 Tears or older
have basically tbe Game aumber of persons per household than those nit h residents
62 and mer, they do have slightly more vehicle6 and licensed ddVer6.
SQce the average number of vehicles per household varies by project, that
information irr presented in Table 5.
DEC. -31' OZ(TUE) 16:58 SANDAG
TABLE 4
P. 009
SELECTED SURVEY QUESTTONS
CROSS-TMULATED WlTH QUESTION 13 - AGE
Units with deddea tr 62+ Units with (high values Units rjtbut Residents 62+ deleted) Residents 62+
Household Size 1 m29 1.15 1.28 Ve hjcles Owned 0.94 0.56 1.1 b Number of Licerr~ed Drivere 0.9 0 0.77 1 a04
'][e tbete adequate parking ... 7"
Yes . N/A 36% N/A No N/A 64% N/A
TABLE 5
VEHICLE OWNERSHIP BY PROJECT
Udb wl t kout
i2eridtats 62t
big b values deleted)
1.14
0.63
36%
64%
NO. Of Vehicles per Hause bold* Average Responding Total Vehicles/ Project Units ' 012 VeldcIee Houeehold - c -
3776 Alabama St. . 6106 Beadnell Wy. 3681 FaQProwt Awe.
6884 Golfcreet Dt,
1220 Robineon Ave.
7707 Tommy Dr. 740 S. 36th St.
42bQ 44th St.
260 50th St.
5207 5Znd P1.
3940 Park Bhda
60
26
3
54 33 10
47
34
32 54 44 -
27 39 2
11 19 1
210
23 31 0
22 11 0
730
8 3B 1
22 9 3 570
25 28 1
28 15 1 " -
43
'16
1
31 11
3
40 15 7 30 17 -
.63 .62
.33 , 057
30
085 .4 .58
.5 6
0'39
833
-
TOTAL 385 LEO 196 9 214 .56
0 Responses of 'three or more" bave been excluded.
A mammary of responses to this survey as well as to select& questjars from the
1982 condominium rwey follows. b analyzing tbe need for increased parking
requirements for senior bouolng projects, the comparison of responses to household
dee, vehicle ownership, Md number of licensed drivers per unit should be noted.
.. _.
DEC. -31' 02 (TUE) 16:58 SANDAG P. 010
One
Senior Housing Survey 1982 Condo Survey Percent of Total Percent of Total
83 32
TWO 12 44
Three or four 1 22
Five or more 4 -
100%
2
100%
-
-. ,
-* .
Average Household Size 1.3 (1.1)' 2.0
8 Calculated with responses "three or four" and "fire or more"
removed from analysis.
None 1
One 96
Two 2
Three of more - 1
100%
Average Number of
Bedrooms 1.1
4
23
45
28
100%
-
2.0
Own
Reat
Senior Housing Survey 1982 Condo Surwep
Percent of Total Percent of Tatal
9 46
91 54
100% 100%
7 -
DEC. -31’ 02 (TUE) 16:58 SANDAG P. Dl1
41
45
2
I2
100%
-
None
One
Two
Three 01 more
2
41
43
14
100%
-
Average Number of
Vehicles 1.0 (,56)* 1.8
L Calculated with responses ‘three 01 mod ‘removed from
mdpi6.
Yes 3
No - 97
100%
4
96
1 om - Ycr .
NO
9
DEC. -31’ OZ(TUE) 16:58 SANDAG P. 012
Yes 25
No 75
I -
100%
Senfor Housing Survey 1982 Condo Survey
Percent of Total Percent of Total.
None 31 1
One 57 35
Two 8’ 50
Thtee or mote 1_ 4
100%
11
100%
c..L
Average licensed driwers
per unit 0.9 (.e)’ 1.8
Calculated with -re%poases “three or more” removed from
analybiis.
Y e8
No
.-
23
77
100%
IC
a7
13
100%
-
DEC. -31' DZ(TUE) 16:59 SANDAG P. 013
Garage crpaces?
One
Carport spaces?
One
Four
Uacooered rpaces?
One
TWO
8
4
8
72
8
100%
-
YCS 4a
No 51
No park- &owed - 1
100%
Senior Rousing Survey 1982 Condo Survey Percent of Total ' -Percent of Total
Yes 21 34
No 36 46
No visitor parking
provided - 43
100%
11
20
100%
-
DEC, -31' 02 (TUE) 16: 59 SANDAG
"
Senior Housing Survey 1982 Condo Survey .
Percent of Total Percent of Total
Yea 55
No 42
No parking allowed 3 -
100%
51
47
2
100%
-
Yea
NO
36
64
100%'
-
Q13. b t&rt arJDae in par tmmsebold age 62 o over3
YWI 82
NO
Yes
NO
18
100%
-
50
50
100%
-
P. 014
42
58
100%
-
ATTACHMENT 13
SENIOR HOUSING TRIP GENERATION
AND PARKING DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS
Stephen B. Corcoran, P.E. (M)a
presented at the
Institute of Transportation Engineers
66th Annual Meeting ( 4 4 b)
INTRODUCTION -
As the baby boomer generation ages, special housing projects have been developed for them in lieu of the
traditional single-family home or apartment. Congregate care facilities, independent living apartments,
assisted-care units, and senior apartments are being marketed, developed, and built to handle the needs
of older adults.
The changing lifestyle of older adults affects their transportation needs and usage as well. Trip generation
and parking demand within this age group vary significantly from traditional residential uses because
residents no longer have to be at work, pick up their children, or do their shopping at specific times. Also
many senior communities provide on-site services to meet their residents' needs. This paper will present
the author's experiences with senior housing and its trip and parking characteristics along with data on
projects in suburban Chicago, Illinois and around the United States.
SENIOR HOUSING TYPES
Older adults have many special needs that change over time. Many seniors are clearly independent and
need little assistance other than help with major chores or repairs. They are generally active and healthy.
As time goes by, however, their needs change and grab bars become important, as well as, other features
such as higher electrical outlets, emergency response systems, and lower reach cabinets. Good nutrition,
socialization, and access to medical and supportive care also becomes more important. Several distinct
types of housing have been developed to accommodate these needs:
Senior Single Family Homes are senior-only subdivisions which have been developed for retirees ages
55 and up in the southeast and southwest sections of the United States. These developments typically
include recreational facilities. Many of the residents are retired.
Senior Apartments are traditional apartment complexes with a minimum age requirement of 55 years old.
Some amenities include recreational facilities, security, and special design features. Residents are
independent and may still be working.
Independent Living Units are cottages or apartments were older adults live independently but without the
worries of maintenance or housekeeping. Medical care can be available at the facility or by visiting medical
staff. A variety of amenities are provided for the residents depending on the size of the community.
a Senior Transportation Consultant, Metro Transportation Group, Inc, Hanover Park, Illinois
Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Characteristics
Institute of Transportation Engineers 66th Annual Meeting Page 1
Assisted-Care Units are for older adults having difficulty managing in an independent living arrangement
but who do not need nursing home care. Assisted-care is usually apartment living with additional staff to
help with normal daily activities.
Congregate Care Facilities contain a full spectrum of housing types in one development with town homes
or cottages, independent living units, assisted-care units, and nursing care. Congregate Care Facilities
(CCF) allow the elderly to age in one place with nursing care available if they need it. This is particularly
important for elderly couples wishing to stay together with one spouse needing special care. CCFs are in
essence self-contained communities. Table I lists the amenities that are typically available at a CCF.
Table I
Typical Congregate Care Facility On-Site Services and Facilities
Standard Services Extra Services Common Facilities
Main Meal of the Day
24-Hour Nursing
Daily Check-In
Weekly Laundry
Utilities
Housecleaning
Organized Programs
In Room Food Service
Bus Shuttle
24-Hour Security
Complete Maintenance
Free Parking
Garbage Collection
Notary Public Service
Supportive Care Nurse
Chaplain
Breakfast and Lunch
Extended Room Service
Specialized Diets
Guest Meals
Catering
Physician
Podiatrist
PhysicaVSpeech Therapy
Insurance
Chauffeur Service
Garages
Telephone
Cable TI/
Photocopying
Lounge Area
Dining Room
Library
Chapel
Recreation Room
Country Store
Pharmacy
Arts and Crafts Room
Workshop
Cafe
Exercise Room
Beauty/Barber Shop
Bank Branch Office
Solarium
Whirlpool
Outside Patio
Garden Plots
Source: Milwaukee, Wisconsin CCF Brochure
LITERATURE REVIEW
A review was made of available data on senior trip generation and parking demands. Information was
obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trio and Parkinq Generation Manuals, the author’s
files, data from other consultants, as well as, information from California, Arizona, and Florida Departments
of Transportation. After reviewing the data, it became clear that the amount of data is small and that the
definition of senior housing was not consistent among each source. The data did not distinguish between
the five categories mentioned previously.
Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Characteristics
Institute of Transportation Engineers 66th Annual Meeting Page 2
/a 4
FACTORS AFFECTING TRIP GENERATION AND PARKING
Several factors affect the trip generation and parking demand at any particular facility. These include the
number of dwelling units, nursing beds, average age of residents, resident’s affluence, number of
employees, and available bus shuttlekhauffeur service. More data needs to be collected in order to
properly analyze their relationship to trip generation and parking demand. The trip generation rates for
individual facilities varied. Insufficient information on all the survey locations made it difficult to statistically
draw conclusions on individual impact of those factors.
However, experience has indicated that as the average age of residents increases, the number of trips and
parking demand decreases. This is an obvious affect of the aging process. Nursing beds require more
staff to service a patient needs than a more independent resident. When the proportion of nursing beds to
residential units increases, the amount of traffic and parking generally increase. The economic well being
of residents increases the likelihood that they own a car and thus drive and park. Lastly, bus
shuttlekhauffeur service will provide an option to the auto for residents keeping traffic and parking rates
lower.
DAILY TRAFFIC GENERATION
Information on daily trip ends was obtained from surveys by the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) and the Florida and Arizona Departments of Transportation. This data generally categorized the
facilities as retirement communities but included CCFs, senior apartment complexes, and may have
nursing beds. The author’s data consisted of one CCF in Pennsylvania. Table 2 summarizes the trip data
and rates. The average trip rate daily varied between 2.78 and 8.91 trips per unit. The variation in rates
supports the conclusion that the number of unitdbeds is not the only variable influencing trip production.
The weighted average trip ends were 4.52 trips per unit which included one large development of 3,122
units. Without the 3,122 unit project, the weighted average rate was 5.64 trips per units.
The weighted daily trip generation rate, was 5.64 trip ends a day for senior housing developments. Senior
housing generates two-thirds the amount of traffic compared to a typical single-family development. It’s
closer to other multi-family categories, including apartments (6.47 tripdunit) and condominiums or
townhouses (5.86 tripdunits). Table 3 shows the weekly variation in volumes based on one facility. The
weekday volumes were consistent. Weekend traffic volumes were slightly lower.
Table 4 illustrates the hourly distribution of traffic throughout an average weekday, Saturday, and Sunday.
The peak-hour volumes of the facility occurred at lunch time and mid-afternoon (2:OO to 4:OO PM).
Caltrans data indicated that the peak-hour occurred between 1l:OO AM and 4:OO PM, depending on the
facility. These peak-hour times do not coincide with the peak-hour of adjacent street traffic because the
residents do not have or want to travel during the rush hour. Also, the employee shifts are generally off
peak. Most facilities are staffed 24 hours a day with a 7:OO AM-3:00 PM, 3:OO PM -1 1:00 PM, 11:OO PM-
7:OO AM shift schedule. Some administrative staff follow a typical 9:00 AM to 5:OO PM shift.
PEAK-HOUR TRIP GENERATION RATES
Table 5 shows the trip generation rates for eight facilities during the morning and evening peak-hour of the
adjacent street system. The weighted average trip rate was 0.222 trips per unitlbed in the morning peak
and 0.247 trips per unitlbed in the evening peak. Trip rates ranged from 0.085 to 0.450 per unit. The
directional splits were 65% inbound and 35% outbound in the morning and 40% inbound and 60%
outbound in the evening. Compared to other residential land-uses, senior developments generate
significantly less traffic on a per unit basis.
Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Characteristics
Institute of Transportation Engineers 66th Annual Meeting Page 3
Table 2 Table 3
Daily Trip Generation Rates for Senior Housing
Number of Daily Trip
Source Dwelling Units Trips Rates
Caltrans 31 22 9630 3.09
300 830 2.78
108 31 0 2.87
76 260 3.42
460 2252 4.90
Florida 366 3262 8.91
DOT 560 1985 3.55
187 1449 7.75
120 901 7.51
127 56 1 4.42
Arizona 125 972 7.78
DOT 176 855 4.86
74 447 6.04
60 285 4.75
21 6
175
129
112
106
89
81
60
1386
1058
94 1
922
820
538
529
494
6.42
6.05
7.30
8.23
7.74
6.05
6.53
8.23
59 432 7.30
Penn. CCF 247 1163 4.71
Weighted
Average 71 35 32282 4.52
Without 401 3 22652 5.64
3,122 units
ITE Averaae Weekdav Dailv Rates
Single-Family (Code 210) 9.55
Apartment (Code 220) 6.47
Condo/townhouse (Code 230) 5.86
Congregate Care Facility (Code 251) 2.15
Weekly Volume Distribution
Day of the Week Percentage
Monday 15%
Tuesday 15%
Wednesday 16%
Thursday 17%
Friday 15%
Saturday 12%
Sunday 10% -
Total 100%
Table 4
Hourly Traffic Distribution
Start Average
Hour Weekday Saturday Sunday
12:OO AM 1.46% 1.45% 2.76%
1 :00 AM
2:OO AM
3:OO AM
4:OO AM
5:OO AM
6:OO AM
7:OO AM
8:OO AM
9:00 AM
1O:OO AM
11:OO AM
12:OO PM
1:00 PM
2:OO PM
3:OO PM
4:OO PM
5:OO PM
6:OO PM
7:OO PM
8:OO PM
9:00 PM
1O:OO PM
11 :00 PM
0.07%
0%
0.12%
0.46%
0.41 %
1.94%
5.74%
6.70%
6.19%
7.20%
9.33%
7.05%
7.44%
9.76%
9.54%
8.39%
5.26%
3.14%
2.90%
2.59%
1 .lo%
1.96%
1.24%
0.12%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.60%
2.05%
5.06%
5.06%
5.78%
9.40%
9.04%
8.07%
6.27%
7.59%
10.24%
9.40%
6.14%
3.25%
2.89%
2.05%
1.57%
1.33%
2.65%
0.26%
0.26%
0.00%
0.66%
0.39%
1.71%
3.94%
4.99%
6.1 7%
7.74%
8.53%
8.01 %
4.86%
8.40%
9.84%
9.32%
6.96%
3.54%
4.20%
2.49%
1.31 %
1.05%
2.62%
Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Characteristics
institute of Transportation Engineers 66th Annual Meeting Page 4
Table 5
Peak-Hour Trip Generation Rates
Occupied Units
Dwelling Nursing AM Peak . PM Peak
Facility Location Units Beds Total Volume Rate Volume
Covenant Village
Friendship Village
Presbyterian Home
Glenview Terrace
Good Shephard Manor
Mayslake
Leisure Village
Pennsylvania CCF
Northbrook, IL
Lombard, IL
Evanston, IL
Glenview, IL
Barrington, IL
Oakbrook, IL
New Jersey
Totals
220
620
312
243
102
630
200
210
2537
151 37 1
100 720
166 478
243
1 02
630
200
37 247
454 2991
86 .231 133
86 .120 180
92 .193 139
21
18 .180 17
67 .lo6 75
65 .325 62 ,
78 .316 111
492 738
Weighted Average Trip Rate ,164 ,247
Inbound Percentage 65% 40%
Outbound Percentage 35% 60%
Comparison to other ITE Residential Rates
Single Family Homes (Land Use Code 26)
Apartments (Land Use Code 220)
Condominiums/Townhouses (Land Use Code 230)
0.74
0.51
0.44
1.01
0.63
0.55
Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Characteristics
Institute of Transportation Engineers 66th Annual Meeting Page 5
PARKING DEMAND SURVEYS
Parking demand characteristics were obtained from a number of surveys conducted in the Chicago
metropolitan area The peak parking demand occurred during the mid-day between 11:OO AM to 3:OO PM
corresponding, in part, with the largest employee shift on-site. Table 6 summarizes those surveys. The
peak day of the year is Mother’s Day when many facilities run out of visitor parking, according to the on-site
staff.
The peak parking demand rates varied between 0.214 and 0.579 vehicles per unit/bed with a weighted
average rate of 0.404 vehicles per uniffbed. Employee, resident, and visitor parking is included. This rate
is one third to one half the parking rate of other residential uses. Readers should note that the survey sites
with the higher parking rates generally have more nursing beds which requires more employees than the
residential units. -
Table 6
Peak Parking Demand Surveys
Peak Peak
Dwelling Nursing Total Parking Parking
Development Location Units Beds UnitslBeds Rate Demand
Covenant Village Northbrook, IL 220 151 371 0.490 182
Beacon Hill Lombard. IL 235 23 258 0.565 146
Friendship Village Schaumburg, IL 620 100 720 0.390 281
Presbyterian Home Evanston, IL 312 166 478 0.579 277
Glenview Terrace Glenview, IL 243 243 0.214 52
Mayslake Oakbrook, IL 630 630 0.408 257
EJM Enqineerina Studies
Lilac Lodge Waukegan, IL 203
Deerfield Place Deerfield. IL 98
ITE Parkinq Manual, 2nd Ed
Retirement Community (Land Use Code 250) 500
203 0.31 5 64
98 0.230 23
500 0.270 135
3061 440 3501 1417
Weighted Average 0.404
ITE Parkinq Manual, 2nd Edition
Low/Mid-Rise Apartments (Land Use Code 221)
High-Rise Apartments (Land Use Code 222)
Residential Condominium (Land Use Code 230)
1.21
0.88
1.11
Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Characteristics
Institute of Transportation Engineers 66th Annual Meeting Page 6
Conclusions
Based on the analyses and studies for this paper, the following findings were made:
1. The overall category of senior housing should be broken down into at least five categories for trip
generation and parking demand purposes. These categories could be:
0 Senior Single-Family Housing
0 Senior Apartments
0 Independent Living Units
0 Assisted-Care Units
0 Congregate Care Facility
-
2. Several factors affect the trip generation and parking demand at any particular facility. Any new
survey should include the number of dwelling units, nursing beds, average age of residents, resident’s
affluence, number of employees, and available bus shuttle/chauffeur service. More data needs to be
collected in order to properly analyze their relationship to trip generation and parking demand.
3. Daily trip generation rates were found to be 4.52 to 5.64 trip ends a day for senior housing
developments. Senior housing generates two-thirds the amount of traffic compared to a typical single-
family development. It’s daily rates are similar to other multi-family categories, including apartments (6.47
tripdunit) and condominiums/townhouses (5.86 tripdunits).
4. Trip generation rates during the peak hour of adjacent street traffic are significantly less because
most employees arrive/depart during off-peak periods and residents avoid the peak-hour congestion. The
peak hour rates are one-half to one-fourth that of other residential land-uses.
5. The peak-hours of site traffic occurs in the late-morning or early afternoon.
6. The peak parking demand. at most senior facilities occurred midday with an average peak demand
of 0.40 vehicles per dwelling unit for residents, employees, and visitors. Mother’s Day is the highest
parking day of the year with many facilities short of spaces for that one day.
References
1. Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers; January, 1991
2. Parkinq Generation Manual, 2nd Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers; August, 1987
3. Parkina Requirements for Retirement Centers Requirements and Demands; EJM Engineering; May,
4. 6th Proaress Report of Trip Ends Generation Research Counts; California Department of
5. Florida Department of Transportation Trip Generation Data
6. Arizona Department of Transportation Trip Generation Data
1987
Transportation; 1965-1 970
Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Characteristics
Institute of Transportation Engineers 66th Annual Meeting Page 7
EXHIBIT 5
DECEMBER 18,2000
TO: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DR. MILLARD AND MRS. EVELYN BIGGS
RE: VILLA FRANCESCA DEVELOPMENT
2612 CABRILLO PLACE
PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING RELEVENT COMMENTS WHICH
REFLECT CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN THE PROXIMITY OF THE
PROPOSED PROJECT.
PARKING: Area streets (Laguna, Jefferson, Knowles, Davis) are already virtual parking
lots, particularly from late afternoon to early morning. The Francesca Development, with -
its limited parking spaces, will force second cars and visitors to the streets, compounding
the existing problem.
TRAFFIC: Jefferson and Laguna streets are already impacted, particularly during
commute hours. If the Francesca as currently projected, should become a reality,
combined with the two additional multiple housing units being constructed on Laguna as
we speak, the traffic in the immediate area would be intolerable.
SAFETY: There already is a significant number of accidents which have occurred on
these streets. With the addition of these three projects the problems will escalate. Even
at the present time one puts oneself in jeopardy attempting to turn left on Jefferson.
LIFESTYLE: Addition of the currently proposed development will greatly affect the life
patterns of nearby residents. The three floor project would loom over the yards and
homes, reducing PRIVACY to that of a gold fish bowl. Two floors maximum should be
sufficient. The community atmosphere of village living is fast disappearing and with
that feeling the tourism will diminish also. When the charm is gone so will the visitors.
SUMMARY: The August 18*, 1997 issue of Fortune magazine, rated the village of
Carlsbad as one of the top five places to retire in the United States! How would it be
rated today-r ten years from now? Let’s be sure it will still be the Shangri-La they saw
here five years ago. We certainly want senior housing, but tastefblly designed for the
dignity and safety of all of our great village residents.
Most respectfully,
December 17,2002
Members of the Carlsbad Planning Commission:
As a longtime resident of northwest Carlsbad, I am concerned about the negative impact
the project being considered for the east side of Jefferson Street between Laguna and -
Knowles Avenues will have on our neighborhood.
At the present time. it is almost impossible to turn left onto Jefferson Street from any of
the side streets. We all have to turn right and go on either Davis Avenue or 1-5 to get
downtown. With the addition of some 50+ units, traffic will be totally unbearable and
more than the street can handle. More signals would make the traffic backup even worse
particularly during the rush hours.
As a volunteer at the local Visitors Center, I hear over and over again what a quaint
village this area of Carlsbad is. A three-story multi-unit building will detract from that
“village feeling” and is much too large for the size of the lot.
Although I am not sure I am accurate. I have heard that once the condos are sold. they
can be resold for any amount to any person - that it would no longer be affordable senior
housing. It would become a three-story high density project -just like a ghetto, NOT
like a village!
Being a senior myself, I totally support affordable housing that I can afford. but the high
density and traffic problems this project would cause is not the answer.
Sincerely,
Cynthia A. McPherson
1055 Buena Place
Carlsbad CA 92008
Dear Council Member:
ACENDAITEMY Cornme
a Mayor city Cod
cltvbirrrpow
citJrlsttOrp(0
Residents of the Northwest Quadrant opposing the
size of the Villa Francesca want to bring to your
attention the proposed project coming before the
Planning Cdmmision December 18. We’re concerned
about the the impact it will have on our existing
neighborhood and the future proposed projects in the
area of Laguna, Jefferson and Las Flores.
Representatives from the neighborhood will be
attending the City Council meeting tonight, and
addressing the issues of density, safety, traflic flow,
and off-street parking.
As our elected officials we want you to know how
concerned we are about these issues.
Attached is a copy of the Report to the Planning
Commission.
Attachments (2)
We oppose the size of the
Villa Francesca development on
Jefferson Ave. The tearin'g down of 3
homes to build 51 condominurns without
adequate parking is only going to add
to traffic and parking problems that
now exist in our neighborhood. & zbyLF"m SvC
rzy ~42 JR-FL~JW Q"
/3 3
We oppose the size of the Villa
Francesca development on Jefferson Ave.
The tearing down of 3 homes to build 51
condominurns without adequate parking is
only going to add to traffic and
parking problems that now exist in our
neighborhood.
We oppose the size of the
Villa Francesca development on
Jefferson Ave. The tearing down of 3
homes to build 51 condominums without
adequate parking is only going to add
t'o traffic and parking problems that
now exist in our neighborhood.
37-d -
g&/Y &4-/ TL /99
We oppose the size of the
Villa Francesca development on
Jefferson Ave. The tearing down of 3
homes to build 51 condominurns without
adequate parking is only going to add
to traffic and parking problems that
now exist in our neighborhood.
/3?
We oppose the size of the
Villa Francesca development on
Jefferson Ave. The tearing down of 3
homes to build 51 condominums without
adequate parking is only going to add
to traffic and parking problems tha.t
now exist in our neighborhood.
We oppose the size of the
Villa Francesca development on
Jefferson Ave. The tearing down of 3
homes to build 51 condominurns without
adequate parking is only going to add
to traffic and parking problems that
now exist in our neighborhood.
/39
We oppose the size of the Villa Francesca Development on Jefferson Ave.
The tearing down of 3 homes to build 5 1 condominiums without adequate
parking is only going to add to traffice and parking problems that now exist
in our neighborhood.
We oppose the sue of the Villa Francesca Development on Jefferson
Avenue. The tearing down of 3 homes to build 51 condominiums
without adequate parking is only going to add to trafflc and parking
problems that now exist in our neighborhood.
Planning Commission Minutc December 18,2002
4. CT 02-1OlCP 02-05lSDP 02-04lCDP 02-15 - VILLA FRANCESCA - Request for a
recommendation for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and a recommendation of approval for a Tentative Subdivision Map,
Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit for a 51 unit
senior condominium project located on the east side of Jefferson Street, north of Laguna Drive in
Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant.
Mr. Neu introduced Item #4 and stated that Barbara Kennedy would make the presentation.
Chairperson Trigas opened the public hearing on Item #M.
Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner, stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a 51-unit senior
condominium project. The 0.84-acre site is located on the east side of Jefferson Street and currently
consists of three lots. The project is surrounded by multi-family residential to the north, south and west
and single-family residences to the east. The project contains both 1- and 2-bedroom units ranging in size
from 636 square feet to 1,179 square feet. The site is zoned R-3, multi-family residential, with the General- Plan designation of residential medium-high density. Under the current General Plan designation, which
allows 11.5 dwelling units per acre, 9 units could be constructed on the site. The applicant is requesting
approval of a density increase of 42 units as an incentive to construct the project as 100 percent senior
housing and to reserve 51 percent of the units for low and moderate-income households. The resulting
density would be 61 dwelling units per acre, which is in the density range of other senior housing projects
in the city.
Ms. Kennedy stated that the project is proposed as for-sale units. Eight of the units (15.7%) would be
reserved for low-income households and would be affordable to seniors with incomes up to 80 percent of
Area Median Income (AMI). 18 units would be for moderate-income households with incomes up to‘120
percent of AMI, and the remaining 25 units would be market rate units.
Access to the underground parking garage is located slightly south of the center of the site. Although the
zoning ordinance only requires a half space per unit, this project provides twice the required parking with
one space per unit and four additional guest parking spaces. The project features a formal entrance
which connects to the sidewalk along Jefferson Street. She pointed out that an existing bus stop will be
relocated north of the entrance and will be upgraded to include a bench and trash receptacle.
Ms. Kennedy stated that the building is designed around a central courtyard feature and all walkways are
internal to the project, which helps maintain privacy for the adjacent properties. Walls will be constructed
around the perimeter of the site and new landscaping will enhance the project. It has over 11,000 square
feet of recreation uses on the first floor, including a library, gym, arts and crafts room, and a large
recreation room that opens up into the courtyard area. A lap pool is also proposed at the rear of the site.
The architectural design is contemporary Mediterranean style. The exterior will be stucco with a two-tone off-white color scheme and it will have terracotta concrete roof tiles. Ms. Kennedy pointed out a number of
decorative elements incorporated into the design. The overall building height ranges from 32 to 34 feet
and is under the 35-foot height limit. To reduce the mass of the building the third story has been offset 15
feet from the front of the building and 10 feet at the rear elevation. Architectural detailing is carried through
on all sides.
Ms. Kennedy stated that the proposed use of the site as a senior housing project is consistent with the
General Plan goals and policies and with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for senior housing. The site is well suited for senior housing because it’s a level site and located in close proximity to a range of
commercial, professional, and community services patronized by senior citizens. The density increase is
allowed per review of the Site Development Plan. The increase in density from 11.5 dwelling units per
acre to 61 dwelling units per acre will allow the project to be developed to help achieve the City’s senior
and affordable housing goals. The project is consistent with Council Policy 43, which establishes priorities
for the allocation of excess dwelling units within each quadrant. It is a first priority project in that 15.7% of
the units will be for low-income households and 35.3% of the units will be for moderate-income
households. It is a second priority project in that it will be developed entirely for qualified senior
households. The housing policy team recommends approval of the density increase as an incentive to
offset the subsidy required to develop the project as proposed. The project meets all requirements of the
R3 zone, PD Ordinance, Senior Citizen Housing Regulations, and parking requirements. No variances
Planning Commission Minute December 18,2002 Page 8
are being requested and the project meets all of the setback, building height, and lot coverage
requirements. Twice the required parking will be provided and over 10 times the required open space is
provided. All requirements for senior housing development will be met. The project is consistent with the
coastal development policies of the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program. It complies with all
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and all necessary improvements will be provided. The project
is subject to growth management requirements in Zone 1 and is in compliance with the public facilities
performance standards.
Ms. Kennedy stated that the project is conditioned to enter into an affordable housing agreement to
reserve 51% of the units as affordable to low- and moderate-income households for a minimum of 30
years. It has been reviewed pursuant to CEQA and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the
project. It is subject to noise impacts from traffic along Jefferson Street and mitigation measures are
included to ensure that the interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA. Traffic impacts were analyzed
because the project would result in increased density and additional ADT. The project generates 204
ADT, which is higher than the 72 ADT projected without the density increase. Because there are excess
dwelling units within the quadrant, the ADT is still in the range anticipated for the affected road segments-
and intersections. The traffic study shows that the project will not have a significant impact with regard to
traffic. Because the project contains over 50 units, Ms. Kennedy said the Commission’s action is in the
form of a recommendation to the City Council. She turned the presentation over to Craig Ruiz of the
Housing and Redevelopment Department to discuss the affordability component of the project.
Craig Ruiz stated he would address questions that came up recently about how sales prices are
determined for restricted units, initial sale and resale of the units. For low-income and moderate-income
they had to determine what is an affordable housing cost. That generally means that a third of your
income goes to housing cost. He stated that the income limits change each year and have gone up 3% to
5% a year for the last 6 to 8 years. He described how the purchase prices of units for low-income and
moderate-income households are subsidized by a silent second mortgage in favor of the City. At some point the subsidy, and potentially some interest, is repaid to the City. He stated that resale restrictions, as
currently proposed, would require that units be sold to another low-income household for the first 15 years.
The subsidy from the first buyer would be assumed by the second buyer. If the unit is sold in years 16
through 30 the subsidy is repaid at the time the unit is sold and a percentage of the appreciation goes
back to the City as well. The entire subsidy would be due and payable to the City in year 31. The money
is then put back into affordable housing projects. He described some examples of what would happen in
regard to the subsidies and shared appreciation if low-income or moderate-income units are sold in the
first 15 years.
Mr. Ruiz stated that for-sale units are a preferred product type but are much harder to do because there
are no subsidies available. He said this would be the first product to have units restricted to moderate-
income households and would provide 25% of the moderate-income units for the last 6 years and is very
much needed. There’s no financial assistance being requested which puts more burden on the developer and helps justify the increase in density. Mr. Ruiz said the Housing and Redevelopment Staff supports the
proposal for those three reasons.
Commissioner Baker asked if a low-income unit can appreciate since it must be sold to be affordable to
someone in the low-income group. Mr. Ruiz replied that the appreciation and sale price will go up with the
appreciation in income levels. As that income level goes up 5% a year, the sales price would go up
accordingly. It appreciates to a lesser degree than a market rate unit.
Commissioner Baker thought that some of the sales may involve estates and asked if there have been particular difficulty working with estates. Mr. Ruiz replied that they have done a lot of loans with some
mobile home parks and deal with estates of seniors who have passed away and it‘s never been a
problem.
Commissioner Baker asked if the owner of a low- or moderate-income unit can rent it or are they required
to be the resident. Mr. Ruiz replied that it would be their primary residence. If they were to move out and
rent it, the subsidy would become due and payable.
Commissioner Baker said the Staff Report says the unit must remain affordable to low-income or if it
doesn’t they must pay the City back. She wanted to know if that would take it out of the low-income range
and asked for clarification on that statement. Mr. Ruiz said they are restricting it for 15 years but if they
Planning Commission Minute December 18,2002 Page 9
resell it the City will recapture the subsidy and appreciation. They would lose that unit but have the money
to turn into another unit. At year 16 they could sell it at market price and the City recaptures the initial
subsidy. The ordinance says it can be restricted for 30 years but if it doesn’t stay restricted for the full 30, they have to recapture any subsidy and put it back into another affordable housing project.
Chairperson Trigas wanted to know if the money is interchangeable only with for-sale units .and cannot be
used for low-income rentals. Mr. Ruiz said the money would come back into the housing trust fund and it
could go to any affordable housing project.
Chairperson Trigas asked if this is the first for-sale project in Carlsbad. Mr. Ruiz replied that this is the
fourth for-sale project.
Chairperson Trigas said she was concerned about having a senior housing project that is desperately
needed that can be swapped for any kind of affordable housing in 16 years. Mr. Ruiz said the project will
always remain a senior housing project, they lose the potential of having senior affordable units, and that‘s
why they capture the subsidy and put it into other affordable units.
Commissioner White said it seems to her that the potential for the city to recapture or bring in more
income to put into the housing fund to use for other projects is much greater than a situation where you
would have apartments. She said it seems that by allowing people to sell at market rate after 16 years
and having the City recoup part of that profit, not just the subsidy, is a benefit to the housing fund in
gener I because it generates cash for the housing fund that can be used for rentals. That’s one aspect of
lettin d people sell after 16 years that would actually benefit the housing fund for the entire city. Mr. Ruiz
said that‘s one way to look at it.
Commissioner Segall asked what the determining factors are to guarantee that it stays for seniors. Ms.
Kennedy replied that there’s a condition of approval that says the project is a senior project. Commissioner Segall asked how does she know that in two years it‘s not going to be open to any age
group. Ms. Kennedy said they need to submit a list annually of all tenants with their ages that goes to the
County Redevelopment Department.
Commissioner Segall asked how they prevent someone from purchasing it and then leasing it to someone
else. Ms. Kennedy said they have the annual monitoring of who’s living there and all the tenants will be
watching each other, and they have to abide by their CC&Rs.
Commissioner Segall wanted to confirm that 9 units are what would be approved and they’re asking for a
density increase of 42 units. Ms. Kennedy replied that that‘s correct.
Commissioner Dominguez asked how fee title would be held on these .properties with these restrictions
even though it only runs to the 16th year and if the City would be a party to the title. Mr. Ruiz said based
on their experience they are held the same as any other units and the City would have a promissory note
or a deed of trust.
Commissioner Dominguez was concerned that the release upon the 16th year takes all bets off the table
and we lose the existing neighborhood to all the malfeasance of any other non-conforming renter or owner
as far as restrictions on automobiles, etc., and would be inflicted upon the existing neighborhood. He said
he’s also taking into consideration that the neighborhood would probably change substantially in 16 years.
Ms. Kennedy stated that she doesn’t agree with that. After 16 years it will still be a senior project and the
same types of seniors will be living there after 16 years.
Commissioner Dominguez said they wouldn’t be able to have restrictions as to automobiles and other
things. Ms. Kennedy said they would not have a restriction on automobiles now. One parking space per
unit is provided. The Zoning Ordinance only requires half a parking space for senior projects. Research has been done showing that seniors in senior projects do not drive or they’re consolidating their
households and getting smaller units, getting one car, or maybe only one person in the household at that
time. She said there may be very few households that have two cars and does not think that will be the norm based on her research and looking at other senior projects in this quadrant.
Commissioner Heineman wanted to know how the obligation is satisfied if someone who buys one of the
condos comes into some money in two years and wants to sell it and move out. Mr. Ruiz said in the first
Planning Commission Minutc December 18,2002 Page 10
two years they would have to sell the unit to another low-income household whether they came into money
or not.
Commissioner Whitton asked what their definition of a senior is. Ms. Kennedy replied that State law
defines a senior as somebody who is 62 years of age or older or someone who is 55 years of age or older
that’s in a qualified senior project. Commissioner Whitton asked what their experience is in terms of what
housing they have for seniors and what their age is. Ms. Kennedy said they appear to be much .older
residents in the senior projects she looked at in the northwest quadrant. Commissioner Whitton asked
how many cars they have on average. Ms. Kennedy said she talked with several people and most of the
projects she researched had only a half parking space and some people had to wait several months to get
a parking space, but eventually they did. This project would have one parking space available for each
unit, however it’s not designated for the unit.
Commissioner White asked what the City’s goal is for senior housing and how far these 51 units would go
to meeting that goal. Mr. Ruiz said the City needs over 3,000 affordable units so this project would make
a small dent in the need. He said they don’t categorize the need for affordable housing strictly by age; it’s-
by income level.
Commissioner Segall asked for an explanation of the traffic and on-street parking concerns in that
neighborhood. Ms. Kennedy said she met with several of the neighbors who expressed concern about
being able to turn from some of the streets onto Jefferson. There are a lot of higher density apartment
projects around there and there seems to be a lot of overflow parking from those projects that spreads
into the surrounding residential neighborhoods and they voiced quite a bit of concern about that. They’re
very concerned about this project having an increased density and increased traffic. Ms. Kennedy said
she explained to them that the senior ADT peak hours occur at different times and traffic generation rates
for seniors are less than for apartment projects. Even though there are more units it‘s not incrementally
the same amount. With 9 units it would be 72 ADT with 8 trips per unit. With the senior household it’s 4
trips per unit so it‘s less traffic and it doesn’t occur at peak hours. The peak hour in and out trips are only
4 additional trips in and 4 additional trips out over what is projected for a 9-unit project.
Commissioner Segall asked where visitors park. Ms. Kennedy said they would need to park on the street
if all of the visitor parking spaces were in use. There may be additional parking spaces if every tenant
doesn’t have a car. She said Carlsbad’s current parking requirements for senior projects require only one
parking space for guest parking and it doesn’t matter what size the project is. This project has four
parking spaces plus twice the required parking for the seniors.
Commissioner Segall mentioned that other projects, such as restaurants, have to have adequate on-site
parking and we do not allow for on street parking when the project is being considered. He asked why this
project differs. Ms. Kennedy said they’re not considering the on street parking as meeting the parking
requirements. The project meets the parking requirements on its own merit.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if on-site management is a requirement. Ms. Kennedy replied that it’s
not a requirement, but it’s recommended to have an on-site manager. Commissioner Dominguez said it
should be a requirement in this situation.
Commissioner Segall asked legal counsel if the Commission could require an on-site HOA manager in
these proceedings. Ms. McMahon said she would need a moment to check.
Ms. Kennedy referred the Commission to Resolution 5321, Condition #6 that states, “Senior citizen
housing projects which do not have an on-site manager shall provide a posted phone number of the project owner or off-site manager for emergencies or maintenance problems.” She said if they don’t
agree with that condition, that would be the one to amend.
Commissioner Whitton said he didn’t see much area for storage and asked if there is some. Ms. Kennedy
said there’s a little bit of storage in the garage area and would be managed by the homeowners
association. She said there’s no individual storage space, it‘s not a requirement of the Senior Citizen
Housing Ordinance.
Planning Commission Minute December 18,2002 Page 11
Chairperson Trigas asked when they consider the senior housing if it has no additional medical services or
assistance when considering the parking requirements. Ms. Kennedy said it’s not an assisted living
center.
Commissioner Baker said she assumes a lot of fill will have to be removed from the site and asked at
what point would they address whether the trucks have to be covered, if there are certain hours of
operation, and how they will get in and out of the site to alleviate any traffic problems. Mr. Maashoff said a
haul route permit would be required before beginning to export any material from the site. There are
approximately 9,800 yards of material that will be removed from the site.
Commissioner Baker asked if they would want direction from the Commission if we’re concerned about
hours of operation and haul routes or are they sensitive to it. Mr. Maashoff said they are typically sensitive
to those issues. The standard hours are 7:00-4:00. If there are schools along the path of travel, they
would restrict hours accordingly.
In response to an earlier question from Commissioner Segall regarding if they could require on-site HOA,
Ms. McMahon said she didn’t see anything in the Senior Housing Ordinance that would preclude them-
from requiring that. She thought it would mean one less unit available for sale and it’s a bit unusual to
require it in a for-sale project. Usually HOAs contract with property management companies so there
would be management from that perspective.
Chairperson Trigas stated for the record that several letters and a petition were received. A letter dated
December 17th from Cynthia McPherson expressed concern on the project. There was a letter dated
December 18th from Dr. Millard and Mrs. Evelyn Biggs commenting on concerns of the project. A petition
dated December 17th also expressed opposition to the project.
Chairperson Trigas opened public testimony and asked the applicant to speak.
Albert Richardson, Owner of Karnak Planning & Design, 2802 State Street, Suite C, Carlsbad stated he
was very proud of this project. He said they started to plan for single-family residences for this land and
when they were able to combine three lots together Debbie Fountain encouraged them to do something
more exciting than just more houses. He said they investigated more thoroughly and did some preliminary
studies and took it to the Planning Department and Housing to get input. They got a lot of input from Dee
Landers before she retired. They worked with it to bring it to something that’s quite exciting. He said he
was involved in other senior projects and also did studies in other communities so he was somewhat
familiar with some of the concerns. He said they tried to develop a project that’s exciting and nice and
blends with the community and meets the needs. It’s very special in that it’s right on Jefferson, close to the bus line.
Mr. Richardson said the recreation designed into this facility is nicer than in some of the bigger senior
facilities. Many times the more active seniors still have their homes and 2 or 3 cars but when people want
something smaller they cut back on things. He said they leave around 9:00 in the morning to do errands
and are back by 3:OO or 4:OO. He said he looked at projects with half a space per unit and it’s not enough
parking, unless it’s all-affordable. In many projects the parking lot is barely half full. He said they tried to
give more than double plus the extra spaces and they’ve designed it to where it‘s an easy loop. The
elevation of the garage is elevated for service vehicles. Normally in projects like this 20-30% of the
parking spaces will be empty all the time and he doesn’t think they will be generating any parking
problems. He mentioned how they pulled back parts of the building to make it seem like a two-story building rather than a three-story. He said it will not look like a low end, low cost senior housing facility,
but will look like something found on Coast Highway. He said the owner should be commended for doing
this project and the City has been very helpful. It‘s been an effort of joint design. He said it‘s unusual to
find three large lots like this in Carlsbad so well located and it‘s a rare opportunity to do something great.
Applicant Anthony De Leonardis, 2802 State Street, Suite C, Carlsbad, talked about the lack of ownership
housing for senior citizens. He said he didn’t think any group has been as hard hit as seniors in the
California housing crunch. He stated that most housing is rental but it‘s usually at two extremes - either
low end or high end. He said that Villa Francesca, in a sense, is an experiment. It’s an unusual mixture
of people in this development. The idea is not to have them level down, the idea is to level up the Iow-
income and moderate-income. He said they worked closely with the City and the City housing authority in
Planning Commission Minute December 18,2002 Page 12
trying to develop something for senior citizens and thinks they did it. He said he hopes it‘s successful and
if it is they can provide a model that can attract other developers to think that it’s an interesting concept.
Yvonne Beeson, 1018 Knowles Avenue, Carlsbad, had numerous concerns regarding the project. She felt
that the density increase will have a negative environmental impact on the existing neighborhood,
individually as well as for the community when looking at the other projects proposed for the immediate
area. She said the City has a total of 94 condos scheduled as well as a 3-story office building within a
half-mile radius of this project. These include Casa Laguna, Laguna Pointe, Las Flores, and Villa
Francesca and will generate increased traffic on Jefferson and add significant problems of overflow
parking on side streets, which are single-family residential areas. She said statistics she received indicate
reported accidents between the 2300 and 2900 block of Jefferson - in 2000 9 reported accidents, 12 in
2001, and to date, 8 reported accidents in that short area. After listening to the presentation and hearing
that the senior housing projects can be switched over to regular purchase pricing, she questioned what
the money would be used for that goes into the fund because there’s not going to be any land to build on.
She said Jefferson has been given a B level of service, which is true most of the time except during peak
hours. She invited the Commission to come down to their neighborhood before they make a decision and-
see the situation. She said it’s very difficult to make left turns onto Jefferson or off of Jefferson and when
they have another element of senior drivers there’s increased risk. She said the on street-parking situation
is such an impact on these side streets that it sometimes seems unbearable. This project has included
the extra parking of one space per unit but the red stripe used for bus loading will eliminate parking in front
of the complex. She said there’s no accommodations for maintenance crews and asked where they will
park. She asked where visitors and employees are going to park if the four additional spaces are used for
handicapped.
Commissioner Segall asked her to describe the on street parking around that area during the weekdays in
the mornings and afternoons. Ms. Beeson said just about every space is taken. She said she went down
the street to look at a rental senior project, Jefferson House 11, about 2:OO and there were cars parked all
in front of,that project on Jefferson. She believes that seniors get lots of visitors. She said it’s an
important concern and situation not only for the residents but for all people of Carlsbad.
Jan Costa, 973 Knowles Avenue, Carlsbad, said their property connects to the property that they’re
building on. Their neighborhood concern is on street parking - every spot is taken on their street every
morning and every evening. She said she has always been able to turn left from Knowles to Jefferson
Street until the last 2 years, because the traffic is too heavy and too fast. The people who live in
Francesca won’t be able to turn left very often which means they will turn right, then another right at
Knowles, another right at Davis, and another right at Laguna. She invited the Commission to come to
their neighborhood and they could walk it with them so the Commission could see what they’re faced with.
She said she thinks when the people move in they’ll find a lot of problems they’re not anticipating. She
said all of them are for senior housing, but it‘s too dense and needs to be cut back for more parking
spaces.
Commissioner Segall asked if the sewer project on Jefferson is currently causing part of the traffic issue.
Ms. Costa said that is not causing the traffic problem they’re talking about. Commissioner Segall asked if
the problem she was referring to has to do with traffic going to Oceanside and the mall area. Ms. Costa
said it‘s going out to the freeway. It’s because of all the people moving into Carlsbad.
Agnes Kopacz, 17547 Fairlie Road, Rancho Bernardo, stated that she was very excited when she was told
about the project because it was a senior project and there’s very little being done today that seniors can
purchase and live in a facility like this. She said she still drives a car and she likes the idea of a bus stop nearby and that it‘s walkable to shops and other places. She thinks a facility like this would be an asset to the community and an asset to the surrounding neighborhood and would like to move into this type of
facility in the foreseeable future. She currently volunteers in senior centers and finds that the older the
seniors get, they want to do everything later in the morning or the afternoon and don’t want to be out in the
morning or afternoon rush hours.
Connie Bunnell, 925 Buena Place, Carlsbad, said she moved to Carlsbad two years ago and loved it. She
expressed concern about all the traffic in her street, parking, and safety in her neighborhood. She
mentioned that one of her friend’s grandmother got hit by a car off Las Flores and now she can’t walk.
Planning Commission Minute December 18,2002 Page 13
Linda Russell, 972 Knowles Avenue, Carlsbad, said she’s not upset about the project but would like to see
it downsized and have enough parking so people wouldn’t have to park on the street. The apartments in
the area are using all the side streets, parking in front of their houses, and at times they had to call the
police because they park in front of her driveway. She expressed concern that if there are too many cars
on the street the ambulance will have a hard time getting to Villas de Carlsbad. She said there have been
two fatalities when people have been trying to get across the street to the apartments. She was also concerned about two other projects going in off of Laguna that will generate more traffic onto Jefferson.
She said the heaviest traffic is between 3:OO and 5:OO. She assumed that a lot of people moving into the
units will be mobile, have cars, and probably work. She said Peacock Hills in Oceanside was a senior
only community and they started having some younger people buying the houses. Their homeowners association sued to try to stop younger people from moving there. She said Robert Frazee had a bill
passed a few years ago where they cannot stop the younger people from buying houses, so Peacock Hills is no longer for seniors only. She asked if there’s a State law that you cannot keep it for seniors only, that
would affect this project.
Claire Schlegel, 2049 Caraway Street, Escondido, stated that she is currently a homeowner but has given-
strong consideration to downsizing. She does a lot of volunteering and is very active and thinks the
project meets all of her needs and would be proud to live there. She mentioned that her sister and
brother, also in her age bracket, moved here within the last three months from Culver City and have been
unable to find any housing they could afford to purchase. Most of the housing is not affordable because
they’re on limited incomes and she strongly recommended the project go ahead.
Robert Hanlin, 16749 Encina, Rancho Bernardo, stated he is a handicapped senior, retired since 1990
and has been unable to find any housing such as this that he could purchase. He said he does a lot of
volunteer work - mentoring history at a high school in Poway and volunteering at senior centers. He read
about the project and liked the idea of the full recreation facility. He said he would like one of the low-
income affordable units.
Barrie Chase, 2564 Navarra Street, La Costa, stated he built several condominiums in La Costa and he
sold the first piece of the property to the owner of the project. He said he canvassed the area around there and some of the people that have objections just wanted more money for their property and they
couldn’t afford to pay it. He said now everyone wants to put the beautiful project down and it’s not right.
Regarding the concern about the traffic on the street, Albert Richardson stated that they’re going to re-
stripe with a left turn lane so someone can safely get into the middle and work their way into traffic, which will help improve that considerably. Regarding concerns expressed about parking from the local
neighborhood, he said there are some problems, but it’s from active apartment dwellers living in the area.
He did not think they were really grasping what a senior citizen project like this is. When visiting them all
over Southern California he said you see half the parking lot empty. The seniors will adjust their lives to
where they want to go where they can get to safely and get back and they have a tendency to get really
involved in the neighborhood and will probably improve the neighborhood. He thought they would see an
increased level of security in the neighborhood. He said there will be at least 30% of the parking that will
not be filled. He said that‘s why in the past they just had half a space per unit, but that’s not enough. They have four more than the one space per unit. From what he’s seen at other facilities, he said he thinks they
over-designed. They have also made a higher ceiling so the service and maintenance people can come
in.
Anthony De Leonardis said this particular project has less density than any other senior citizen project in
the downtown area. He said senior citizens use the bus and want to have the bus stop right in front of their
facility because they tend to use buses much more than their cars.
Chairperson Trigas closed public testimony.
Mr. Maashoff clarified that in regard to the striping of Jefferson Street, the traffic study that was prepared
for this project suggested two alternatives - striping designs to mitigate turning movements. One of the
alternatives suggested putting a left turn lane down the middle eliminating parking on one side of the
street or the other. Staff reviewed the alternatives in the report and neither one of the striping schemes
appeared appropriate for the project. The project before you tonight does not propose to re-stripe Jefferson.
Planning Commission Minute December 18,2002 Page 14
Ms. Kennedy added that part of the reason for that was because they didn’t want to eliminate additional
parking spaces along Jefferson. She said if the Commission thinks that’s important, they could
incorporate that into the project, however, they thought the on street parking was more important than the
turn lane.
Regarding the topic of red curbing, Ms. Kennedy said they would still have 70 feet of frontage for parking
out of the 150 feet. NCTD recommended about 80 feet of the frontage to be red curb, which would leave
about 3 parking spaces. She said that they’re going from three driveways for three different lots to one
driveway for one project. The bus stop will be relocated so there will be some additional parking on the
street, so the parking lost on the street won’t be significant.
Regarding the other projects in the vicinity, Ms; Kennedy said Casa Laguna was 12 units and ‘came in just
slightly below the allowed density of 11.5 dwelling units per acre, so that was what was anticipated for that
site. Laguna Pointe Condos was a redevelopment project that was 21 units and came in at 19 dwelling units per acre, which is what’s allowed for that site. The Jefferson Street Condos, scheduled for the
Planning Commission on January 15th, is 11 units also, just slightly under 11.5 dwelling units per acre.
Ms. Kennedy said she did some research. on the density of other senior projects. This project has a
density of 61 units per acre. Jefferson House I and II, down the street from this project, were both at 75
dwelling units per acre. Tyler Court was 63.5 dwelling units per acre and Carlsbad Sunset Seniors was 52 dwelling units per acre, but it was only a two-story project. These are all rental projects.
Commissioner Baker asked what they would do with the money for affordable housing when there isn’t
any more land to build affordable housing. Mr. Ruiz replied they can do down payment assistance
programs, acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units, and infill projects. He said there’s a variety of
uses.
Commissioner Segall asked them to address the comment that the four parking spaces could be
handicapped spots. Ms. Kennedy responded that there are two handicapped parking spots in the
subterranean garage and those would probably be guest parking.
Commissioner Baker brought up the question about Peacock Hills senior only housing and State law.
Cindie McMahon stated that Civil Code Section 51.2, 51.3, and 51.4 carve out an exception to the Fair
Housing Act and allows us to restrict senior developments provided the built development has physical
and social characteristics designed especially for seniors as part of the project. From reading the project,
Ms. McMahon said she believes that has been incorporated into this project. She said she wasn’t familiar
with the Peacock Hills case, but can only speculate that the development did not have special features for
seniors.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5318, 5319, 5320,
5321 and 5322 recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and recommending approval of CT
02-10, CP 02-05, SDP 02-04, and CDP 02-15 based on the findings and subject
to the conditions contained therein.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Segall said he thinks we very much need alternative housing for seniors in this community and is supportive of the project but is having problems with the concept of parking. He said it doesn’t
seem to him that we have enough information in Carlsbad or in other cities when someone owns the
property. He understands that rentals have a half parking space per unit and those aren’t full, but he’s not
sure if that dynamic changes when someone purchases a unit. He said he would feel more comfortable if
they had broader research on that area to know whether having one spot per unit is a good deal or not.
He said the whole neighborhood appears to be heavily congested with parking and with putting 51 more units in he can’t see guests pulling into the garage to park unless it‘s clearly designated and the spots are
open and available. He said now we find out that the only two spots are available out of the four because
two are going to be handicapped, making a bad situation worse. He said he’s really struggling with the
Planning Commission Minutc December 18,2002 Page 15
issue of parking and forcing people to park on the public streets when it‘s heavily congested. He wasn’t
sure if he could support the project if they decide to move forward with it tonight. He would like to see if
there’s additional research elsewhere to see if one parking spot per unit is a good number to go on.
Otherwise he thought they would be approving a project that’s going to guarantee at least each unit having
one car and no overflow parking. He said when we look at restaurants and other businesses in this
community, we’re always looking toward parking and making sure there’s enough on-site parking and here
it seems like you’re forcing it on the street.
Commissioner White said she shares Commissioner Segall’s concerns and it seems that information should be easy to get as to how many cars senior citizens who own a condominium have. She was also
concerned that when the units come up for resale and are sold at market price and it’s no longer a senior
of Iow- or moderate-income, how does that affect the chances that that senior household may have more
than one car. She liked the idea of the City being able to get some of the appreciation on these
condominiums because it would generate money for the housing fund, but would like to see that money
earmarked for other affordable senior projects within the city. She thought the design was great and liked
the idea of having seniors living in a residential mixed neighborhood of all ages. -
Commissioner Dominguez said whatever the City decides to do on this issue, he hopes we don’t forget
that we should restrict haul routes and hauling hours. The traffic in that area is horrendous at peak hours,
partially because a lot of people are using it as an escape route to avoid the turn off on 1-5 and 78 which
exacerbates the existing traffic problems in the neighborhood. He said he considered himself a champion
of affordable housing for many years, but is having some real problems with this because of the existing
neighborhood. He said he’s not pleased about compromising the quality of life for existing neighborhoods
in Carlsbad and it’s happening more. He feels that what they’re giving up in order for us to achieve this
affordable housing is too much and doesn’t think he can support the application.
Commissioner Heineman said he thinks we’re running into all the problems any infill project brings. He
didn’t think they ever considered an infill project that the people already living there didn’t object to and
thinks we have that situation in spades in this case. He said he believes traffic is a problem and there’s
going to be a parking problem with only one space per unit. He wasn’t sure he could support the project
without some changes.
Commissioner Whitton said he has concerns about the traffic and would very much like to see a left hand
turn restriction on some of the streets because the traffic is very heavy. As far as parking for the project is
concerned, he said he would rely on the people who did the research and provided it to the City in terms of State and County folks who had done some research on how many parking spaces seniors use. He said
they hadn’t discussed the trash requirements, hauling the trash. He said he understands that emergency vehicles can go into the building, but the trash vehicles are too big to get into the building and will have to
pick up on the side, which will add some more congestion, but that’s a matter of routine. He would like to
see a left hand turn lane and other than that, he supports the project.
Commissioner Baker said they talked a long time in the City of Carlsbad about how we have to be creative
to find affordable housing and here’s a project with some people who have been creative by asking for a
density bonus and they’re not asking for funds from the City or taxpayers to support this project and I think
we need to be very supportive of the creative ways in which to provide low-income and moderate housing.
That’s something that we’re going to have start looking to developers and different people in the city as
they come in and provide different kinds of housing because the taxpayers are not always going to be
available to foot the bill. She applauded the innovation in working on this project to provide housing and
also thinks this is the kind of housing that will be for seniors who no longer want to live in their big homes.
She agreed with the applicant who made the statement that these are for people who are downsizing so
she didn’t know that they could apply the logic of living in your big house and your two cars to this kind of situation because it’s a different kind of housing for different people. She said she’s on the fence with the
parking problem. She was concerned about restricting the four open spaces to two handicapped. If
you’re not having reserved parking she sees no reason why the four visitor parking spaces would have to be reserved for handicapped, and said why not put some handicapped in the facility and not necessarily
reserve those specifically for visitors. She said it would be better if there could be more parking. She said
she’s been in the area a lot and appreciates Ms. Costa who invited them down there. She’s familiar with
the area and thinks this would be a nice addition to the city and would support the project and it would be even better if we could get more parking.
Planning Commission Minute December 18,2002 Page 16
Chairperson Trigas stated that everyone has expressed her concerns and wanted to know what their
options would be because if some things can be clarified or dealt with there may be Commissioners who
would be very much for it, and several Commissioners don’t feel we have enough information to approve.
Mr. Neu stated that if there are specific changes that the Commission feels should be incorporated into
the project that would make it satisfactory, they could give Staff and the applicant direction to work on
those items and come back. If there are things that they feel are offsite, such as neighborhood
compatibility and traffic in the area that despite whatever happens on the site, those conditions will still
exist, then the decision would be whether to support the project or not. Despite some of the parking
information, that probably won’t change those other neighborhood conditions. He said if their concerns
are limited to things that can be done on-site or off site that they can tie to the project, they could come back and provide the Commission with more information. If they’re concerned with compatibility issues,
there’s things the applicant could do to address those, but would need more direction on what types of
things to look at.
Ms. Kennedy said the trash area is located on the south end of the site and they do not have to go down
into the basement level. That‘s been reviewed by the Engineering Department and Coast Waste and-
access is not a problem.
Ms. Kennedy suggested that since the number of cars per unit seems to be a problem, there’s an
opportunity to put a restriction in the CC&Rs to limit it to one car per unit. She said it would be monitored
by the homeowners association, but wasn’t sure if the applicant would be willing to accept a condition like
that.
Chairperson Trigas asked if something like that could be monitored off site. Ms. Kennedy said it would
just be in the CC&Rs. Chairperson Trigas said the question is that people would have more than one car
and therefore, there would be off site use of it, and didn’t think they would be able to monitor off site.
Chairperson Trigas said she was struggling with the idea that in 16 years the affordable issue could be out
the door with this project. Ms. Kennedy explained that if someone sells it between the years 16 and 30
that it’s still under that 30-year clause because within that additional 15 years fhe City can still recoup that
subsidy, so it is in effect restricted for 30 years.
Chairperson Trigas said she understood that on the 16th year they could sell whatever senior units they
wanted to and funds would be recouped by the City but it would be lost for that site. Mr. Ruiz responded
that was correct. The way they’ve done previous for-sale projects they have never restricted the resale of
that project for any length of time, so this is a new requirement they’re proposing on some future projects.
It could be extended, if that‘s the wish of the Commission to extend that resale period for the full 30 years.
Chairperson Trigas asked if they decide to continue the item to get more information would they have
public testimony again. Ms. McMahon said it would depend on how many changes there would be.
Chairperson Trigas asked the Commissioners if they felt getting more information would make a difference or if the issues are off site which can’t be dealt with and asked if they would want to vote on it.
Commissioner Segall said if Staff were to come back with some kind of reasonable number of on-site
guest parking spots (4 is not enough), that would mitigate street parking. He thought it was a good
concept to restrict it to one car per unit, but would say give more on-site parking so people won’t be forced
to park in the street. He said in terms of the traffic, a comment was made about a left turn lane allowing
people to turn in safely and that would probably make me feel more comfortable.
Chairperson Trigas said that would take more space away. Mr. Maashoff said that the traffic study
proposed to re-stripe Jefferson to include a left turn lane. It entailed the elimination of parking on at least
one side of the street, narrower travel lanes, a narrow dual left turn and transition periods on either side of
the turn pocket. Staff reviewed the proposed striping alternatives but did not feel there would be an overall
benefit by implementing either one. Left turns into this project would be accommodated, however,
adjacent driveways and properties that take access onto Jefferson Street would be affected in different
ways.
Planning Commission Minutc December 18,2002 Page 17
Commissioner Baker asked since the on ramp from 1-5 to 78 is now two lanes, do they anticipate that will
relieve some of the congestion on Jefferson. Mr. Maashoff did not have information on that.
Chairperson Trigas asked if the Commission wanted to call for the question and vote or continue the item.
Commissioner Heineman said he would prefer to continue. One concern he had was that traffic has been
exacerbated by the sewer work. It seems to him that parking is the more important problem than the
traffic and they should give the developer an opportunity to offer something they can accept.
Commissioner Segall wanted to see if there are other items they want on the list other than parking
Commissioner White asked if it would be a problem to say that the funds generated by this project should
be restricted for seniors. She said she feels we really need affordable housing for seniors so would like to
see it restricted. Ms. McMahon said that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the housing
fund, but the Council would read her comments in the minutes. Commissioner White said then she would
not have any condition or amendment to add. -
Commissioner Whitton said in terms of the parking for purposes of our evaluation he would like to see
some empirical data on parking in senior citizen complexes that‘s provided from a source other than the
developer. If the developer provides it, things get adjusted appropriately. Empirical data would not only
help us with this, but with other things.
Commissioner Dominguez said whatever is proposed or adjusted, if this item is continued, we should
strive to have improvement factors in the existing neighborhood instead of detraction factors. Perhaps
this application’s big problem is a matter of timing. With the infiltration of surface traffic that’s headed for
Vista and parts unknown, the sewer work, the culmination of all these congestive factors that are
impacting the area, maybe it‘s just the time. Maybe this area has grown too quickly for the surface streets
to be able to adjust. He said he was looking at the additional possible 44 units and it will probably
increase the ADT by another 80 trips during peak hours. It‘s very difficult to make appropriate calls unless
we have some empirical data to work with. It‘s a stretch to find more positives than negatives in this
application.
Commissioner Whitton said the truth of the matter is that a lot of what we’re talking about should be
focused on this unit and the impact of parking on the neighborhood. He said he would like to know
something about the other apartment units on Jefferson. He said he’s curious because a lot of those
people are young folks and he goes down that street a couple times a day and sees boats and all that. He
asked if there’s any way we can know how many cars on average the dwellers of those units have or whether or not they’re using what parking is available for vehicles that’s provided in those complexes.
Chairperson Trigas said they have to look at the project itself and the concern of the Commission is the
parking within that project. That‘s something that can be dealt with but doesn’t know that this project can
do anything externally.
Commissioner Whitton said he understands and the parking is focused totally on this project, but the
parking is extending beyond this project out into the street and once you’re out there, there’s a whole lot of
other things that impact on that parking that we have absolutely no control on.
Chairperson Trigas said there’s confusion perhaps on the actual generation on senior projects as far as
parking. Even though it‘s double what our standards are, there is concern that in this kind of project where
they are owned, are we dealing with a different situation than a different type of senior project. Ms.
Kennedy said since this is such a unique type of project it will be rather difficult to find that information, but
she would do everything she can to accommodate.
Commissioner Whitton asked if they could also find out whether other improvements, if any, are going to
be made on Jefferson that might alleviate. Chairperson Trigas said Staff said it would aggravate other
conditions. Mr. Maashoff said that as far as improvements related specifically to this project, there aren’t
any proposed.
Commissioner Heineman said he thinks we’re losing sight of the testimony of several people who would
be interested if this project were built. They’re telling us, and I don’t think we’re listening to them, that this
Planning Commission Minutc December 18,2002 Page 18
is an unusually attractive approach to senior living and perhaps they would be perfectly willing to deal with
some of the things that seem to bothering this Commission if they had an opportunity to buy these units. I
think we’ve been losing sight of that. We’ve been concerned about all of the peripherals and not about the
core, which is very attractive, presumably affordable units, which seniors would like to buy. I don’t think
we should get so wrapped up in our own concern about details that may or may not be important, that
we’re about to throw into the trash heap what could be a very desirable project for Carlsbad.
Commissioner Segall said he thinks it’s a great project that‘s sorely needed; its well laid out and designed,
but it just may be in the wrong place or it may have to be fixed up a little more. He said he thinks both
Staff and the applicant are hearing their two biggest concerns of traffic and parking and maybe they can
come up with some solutions that would make this palatable. He said the issue isn’t whether this is a
good place and whether people want to live there or not; he wants to make sure it’s the best thing we’re
doing for this community and it’s not going to adversely impact those who are already living there or those
who commute every day.
Chairperson Trigas said we have been concerned about infill projects down the road and that we’re going
to deal with a lot of different issues and have already indicated that in a number of projects that have been
coming to us. When you look at the location of the project it is a perfect place for a senior project as far
as accessibility. She thinks the idea that we don’t have any senior purchasing projects other than rentals
is a very sad comment about Carlsbad and surrounding communities. She said she thinks it’s a wonderful
project and the concern is more parking and doesn’t know that we have enough information to make that
decision.
Commissioner Baker withdrew the motion.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission continue Item ##4 until February 5, 2002. (CT 02-1OlCP 02-05/SDP
02-04lCDP 02-1 5)
The motion was interrupted by discussion as to which meeting the item should be continued to. Mr. Neu
stated that the January 15th meeting has a full agenda and was not sure if any of those items could be
moved to another meeting due to processing time limitations and state mandated deadlines. Mr. Neu said
there is a special meeting scheduled for January 22nd for the Citywide Habitat Management Plan and the
Municipal Golf Course project. Chairperson Trigas suggested making it the first item for the February 5th
meeting.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Segall said he would like to make sure that Staff and the applicant get together on parking
but also look at out-of-the-box creative things on the traffic. It seems that the consensus of the
Commission’s concerns is traffic so would like to see if there’s something that can be done with traffic and
parking.
Chairperson Trigas said as much information that they can get back to the Commission to make their
decision would be appreciated.
VOTE: 7-0-0 AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall.
White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Neu wanted to clarify that when the project comes back the Commission would have the ability to limit
the comments and discussion to the parking and traffic issues. One of the things inherent in the parking
rates is that it’s based on how a use functions, so factored into that is what the age characteristics are, what are the ways in which they use the property, so the rates in part will reflect that. Maybe a typical
senior occupant in a project like this is of a certain age group and it may be older than what some people
Planning Commission Minute December 18,2002 Page 19
are considering; 55 may be really the young end of that. Hopefully we can collect some state rates in our
area and possibly even national rates, depending on the access we have. He said his point is that you, as
individuals, will have to come to a conclusion, as to if you believe a project like that is really occupied by
people of that age group and they have those characteristics.
Commissioner Heineman said it would be helpful if he could get some information on the nearby senior
projects like Jefferson I and Jefferson II.
Commissioner Segall said that the League of California Cities Planning Organization may have some resources in similar kinds of communities where seniors are actually purchasing these and coming up with
a demographic breakdown that they are 55 or not 55. If we have that kind of information that’s going to
help us more than knowing that right down the street there’s some rentals and they have half a parking space. He said he would feel a lot more comfortable knowing with some more research that it either
works or it doesn’t, or maybe you can cut back and put 20 spots. that are open for guests. He wanted to
make sure the applicant knows he likes the project and wants to see whatever they can do to support it.
Chairperson Trigas said they all voiced that they like the project. -
Commissioner Whitton said the empirical data he was looking for was more on the demographics -what
is the age group. If we go for 55 we could occupy those apartments with people who are working every
day, but if it‘s in the 62-65 or better range, then they’re not working, their hours are going to be different
and their car requirements are going to be different.
Mr. Neu said they got the message and have several sources they can check.
Planning Commission Minutes February 5,2003 Page 3
1. CT 02-10lCP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-1 5 - VILLA FRANCESCA - Request for
recommendation for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and a recommendation of approval for a Tentative Subdivision Map,
Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit for a 51-unit
senior condominium project located on the east side of Jefferson Street, north of Laguna Drive
in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant.
Assistant Planning Director, Don Neu, introduced this item and stated that Associate Planner, Barbara
Kennedy would present the Staff Report.
Chairperson Baker asked if the Commission if they have had any ex-parte conversations regarding this issue.
All Commissioners responded negatively.
Chairperson Baker opened the Public Hearing on Item #1
Associate Planner, Barbara Kennedy, presented the Staff Report as follows: This project was continued from
the December 18, 2002 meeting when Staff was directed to research the resident and guest parking
requirements for senior housing projects in other jurisdictions. The project is a 51-unit senior housing condominium project. A number of other cities were surveyed and the results were inconclusive as to the
number of parking spaces required for senior projects. Many jurisdictions had no special standards for senior
parking but did allow parking reductions through the state density bonus provisions or on a case-by-case
basis during project review. Jurisdictions that did have special senior parking standards, range from requiring
a half space per unit to 1.2 spaces per unit. Guest parking ranged from “none required” to requiring one
space for every five units. Information from SANDAG shows that vehicle ownership, categorized by age
group and housing type, have fewer cars owned by households that live in multi-family rather than single-
family dwellings. Also, car ownership decreases dramatically as the age of the household increases. The
average number of vehicles owned by Head of Household, fifty-five years of age or older, in multi-family or
mobile home projects, was I .1 vehicles. Since this data was not able to exclude family members under the
age of fifty-five years, these figures are a little higher than would be expected for a “senior only” project. To
determine the average age of a resident in a senior housing project, Staff surveyed the four senior projects in
the northwest quadrant and found that the average age ranged between seventy and seventy-three years of
age. We also found that the average number of vehicles per household, was just over one vehicle for every
two households. Staff obtained a senior housing study that was prepared by SANDAG for the City of San
Diego, and the study found that vehicle ownership among seniors, was about 0.56 vehicles per unit. Based on the information in that study, the City of San Diego increased their senior housing parking requirements to
one space per unit with no additional guest parking required. The Institute of Traffic Engineers also prepared
a report, analyzing senior housing trip generation rates and parking demand characteristics. The report
identified some key points that are very important to keep in mind when analyzing a senior project. They
found that as the average age of residents increases, the number of trips and parking demand decreases..
They found the economic well-being of residents increases the likelihood that they will own a car and thus,
drive and park. It was found that the peak hour traffic volumes for seniors occur between 11 :00 a.m., and
4:OO p.m., and these peak hour times do not coincide with the peak hour of adjacent street traffic because the
residents have no need to travel during rush hour. When convenient bus, shuttle or chauffeur services are
available, they do provide an option to owning a car. The peak parking demand, at most senior facilities
occur at midday, with an average peak demand of 0.4 vehicles per dwelling unit. That would include parking for residents, employees, and guests. The peak-parking day is Mother’s Day, when many facilities would also
run out of parking spaces. With all of the above information, it was concluded that the residents of senior
housing projects, in Carlsbad, are an average of 70.75 years old so the likelihood of car ownership is
beginning to decrease. Since 51 % of the units will be affordable to low and moderate-income households, the likelihood for car ownership should be less than if the project was 100% market rate. The Villa Francesca
project is within walking distance of downtown Carlsbad and is adjacent to a bus stop, thereby providing an
alternative to automobile ownership. It is anticipated that there will be at least 0.56 cars per unit, based on
the SANDAG data, but it will most likely be closer to 0.7 cars per unit. Statistics show that the peak parking
demand occurs at midday. If overflow parking is necessary, it would most likely occur during the day when
other residents who use the streets for parking, are away.
Planning Commission Minutes February 5,2003 Page 4
Ms. Kennedy pointed out the variables such as the age of the residents, the proximity of the project to public
transportation, the economic status of the occupants, and the ownership versus rental units, all have a
bearing on the anticipated parking use.
For this project, Staff would anticipate that 80% to 90% of the households would have vehicles and guest
parking, when required, is most commonly provided at the rate of one space per five units. With that, Staff
feels that a combined resident and guest parking requirement of one to 1.1 spaces per unit is adequate. For
this project, that would provide fifty-one to fifty-seven parking spaces. The applicant was able to re-design
the parking garage in a more efficient manner and now, sixty-one spaces are provided where fifty-five spaces
were previously proposed. This would equate to one space per unit, plus ten guest parking spaces which is well over the twenty-seven parking spaces that are required by the Zoning Ordinance. Also, if the resident
spaces are not utilized by the occupant, those would also be available for guest parking.
Staff still believes that adequate parking will be provided for the project and recommends approval of the
project, subject to the revisions shown on the revised exhibits C, D, and E.
Ms. Kennedy turned the presentation over to Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer, Land Use Division.
Mr. Wojcik explained that if left turn lanes were created in the center of Jefferson Street, it would result in “No
Parking” between Laguna and Knowles and that would eliminate thirty-seven on-street parking spaces.
Another alternative was to create a left turn lane and allow parking on the west side of Jefferson. That would
eliminate approximately fifteen parking spaces. The City Traffic Engineer determined that a left turn lane
would not be necessary, due to the low volume of traffic entering the site and since it would be detrimental to the parking.
Chairperson Baker invited the applicant to step to the podium and make a presentation.
Anthony DeLeonardis, 1005 State Street, Carlsbad, stated that this project has been exhaustively reviewed by
five City agencies and they have all approved it. He thanked the City Planning Department, Engineering
Department, the Housing Authority, the downtown renewal district, as well as members of the Senior
Commission. Mr. DeLeonardis stated that about seventy senior citizens have contacted him regarding this
project, asking him for permission to be on a waiting list. He further stated that even before the permits are
pulled, there is a very strong need for this type of product. He pointed out that this senior condominium
project is the only one of it’s kind, thus far, in Carlsbad. He then urge approval by the Commission.
Chairperson Baker opened Public Testimony.
Arthur J. Serrin, 4423 Salisbury Drive, Carlsbad, stated he has been pursuing the issue of senior owned
housing, as opposed to senior rental housing, for several years. Like many seniors, he wishes to downsize
his living quarters but would prefer to own rather than rent. Many seniors need the security of owning their
homes where they know the rent won’t go up and they can’t be evicted. Mr. Serrin read a portion of a letter
from the Senior Advisory Board (a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk’s Office). Mr. Serrin pointed out that this project is a pilot project and will set a standard for other builders.
Arthur Wood, 4770 Brookwood Ct., Carlsbad, concurred with Mr. Serrin’s statement and added that this
project is an entirely private enterprise project and will not use any public funds. He pointed out that it will be
a beautiful addition to the area and encouraged the Commission’s approval.
Doreen Mason, 6989 Sand Castle Dr., Carlsbad, stated that this project offers the onlysuitable senior-owned
housing project in the area. She also concurred with the previous speakers, in that this project is a beautiful
addition to the Jefferson Street area. She suggested that Carlsbad should grow old gracefully, and give
serious thought to more projects like this one.
Jan Costa, 973 Knowles Ave, Carlsbad, a forty-two year resident, stated that although this project will be an
asset, she is concerned about the traffic circulation pattern. She also voiced concern regarding the sale (at
market rates) of the now designated affordable units (51 %). Her concern, in that regard, is mainly the fact
Planning Commission Minutes February 5,2003 Page 5
that the units may be sold to younger people, possibly with children, and the complex would no longer be for seniors only. She asked if anyone has any answers to these issues. She also suggested that the Senior
Commission should keep an eye on the parking issue, to see just how many seniors have two cars and to try
to ensure that each resident parks in his or her own designated parking space.
Chairperson Baker advised Ms. Costa that her questions, and those from others, will be answered following
the Public Testimony period.
Yvonne Beeson, 1018 Knowles Ave., Carlsbad, questioned the validity of those statistics when applied to this
project since the statistics presented are only for senior rental complexes and not for senior owned
condominiums. She voiced her fear that after the huge complex is completed, with it's impacts to a nearly all
single-family residential area, that the City will find that this project shouldn't have been built in the first place.
She also voiced her concerns regarding the re-sale of the affordable units, after a period of sixteen years.
Ms. Beeson stated that this project received a variance for an extra 41 units, under the guise that it's for senior
affordable housing, and it may not always remain senior affordable housing. She further stated that she is not satisfied that the complex will remain for seniors only and asked the Commission to address that issue.
She stated that she understands that an individual must be age 55 or older to purchase one of the units but
wants to know if someone, under the age of 55 can live there; a son or a daughter, for example. She pointed
out the current issues regarding overflow parking.
Linda Russell, 972 Knowles Ave., Carlsbad, reiterated Ms. Beeson's concerns and comments. She too
expressed concern regarding units remaining low-cost. Ms. Russell stated that there is already a 244 unit
complex, just down the street from this project, and the addition of another huge complex is of great concern.
She requested that the Commission review all the facts and make sure that they guarantee that it will remain
a senior, low-cost development. She also asked that the density of this and other projects of its kind, be
reviewed, to be sure the sites are not overbuilt.
Raoul Terrango, 1070 Buena Place, Carlsbad, addressed the existing traffic on Jefferson St., and how
difficult it is for him to get in and out, onto Jefferson, from his cul-de-sac. He stated that any multi-family
dwelling structures are unacceptable. Mr. Terrango further stated that the area is for single-family residences and it should stay that way.
Erin Neil, 2616 Cabrillo PI., Carlsbad, stated that her home is directly in back of this project and she is
concerned about how the size and proximity of this project will affect her home and the vegetation on her
property. She is also concerned about the increase in traffic and parking.
Jean Gonzales, 1015 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad, pointed out that, according to public record, forty-five
percent of Carlsbad residents rate traffic circulation efficiency as either fair or poor. Also, fifty-five percent
rated downtown parking as either fair or poor. Ms. Gonzales asked how many vehicles travel on Jefferson
St., every day, because she feels there is a real problem there. She also asked for the Level of Service rating
in the area. She pointed out that the State of Effectiveness Report states that the maximum number of
dwellings that could exist for one fire department and asked how many units are in the area of their fire
department. Regarding police response, she stated grave concern for response time to Priority I calls.
Mr. DeLeonardis responded to the question of re-sale of the low-income units, by stating that in sixteen years,
those units can be sold at current market rates. However, they cannot be sold to anyone but seniors. This
project is to remain a senior project and is so stated in the Title Report. He pointed out that 55 year olds are
not the target audience of this project and that their market target is for people in their late 60's and early70's.
The sixteen year time frame is set up so that some funds can be recuperated to provide other senior housing,
but those units will not be sold to anyone under the age of 55.
Regarding traffic, Mr. DeLeonardis stated that most seniors do not want to drive and would much rather use public or senior designated transportation. There is traffic on Jefferson but not when the residents of this
complex would be using it. He presented photographs of traffic at 7 a.m., Noon, and 5 p.m., and the available
parking at those times.
Planning Commission Minutes February 5,2003 Page 6
Commissioner White asked Mr. DeLeonardis to address Ms. Beeson’s question regarding the age of other occupants of the units.
Mr. DiLeonardis replied that the CC&Rs will specify that no resident can be under the age of 55, unless it is a spouse.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Baker closed Public Testimony and asked Staff to respond
to issues brought by the public.
Ms. Kennedy pointed out that in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5321, Condition No. 4, states that the
project shall be developed as a Senior Citizen housing project, so that will be in perpetuityfor this project and
will not change if these units are sold at some later date. Also, the Condition requires that a list of all the
project tenants, and their ages, be submitted to the City’s Housing and Redevelopment Department. The
state law does, however, make some exceptions to allow persons younger than 55. One of those instances,
albeit rare, would be where the parent (s) are caring for an adult child who is unable to care for himself or herself.
It is true, stated Mr. Kennedy, that there are no statistics for senior-owned condominiums, and that there was
no distinction between ownership versus rental. The parking standard was the same, across the board.
Regarding the low income units, eight of the 51% will be designated for income levels below 80% of the
area’s medium income and eighteen units will be for moderate income levels, and the twenty-five units
remaining will be market rate.
Ms. Kennedy stated there is a thirty-year restriction, for the affordability component and explained that after
fifteen years, the units could be sold, but the City can recoup the subsidy for up to the whole thirty-year
period.
Ms. Kennedy presented a slide depicting the lot and Ms. Neil’s property and pointed out a twenty-foot setback in the rear, for the first two stories, and the third story is set back an additional ten feet, in order to reduce the
impact to the neighboring properties.
Finally, Ms. Kennedy responded to questions regarding police and fire department‘s response times as follows: This area is served by Fire Station No. 1, and both the Fire Department and Police Department
reviewed these plans (standard practice) and reported that the addition of these units would not affect the
response times for those departments.
Mr. Wojcik responded to question regarding Level of Service as follows: The two intersections that would
receive the most impact from this project, are Jefferson and Laguna where the LOS is “B”, and at Jefferson
and Las Flores the LOS is “B”. As far as the volumes on the streets, they vary with the time of year. In the Summer the volumes go up but at all other times of the year, the volume is approximately 10,000 trips per
day. Regarding turning onto Jefferson Street in the mornings, there are two ways to alleviate the problem;
one is to completely change the circulation in that area, however Jefferson is the only northlsouth route
between 1-5 and State Street. Another possible alternative would be to install more traffic signals and/or four-
way stop signs to interrupt the traffic for those left-turn lanes. The Engineering Department does not feel that
that is needed at this time. That is something monitored with traffic accident reports, speed surveys, etc., and
if there is ever an issue in that area, that would be something that Staff would bring to the Traffic Safety
Commission as a routine matter.
Commissioner Segall asked what the ADT is for this project.
Mr. Wojcik replied that the ADT for this project will generate 204 trips, with an a.m. peak number of four trips
in and six trips out; the p.m. peak would be nine trips in and six trips out. The two residences, currently
occupying the property, generate ten ADT each, per day.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if the presently circuitous circulation pattern for leaving the project can be
modified.
Planning Commission Minutes February 5,2003 Page 7
Mr. Wojcik replied that the only thing that comes to mind is perhaps to make one-way streets in that area. He
added that the Traffic Engineer has not been able to find or devise a plan that would divert traffic away from that area because of the limited access in the area. Being of an inner-city atmosphere, it is naturally more
dense, so it is not unusual to expect a higher amount of traffic in the downtown area.
Ms. Mobaldi advised that the state government code does require that if 20% of a project is affordable, that
there is a mandatory 25% minimum density bonus. That is not only provided for in our City code, but also by
state law and we are required to grant those density bonuses.
Craig Ruiz, Management Analyst, Housing, stated as a matter of practice in low-income sales and not having
had any senior-owned projects, the ordinance allows restriction of the sale to someone of low income. After
the sale, the owner is allowed to sell the property at market rates, and the City recaptures any subsidy that
they received to make the unit affordable (either from the developer or the City). The City, in turn, uses that
money for future affordable housing projects. For projects coming through now, the department is restricting
the initial sale for fifteen years. We have the ability, however, to restrict that for up to thirty years but
implementation has not yet been achieved. By direction of the Commission, that could be implemented. At
some time, however, that restriction on the affordability requirement goes away and by ordinance, at this time,
we are limited to thirty years.
Chairperson Baker asked what the advantage would be with a limitation of sixteen years.
Mr. Ruiz, replied that basically, that is just a halfway point between what is being done (in practice) currently
to limit the loss of affordable units. The only advantage to the sixteen years is a staffing issue. There isn’t
enough staff to monitor all of the sales in addition to all of the other affordable housing responsibilities.
Chairperson Baker asked for clarification of the fifteen years versus thirty years.
Mr. Ruiz explained that if they extend the full thirty years, or that property is sold over a period of time up to
thirty years, then there would be no recapture of that subsidy. The person who is there at the end of the
thirtieth year would not have to repay that subsidy.
Chairperson Baker asked Mr. Ruiz to further explain the subsidy and what it entails.
Mr. Ruiz explained as follows: Typically a low-income person(s) is able to qualify for a loan of (example)
$100,000 but the unit is $1 50,000, so the subsidy would be $50,000. The City records that subsidy, in the form of a Second Deed of Trust, in favor of the City of Carlsbad. When that property is sold, the City would
recapture that subsidy of $50,000 which, in turn, goes back into the City’s housing trust fund and is used for
other affordable housing projects. If the property is sold to another low-income person, the subsidy transfers
to the new buyer so the recapture of the subsidy only happens once.
Commissioner White asked if her assumption is correct that when the senior affordable unit is sold and the subsidy recouped, that there is no policy that the money must be toward additional senior affordable housing.
Whereas if the requirement were to be thirty years, that would be providing senior affordable housing for thirty
years.
Mr. Ruiz replied that the money could go to any affordable housing project.
Commissioner White stated, for the record, that in her opinion, the funds from the Sale of senior affordable
housing, at market rates, should be used for additional senior affordable housing as opposed to any
affordable housing.
Chairperson Baker asked if that would be possible.
Mr. Ruiz stated that as Deputy Attorney Mc Mahon pointed out, that is not necessarily the purview of the
Planning Commission but is something the Commission is welcomed to discuss with Council.
Planning Commission Minutes February 5,2003 Page 8
Commissioner Dominguez stated that when trade-offs for density are made, that the City should get the
longest term benefit possible, to serve the underlying stated purpose, and strongly urged his fellow
Commissioners to restrict this to a thirty-year sale.
DISCUSSION
Chairperson Baker stated that Commissioner’s White and Dominguez had mentioned the thirty-year requirement and asked for comments.
Commissioner Segall stated his support for the thirty-year requirement.
Commissioner Heineman concurred.
MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner White, and dulyseconded, to adopt Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 5318,5319,5320,5320,5321 and 5323 recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and recommending approval of CT 02-10, CP 02-05, SDP 02-04, CDP 02-
15, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, and with the additional condition that the re-sale of the units be limited to affordable rates for
thirty years.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Whitton suggested that it would not be wise of the Commission to extend and condition this
project for thirty years because they have no empirical data and no factual research to support it. He
suggested that the additional condition, as entered by Commissioner White in the motion, should be removed and let the senior citizens group study it and come up with a position.
Chairperson Baker stated that Mr. Neu pointed out, to her, that the resolution already states thirty years.
Ms. Mobaldi requested a short recess.
Chairperson Baker called a recess 7:12 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Baker called the meeting back to order at 7:22 p.m., with all Commissioners present.
‘Ms. Mobaldi stated that the condition in Resolution No. 5319, refers to the City’s lnclusionary Housing
Ordinance which states that the individual property would remain restricted for a term of thirty years or may
be sold at a market price, if the subsidy from the City is recaptured. That allows the Housing and
Redevelopment Department to negotiate an affordable housing agreement where those units can be sold
earlier than thirty years, at a market rate. In this case, it is sixteen years, as long as the City recaptures its
subsidy. She advised that if the Commission wishes the term to be thirty years, they should leave the
condition exactly as it is or if they prefer, leave that decision to the Housing Policy Team, the word “or” should be inserted after the “thirty years”, so that it reads, “for sale of affordable units for a minimum of thirty years
OR in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85.”
Chairperson Baker pointed out that the question of the subsidy going back into senior affordable housing still
has not been addressed.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that the money goes wherever the Housing and Redevelopment Department feels it can
best be utilized, in regard to affordable housing. She pointed out that in fifteen to thirty years, the need for
senior subsidies may not be as high as for others. She suggested that in that period of time, there may be
Planning Commission Minutes February 5,2003 Page 9
many more projects such as this one, and the rieed for senior subsidies will have substantially decreased.
Commissioner Segal asked if Ms. Mobaldi has a recommendation for the Commission.
Ms. Mobaldi recommended that the condition be left, as it is intended to be, but add the word “ot” after “thirty
years” so that it is not misleading. She added that the Housing Policy Team has already reviewed each and
every affordable housing agreement so it would not be advantageous to return this item to them for a full
review.
In response to Commissioner Segall, Ms. Mobaldi stated that changes to affordable housing policy is more in
the purview of the Housing and Redevelopment Department. She added that they have put a great deal of thought into what policies they adopt and they are well aware of all the programs and where the different
monies are going. She then read Condition No. 14 under Housing, in Resolution No. 5319, with the addition
of the word “OR” after the words “thirty years,” to read, I‘. . . for a minimum of thirty years OR in accordance
with the requirements and process as set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.”
Commissioner White asked if there is any reason why the motion shouldn’t be read as first written.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that she thought it would be a good idea to clarify because there has been some
confusion that all of the units that are initially affordable are not necessarily going to remain affordable for a
full thirty years.
Commissioner Dominguez, for a point of clarification, asked Ms. Mobaldi ifwhatever the Commission decides
applies, uniformly, to all the units, whether or not they are “for sale” units or not.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that they are all for sale but that the decision would apply, uniformly, to all of the affordable units.
Commissioner White withdrew the amendment in her motion and Commissioner Dominguez withdrew his
second to the amendment.
AMENDMENT TO ORIGINAL MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner White, and duly seconded, that the developer shall enter
into an affordable housing agreement, with the City, to provide and deed restrict
twenty-six dwelling units as “For Sale Affordable Units” for a minimum of thirty years
OR in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION:
Commissioner White stated that while this is a very attractive project, and it will add a little more traffic to
Jefferson Street, the City certainly needs more affordable senior housing. She added that when she visited
the site, about 1O:OO a.m., there was plenty of parking and she had no trouble making a left turn out of Buena
Place on to Jefferson Street because there was no traffic in either direction. She stated this is very creative
and more projects, like it, should be encouraged and that she can support the project.
Commissioner Whitton stated his total support and thanked the developer for the modifications to the
underground parking and wished them luck.
Commissioner Dominguez stated his reluctant support for the project because he feels that the density bonus
for this area is too high. He also praised the developer’s efforts. He further stated that he hopes Carlsbad
will learn (from this project) by monitoring it‘s development, the parking situation, how these “for sale” projects work, and that the housing authority will keep a close eye on it so as to learn from any mistakes that are
made.
Planning Commission Minutes February 5,2003 Page 10
Commissioner Heineman stated he is very much in favor of the project. That he was initially concerned about
the parking situation but feels that those concerns have been substantially alleviated.
Commissioner Segall stated that the issue has not necessarily been the need for senior housing but for the
traffic and parking issues that this project could potentially create. He further stated his appreciation for all of
Staffs research, regarding parking. He pointed out that the additional parking that has been provided and the
fact that most of the traffic, in and out of this project, will be during off peak hours makes him feel more confident in supporting the project. He also said that anytime there is an in-fill project, such as this one, there
are always questions and concerns from the neighboring residents.
Chairperson Baker took the opportunity to thank Staff for working so diligently to answer all of the
Commission’s questions and to the public for their input.
VOTE: 6-0-0
AYES: Baker, White, Whitton, Dominguez, Heineman, and Segall
NOES: None
ABSTAl N : None
Chairperson Baker closed the Public Hearing on this item.
Mr. Neu pointed out that the Commission’s action on the Villa Francesca project is a recommendation to the
City Council and Council will be taking the final action on it.
f .I(
For the Infonnah'on of the:
CITY COUNCIL " " "
I
Vista, CA 92083 fax: (760) 643-4160 fifl /7,//5
jstineO,melroselawcenter.com -a543
March 19,2003
Barbara Kennedy
Associate Planner, City of Carlsbad
163 5 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008-73 14
VIA FAX AT-602-8559
& U.S. MAIL
Re: Villa Francesca Senior Condominium Application
Opposition to Project Design
Mr. & Mrs. Barney Neil
Dear Ms. Kennedy:
I have been retained by Mr. & Mrs. Barney Neil to voice their opposition to
the proposed Villa Francesca senior condominium project as designed. My clients
are the owners of a residence at 2616 Cabrillo Place, Carlsbad. Their two story
residence is directly adjacent to the eastern edge of the project site. .Erin Neil,
their daughter, occupies the residence and spoke in opposition to the development
at the February 5 meeting of the Planning Commission.
The purpose to this letter to formally register their concerns for the purpose
of the upcoming City Council hearing on the project and request that a meeting be
scheduled in advance of'the hearing to discuss possible ways of addressing them.
Please include this letter as part of the hearing record.
The Neil residence was purchased as my clients' future retirement home
after they conclude their professional careers in Arizona. It is part of a small
planned community that is entered from Laguna Drive. The Neil residence is
located on the west side of the Cabrillo Place cul-de-sac with the rear of the
building facing the southeastern edge of the project site.
Although the Neils share neighborhood concerns about traffic impacts from
the proposed development, they have an additional, individualized concern about
the project's height and extremely close proximity to their residence. The
1
i
I
placement of a thirty-four foot (34’) three story building within a mere twenty feet
(20’) of the rear property line would have a devastating impact on their ability to
enjoy sunlight and natural ventilation Erom the west facing (i.e. rear) of their two
story residence. The installation of east facing windows and patios shown on
project drawings would compromise their privacy as project residents would
literally be looking down into their master bedroom and dining room. These
adverse impacts would seriously undermine their ability to enjoy a comfortable
retirement in the residence as well as substantially reduce the property’s market
value.
Nevertheless, the Neils understand the value of affordable senior housing in
Carlsbad and, as such, do not oppose the project per se. Their principal issues are
with a project design that seriously and unnecessarily undermines their dreams for
full enjoyment of their residence during their senior years.
My clients respectfblly request that City staff, the applicant and the City
Council consider project modifications that will responsibly address their
concerns. One way to reduce project impacts would be to reduce the project from
three to two stories so as to approximate the height of the Neil residence.
Alternatively, the eastern edge of the project’s third story could be additionally
scaled back beyond the proposed ten foot offset between the second and third
stories; enhanced tiering between these floors at the rear of the property would
allow more sunlight and ventilation to reach the Neils residence. An increased
project setback from the rear property line also would reduce project shadows and
enhance their sense of privacy.
However, these ideas are just a few possible alternatives for modifying the
project in a way that responsibly addresses the Neils’ legitimate concerns. My
clients are open to any and all creative project modifications that would address
the adverse impacts to their property. To that end, I request an opportunity to
meet with project staff and the applicant in advance of the City Council meeting in
order to explore possible project changes that would minimize if not eliminate
these adverse impacts.
I look forward to hearing from you very soon.
vT&T%L “ .” ...
Psephk,. $tine. “
Cc: Anthony DeLeonardis
Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney
2
~ ""
I
"
7"-
March 17,2003
Mayor Lewis and Council Members
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad CA 9200
AGENDA iTEM # I1
c: Mayor
City Council
City Manager
CnrAtt-W
CljJ-
Attention: City Clerk’s Office
Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members:
As a very long time resident of Carlsbad, I am concerned about the approval by the Planning Commission
of the Villa Francesca development on Jefferson Street. Low income housing is needed, but to build 51
units on lots zoned for nine units is, in my opinion, not appropriate nor prudent planning.
The Carlsbad “village concept” is widely advertised resulting in considerable revenue for the city.
Because of the quaintness and uniqueness of the downtown area and its neighborhoods, the many tourists
who visit Carlsbad are delighted with what they see. They return again and again to spend their money
and enjoy. These neighborhoods are coming back; many young families are buying and building in the
area because of this small town feel and, of course, proximity to the beach.
I beg you to keep this village feeling by NOT crowding more and more large developments in this
small area.
As we all know, traffic on Jefferson Street is steadily worsening. At certain times of the day, it is
impossible to turn left from the side streets. Residents of my cul-de-sac (Buena Place) are literally
imprisoned. We all must turn right and go around the block to Buena Vista Way and down Davis Street to
the signal at Laguna Drive in order to shop in the village. These narrow side streets were not built for
traffic. Also, more multiple units are under construction on Laguna west of Jefferson and another 12
units are planned for Las Hores and Jefferson. As you can see, even without the addition of the ill-
advised Villa Francesca project, our streets are already being negatively impacted by excessive growth.
Imagine what it will be like in ten years!
Please take traffic, density and the “village concept” into consideration when acting on the Villa Francesca
project. If you must build this complex, reduce the total number of units so that it is more compatible with
the east side of Jefferson Street. Do not lose what little we have left of Carlsbad’s small town charm. It’s
more valuable than money.
Sincerely,
Cynthia McPherson
1055 Buena Place
Carlsbad CA 92008
March 25,2003
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING - FOR SALE CALCULATIONS
Attached for your information are some example overheads that will be used by staff to help
explain the affordable housing for sale calculations at the Council meeting tonight, if requested.
Unfortunately, the calculations are complicated. We did the best we could to explain the
calculations in a simplified manner for overhead purposes.
The first example overhead demonstrates how the maximum purchase price is calculated for a
low income household. In “technical” terms, we “back into” the maximum purchase price. Based
on income, we calculate a maximum monthly housing payment. This housing payment helps us
to calculate the appropriate purchase price for the home. The first example also indicates how the
developer subsidy, or silent second, is calculated for the unit.
The second example overhead takes information from the first overhead and explains what
happens when a unit is sold. Staff has shown the calculation at initial sale. In years 0 through 15,
the unit may be sold but only to another low income household. In these years, the price is
established by the median income levels and there is no recapture of the builder and/or city
subsidy. Typically, there will be no more than a 3 to 4% annual appreciation during this period.
In years 16-30, the unit may be sold to a non-low income buyer. In this case, the owner may sell
for a market price (no restrictions) and then the City recaptures the builder subsidy as well as a
shared appreciation amount. The shared appreciation amount is based on the amount of the
builder andor city subsidy in the project. During this period, the owner may also choose to sell
to another low income household, but is not required to do so.
Please let me know if any further clarification is needed or desirable.
C: City Attorney
For-Sale Product
Affordable Housing Calculation
Maximum Selling Price
Example
Assumptions: -
One Bedroom Unit; 5% of market appraised value for down
payment; 1.5 person household 0 80% of AMI; 30% front end
ratio; interest rate of 5.75%
I Median Household Annual Income: $38,350 I I Maximum Monthly Payment: $ 959
Housing Costs:
Private Mortgage Insurance
Property Taxes
HOA Dues
Utility Allowance
Principal & Interest
Total Monthly Payment
$ 40
$ 175
$ 150
$ 38
$ 556
$ 959
1'' Trust Deed Loan
Down Payment
Maximum Purchase Price
$ 95,300
$ 8,750
$104,050
Appraised Value of Home: $ 175,000
Max. Purchase Price (for 80% AMI): 104,050
Gap Financing Required: ($ 70,950)
Builder Silent Second $70,950 (40.5% of
appraised value)
For-Sale Product
Affordable Housing Sales Calculation
Initial Sale to Low Income Household
Appraised Market Value of Home $1 75,000
Max. Purchase Price (@I 80% of AMI) $1 04,050
Builder Subsidy $ 70,950
*Builder Subsidy equals 40.5 % of Appraised Market Value
Subsequent Sales - Year 0 to 15 - to Low Income Household
Note: Price may increase according to increases in median income
(approximately 3% per year)
Max. Purchase Price (@ 80% of AMI) $1 19,700
*Builder Subsidy of $70,550 is assumed by new buyer
Year 16 - 30 Sale - Non low income sale
Market Appraised Value $365,000
Original Appraised Value $( 175,000)
Appreciation $W
Citv Receives:
Builder Subsidy $70,950
Shared Appreciation (40.5%) $76,950
Total Amount due City $1 47,900
Seller Profit (Home Owner) $ 42,100