The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-02-13; City Council; 18850 Attachments; Appeal: RomeriaREC'D FROM CITY OF CARLSBAD 1635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Cashier: (760) 602-2401 Water Utility Billing: (760) 602-2420 DATE ACCOUNT NO. '•Oo\ - 3^ sc - M ?r\3 DESCRIPTION tf/ter*L /.'/-' &s)»*Av&, <*&>,«,^ A ^' . -• / . j , y ff/ J- s"* > \ / '7i / — n_L_ii / i+^t f'"*f -~--x i / NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY TOTAL © Printed on recycled paper CASH REGISTER AMOUNT i i i j i 1 •*i* \ ^ Citv of Carlsbad Office of the City Clerk November 14, 2006 To: Don Neu, Planning Director RE: Gino Defante Appeal. 2565 Romeria Street. CP 06-01 Planning Commission Meeting held November 1, 2006 THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. According to the Municipal Code, most appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: If the notice requires a public hearing, the item will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by the City Manager and the City Attorney). Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call. Karen Kundtz, Assistant City Clerk, 760-434-2917 Copies To: Enclosed: Copy of appeal City Manager Copy of agenda City Attorney Chris Sexton, Planner The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council Meeting of Signature Date H:\Appeals\Appeal Notice to Department.doc 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 • (760) 434-2808 JO OO p 111 Citv of Carlsbad Office of the City Clerk APPEAL FORM peal trie decision of the, ftobaq City Council Date of Decision you are appealing:. Subject of Appeal: SE gJPgCIFIC Examples: it tne action is a City Engineer's Decision, please say so. If a project has multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please list thpm all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here. Rea8Qn(s1 for Appeal: • Pleas* Not* • Failure to »p«clfy a reason may rvsult In denial of th« appeal, and you will ba limited to tha grounds statad h*ra when prasantfng your appeal. BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local laws, plans, or policy? SIGTOTTL'RE PHONE NO. NAME (please print)ADDRESS: Stfeet Name & Number DATE State,Zip Code 12OO Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, California 920O8-1989 • (619)434-2808 p Ml PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA NOVEMBER 1.2C06 PAGE 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CUP OS-18/CDP 06-35 - NS022-01 FOUR SEASONS WCF - Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the installation ot a Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) at the Aviara Four Seasons Resort located at 7100 Four Seasons Point in the Mello I! Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 19. Resolutions No. 6184,6165 Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL PLANNER: Jason Goff ENGINEER David hauser PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Approved 6-0 2. CDP 06-21 - WOOLSON RESIDENCE - Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit to allow for partial demolition of an existing single-family residence and the remodel and addition of 4,191.5 square feet within the City's Coastal Zone located at 5345 Los Robles Drive within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) ana Local Facilities Management Zone 3. Resolution No. 6183 Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL PLANNER: Erin Endres ENGINEER: David Rick PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approved 6-0 3. CP 06-01 - ROMERIA - Appeal of a Planning Director decision, pursuant to Section 21.54.140 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, to deny a Condominium Permit to allow the conversion of a four-unit apartment complex into condominiums on a .32 acre site located at 2565 Romena Street, on the northwest corner of Romeria Street and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Resolution No. 6197 Staff Recommendation: DENYING PLANNER: Chris Sexton ENGINEER: David Rick PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Denied 6-0 Planning Commission Member Comments Planning Director Comments City Council Update City Attorney Comments TIME: 7:43j>.m. GlNO DlFANTE P.O. Box 2442 • Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 (949) 887-7557 • Fax: (760) 944-2885 November 10, 2006 Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: The Romeria - CP 06-01 Gino DiFante, Owner 7565 Romeria Street La Costa, CA 92009 Re: Reasons for my appeal to the Carlsbad City Council. Carlsbad City Council: I believe the Carlsbad Planning Commission's decision to deny my appeal and uphold the Planning Directors' denial of a condominium permit for my project CP 06X)1 (The Romeria) was based upon inaccurate, inconsistent and misleading issues of denial, and a letter dated August 14, 2000 from the Planning Department, which have been applied to my project by the Planning Department. These issues and letter have been presented to the Planning Commission by the Planning Department in order to direct the Planning Commission to deny my appeal. I have submitted resolutions to the issues the Planning Department has with my project, but they refuse to acknowledge and apply these resolutions to the issues. I feel that my project has been singled out by the Planning Department because the Planning Department will not apply the resolutions to the issues on my project in order to approve my project's condominium permit. However, the Planning Department has applied my resolutions of the issues to other recently approved condominium projects in the same area as mine, but will not apply the issue resolutions to my project. I submitted all the information requested by the Planning Department for the Planning Commission hearing on September 25, 2006. The documents I submitted included resolutions to the two issues of denial stated hi the Planning Department's denial letter dated August 2, 2006. On October 19, 2006,1 learned from the DCC Report that the Planning Department applied two new additional issues to my project at the last minute - just before the hearing - which I believe do not apply to my project. The DCC Report also addressed and applied a response to a preliminary review by the Planning Department on August 14, 2000. The Planning Department preliminary review was not required for my project. The Planning Department has currently used this letter of August 14, 2000 to present to the Planning Commission to deny my condominium permit today. Carlsbad City Council November 10 Page Two This letter does not apply to my project today because it was written and based upon the old Planned Development Ordinance and not the current Planned Development Ordinance the Planning Department states my project needs to comply to. The letter is inaccurate and misleading and should not be addressed or applied to my project today. This is why I feel my project has been singled out by die Planning Department. The City Engineering, Building, Fire and Police Departments have no issues with my project. I believe the current Planned Development Ordinance contradicts and is not consistent with the City General Plan, the Noise Element and City policy. The Carlsbad Planning Department has determined that the current Planned Development Ordinance and the development standards in the Ordinance are ambiguous and inconsistent and has recently written a new Planned Development Ordinance to be approved by the Carlsbad City Council. The Planning Department's issues of denial on my project's condominium permit are based on these ambiguous and inconsistent development standards in the current Planned Development Ordinance. Therefore, I believe the issues of denial on my project by the Planning Department are inaccurate, inconsistent and misleading. My project complies with the Ordinance and my condominium permit should be approved and not denied due to inaccurate, inconsistent and misleading issues by the Planning Department. I have submitted with this appeal form documents and information that support my reasons for appeal. Please review all information provided on the resolutions to the issues of denial and the inaccurate and misleading letter of August 14, 2000. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Gino DiFante GlNO DlFANTE P.O. Box 2442 • Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 (949) 887-7557 • Fax: (760) 944-2885 November 10, 2006 Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: The Romeria - CP 06-01 Dear Carlsbad City Council: I would like to explain the preliminary review response letter dated August 14, 2000, from Ann Hysong of the Planning Department, mentioned in the DCC report for my project. The Planning Department never addressed this letter as an issue to my project before now. I have just learned of it in the DCC Report. I feel this letter should not be applied to my project today because it is inaccurate and misleading. Please allow me to explain why I feel this way. The letter was written in August 2000 and is based on the old Planned Development Ordinance in effect at the time. The Planning Department said my project needs to comply with the current Planned Development Ordinance in order to convert my four unit project to condominiums, not the old Ordinance this letter refers to. Therefore, I believe the letter is inaccurate and should not be applied to my project today. I feel the letter is misleading because Ann Hysong never sent me or put in the city file a correspondence letter to the meeting Ann Hysong, Jeremy Riddle, and I had in September 2000, on the issues of concern in this letter from Ann Hysong and site plan notes with Jeremy Riddle, my city project engineer. I would like to tell you how the letter evolved. In July 2000, I submitted to the Building Department for preliminary review of my site plan from the Building and Engineering Departments. The person at the Building Department counter told me I should also submit to the Planning Department for preliminary review of my project even though I was not required to submit to the Planning Department. I was previously told that the apartment projects of four units or less do not require Planning Department review. The person at the counter suggested it was better for my project if I did. So I paid the additional fees and submitted to the Planning Department as well and this is how the letter evolved. I spoke to Ann Hysong after I received the letter to set up a meeting at the City with her and Jeremy Riddle to discuss and resolve the issues of concern she had with the project. We met hi September 2000. Carlsbad City Council November 10, 2006 Page Two That day I presented to Ann a preliminary colored elevation from La Costa Avenue with the required noise attenuation wall. We discussed the issues of concern and resolved them. In this letter she suggested I change the site plan design and have the back of the building face La Costa Avenue and step the building back in sections towards La Costa Avenue, and place the driveway on the interior side of the site with the garages facing the interior of the site. Interior meaning the north side of the lot. But as Jeremy Riddle said to Ann Hysong at the meeting (bat day, Gino cannot develop the site in the manner she suggested in the letter because the project needs to maintain a 30 foot La Costa Avenue arterial setback, a minimum 24 foot wide driveway with access to the site off of Romeria Street only, with the driveway apron a minimum of five feet away from the north side property line and the driveway apron a minimum 30 feet wide. Also that Policy 66 states that the front of the building, garages and front entryways should face the street. The design on the site plan Gino has submitted is the only design for the site that meets all the requirements. Ann Hysong agreed with Jeremy Riddle when she realized all of the other requirements to the site and supported the existing site plan. Ann also stated that the required noise attenuation wall would block the garage door visibility from La Costa Avenue and that satisfied her concern. Ann and I discussed the landscaping and certain details she would like to see on the site and design, such as colored concrete at the driveway entry from Romeria, detailed windows, wood, stone and wrought iron elements, balcony facades, etc. She told me to landscape and enhance the site as much as I can to help satisfy a condominium conversion in the future if I ever decided to convert the apartments. We both agreed and I said to Ann that I would do all the things she suggested because I would be living mere and I wanted the project to look good as well. She also suggested a side patio area for unit 4 since the patio area shown was smaller than the other units. Ann, Jeremy and I agreed that day that the issues of concern from the Planning Department had been addressed and resolved and mat she would acknowledge the meeting and resolutions in a letter that would be sent to me as well as placed hi my file at the Planning Department. I never received a correspondence letter from Ann Hysong on the meeting. Chris Sexton told me there was no letter in my file when we met at the City on Monday, October 23, 2006. My existing project is consistent with all of Ann Hysong's landscape and design details she suggested to me that day in the meeting. This is why I feel the letter is misleading, because these issues of concern have already been resolved. I don't understand why Ann Hysong's resolution letter is not in the Planning Department file for my project. I appreciate the Planning Commission's time and effort in reviewing all of the information provided to help with the approval of my condominium permit. Sincerely, Gino DiFante CP 06-01 - ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page 2 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND \ On July 18, 2000, the applicant submitted a Preliminary Review application for an apartment \ complex consisting of four townhome style apartments. A response to that preliminary review \ was mailed to the applicant on August 14, 2000, and in that response City staff advised the \ applicant that the proposed apartment project did not conform to the standards of the Planned j Development Ordinance and that the applicant would be unable to convert the four unit / apartment complex into airspace condominiums at a later date. / / On February 12, 2002 the applicant formally applied for a building permit to construct a four unit apartment complex. As a four-unit apartment building, the structure only required a building permit and did not require any discretionary permits such as a Condominium Permit (CP) or Site Development Plan (SDP). The building permit for the four-unit apartment project was issued on February 7, 2003 and finaled on March 8,2005. The applicant is currently requesting to convert the four-unit apartment complex into condominiums. Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 21.45, Section 21.45.110 states that "Any application for a condominium conversion, shall not be subject to the amended provisions of this chapter but shall be processed and approved or disapproved pursuant to the ordinance in effect at the time that the original project was approved or constructed." Since the building permit was approved on February 7, 2003 the current project must comply with the current Planned Development Ordinance which was approved by the City Council on December 18, 2001, and became effective on January 18,2002. The current four-unit apartment complex meets the development standards of the RD-M zone in which it is located; however, the proposed conversion of the four-unit apartment complex into condominiums does not meet all of the development standards of the applicable Planned Development Ordinance (PD). Detailed below are the development standards the project fails to comply with. The PD standards require a thirty foot arterial setback, with an average of 50% of the required setback to be landscaped to act as a buffer from traffic and to enhance the street scene. Project perimeter walls are expressly not allowed within the 50% average landscape buffer area. While the project provides a 31.57 foot setback, it does not meet the 50% average landscape buffer area standard. In addition, a six foot project perimeter wall is currently located in the 50% average landscape buffer area, which is in direct contradiction of the PD standards. The project also fails to meet the private recreational space standards for one of the four units. The PD standards require each unit to provide either a 15'xl5' patio or 120 square feet of balcony area. In addition, proposed balconies are not allowed to project into a required setback area. Units 1, 2 and 3 meet these standards with a combination of existing patios and proposed balconies. However, Unit 4 does not comply with these standards as the proposed 160 square foot balcony projects more than three feet into the required 8 foot residence setback, which is measured from the edge of the project driveway. The existing structure also does not meet the required PD project driveway setback standards, which require residences to be set back 8 feet, fully landscaped, and garages to be set back 5 feet, with both setbacks to be measured from the project driveway. The existing structure provides ^pp — City of Carlsbad Planning Department August 14, 2000 Gino Difante P.O. Box 2442 Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 SUBJECT: PRE 00-52 - THE ROMERIA TOWNHOME APARTMENTS APN: 216-300-15 A preliminary review of your project was conducted on August 10, 2000. Listed below are the issues raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your project. The preliminary review does not represent an in-depth analysis of your project. Additional issues of concern may be raised after vour application is submitted and processed for a more specific and detailed review. Planning: 1. The proposed 4-unit apartment project requires issuance of a building permit only. Compliance with all applicable zoning ordinances is required. The RD-M zone requires a 10' landscaped street side yard setback. The proposed project is designed with a 24' wide driveway aisle and guest parking spaces that encroach into the required landscape setback. 2. The project has frontage on La Costa Avenue, a circulation arterial roadway. A noise analysis is required to ensure that noise impacts are reduced to the City's standard (exterior - 60 dBA CNEL/interior - 45 dBA CNEL). A combination of landscaped berm (within the required 10' setback) and wall should be used to mitigate the noise level to the City's standard. 3. The proposed architecture lacks roof line variation and provides little building articulation. Additionally, all four garage doors front on La Costa Avenue. Please redesign the project so that garage doors face the interior side property line (see engineering comments below). This "reversed" design would require that units be designed in a stepped fashion to create greater building articulation. Since the rear elevations would be visible from La Costa Avenue, please add architectural detailing to create multiple building planes and shadowing and incorporate some variation in the window design. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92OO8-7314 • (760) 6O2-4600 • FAX (760) 6O2-8559 PRE 00-52 - THE ROIvRlA TOWNHOME APARTMENTS August 14, 2000 Page 2 4. A pitched roof design would be preferable to the flat roof. If a flat roof is proposed, please provide variation in the roof line to add interest to the project. 5. Please be advised that the proposed project does not conform to the Planned Development Ordinance development regulations and design criteria which would be required to convert this apartment project to a condominium at some future date. Engineering: Prior to formal application submittal the following items must be adequately resolved/addressed: 1. Please be advised that in order to make a more in-depth review of the proposed development, a more complete design of the project is required. 2. Revise the driveway to ease vehicular accessibility to the site. The driveway, as proposed, contains severe curves (see redlined check print). 3. Callout existing and proposed improvements on the site plan. 4. Please indicate all existing utilities along La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street (i.e., storm drain, water, sewer, etc.) Callout the existing or proposed facilities that will serve the development. The submitted plan does not depict any facilities. 5. If a condominium conversion is being contemplated at a later date, consider installing separate water services to each unit now to facilitate the conversion. 6. Coordinate with Leucadia County Water District for sewer service availability. 7. Indicate all existing and proposed surface improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving, inlets, street lights, adjacent driveways, vaults, transformers, etc.) along property fronting La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street, and verify that no conflicts exist. 8. Identify the distance from the proposed driveway to the street intersection. 9. Depict the location of existing driveways both adjacent to and across from the project. 10. Depict the location of existing adjacent buildings and surface improvements. 11. Revise the plan to indicate the ADT (traffic), EDU (sewer), GPM (potable water), and GPM (reclaimed water) generated or required by the proposed development. PRE 00-52 - THE PCMCIA TOWNHOME APARTMENTS August 14, 2000 Paqe3 12. Meet with the Fire Department to identify the necessary fire protection measures required for this project (access, fire hydrants, sprinklering, etc.). All proposed fire hydrants must be served by public water mains. 13. Show all existing and proposed topography and drainage patterns for the site. Revise the plans to indicate how on-site surface runoff is controlled. Identify the location, alignment, and discharge of any proposed drainage system. 14. Indicate the legal description of all adjacent properties. 15. Submit the site plan at a 1" = 10' scale. 16. Indicate the volume of grading (cut, fill, import, export, remedial) proposed for the project in cubic yards. There is insufficient information provided to make a clear determination of whether a grading permit is required. 17. A public improvement will be required for the improvements (i.e.: installation of laterals) in public right-of-way. This may be handled by processing a construction change to the as-built plan for La Costa Avenue to document the additional improvements. 18. Show typical street sections of La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street that indicate existing and proposed improvements. 19. A recent preliminary title report (PR) (issued within 6 months of formal application submittal) will be required for the proposed project. 20. All easements and encumbrances as identified in Schedule "B" of the PR must be indicated on the site plan. The future disposition of any easements and encumbrances must also be identified. 21. The complete property boundary must be shown on the site plan, which must include all bearings and distances. 22. Please indicate how a standard P-1 vehicle will circulate throughout the site. 23. Include a 5-foot pavement kick-out or other measure to facilitate a vehicular turnaround at the end of the driveway. 24. Indicate how National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) criteria will be met. This could include, but not be limited to, doing one or a combination of the following: directing surface run-off through vegetated swales prior to discharge to a storm drain or the public right of way, constructing a gravel/sand/fossil filter system, constructing de-pollutant basins, etc. Also, any loading areas that are located in a sump must have pump facilities to direct drainage to a pollutant mitigation area. PRE 00-52 - THE ROMmA TOWNHOME APARTMENTS August 14, 2000 Page 4 25. Indicate the line-of-sight at the driveway entrance looking north and south onto Romeria Street using CalTrans guidelines. Verify no conflicts exist. 26. A redlined check print is enclosed for the applicants use in making the requested revisions. This check print should be returned with the formal application submittal to facilitate continued staff review. Fire: Preliminary comments: (Note: This commentary identifies missing information that must be included with the official project submittal. It may also identify fire protection issues associated with the project.) 1. Because the total square footage of the building exceeds 10,000 square feet, the entire structure must be protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Please contact Anne Hysong at (760) 602-4622 or Project Engineer, Jeremy Riddle at (760) 602-2737 if you have any questions. Sincen : WAYNE Assistant Planning Director GEW:AHvd:ct Attachments c: Michael J. Holzmiller Chris Decerbo Jeremy Riddle Mike Smith Bill Plummer File Copy Data Entry City of Carlsbad Planning Department PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION November 2, 2006 Difante Gino PO Box 2442 Capistrano Beach CA 92624 SUBJECT: CP 06-01 - ROMERIA At the Planning Commission meeting of November 1, 2006, your application was considered. The Commission voted 6-1 to DENY your request. The decision of the Planning Commission will become final on November 11, 2006. The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the Assistant Planning Director, Don Neu, Secretary of the Planning Commission, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008. If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Planning Department at (760) 602-4600. Sincerely, JLX, DON NEU Assistant Planning Director DN:CS:aw Enclosed: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6197 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us® 22 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6197 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL, PURSUANT TO SECTION 21.54.140 OF THE CARLSBAD 4 MUNICIPAL CODE, AND UPHOLDING A PLANNING 5 DIRECTOR DECISION TO DENY A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF A FOUR-UNIT 6 APARTMENT COMPLEX INTO CONDOMINIUMS ON A .32 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 2565 ROMERIA STREET ON THE 7 NORTHWEST CORNER OF ROMERIA STREET AND LA COSTA AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 8 ZONE 6. 9 CASE NAME: ROMERIA CASE NO.: CP 06-01 10 WHEREAS, Gino DiFante, "Developer/Owner," has filed a verified application 12*" with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 13 Lot 390 of La Costa South Unit No. 5, according to map thereof No. 6660, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of 14 San Diego County, March 10,1970 15 ("the Property"); and 16 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Condominium 17 Permit as shown on Exhibits "A" - "G" dated November 1, 2006,on file in the Planning18 19 Department, ROMERIA - CP 06-01 as provided by Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal 20 Code; and 21 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 1st day of November, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 23 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 24 testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission 25 considered all factors relating to the Condominium Permit. 27 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 2° 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 Commission 2 DENIES THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO DENY ROMERIA - CP 06-01, based on the 3 following findings: 4 Findings; 1. That the proposed project does not comply with all applicable development standards 6 included within Chapter 21.45, in that the project does not meet the following Planned Development standards: 7 a) Per the Planned Development Ordinance (PD), Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), an average of 50% of the required 30 foot setback area 9 that is located closest to La Costa Avenue (secondary arterial) shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic. Project perimeter walls 10 cannot be located in this required 50% average landscape buffer area. The landscaped buffer area shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage. The project currently does not meet this standard as there is no landscape buffer provided and a 6 foot tall project perimeter wall is located within the required landscape buffer setback area; 13 b) The project does not meet the PD private recreational space standards for one of the four units. Pursuant to the PD standards, each unit in projects of 1-10 dwelling 1 units in size must have a 15 foot x 15 foot patio or 120 square feet of balcony area to satisfy the private recreational space standards. In addition, proposed balconies are 16 not allowed to project into a required setback area. Unit 4 does not comply with these standards as the proposed 155 square foot balcony projects more than three feet into the required 8' residence setback, which is measured from the edge of the project driveway; 19 c) The existing structure does not meet the required PD project driveway setback standards, which require residences to be set back 8 feet, fully landscaped, and 20 garages to be set back 5 feet with both setbacks to be measured from the project driveway. The existing structure provides residence setbacks as little as 1.5 feet, with no landscaping, and garages with setbacks as little as 1.5 feet (Unit 4 garage); 22 and 23 d) The project does not comply with the PD architectural design elements standards. The project is required to provide at least three separate building planes on all 24 building elevations with a minimum 18 inches of offset in planes. Currently, the project only provides three separate plans on the south (street) side facing elevation with a minimum 18 inches of offset in the planes. However, the north, east and west 26 elevations do not meet this standard as they provide only 2 planes, instead of the required 3 planes. 27 28 PCRESONO. 6197 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. That the proposed project's density, site design and architecture are not compatible with surrounding development, in that the neighborhood is developed with similar multiple-family structures, however the proposed condominium conversion project cannot meet the minimum development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance. 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 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. PCRESONO. 6197 -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 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of November 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, and Segall ABSENT: Commissioner Whitton ABSTAIN: MARTELL B. MONTCOMER^rnairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PCRESONO. 6197 -4- B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 2 DENIES THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO DENY ROMERIA - CP 06-01, based on the 3 following findings: Findings; 1. That the proposed project does not comply with all applicable development standards 6 included within Chapter 21.45, in that the project does not meet the following Planned Development standards: _ a) Per the Planned Development Ordinance (PD), Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), an average of 50% of the required 30 foot setback area 9 that is located closest to La Costa Avenue (secondary arterial) shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic. Project perimeter walls 10 cannot be located in this required 50% average landscape buffer area. The landscaped buffer area shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage. The project currently does not meet this standard as 12 there is no landscape buffer provided and a 6 foot tall project perimeter wall is located within the required landscape buffer setback area; 13 b) The project does not meet the PD private recreational space standards for one of 14 the four units. Pursuant to the PD standards, each unit in projects of 1-10 dwelling . , units in size must have a 15 foot x 15 foot patio or 120 square feet of balcony area to satisfy the private recreational space standards. In addition, proposed balconies are 16 not allowed to project into a required setback area. Unit 4 does not comply with these standards as the proposed 160 square foot balcony projects more than three 17 feet into the required 8' residence setback, which is measured from the edge of the project driveway; 1 o 19 c) The existing structure does not meet the required PD project driveway setback standards, which require residences to be set back 8 feet, fully landscaped, and 20 garages to be set back 5 feet with both setbacks to be measured from the project driveway. The existing structure provides residence setbacks as little as 1.5 feet, 21 with no landscaping, and garages with setbacks as little as 1.5 feet (Unit 1 garage); 22 and 23 d) The project does not comply with the PD architectural design elements standards. The project is required to provide at least three separate building planes on all 24 building elevations with a minimum 18 inches of offset in planes. Currently, the project only provides three separate plans on the south (street) side facing elevation with a minimum 18 inches of offset in the planes. However, the north, east and west 25 elevations do not meet this standard as they provide only 2 planes, instead of the required 3 planes. 27 28 PCRESONO. 6197 -2- October 24, 2006 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: CP 06-01 - The Romeria ISSUE A NOISE ATTENUATION WALL Items provided to the Planning Commission on this issue: (1) Planning Department request for an acoustical analysis for my project dated July 17, 2002 from Greg Fisher. -Ai^ (2) Acoustical analysis and the addendum to the analysis dated April 25, 2006, from Colia C*)' y|0(» Acoustical Consultants, for my project. 1 (3) Photos of the existing landscaping and noise attenuation wall for my project. (4) Certain sections of the City General Plan Noise Element that apply to my project. (5) Copy of the June 30, 2006 letter of submittal and letter to Van Lynch of the Planning Department on the resolutions to the issues with my project. (6) Copy of September 25, 2006 letter of submittal and letter to Chris Sexton. (7) Casa La Costa, Planned Development, located at the corner of La Costa Avenue and Levante Street. Copy of the July 18, 2002 preliminary review letter from the Planning Department on the noise attenuation wall for the Casa La Costa condominiums. Acoustical analysis recommendations for Casa La Costa. Photos of the Casa La Costa noise attenuation wall. (8) Northpark at La Costa, Planned Development, at the corner of La Costa Avenue and Levante Street. Copy of March 10. 2003 preliminary review letter from the Planning Department on the noise attenuation wall for this Planned Development. Acoustical analysis recommendations and photos of the noise attenuation wall for this Planned Development. I believe there is a problem with the requirements of this standard in the current Planned Development Ordinance, because the standard does not acknowledge the Noise Element of the City General Plan. The current Planned Development Ordinance states that the General Plan prevails over the Ordinance. ISSUE A October 24, 2006 Page Two Based on the noise element of the City General Plan, the noise attenuation wall is required for my project and my site because my project is located at the corner of La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street. The wall is not a project perimeter wall as the Planning Department states. The wall is a noise attenuation wall that is required by the Noise Element of the City General Plan. The existing noise attenuation wall lowers the roadway noise impact as well as buffers the homes from traffic. Existing landscaping is provided in front of the noise attenuation wall to enhance the street scene and existing landscaping is provided on the interior of the wall to enhance the homeowners' scenery. Please review the existing landscape plan and photos to see that the landscaping is provided. Please review all items provided on this issue. City of Carlsbad Planning Department March 10, 2003 Touchstone Communities 11668 Sard is Place San Diego, Ca 92131 Kerry Garza SUBJECT: CT 02-25/SDP 02-10/PUD 02-13 - NORTHPARK AT LA COSTA Hi Kerry, Here is a list of hopefully the remaining planning issues. Please make the corrections and resubmit two sets of plans to the planning department. Planning: 1. Please provide all required guest parking on-site as required Chapter 21.45.060 of the CMC. 2. Please show full compliance in regards to Architectural Guideline #4. Each required plane must have a minimum of 30 square feet. Provide the square footage for each plane on the elevation drawings and provide a comment on the title sheet within the compliance table. 3. Due to the purpose and intent of SP208, staff recommends that you meet with the neighbors to the north (lots 1-7) to discuss possible privacy/fencing concerns and/or issues. This must be addressed prior to a hearing date. O As discussed at our meeting, please show the proposed noise attenuation wall along the entire easterly property line (lots 7 & 8, guest parking and passive park area). Please also have the noise study reflect these changes as well as the required wall/fence height for lot 8. 5. Regarding the front yards for lots 10, 11 and 12, greater landscape detail is required to determine what retaining walls/walkways require safety railings. Please add this information to the conceptual landscape plan. If you have any questions regarding your Planning issues, please call Greg Fisher at (760) 602-4629. Engineering: 1. Provide a letter from the soils engineer that supports site drainage concentrated less than 5-feet from the foundation of the proposed structures (see the site plan and preliminary grading plan). Are there any 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us J r L Ii IK i Efc » £sIB J *!,.S 5 si t-(j E s* B 1 I 1 £ fc a8 I fl i £ *> 3 to ii ip» i & a in ID g t! i H i £ s V£ma ?ts ^8 i> c 1 in if! to ji In in in in & tn in £ «i ^ *D 3 3 * 5 ? v^ >^g<^ iu ii: » tLJLJ * - 9 3i ^ 3 5 y 1-« 5 § i i1 § >§ £S > t 0£ Ia in£S h42 5 e^» v& ^S ?fe^a 1 io IG £i>•Q £ £g I 2 &m;i^--::-;.. ••'^•;-" • ''-'•' T-r-.-:••-•-.•••• v ;-' '-v^: v.v:-:-> -:v:;/-,-;•..>:- -.,.;•;•.$ %KM'>:,., --::':^.. •. i--- *-:• ,:?:.;;•:;••• -, ?• -.v ^•••j^^ -^v.tr^y:---•.-.•"•- v-| g^:V?l*;;:':^^^ ^lS®ip^|;^^V'-'-f!;t>i>^ * fcn t & J"* ' - fJ3< 's(M&8teS-"1«^s3*MSK,'S^&-t''-"ft*«i5>i ' *•'m ^kTabl^FUWeSwoTOfcOTit£H ' * -v i ~* *M fv^'^ *3*;W;^^HUWPHiiM:;'I-»«S ' 1% r-VN Receiver Locations R-l ~ Lot 1 Private Outdoor Use Area R-2 — Lot 2 Private Outdoor Use Area R-3 ~ Lot 3 Private Outdoor Use Area R-4 ~ Lot 4 Private Outdoor Use Area R-5 — Lot 5 Private Outdoor Use Area R-6 — Lot 6 Private Outdoor Use Area R-7 ~ Lot 7 Private Outdoor Use Area R-12- Lot 12 Private Outdoor Use Area R-13 - Lot 11 Private Outdoor Use Area R-14 —Lot 10 Private Outdoor Use Area R-15 ~ Lot 9 Private Outdoor Use Area R-16 ~ Lot 8 Private Outdoor Use Area ufeut'* J;fti2v fr'k^Ci^H.'^^^iv-i^ Kf-irl vV*f iSSdund AttenuationlBaJTier Mitigatibh >/'L >fTf '+ ,t Vw" «• ^efffi-f *»l5iMNJv Vi <> KV"iUh<"<f'»*n<''* Unmitigated CNEL 55.0 56.1 57.2 58.5 60.0 60.8 68.1 47.0 46.9 57.2 52.3 63.8 Barrier Height N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 feet/7 feet N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 feet/7 feet Mitigated CNEL * * * * * 60.0/60.0 60.8/59.6 * * * * 61.8/59.9 * Unmitigated CNEL noise level is in compliance; no mitigation is required for this lot. Pursuant to comply with the City of Carlsbad requirements, the project design may be modified to limit the sound attenuation barriers on Lots 7 and 8 at the proposed outdoor use areas to a maximum height of 6 feet. The restrictive six-foot high sound wall is the greatest feasible height consistent with visual impacts desirable by the City. The difference in noise attenuation provided by the six-foot high sound barrier as compared to the seven-foot high barrier results in a less than significant noise impact to these lots. Additionally, a six-foot high sound attenuation barrier is feasible if a permanent noise easement is placed upon Lots 7 and 8 in this project. This easement would require that potential owners or renters of the property are notified in writing of the less than significant noise-impacted nature at the respective private outdoor use areas. This provision will ensure compliance with the City of Carlsbad Noise Element. For more information, please refer to the attached Site Development Plan Showing Future Exterior CNEL at Outdoor Use Areas with Proposed Sound Attenuation Barrier Locations and Heights. Douglas Eilar & Associates Project #A21124 December 23,2002 Page 9 6.2 Interior Proposed sound attenuation barriers will not block the traffic noise from higher floors or rooms with a direct line-of sight to the roadways, and interior noise levels may consequently exceed the 45 CNEL requirement. Mitigation to these upper floors and/or unprotected rooms is feasible and attainable through common construction practices, but would require a supplemental exterior-to- interior acoustical analysis to determine the exact nature and extent of this mitigation, if applicable, at the time the building plans are submitted. 7.0 CERTIFICATION The findings and recommendations of this acoustical analysis report are a true and factual analysis of the potential environmental effects associated with this proposed development. This report was prepared by Michael Burrill, Jessica Rasmussen and Douglas Eilar. Michael Burrill, Acoustical Consultant Douglas K. Eilar, Principal Douglas Eilar & Associates Project #A21124 December 23,2002 Page 10 8.0 REFERENCES 1. California Department of Transportation, Sound32 Traffic Noise Model. 2. City of Carlsbad, Noise Element to the General Plan. 3. Heeden, Robert A., Compendium of Materials for Noise Control, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, November 1978. 4. SanDAG, Regional Transportation Internet Sites (traffic counts and projections). 5. Wyle Laboratories, December, 1973, Development of Ground Transportation Systems Noise Contours for the Carlsbad Region. 6. 1998 California Building Code, Based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Appendix Chapter 12, Division II - Sound Transmission Control, Section 1208 - Sound Transmission Control. Douglas Eilar & Associates Project #A21124 December 23,2002 Page 11 City of Carlsbad ^ •^•••••••••iMBMai^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^BPlanning Department July 18, 2002 Ann Gunter/Lightfoot Planning Group 702 Civic Center Drive Oceanside, CA 92054 SUBJECT: PRE 02-025 - CASA LA COSTA APN: 223-170-33 A preliminary review of your project was conducted on July 11, 2002. Listed below are the issues raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your project. The preliminary review does not represent an in-depth analysis of your project. Additional issues of concern may be raised after your application is submitted and processed for a more specific and detailed review. Planning; 1. The permits required for this project include: a Tentative Tract Map, a Condominium Permit (for air-space ownership units) and a Site Development Plan (for the Q overlay and the processing of the affordable units). 2.Staff does not initially support the proposal for a 24' wide driveway that functions as an internal street system. Fire and Engineering staff also comment on this issue. The overall site design with the street "backing" to RSF Road and pedestrian focus is noted and supported by staff. The street width/driveway width issue needs discussion and resolution so that staff can support a project with scale of density proposed. Staff's initial position is that the duplex unit does not need to conform to Table D in the PO ordinance since a multi-family project is proposed. However, this will be reviewed upon a redesign of the project to be sure there are no operational or other issues with such an arrangement. Setback compliance will be re-assessed after project re-design, parameter is the setback off of a driveway (5') vs. a street (20'). The main A noise wall can be located in a setback area if warranted by a noise study. In this case, the wall will be considered a noise wall instead of a project 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us PRE 02-025 - CASA LA COSTA JULY 18, 2002 PAGE 2 perimeter wall. Heavy landscaping, consistent with the City's Landscape / Manual, will also be required. 6. Recreation area: calculate the recreation space required and provide as common active and private passive as required by the PD ordinance. A project of this scale will need to provide a range of active amenities that serve a range of age groups (children, teens, young and elderly adults). Provide a summary table that quantifies these areas and indicates their minimum required sizes. 7. RV spaces; also provide a summary table with calculations resulting in the overall RV storage requirement for this project. 8. Rancho Santa Fe road landscaping needs to be consistent with the City's Landscape Manual. 9. Be sure guest parking dispersal is adequate to serve all units and that pedestrian pathways or sidewalks physically link guest parking areas with residential units. 10. Archeo/paleo monitoring will be required during grading. 11. Garage floor plans will need to depict storage areas that are in excess of, or in addition to, minimum garage area dimensions (20 x 20' interior dimensions). 12. Provide a letter from Coast Waste indicating their ability to service the project. Engineering; Significant Issues 1. In order to facilitate the compliance of this project with Order No. 2001-01 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the following are some criteria that must be incorporated into the design of the project: a) Efforts should be made to ensure that post development storm run-off flows and velocities do not exceed pre-development storm run-off flows. This can be proved via engineering calculations in a project hydrology/hydraulic report. This report must be submitted as part of the discretionary review application. b) Revise the plan to incorporate Best Management Practices (BMP's) as outlined in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks, latest edition. Depending on the anticipated pollutants generated from the site, these measures may include but are not limited to one or a combination of grass swales, pollution control basins, inlet filters, Medlin & Associates Acoustical Consultants Acoustical Analysis Report Casa La Costa Condominiums Report Number CLC1 Prepared for: The Life Group 28118 Agoura Road Agoura Hills, CA 91301 and The Lightfoot Planning Group 702 Civic Center Drive Oceanside, CA 92054 Submitted by: KathyMedljfi December 12, 2002 760-930-65/5 92C13-C941 SUMMARY Six-foot high (minimum) free-standing sound walls are recommended on the project boundaries facing La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. Four-foot high (minimum) walls are recommended on the southern project boundary and on the boundary facing Levante Street between La Costa Avenue and the project entrance. Sound walls may be of any non-porous material with a mass of at least four pounds per square foot, containing no gaps or openings. Mechanical ventilation is recommended for those buildings along the perimeter of the project facing La Costa Avenue, Rancho Santa Fe Road, and the southern project boundary. Medlin& Associates Summary Casa La Costa INTRODUCTION The Life Group, Inc. plans to build thirty-nine condominiums at the southwest corner of the intersection of La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). According to city guidelines, a noise report is required for "residential projects requiring a discretionary permit containing five or more dwelling units...located within or 500 feet beyond the 60 dB(A) CNEL1 noise contour line of the Noise Contour Map approved as part of the Carlsbad General Plan."2 This report has been prepared in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual dated September 1995. It constitutes a "One-Step Complete Noise Report" as defined on page 39 of the Manual. Any inconsistencies between methods prescribed in the Manual and those used this report are noted as such. This report only addresses the impact of road traffic noise on the project Excluded are impacts resulting from nearby establishments (fire station, church, child care center, shopping center), use of the project (tenant-generated noise), construction, and aircraft. VICINITY MAP•» atatt' C ARL 50 AC? LA COSTA i Figure 1: Vicinity Map 1 Community Noise Equivalent Level; see Appendix 2 for definitions 2 City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual, September 1995 Medlin & Associates 1 Casa La Costa PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project comprises thirty-nine single-family attached dwellings to be built on a roughly pentagonal plat located at the southwest corner of La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road in Carlsbad (Figure 2). The site is bounded on two other sides by Levante Street to the northwest, and Centella Street on the west, both which are lightly-traveled local streets. The site is partially graded, with slopes leading up to La Costa and Rancho Santa Fe. Additional grading is planned which will lower the elevation of usable land, effectively increasing the heights of these slopes. The site lies on a CNEL 70 contour for future (2010) noise as shown on the General Plan map "Future Noise Exposure Contours". The site is located approximately four miles away from McClellan-Palomar Airport, and is not within the Airport Influence Area. Other uses in the area include a church and accompanying child center to the south (with parking lot), a shopping center across Rancho Santa Fe Road, a Boys and Girls Club, some vacant lots and additional residential units. A fire station is situated within the project boundaries, but is scheduled for removal. The layout of the project lends itself to noise mitigation. The site is sunken beneath the level of the two busiest roads, with the outer buildings forming an intrinsic noise barrier around the rest of the project. An access road runs along the perimeter of the site facing onto La Costa Avenue, Rancho Santa Fe Road, and the southern project boundary. The buildings are set close to this road, allowing more useable space within the central part of the project. With the exception of a few auxiliary patios, there are no recreational areas on the access-road side of the buildings. Most recreational spaces, including main patios, balconies, barbecues, and a playground, are either on side yards or within the inner part of the project. For noise modeling purposes, these areas will be considered "back yards" as described in "Future Noise Environment" below. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Exterior Noise Chapter IV of the Noise Element of the Carlsbad General Plan addresses land use measures for the control of noise within the city. Specifically, section C.5 under "Land Use" states that "sixty (60) dBA CNEL is the exterior noise level to which all residential units should be mitigated" which are not subject to noise from Palomar Airport. Section C.5 goes on to state that if exterior noise levels cannot be mitigated to this level, then development should not be approved without one or more of the following: (1) "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect (noise)" Mcdlin & Associates 2 Casa La Costa I. lilt I) I I'll* I I I It It B E 0E S EU30B I I I i I i i i i i i i i i i i Element V. MAPS 11 Map 1: EXISTING NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR MAP (1990) 11 Map 2: FUTURE NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR MAP (2010) 12 Map 3: AIRPORT NOISE CONTOUR MAP 13 VI. GLOSSARY 15 NOLSE ELEMENT I. INTRODUCTION A. BACKGROUND AND INTENT The goal of the Noise Element is to achieve and maintain an environment which is free from objectionable, excessive or harmful noise. The Noise Element - Identifies and defines existing and future envi- ronmental noise levels from sources of noise within or adjacent to the City of Carlsbad by means of Noise Contour maps. - Establishes goals, objectives and policies to mitigate these noise impacts. - Provides policies and action programs to imple- ment the Goals and Objectives. "The Goal of the Noise Element is to achieve and maintain an environment which is free from objectionable, ex- cessive or harmful noise." B. STATE LAW Section 65302(0 of California's Planning\and Zoning Laws requires a Noise Element which identifies and appraises noise problems in the community. "Wie Noise Element shall recognize the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control in the State Department i >f Health Services and shall analyze and quantify, to tl e extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and projected noise levels for all of the followi/ig v sources: / 1. Highways and freeways; 2. Primary arterial and major local streets; 3. Passenger and freight online railroad opera- tions and ground rapid transit systems; 4. Commercial, general aviation, heliport, helis- top, and military airport operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands, and all other ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport operation; 5. Local industrial plants, including, but not limited to, railroad classification yards; and 6. Other ground stationary noise sources identi- fied by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment. Noise contours shall be shown for all of these sources and stated in terms of community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or day-night average level (Ldn). The noise contours shall be prepared on the basis of noise monitor- ing or following generally accepted noise modeling tech- niques for the various sources identified in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive. The noise contours shall be used as a guide for establishing a pattern of land uses in the Land Use Element that minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive noise. The Noise Element shall include implementation measures and possible solutions that address existing and foreseeable noise problems, if any. The adopted Noise Element shall serve as a guideline for compliance with the state's Noise Insulation Standards. C. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ELEMENTS The Noise Element is correlated with the Land Use, Circulation, and Housing Elements of the General Plan. The Land Use Element is related to the Noise Element in that noise can have a significant impact on land use. The Circulation Element is related to the Noise Element in that the majority of the noise created in Carlsbad is created by trains, planes or automobiles. The Housing Element relates to the Noise Element by promot- ing desirable residential environments which buffer exist- Pagel NOISE ELEMENT ing and future residents from undesirable noise impacts. /Consistent with state law, it is the policy of the City that ,/ the Noise Element be consistent with all General Plan Elements. II. SOURCES OF NOISE A. CIRCULATION 1. ROADS Roadway traffic noise is the most extensive noise problemfaced by Carlsbad. Barring any dramatic changes in truck or automobile usage patterns, it is likely that the amount of traffic in Carlsbad will grow with the City's population. New development is occurring adjacent to major roadways throughout the City. Unless precaution- ary measures are taken, serious noise problems could result "Roadway traffic noise is the most extensive noise problem faced by Carlsbad." Vehicular noisehas three main componentsources: engine/transmission noise, exhaust noise and tire noise. The intensity of noise emissions from any given vehicle will vary with its size and other factors, such as speed, acceleration, braking, roadway grade and conditions of the roadway surface. Thus abusy downtown arterial with stop and go traffic is often noisier than an open highway with comparable traffic volumes. Noise contours have been prepared for all Circu- lation Element roadways in Carlsbad as shown on the current and future noise exposure maps (See Map 1: Existing Noise Exposure Contour Map and Map 2: Future Noise Exposure Contour Map). Interstate 5 has the greatest existing and pro- jected roadway noise emissions. In addition, 1-5 impacts the greatest number of existing dwellings. There are a considerable number of existing single family and multi- family dwellings which are impacted by freeway noise levels in excess of 65 dBA CNEL. For these existing dwellings, noise attenuation is difficult. Construction of solid barri ers along the freeway is possible, but cost may be prohibitive. The City can, however, educate property owners as to the methods of insulating existing residential units from freeway noise through the use of barriers and insulation materials. The City's "Development Review: Noise Guidelines Manual" is a useful reference. While other routes within the City have a lesser impact than does 1-5, many roads will still have significant noise impact potential and new projects should therefore be subject to noise impact evaluation. It is important that new development fronting on major roadways be compatible with die recommendations of this element. The action plan section of this element contains the measures intended to avert future problems caused by traffic noise. 2. AIRPORT McClellan-Palomar Airport is presently operat- ing as a general aviation facility and is located west of El Camino Real, just north of Palomar Airport Road in the City of Carlsbad. The airport's current annual operation of approximately 23 5,000 aircraft is expected to increase at the airport's ultimate buildout condition to approxi- mately 3 3 4,000. In general, land in the immedi ate vicinity of the airport or under the take offor landing approach is subject to noise levels which are unsuitablefor residential development, schools, hospitals and other similar noise sensitive uses. Projected noise contours around the air- port are provided in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for McClellan-Palomar Airport and have been included in this Element (See Map 3: Airport Noise Contour Map). In 198 9 the FAA began a detailed noise study for McClellan-Palomar Airport. The findings of this study have been published in the proposed 1992 Part 150 Study for the airport, which is currently under review as part of its adoption process. However, all new devel- opment in the vicinity of the airport should continue to be reviewed to ensure compliance with thenoise standards Page 2 NOISE ELEMEM Newprojectsshouldmaximizethephysical sepa- ration of structures from the railroad tracks. Additionally, proj ect design should stress the orientation of units away/ from the railroad, limiting or acoustically designing win-i dow openings onto the right-of-way, and construction of noise barriers such as solid walls, earthen berms, or ber wall combinations. B. LAND USE To agreat extent, the future ambient noise levels^ of the City will be determined by the type, intensity and location of future land uses. Future noise levels will also be affected by the construction of new roadways to serve new development and by land uses that generate noise. Noise levels may affect the desirability or livability of a community. Noise may also negatively impact the eco- nomic viability of a community by reducing the desirabil- ity of an area as a place to live, work, play, or shop. For these reasons, noise continues to be an important consid- eration of the City in future land use planning. "To a great extent, the future ambient noise levels of the City will be deter- mined by the type, intensity and loca- tion of future land uses." Some land uses are more compatible with higher noise levels than are others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches and residences are generally consid- ered more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial activities. To respond to the sensitivity of certain land uses to higher noise levels, this element includes policies to reduce noise impacts on noise-sensi- tive uses such as residences. It may be appropriate to develop noise-sensitive uses such as residences, hospitals, or churches in noisy areas. In these instances, it is important that the proper measures are used to reduce noise impacts. In all cases sensitive site plan design is to be used as the first method to reduce noise impacts on a project. Sensitive site plan design measures will include, for example, increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver; plac- ing non-noise sensitive uses such as parking areas, main- tenance facilities, and utility areas between the source and the receiver; using non-noise sensitive structures, such as a garage, to shield noise sensitive areas; and, orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source. These and other noise mitigation techniques are discussed in more detail in the City's Noise Guidelines Manual available in the Planning Department. C. OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 1. OFF ROAD MOTORCYCLE NOISE Motorcyclenoise has beenaproblemin Carlsbad In particular, complaints have been registered against recreational use of dirt bikes or two-cycle engine motor- cycles. The Police Department continues to enforce the prohibition of motorized off-road vehicles within the City, except as permitted at the Carlsbad Raceway. Local jurisdictions have the authority to control loud or faulty mufflers, horn blowing, off-road vehicles and vehicle speed. Although noise limits may be set for off-road vehicles, they are rarely necessary since statutes against trespassing nearly always apply. Most trail bikes are not outfitted with the neces- sary lights, fenders, mufflers, spark arresters or baffles required by law. Consequently they are not licensed and cannot be legally operated on public streets. Continued police enforcement against these unlicensed vehicles would likely reduce motorcycle noise on public streets. 2. MOTOR BOAT This noise problem does not affect very many of Carlsbad's residents. However, in response to noise complaints, the City has adopted a maximum speed limit for boats on the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and has pur- chased a boat for enforcement. The reduction in speed does reduce noise somewhat. If further control appears warranted, the City should consider setting curfews on the use of the lagoon or limit the types of boats which could use the lagoon. \ '•Page 4 NOISE ELEMENT C.3 Review existing City ordinances which relate to noise control for compatibility with the goals and policies of this Element. / C. 4 Continue to enforce building codes to ensures adequate sound insulation between dwellings and to en- sure adequate sound insulation of interior areas from loud external noise sources. The City shall continue to enforce project conditions of approval related to noise control. C.5 Attempt to control noise primarily at its source. Where this is not feasible, controls along the transmission path of the noise should be required. C.6 Control noise generated through its own functions and activities and minimize noise impacts re- sulting from City-sponsored or approved activities. C. 7 Review City operations to make sure that noise generated by construction, maintenance activities, and street sweeping minimize significant adverse noise levels. C. 8 Periodically review the noise contours con- tained in this element. Substantial changes in traffic patterns or theavailabilityofnewnoisecontour datamay indicate the need for revisions. C.9 Participate in noise control and hearing conservation programs in all appropriate work environ- ments owned, operated, or otherwise under the control of the City. LAND USE A. GOALS A. I A City where land uses are not significantly impacted by noise. A.2 A City with industrial and commercial land uses which do not produce significantly adverse noise impacts. A. 3 A City which controls mobile sources of noise to help assure that mobile noise sources do not substantially contribute to the noise environment. B. OBJECTIVES B. 1 To achieve noise compatibility between in- dustrial/commercial and surrounding land uses and achieve an acceptablenoise environment in industrial/commercial areas. B.2 To achieve noise impact compatibility be- tween land uses through the land use planning/develop- ment reviewprocess. B.3 To actively control mobile noise violations. C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS C. 1 Encourage the development of compatible land uses in areas which are subject to excessive noise levels. C.2 Develop specific noise standards for use in reviewing noise sensitive development C.3 Require the use ofproject design techniques, such as, increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver; placing non-noise sensitive uses such as parking areas, maintenance facilities, and utility areas between the source and the receiver; using non-sensitive structures, such as a garage, to shield noise sensitive areas; and, orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from anoise source to minimize noise impacts during any discretionary review of a residential or other noise sensi- tive project. C.4 Continue to enforce the State Motor Vehicle Codeasitappliestoexcessivenoise. TheCarlsbadPolice Department should continue to reduce the number of Page 6 KOISE ELEMENTI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I excessively noisy vehicles on city streets. The Depart- ment should also continue to deter persons from operating their motor vehicles in a noisy manner. C.5 Enforce the policy of the City that sixty (60) dBA CNEL is the exterior noise level to which all residential units should be mitigated. 65 dBA CNEL is the maximum noise level to which residential units subject to noise from McCIellan-Palomar Airport should be permitted. Additional disclosure actions (easements, deed restrictions, recorded notice, etc.) may be required of developers/sellers of noise im- pacted residential units. For residential properties identified as requiring i noise study, a study shall be prepared by an acoustical professional. This study shall document the projected maximum exterior noise level and mitigate the projected exterior noise level to amaximum allowable noise level as/ identified in this policy. Interior noise levels should be mitigated to 45 dBA CNEL when openings to die exterior of the residence are open or closed. If openings are required to be closed to meet the interior noise standard, then mechanical ventilation shall be provided. If the acoustical study shows that exterior noise levels cannot be mitigated to the level allowable as iden- tified in this policy or less, the development should noj be approved without one or more of the following findings: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect (noise). (2) Changes or alterations to avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect (noise) are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and notthe City of Carlsbad. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, social, or other consid- erations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect (noise). If a project is approved with exterior noise levels exceeding the level allowable pursuant to this policy, all purchasers of the impacted property shall be notified in writing prior to purchase, and by deed disclosure in writing, that the property they are purchas- ing is, or will be, noise impacted and does not meet Carlsbad noise standards for residential property. Notwithstanding project approval, no residen- tial interior CNEL should exceed 45 dBA. C.6 Require that a "Noise" Study be submit- ted with all discretionary applications for residential projects of five or more single family dwelling units or any multiple family dwelling units located within or 500-feet beyond the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour lines as shown on Map 2: Future Noise Exposure Contour Map. C.I Enforce the policy of the City that site design techniques such as increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver; placing non- noise sensitive uses such as parking areas, maintenance facilities and utility areas between the source and the receiver; using non-noise sensitive structures, such as a garage, to shield noise-sensitive areas; and orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source, be the first tool used to mitigate noise impacts on noise sensitive land uses rather than the construction of walls or berms. C.8 Recognize that mitigation of existing or future noise impacts from Circulation Element road- ways, AT&SF railroad or McCIellan-Palomar Airport for existing or future development within the City, shall not be funded by the City. However, the City Pa OP 7 NOISE ELEMENT /shall assist applicants with the processing of necessary permits for mitigating noise on private property, which permits may include right-of-way permits, encroachment permits, retaining wall permits and zoning variances. The City shall also assist property owners in the establishment of assessment districts, to fund noise mitigation improvements, in accordance with established City policies and procedures. i C.9 Discourage the exclusive use of noise walls in excess of 6 feet in height as mitigation for noise along Circulation Element roadways. C. 10 Utilize natural barriers such as site topog- raphy or constructed earthen berms to mitigate noise on a project. When noise walls are determined to be the only feasible solution to noise mitigation, then the walls shall be designed to limit aesthetic impacts. When over-height walls are necessary to mitigate noise, a berm/wall combination with heavy landscap- ing, a terraced wall heavily landscaped, or other similar innovative wall design technique shall be used to minimize visual impacts. CIRCULATION ROADS A. GOAL To provide a roadway system that does not subject surrounding land uses to significantly adverse noise levels. B. OBJECTIVE • To design and manage all roadways to maintain acceptable noise levels. C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS C. 1 Take measures to reduce traffic noise on streets throughout Carlsbad. This will include contin- ued enforcement of applicable sections of the Califor- nia Vehicle Code regarding equipment and/or opera- tion of motor vehicles. C.2 Consider noise impacts in the design of road systems and give special consideration to those road corridors in scenic or noise sensitive areas. C.3 Review traffic flow systems and synchro- nize signalization, wherever possible to avoid traffic stops and starts, which produce excessive noise, and to adjust traffic flow to achieve noise levels acceptable to surrounding areas. C.4 Apply the residential noise policies of this element in the reviewofproposalsfortheconstructionor improvement of any roadway, railroad, transit system or other noise producing facility. AIRPORT A. GOAL A City that achieves long-term compatibility between the airport and surrounding land use. B. OBJECTIVES B. 1 To minimize noise impacts on City residents, the City has planned for non-residential land uses within the 65 dBA CNEL Noise Contour ofMcCleUan-Palomar Airport, as shown on Map 3: Airport Noise Contour Map. B.2 To develop and enforce programs dealing with airport noise disclosure, avigation easements and noise control that provide for noise compatibility with surrounding land uses. C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS C. 1 Encourage the development of compatible land uses and restrict incompatible land uses surround- ing airport facilities. Page 8 October 24, 2006 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: CP 06-01 - The Romeria ISSUE B RECREATIONAL SPACE Please review the notes on the bottom right hand side of the existing landscape plan I submitted on September 25, 2006. The notes consist of the existing patio and yard area sizes and proposed balcony/deck to resolve the issue. The proposed balcony/deck size for unit #4 is 155 square feet, not 160 square feet as stated in the DCC Report. The Romeria Street setback is 15 feet and the proposed balcony/deck for unit 4 does not project more than 3 feet into the 15 foot front yard setback. Please review the proposed balcony/deck area diagrams on the existing landscape plan. The driveway project setback is a new issue as of Thursday, October 19, 2006 in the DCC Report. I will address this issue separately. EU-1 j EXCLUSIVE USE AREA FOR EU-2J EXCLUSIVE USE AREA FOR #2 EU-3] EXCLUSIVE USE AREA FOR #3 tU:4j EXCLUSIVE USE AREA FOR #4 COMMON LANDSCAPE AREA EU EXCLUSIVE USE AREA IS PRIVATE LANDSCAPING EXISTING PATIO & YARD AREA SIZES PROVIDED: UNIT 1 - 1565 SQ. FT. PATIO & SIDE YARD UNIT 2 - 369 SQ. ST. PATIO UNIT 3 - 246 SQ. FT. PATIO UNIT 4 - 583 SQ. FT. PATIO & SIDE YARD .-'" ' ^ ^ M AREA'S (CLA "v .. -S A'S EU ! CITY REQUIRED PATIO AREA SIZE IS 15 FT.XI5 FT. = 225 SQ.FT. PLANNING DEPT. PROPOSED BALCONY / DECK PER THE PLANNING DEPT. ISSUE RESOLUTION. FOR UNIT #2 & UNIT #3 & UNIT #4 UNIT #2-160 SQ.FT. BALCONY/DECK UNIT #3-160 SQ.FT. BALCONY/DECK UNIT #4 -155 SQ. FT. BALCONY / DECK CITY REQUIRED BALCONY / DECK SIZE IS 120 SQ. FT. rsivQfN U «•. X U< LU OQ L rsi cc cc 't.' u-J i\J 1 I1L<1~.I\ U1U I'HA I1U, (QU City of Carlsbad ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMORANDUM DATE; June 11,2002 TO: Gino Difante, 7559 Romeria St FROM; John Maashoff, Engineering SUBJECT: CB020453: Cross Section and Calculations Required Please provide a detailed cross section and calculations showing proposed structures will not surcharge the existing storm drain or affect the ability to maintain/repair the storm drain if necessary. The City should be able to excavate and repair the storm drain wing conventional trenching methods without compromising the integrity of any proposed structures. Cc: Building File John Maashoff told me to move the building over an additional 10 feet from the original site plan design and set back towards Romeria Street hi order to satisfy this issue. That changed the existing 12 foot city drainage easement into a 24 foot city drainage easement. This is what caused the patio- area for Unit 3 to become smaller, but the patio area is still larger than the required 225 square feet. Please see attached page. THE ROMERIA CP - 06-01 7565 Romeria Street La Costa, CA 92009 May 2006 Existing Patio Area Sizes: Unit #1: Approximately 470 square feet Unit #2: Approximately 350 square feet *• Unit #3: Approximately 270 square feet Unit #4: Approximately 290 square feet Current planned development ordinance required patio area size is 225 square feet. October 24, 2006 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: CP 06-01 - The Romeria ISSUE C DRIVEWAY (PROJECT) This is a new issue I just learned of on October 19, 2006 in the DCC Report. Items provided to the Planning Commission on this issue: (1) Driveway project photos of Casa La Costa and Northpark at La Costa - Planned Developments. (2) Casa La Costa and Northpark at La Costa site plans that show the driveway projects. I believe my project complies and is only subject to comply to the public street setbacks of La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street because I do not have a driveway project on my site. I believe a driveway project is a new non-conforming named private street within a Planned Development and is only permitted in a Planned Development. The driveway project (new street) is named in order to establish an address for each of the residences located on the new street. Attached or detached homes along the driveway project (named new street) are subject to the driveway project setbacks stated in the current Planned Development Ordinance. A driveway project (new street) is non-conforming because it is only 24 feet wide and has no curbs or sidewalks on both sides of the street. A conforming street in the City of Carlsbad's Liveable Street Standards is 34 feet wide and has curbs and sidewalks on both sides. One example of a driveway project (new street) in Casa La Costa is 7729 Calle Andar and 7731 Calle Andar. Casa La Costa Planned Development consists of several driveway projects (new streets). Northpark at La Costa consists of one or more driveway projects as well. 3184 Corte Tradicion is one address on a driveway project in Northpark at La Costa. My project address is 7565 Romeria Street, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, and my project consists of a normal driveway, not a new street with a name and separate address for the units. Please review the items provided on this issue. CP 06-01 -ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page 5 Table A: RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Required Provided Comply? Livable Neighborhood Policy 1) Facades create interest and character and should be varied and articulated to provide visual interest to pedestrians. 2) Homes should be designed to feature the residence as the prominent part of the structure in relation to the street. 1) The project includes arched windows with architectural adornment and two-toned colored elevations. 2) The project incorporates front-loaded garages. All garages are separated by landscaping and a decorative front entry feature. Also, all dwelling units have street facing front doors. Yes Yes 3) An interconnected, modified (grid) street patte: should be incorporated into project designs when there are no topographic or environmental constraints. 4) Street trees should be planted in the parkways along all streets. 5) Pedestrian walkways should be located along or visible from all streets. 6) Park or plazas, which serve as neighborhood meeting places and as recreational activity centers should be incorporated into all planned unit developments. rn\ 3) The proposed project will not create any new streets. N/A 4) The project will not require any street trees since no new streets will be created. 5) No walkways are required to be provided since no new streets will be created. 6) The project site is not required to provide community recreation areas. N/A N/A N/A 8 2 » n H '.-, - oJ 5 J— -t- — — -i/""V N ? *)\>•sr -*. 1« SJ•*'~~f'*•1*s 1 ••1'•'--k iS jJ >— -•-oo T?> i-? s-, .5- --^?6°M|1a .."J* J3J? 1 p **(•z'ili1 i- t t < i 1 i H M H ? ,? I" ' ' p » H J j « ' ji 9i i : [ s ;• ; , i ^ s* " U * ? 1 » J • :' I Q CXo LA 08-17-2004. Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: 08/17/2004 # Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Project Title: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Residential Permit Permit No: CB042087 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 3184 CORTE TRADICION CBAD RESDNTL Sub Type: SFD 2231705000 Lot#: 4 $259,887.00 Construction Type: NEW Reference #: CT02-25 1 Structure Type: SFD 4 Bathrooms: 3.5 TRADITIONS @ LACOSTA PLN 2 2829 SF LIVING.475 SF GARAGE, 13 SF PORCH Status: ISSUED Applied: 03/08/2004 Entered By: SB Plan Approved: Issued: 08/17/2004 Inspect Area: Orig PC#: PC04-18 Plan Check#: Applicant: HALLMARK COMMUNITIES STE 200 10675 SORRENTO VALLEY RD SAN DIEGO CA 92121 858558-3310 Owner: Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park in Lieu Fee Park Fee LFMFee Bridge Fee Other Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'l Pot. Water Con. Fee Reel. Water Con. Fee $1.039.36 Meter Size $0.00 Add'l Red. Water Con. Fee $675.58 Meter Fee $0.00 SDCWA Fee $0.00 CFD Payoff Fee $25.99 PFF $0.00 PFF (CFD Fund) $0.00 License Tax $310.00 License Tax (CFD Fund) $530.00 Traffic Impact Fee $0.00 Traffic Impact (CFD Fund) $0.00 Sidewalk Fee $0.00 PLUMBING TOTAL $0.00 ELECTRICAL TOTAL $0,00 MECHANICAL TOTAL $0.00 Housing Impact Fee $0.00 Housing InLleu Fee Housing Credit Fee $0.00 Master Drainage Fee $0.00 Sewer Fee Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,729.94 $4,366.10 $0.00 $0.00 $460.60 $519.40 $0.00 $168.00 $60.00 $56.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,941.47 Total Fees: $12,941.47 Total Payments To Date:$0.00 Balance Due: $12,941.47 9128 08/17/04 0002 01 02 12941 U, APPROVAL SIGNATURE 3!8HSfflis*gitfSLPiy^ffiigiliiak P mil II iPiiieHi'th'Isil^e^^ii^ilsiiii^isls^ f I ' 12-61-2004 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: 12/01/2004 # Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Project Title: y ui uansoaa 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Residential Permit Permit No: CB041488 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 7729 CALLE ANDAR CBAD RESDNTL 2231704400 $557,398.00 3 9 Sub Type: CONDO Lot* 0 Construction Type: VN Reference #: CT020029 Structure Type: Bathrooms: MF2-4 7.5 CASA LA COSTA-BLDG 2- 3 UNITS Status: ISSUED Applied: 02/10/2004 Entered By: RMA Plan Approved: Issued: 12/01/2004 Inspect Area: Orig PC#: PC030067 # 20-22, 6775 SF.1396 SF GAR.174 SF DECKS-7729,7731 & Plan Check*: PC040011 Applicant: TRIMARK PACIFIC-CASA LA COSTA L L C C/O SOCT SANDSTROM 613 W VALLEY PKWY #200 ESCONDIDO CA 92025 Owner: TRIMARK PACIFIC-CASA LA COSTA L L C C/O SOCT SANDSTROM 613 W VALLEY PKWY #200 ESCONDIDO CA 92025 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park in Lieu Fee Park Fee LFM Fee Bridge Fee Other Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee , ' Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'l Pot. Water Con. Fee Reel. Water Con. Fee $1,929.94 $0.00 $1,254.46 $0.00 $0.00 $55.74 $5,931.06 $0.00 $930.00 $0.00 $1 ,272,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Meter Size Add1! Red- Water Con. F&e Meter Fee SGCWA Fee CFO Payoff Fee PFF PFF (CFO Fund) License Tax License Tax (CFD Fund) Traffic Impact Fee Traffic Impact (CFD Fund) Sidewalk Fee PLUMBING TOTAt ELECTRICAL tOTTAi Housing Impact Pee Housing InLfeu Fee Housing Credit Fee Master Drainage Fee Sewer Fee Additional Fee* TOtftL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,144.64 $9,364.29 $0.00 $0.00 $1,139.28 $1,284.72 $0.00 $450.00 $110.00 $153.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $34,019.57 Total Fees: $34,019.57 Total Payments To Datj&j $0.00 Balance Due:$34,019.57 Inspector: 6540 12/01/04 0002 01 02 CGP 34019-57 FINAL ABPROVAL Date:Clearance: NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the 'Imposition' of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as fees/exactions.' You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest Imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow trie protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(3), 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 changes, 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. 12-01-2004 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: 12/01/2004 # Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Project Title: \siiy ui 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Residential Permit Permit No: CB041488 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 173/CALLE ANDAR CBAD CONDO Status: ISSUED 0 Applied: 02/10/2004 VN Entered By: RMA CT020029 Plan Approved: RESDNTL 2231704400 $557,398.00, Sub Type: Lot#: Construction Type: Reference #: 3 Structure Type: MF2-4 Issued: 12/01/2004 9 Bathrooms: 7.5 Inspect Area: CASA LA COSTA-BLDG 2- 3 UNITS Orig PC#: PC030067 #20-22, 6775 SF.1396 SF GAR.174 SF DECKS-7729,7731 & Plan Check#: PC040011 Applicant: TRIMARK PACIFIC-CASA LA COSTA L L C CIO SOCT SANDSTROM 613 W VALLEY PKWY #200 ESCONDIDO CA 92025 Owner: TRIMARK PACIFIC-CASA LA COSTA L L C C/0 SOCT SANDSTROM 613 W VALLEY PKWY #200 ESCONDIDO CA 92025 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park in Lieu Fee Park Fee LFM Fee Bridge Fee Other Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'l Pot. Water Con. Fee Reel. Water Con. Fee $1,929.94 Meter Size $0.00 Add'l Reef. Water Con. Fee $1,254.46 Meter Fee $0.00 SDCWA Fee $0.00 CFD Payoff Fee $55.74 PFF $5,931.00 PFF (CFD Fund) $0.00 License Tax $930.00 License Tax (CFD Fund) $0.00 Traffic Impact Fee $ 1,272.00 Traffic Impact (CFD Fund) $0.00 Sidewalk Fee $0.00 PLUMBING TOTAL $0.00 ELECTRICAL TOTAL $0.00 MECHANICAL TOTAL $0.00 Housing Impact Fee $0.00 Housing InLleu Fee Housing Credit Fee $0.00 Master Drainage Fee $0.00 Sewer Fee Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,144.64 $9,364.29 $0.00 $0.00 $1,139.28 $1,284.72 $0.00 $450.00 $110.00 $153.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $34.019.57 Total Fees: $34,019.57 Total Payments To Date:$0.00 Balance Due:$34,019.57 6540 12/01/04 0002 01 02 CGR 34019-57 Inspector: FINAL ARPRVAL Date: f/Clearance: NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(3), and file (he 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 changes, 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. October 24, 2006 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: CP 06-01 - The Romeria ISSUE D ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ELEMENTS I believe my project does comply to this standard and each elevation provides more than the required three separate planes. Balcony/deck and windows are considered planes on the current Planned Development Ordinance. Pleases review the elevations and number of planes for each elevation that I have provided on this issue. The Romeria project's density, site design and architecture are compatible with the surrounding developments. \ Vxv\ V*s v£ * N ^ ^ ^^ i^\ ^ -^ * PEC. RAFTING-SS-r ELEVATIONS DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF November 1, 2006 DCC MEETING: October 23, 2006 CASE NO. PROJECT NAME TIME CUP 05-18/CDP 05-35 NS022-01 FOUR SEASONS WCF 9:00 AM CDP 06-21 WOOLSON RESIDENCE 9:30 AM CP 06-01 ROMERIA 10:00 AM RECEIVED *lf no time is indicated, listing is information only The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: November 1, 2006 Application complete date: April 6, 2006 Project Planner: Chris Sexton Project Engineer: David Rick SUBJECT: CP 06-01 - ROMERIA - Appeal of a Planning Director decision, pursuant to Section 21.54.140 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, to deny a Condominium Permit to allow the conversion of a four-unit apartment complex into condominiums on a .32 acre site located at 2565 Romeria Street, on the northwest corner of Romeria Street and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6197 DENYING the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Director to DENY a Condominium Permit CP 06-01, based on the findings contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The applicant is appealing the decision of the Planning Director to deny a proposal to convert a four-unit apartment complex into condominiums. The issue related to this Condominium Permit is that the project does not meet all the development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.45) and therefore, the Planning Director denied the administrative Condominium Permit application and the applicant is now appealing that decision. Pursuant to CMC Section 21.54.140, whenever the Planning Director is the authorized decision maker, the decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The filed appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the burden of proof is on the appellant to establish by substantial evidence that the grounds for the requested action exist. The appeal hearing before the Planning Commission is de novo, but the Planning Commission shall determine all matters not specified in the appeal have been found by the Planning Director and are supported by substantial evidence. The Planning Commission shall consider the recommendations of the Planning Department, the decision of the Planning Director and all other relevant documentary and oral evidence as presented at the hearing. The Planning Commission may affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Planning Director, and make such order supported by substantial evidence as it deems appropriate, including remand to the Planning Director with directions for further proceedings. The Planning Commission action on an appeal shall be final unless appealed to the City Council CP06-01-ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page 2 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND On July 18, 2000, the applicant submitted a Preliminary Review application for an apartment complex consisting of four townhome style apartments. A response to that preliminary review was mailed to the applicant on August 14, 2000, and in that response City staff advised the applicant that the proposed apartment project did not conform to the standards of the Planned Development Ordinance and that the applicant would be unable to convert the four unit apartment complex into airspace condominiums at a later date. On February 12, 2002 the applicant formally applied for a building permit to construct a four unit apartment complex. As a four-unit apartment building, the structure only required a building permit and did not require any discretionary permits such as a Condominium Permit (CP) or Site Development Plan (SDP). The building permit for the four-unit apartment project was issued on February 7, 2003 and fmaled on March 8, 2005. The applicant is currently requesting to convert the four-unit apartment complex into condominiums. Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 21.45, Section 21.45.110 states that "Any application for a condominium conversion, shall not be subject to the amended provisions of this chapter but shall be processed and approved or disapproved pursuant to the ordinance in effect at the time that the original project was approved or constructed." Since the building permit was approved on February 7, 2003 the current project must comply with the current Planned Development Ordinance which was approved by the City Council on December 18, 2001, and became effective on January 18, 2002. The current four-unit apartment complex meets the development standards of the RD-M zone in which it is located; however, the proposed conversion of the four-unit apartment complex into condominiums does not meet all of the development standards of the applicable Planned Development Ordinance (PD). Detailed below are the development standards the project fails to comply with. The PD standards require a thirty foot arterial setback, with an average of 50% of the required setback to be landscaped to act as a buffer from traffic and to enhance the street scene. Project perimeter walls are expressly not allowed within the 50% average landscape buffer area. While the project provides a 31.57 foot setback, it does not meet the 50% average landscape buffer area standard. In addition, a six foot project perimeter wall is currently located in the 50% average landscape buffer area, which is in direct contradiction of the PD standards. The project also fails to meet the private recreational space standards for one of the four units. The PD standards require each unit to provide either a 15'xl5' patio or 120 square feet of balcony area. In addition, proposed balconies are not allowed to project into a required setback area. Units 1, 2 and 3 meet these standards with a combination of existing patios and proposed balconies. However, Unit 4 does not comply with these standards as the proposed 160 square foot balcony projects more than three feet into the required 8 foot residence setback, which is measured from the edge of the project driveway. The existing structure also does not meet the required PD project driveway setback standards, which require residences to be set back 8 feet, fully landscaped, and garages to be set back 5 feet, with both setbacks to be measured from the project driveway. The existing structure provides CP06-01-ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page 3 residence setbacks as little as 1.5 feet, with no landscaping, and garages with setbacks as little as 1.5 feet (Unit 1 garage). The last PD standard the project fails to meet is the architectural design elements standard. The project must provide at least 3 separate building planes on all building elevations and the minimum offset in planes must be at least 18 inches. The south building elevation meets this standard, but the other three building elevations (north, east, and west) have less than the required three planes. On January 1, 2006, the applicant applied for a CP with the intention of converting the existing four-unit apartment complex into airspace condominiums. City staff met with the applicant on three separate occasions to discuss the project's non-compliance with the PD standards. The CP application was denied by the Planning Director on August 2, 2006, as the proposed project did not comply with the PD standards. IV. ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, and standards: A. Residential High (RH) General Plan Land Use Designation; B. Residential Density Multiple - RD-M Zone (CMC 21.24) and Planned Development Regulations (CMC 21.45); and C. Growth Management. The recommendation for denial of this CP was developed by analyzing the project's inconsistency with the applicable City regulations and policies. The reasons for recommending denial of the project are discussed in more detail in the sections below. A. General Plan The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is Residential High Density (RH). The RH designation allows residential development at a density range of fifteen to twenty-three dwelling units per acre with a growth management control point (GMCP) of 19.0 units per acre. At the GMCP the dwelling unit yield for the property is 6.08 dwelling units per acre. The project's proposed density is 12.5 dwelling units per acre (4 dwelling units). Although the project is less than the minimum density range of the RH General Plan Land Use designation, the General Plan Land Use Element provides that, when a legal lot is developed with one or more residential units that existed as of October 28, 2004, a project maybe approved at a density below the minimum of the density range; provided, the existing units are to remain and it is not feasible to construct the number of additional units needed to meet the minimum density without requiring the removal of existing units. The project's four existing units are to remain and it is not feasible to construct the number of additional units needed to meet the minimum density of the RH General Plan Land Use designation (five dwelling units) without requiring the complete removal of the newly constructed units (finaled on March 8, 2005). Therefore, the project is deemed consistent with the General Plan. CP 06-01 - ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page 4 B. RD-M & Planned Development Regulations The project does not meet all the development standards of the RD-M zone and does not meet all the standards of the Planned Development Ordinance as outlined in Table A below: Table A: RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance RD-M Standards Height Setbacks Lot Coverage Table C General Development Standards Applicable to all Planned Developments Arterial Setbacks Visitor Parking Driveway Storage Space Required 35' Front - 20' Side -5' Street Side -10' Rear -10' 60% Required 30' (La Costa Avenue) An average of 50% of the required setback area that is closest to the arterial shall be landscaped to enhance the street scene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. Project perimeter walls shall not be located in the landscaped buffer. 2 spaces 24 feet 392 cubic feet/unit Provided 21'8" Front - 20' Side -5.1' Street Side -3 1.57' Rear -24.33' 34% Provided 31.57' The project does not comply with the 50% average landscape standard which is intended to enhance the street scene and buffer the homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. In addition a 6' project perimeter wall is located in the required landscaped buffer area. 2 spaces 24 Feet 392 cubic feet/unit Comply? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Comply? No Yes Yes Yes CP 06-01 -ROMERIA November 1,2006 PaeeS Table A: RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Livable Neighborhood Policy Required 1 ) Facades create interest and character and should be varied and articulated to provide visual interest to pedestrians. 2) Homes should be designed to feature the residence as the prominent part of the structure in relation to the street. 3) An interconnected, modified (grid) street pattern should be incorporated into project designs when there are no topographic or environmental constraints. 4) Street trees should be planted in the parkways along all streets. 5) Pedestrian walkways should be located along or visible from all streets. 6) Park or plazas, which serve as neighborhood meeting places and as recreational activity centers should be incorporated into all planned unit developments. Provided 1) The project includes arched windows with architectural adornment and two-toned colored elevations. 2) The project incorporates front-loaded garages. All garages are separated by landscaping and a decorative front entry feature. Also, all dwelling units have street facing front doors. 3) The proposed project will not create any new streets. 4) The project will not require any street trees since no new streets will be created. 5) No walkways are required to be provided since no new streets will be created. 6) The project site is not required to provide community recreation areas. Comply? Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A CP 06-01 - ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page 6 Table A: RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum Building Height Minimum Building Setbacks Public Street Driveway (Project) Required 60% 35' 1) To front porch: 1 1 feet 2) To residential structure: 1 5 foot average 3) To street sideyard: 10 feet 4) To side entry, garage: 10 feet 5) To direct entry garage: 20 feet 1) Residence: 8 feet, fully landscaped 2) Garage: 5 feet 3) Garages facing directly onto a driveway shall be equipped with an automatic garage door opener. Provided 34% 2T8" 1)N/A 2) 1 5 foot minimum 3) 3 1.57 feet 4) 3 1.57 feet 5)N/A 1) 1.5 foot minimum 2) 1 .5 foot minimum 3) Automatic garage door openers on all 4 units Comply? Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A No No Yes CP 06-01 - ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page 7 Table A: RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Required Provided Comply? Architectural Design Elements 1) There shall be at least 3 separate building planes on all building elevations. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include but not be limited to building walls, windows and roofs. 2) Building facades shall incorporate a minimum of four of the following types of design elements; a) Covered front porches (may count toward meeting recreation space requirements) b) A variety of roof planes c) Windows and doors recessed a minimum of two inches d) Paned windows and doors e) Exposed roof rafter tails f) Window and door lintels g) Dormer h) Accent and varied shape window i) Exterior wood elements j) Raised stucco trim around windows and trims k) Accent materials such as brick, stone, shingles, wood or siding 1) Knee Braces 1) There are at least 3 separate planes on the south building elevation. The minimum offset in planes is at least 18 inches. The north, east and west elevations of the building provide only 2 separate planes instead of the required 3 planes. 2) The project incorporates a minimum of four design elements that includes the following: paned windows and doors, accent and varied window shapes, raised stucco trim around windows and doors, and covered front porches. No Yes CP06-01-ROMERIA November 1,2006 PageS Table A; RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Resident Parking Visitor Parking Private Recreational Space Required One car garage ( 1 2x20 minimum)and 1 covered and uncovered 2 spaces 15' x 15' patio or 120 square feet of balcony area. Provided Two car garage (20x20 minimum )/unit 2 spaces Units 1,2, and 3 meet this requirement. Unit 4 does not comply with this requirement since the proposed 1 60 square foot balcony projects more than 3 feet into the required front yard setback. Comply? Yes Yes No The applicant sent a letter to the Planning Director on June 5, 2006 attempting to resolve the outstanding PD standards compliance issues. The first issue of concern was the wall located in the arterial setback from La Costa Avenue and the required 50% average landscape buffer area required. When the applicant applied for a building permit to construct the four-unit apartment building, one of the requirements was to construct a noise wall which is a requirement in the City's General Plan and the Noise Guidelines Manual. The project is located along La Costa Avenue where the traffic noise is great enough to require the interior and exterior noise to be mitigated per the Noise Guidelines Manual. The applicant has submitted an acoustical analysis to substantiate his claim that the interior and exterior noise needed to be mitigated with a sound wall when the four unit apartment building was built. However, the applicant needs to meet both the noise standards of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance PD requirements, including the more restrictive standard. The Planned Development Ordinance would be the more restrictive standard since the wall cannot be located within the required 50% average landscape buffer area along La Costa Avenue. The applicant could have designed the project and located the noise attenuation wall in a manner that met all applicable General Plan noise standards and the Zoning Ordinance PD standards. The applicant had another issue of not providing enough storage space. Since the date of the letter, staff has worked with the applicant to provide adequate storage space within the existing garage to meet the PD standards. The last issue the letter addressed was the private recreational space standards. Staff has determined that Unit 4 does not meet the private recreational space standards. Staff has allowed the applicant to provide both patio and proposed balcony space to meet the recreational space requirement for Units 2 and 3. Unit 4 has a patio and a proposed balcony combination, however, the proposed balcony projects three feet into the required 8 foot project driveway setback, which is measured from the project driveway. CO i uiHi tn I Hi[I ! yiiP I >i*Sir!; !|! i It !ill ! j II i! 1 '.','.'• l< !::;iii!i idjiiiijijiji IlllllifH!M I MM;! ! i ! iMI! *s»*?X >s/ II fiiii_ ^ 11! «i)i;-i- lit •tf4 1'lji* ! !8 L 1 MI!!Is fihnia««Md«l iiiMihi!,!!ttttltttttitttI I I I I I M I M I I I * I I • l| t t * gs„ - i » - nr.i ill llliL iiliinhifHi«««<««<!«<M I I I M I M M I Ieeeeeeeeeeeees [[I—I I_J 1_J 1__|PDDDDDQIDDDD PDDDCODE1DDD IDDDD II | I u I f! iff f= u. C 1s I t iii s;2 a Li !2 "If I I fl s» $ HiI* »> a] »1 si i i NVId U3MO1 ?=»«» '03dSf I ayf/: •E ; Sfti 1 iliiiif [IPfJll- IIi:- s-.r.-g^sriri^^-?'.:; I•.-.',; .S5;l ''t •' .[.:•• f^."-'^-•'::'!,•i ••:-;'-gy'ifel jEffi^r!- >^ ^ ^-r-^-rffKr^-l-''?tedP^ft;f illrfeCJin |^'.^i^:|m^i•p^tt;^ ~^f:fff>iiASi!-:' 'IIS i •^fim^'•A'i'LZ'J; tpi ™Wj**:^»-:*••|fati* iQOH « (WK1WO V-*—t- !P» z< UJ aooid titiiliMr I Ijjlrililni ^J 3 ^] *o,S| d in\\. ii eii li Eg«9 "" if |j |.l'~ i^l*.|3 !!*!m I -.;5i8si| * *I6l! I !is II^:; filPfl"iili ifil js!jhi§ii 8 SdKf» r!i^ '-*I' -aW....IliiHliiIW i f S80Z6V3'ViSIA i if E xos xod - vwm Nasna SNDIS30 VNCVt :A8 NMVUQ L33U1S VIH3WOU S9Si 10-90 dD VW3WOW3H1 rm xoa cw ILNVdiaONIS H3NMO Q UJO o3 un O P It !! H h H H H i H ~SI 3X»S..-2SX.§S u PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OCTOBER 18, 2006 PAGE 3 4. ZCA 05-02/LCPA 05-07 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENTS - A request for a recommendation to adopt a Negative Declaration, and recommendation of approval of a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to: (1) amend standards of the Planned Development (CMC 21.45), Parking (CMC 21.44) and Beach Area Overlay Zone (CMC 21.82) Chapters of the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate the development of high quality residential projects consistent with the minimum density and the Growth Management Control Point of the underlying General Plan Land Use designation, and; (2) amend the Planned Development Ordinance to clarify ambiguities and correct inconsistencies. Resolutions No. 6140, 6141, 6142 Staff Recommendation: RECOMMENDING ADOPTION/RECOMMENDING APPROVAL PLANNER: Gary Barberio, Chris DeCerbo, and Jennifer Jesser ENGINEER: N/A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Planning Commission Member Comments Planning Director Comments City Council Update City Attorney Comments TIME: - fla. * Chapter 21.45 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS* Sections: 21.45.010 Intent and purpose. 21.45.020 Applicability. 21.45.030 Definitions. 21.45.040 Permitted zones and uses. 21.45.050 Application and permit 21.45.060 General development standards. 21.45,070 Small-lot, single-family and two- family dwelling development standards. 21.45.080 Multiple-dwelling development standards. 21.45.090 Residential additions and accessory uses. 21.45,100 Amendments to permits. 21.45.110 Conversion of existing buildings to planned developments. 21.45.120 Expiration, extension and revisions. 21.45.130 Proposed common ownership land or improvements. 21.45.140 Maintenance. 21.45.150 Failure to maintain. 21.45.160 Model homes. 21.45.170 Restriction on reapplication for planned development permit * Prior ordinance histoiy: Ords. 1256,1261,9459.9493,9510.9535. 9568.9603.9631, 9727.9758. 9804.9823, NS-IOO. NS-176. NS- 180, NS-204. NS-283. NS-288, NS-352 and NS-506. 21.45.010 Intent and purpose. The purpose of the planned development ordi- nance is to: A. Recognize the need for a diversity of housing and product types; B. Provide a method for clustered property de- velopment that recognizes that the impacts of envi- ronmentally and topographically constrained land preclude the full development of a site as a standard single-family subdivision; 21.45.010 C. Establish a process to approve the following: separate ownership of dwelling units with lots or ex- clusive use areas of less than seven thousand five hundred square feet in size or as otherwise allowed by the underlying zone; condominium ownership in multiple-unit buildings; and conversion of existing, residential development to condominiums; D. Allow the development of small-lot subdivi- sions in existing R-l neighborhoods when the pro- posed site is contiguous to a higher intensity land use or an existing project of comparable or higher density; E. Permit the development of small-lot subdivi- sions in multi-family zones as an alternative product type to attached dwelling units; and F. Encourage and allow more creative and imaginative design by including relief from compli- ance with standard residential zoning regulations. To offset this flexibility in development standards, planned developments are required to incorporate amenities and features not normally required of stan- dard residential developments. (Ord. NS-612 § 1 (part), 2001) 21.45.020 Applicability. A. A planned development permit is required for the development of single-family lots or exclusive use areas of less than seven thousand five hundred square feet or as otherwise allowed by the underlying zone, attached condominiums and the conversion of existing residential development to condominiums. These regulations do not apply to attached residential units proposed for inclusion as part of a commercial development project. B. Any application for a planned development permit that was deemed complete prior to the effec- tive-date of the ordinance reenacting this chapter, shall not be subject to the amended provisions of this chapter but shall be processed and approved or dis- approved pursuant to the ordinance superseded by the ordinance codified in this chapter. C. Enlargement of buildings that are legally nonconforming is permitted provided that such enlargement does not increase the floor space more than forty percent of that existing prior to such enlargement and that the new addition complies with 709 (Carlsbad Supp No. 3. 8-03) LJC VCLUMVItN I KCOUL/A I IUIN /MVICIVLWICIN I O STRIKE-OUT/UNDERLINE OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS CHAPTER Chapter 21.45 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 21.45.010 Intent and purpose. ' 21.45.020 Applicability. 21.45.030 Definitions. 21.45.040 Permitted zones and uses. 21.45.050 Application and permit. 21.45.060 General development standards. 21.45.070 Small lot, single-family and two family dwelling dDevelopment standards for one-family dwellings and twin-homes on small lots. 21.45.080 Multiple-dwelling dDevelopment standards for condominium projects. 21.45.090 Residential additions and accessory uses. 21.45.100 Amendments to permits. 21.45.110 Conversion of existing buildings to planned developments. 21.45.120 Expiration, extension and revisions. 21.45.130 Proposed common ownership land or improvements. 21.45.140 Maintenance. 21.45.150 Failure to maintain. 21.45.160 Model homes. 21.45.170 Restriction on reapplication for planned development permit. 21.45.010 Intent and purpose. A. .The purpose of the planned development ordinance Is to: Al Recognize the need for a diversity of housing and product types; 82. Provide a method for clustered property development that redbgnizes that the impacts of environmentally and topographically constrained land preclude the full development of a site as a standard single-family subdivision; G3. Establish a process to approve the following: separate ownership of dwelling units with lots or exclusive use areas of less than seven thousand five-hundred square feet in size or as otherwise allowed by the underlying zone; condominium ownership In multiple-unit buildings; and conversion of existing, residential development to condominiums; . a. One-famllv dwellings and twin-homes on Individual lots of less than 7.SOO square feet In size or as otherwise allowed bv the underlying zone; b. Condominium protects consisting of two-famllv and multiple-family dwellings, as well as one-family dwellings developed as two or more detached dwellings on one lot; c. Condominium conversions; and d. Private streets; & Allow the development of email-lot subdivisions In existing R-1 neighborhoods when the propoced site Is contiguous to a higher Intensity land use or an existing project of comparable or higher & Allow tho development of small-lot subdivisions, two-family and multiple-family dwellings on existing R-1 zoned properties when the project site contains cencltive biological resources as Identified in the-Carlsbad habitat management plan; FT— Permit the development of small-tot subdivisions in multi-family zones (except when the multiple-family zone implements the RH land use designation) as an alternative product type to attached dwelling units; and 64. Encourage and allow more creative and imaginative design by including relief from .compliance with standard residential zoning regulations. To offset this flexibility in development standards, planned developments are required to incorporate amenities and features not normally required of standard residential developments. 21.45.020 Applicability. A. A planned development permit is required for the development of single-family lots or exclusive use areas one-family dwellings or twin-homes on lots of less than seven thousand five hundred 7.500 square feet or as otherwise allowed by the underlying zone, attached or detached 21.45.060 TABLE C GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Density Arterial Setbacks Building Setbacks Permitted Intrusions into Setbacks i Visitor Parking On Private/Public Streets Driveways Private Streets Public Streets Parkways with Street Trees Driveway (Project) Per the underlying General Plan designation. When two or more general plan land use designations exist within a planned development the density may not be transferred from one general plan v. designation to another without a general plan amendment. All dwelling units and accessory structures adjacent to any arterial road shown on the Circulation Element of the General Plan shall maintain the following minimum setbacks from the right-of-way: Prime Arterial 50 Feet Major Arterial 40 Feet Secondary Arterial 30 Feet ;/i Carlsbad Boulevard 20 Feet An average of 50% of the required setback area that is located closest to the arterial shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent artcrials. Project perimeter walls shall not be located in the landscaped buffer. The landscaped buffer shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage. This arterial landscape / setback shall be commonly owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. f All setbacks shall be measured from the property line, from the back of sidewalk or from the edge of the project driveway, whichever is closest to the structure. Projecting architectural features, which do not increase the useable living area of a dwelling unit, (including, but not limited to, cornices, eaves, belt courses, sills, buttresses and fireplaces) may intrude up to 2 feet into required building setbacks. I. 10 units or less: 1 space for each 2 units or fraction thereof. 2. 1 1 units or more: 5 spaces for the first 10 units, phis 1 space for each 4 units above 1 0. 3. Housing for senior citizens: 1 space for each 5 units. 4. In cases where a fractional parking space is required, the required number of spaces shall be rounded to the nearest highest whole number. I. Visitor parking may be provided: (1 ) along both sides of a minimum 34 foot wide private/public street or (2) in perpendicular bays. When visitor parking is provided on-street, not less than 24 lineal feet per space, exclusive of driveway entrances' and driveway aprons, shall be provided for each parking space, except where parallel parking spaces are located immediately adjacent to driveway aprons, then 20 lineal feet may be provided. 1. Visitor parking must be provided in parking bays. Minimum 34 feet wide (curb-to-curb) with parkways (minimum 5.5' wide) and sidewalks (minimum 5' wide) on both sides of the street Minimum 34 feet wide (curb-to-curb) with parkways (minimum 7' wide) and sidewalks (minimum 5' wide) on both sides of the street. Minimum 5.5 feet wide parkways are required along both sides of private streets. For small-lot, . single-family and two-family projects, a minimum of one street tree (24 inch box) per lot is required to be planted in the parkway along all streets. For multi-family projects, street trees shall be spaced no further apart than 30 feet on center within the parkway. Tree species should be selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk damage and minimize water consumption. 1 . Minimum 24 feet wide with no parking permitted in travel way. 2. Additional width may be required for maneuvering area in front of garages, carports or uncovered parking spaces or to provide transition to a driveway approach. 3. No more than 20 singte-family/two-ramtry dwettirrg units shall be located along a single-entry driveway. 4. Parkways/sidewalks may be required. 5. Driveways in motor courts shall be constructed of concrete. 6. All driveways/motor courts shall be accented with enhanced pavement treatment. \ I (Carlsbad Supp. No 5.8-03)712 a. The proposed planned development designed with the modified development standard(s) is consistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter; and b. The proposed modlficatlon(s) will result in the preservation of natural habitat as required by the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP): and c. The amount of natural habitat preservation required by the HMP could not be achieved by strict adherence to the development standards of this chapter; and d. The proposed modlflcatlon(s) will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare; and e. If the project Is located within the coastal zone, the modification is consistent with all Local Coastal Program policies and standards for the protection of coastal resources. 2. Any application for a planned development permit that involves a request for a modification to the development standards of this chapter shall include documentation that clearly demonstrates the modification is necessary to Implement the natural habitat preservation requirements of the HMP. 3. The decision-making body with the authority to approve a planned development permit may modify the plan, or Impose such conditions or requirements that are more restrictive than the development standards specified In this chapter, the underlying zone or elsewhere in this code, as deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, or to insure conformity with the general plan and other adopted policies, goals or objectives of the city. 21.45.060 General development standards. A, All planned developments shall comply with the general development standards specified in.Table C below. Specific standards applicable to one-family dwellings and twin-homes on small-lots can be found In Table D; and standards applicable to condominium projects can be found In Table E., single-famlly/two-family dwelling and multiple-dwelling condominium projects can be found in Tables D and E, respectively. B. In addition to the provisions of this chapter, a planned development project shall be sublect to the development standards of the protect site's underlying zone. C. If there Is a conflict between the development standards of this chapter and the development standards applicable to the project site's underlying zone, the standards of this chapter shall prevail. Exception; the development standards specified In the city's local coastal program, a redevelopment plan, master plan or specific plan shall prevail if such standards conflict with the standards of this chapter. D. When approved, a planned development permit shall become a part of the zoning regulations applicable to the sublect property. TABLE C GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS REF. N0r QA C.2 SUBJECT Density Arterial Setbacks DEVELOPMENT STANDARD Per the underlying General Plan designation. When two or more general plan land use designations exist within a planned development, the density may net-be transferred from one general plan designation to another without a general plan amendment. AH dwelling units and accessory structures adjacent to any arterial road shown on the Circulation Element of the General Plan shall maintain the following minimum setbacks from the right-of-way: Prime Arterial 50 Feet Major Arterial 40 Feet Secondary Arterial 30 Feet Carlsbad Boulevard 20 Feet be fully landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials, and shall be commonly owned and maintained. Project perimeter walls greater than 42 Inches in height shall not be located in the required arterial setback landscaped buffer, except as follows: • Noise attenuation walls as required bv a noise study, and when such placement is necessary due to topography. 2I.45.0SO MULTIPL -T Architectural Design Elements Minimum Building Separation Resident Parking Visitor Parking Compact Parking Recreational Space / Private / ' ' /Comhion / TABLE E (Continued) ' ' ' ' ^ pDWELLlNG 0EVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1 . There shall be at least 3 separate building planes on all building elevations. The x minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include but not be limited to building walls, windows and roofs. 2. Building facades shall incorporate a minimum of four of the following types of design elements: a. Covered front porches (may count toward meeting recreation space require- ments); ,^_ b, A variety of roof planes; c. Windows and doors-mccsssiajnimrnurn of 2 inches; d. Paned windows and doors; e. Exposed rgojjaflerJaibr f. Window and door lintels; g. Dormers; h. AccerjLand varied shape windows; i. Exterior wood elements; j. Raised stucco trim around windows and doors; k. Accent materials such as brick, stone, shingles, wood or siding; and 1. Knee braces. 20 feet average with a minimum of 10 feet between structures. No structures (i.e., stairs, stairwells, balconies, etc.) are permitted to encroach into this setback. 1. One 12 feet x 20 feet car garage and 1 covered or uncovered space per unit . 2. Studio units - 1.5 spaces; 1 covered per unit 3. Housing for senior citizens: 1.5 covered spaces per Unit, plus 1 covered space for an onsite manager's unit (when provided). 1. 10 units or less: 1 space for each 2 dwelling units or fraction thereof. 2. 1 1 units or more: 5 spaces for the first 10 units, plus 1 space for each 4 dwelling units above 10. 3. Housing for senior citizens: 1 space for each 5 dwelling units. 4. Visitor parking spaces must be located no more than ISO ft as measured in a logi- . cal walking path from the entrance of the unit it could be considered to serve. 5. Visitor parking must be provided in parking bays. For projects of more than 25 units, up to 25 percent of visitor parking may be pro- vided as compact spaces (8 feet by 13 feet). No overhang is permitted into any re- quired setback area or over sidewalks less than 6 feet wide. *~ 1. Projects of 1 — 10 dwelling units: 15 ft x 15 ft patio or 120 square feet of balcony area, 2. Projects of more than 10 dwelling units: 10 ft x 10 ft patio or 6 ft. x 10 ft bal- cony. 1. Projects of more than 10 dwelling units: See General Standards, Table C. 1I) Setbacks are applicable to streets that include parkways and sidewalks along both sides. For existing streets without parkways, the frbnl setback shall be as follows: Front porch -16 feet, residence - 20 fool minimum, side-entry garage -10 feet direct entry garage - 20 feet. (2) The average front yard setback is determined by adding together all of the unit front yard setbacks (the setback for each unit should be meas- ured from thai element of each building, excluding projections, that is located closest to the front property line) and dividing thai total by the total number of project units. (Ord. NS-662 § 9, 2003; Ord. NS-612 § I (part), 2001) 717 (Carlsbad Supp No 5,1-03) TABLE C. CONTINUED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUBJECT Private Streets DEVELOPMENT STANDARD Minimum 34 feet wide (curb-to curb) with parkwayo (minimum 5.5' wide) and cidewalks (minimum 6' wide) on both cideo of the street. Public Streets Minimum 34 feet wide (curb to curb) with parkways (minimum 7' wide) and sidewalks (minimum 6' wide) on both sides of the street. Parkways with Street TfTlflf*t I UUU Minimum 6.6 feel wide parkways are required along both sides of private streets. For small- lot, single-family and two family projectc, a minimum of ono street-treo (24 inch box) per lot is required to bo planted in the parkway along all streets. For multi-family projects, ctreet trees shall be spaced no further apart than 30 feet on center within the parkway. Troo species should be selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk damage and minimize water consumption. Driveway 1. Minimum 24 foot wide with no parking permitted in travel way. 2. Additional width may be required for maneuvering area in front of garages, carports or uncovered parking spacoo or to provide transition to a driveway approach. 3i No more than 20 single family/two-family dwelling units shall bo located along a single entry driveway. 4. Parkways/oidewalks may be required. 6. Driveways Jn motor courts shall be constructed of concrote. 6. All drivoways/motor courts shall be accented with enhanced pavemont treatment. Dwelling Unit Setback from Open Parking All dwelling units shall be set back a minimum of 6 feet from open parking areas. Screening of . Parking Areas Att-eOpen parking areas shaH-should be screened from adjacent residences and public rights-of-way by either a view-obscuring wall, landscaped berm. or landscaping, except parking located within a driveway. All projects of more than 10 dwelling units shall provide 200 square feot of centralized, community recreational cpaoo per unit. Community recreational space shall be provided for all protects of 11 or more dwelling units. as follows Minimum community recreational space required Projects with Jl to_25 eMewef dwelling units Projects with 2§ ox more than-26 dwelling units C.10 Community Recreational Space"1 Projects with 5fi or more than 60 dwelling units All prelects (with 11 or more dwelling units) Project Is NOT within RH general plan designation Project 18 within RH general plan designation 200 square feet per unit 150 square feet per unit Community recreational space shall be provided as either (or both) passive or active recreation facilities. Community recreational space shall be provided as both passive and active recreational facilities with a minimum of 7524 percent of the area allocated for active facilities. Community recreational space shall be provided as both passive and active recreational facilities for a variety of age groups fa minimum of 75% of the area allocated for active facilities). For projects consisting of one-famllv dwellings or twin homes on small-lots, at least 25% of the community recreation space must be provided as pocket parks. • Pocket park lots must have a minimum width of SO feet and be located at strategic locations such as street Intersections (especially "T-lntersectlons") and where open space vistas may be achieved. Community recreational space shall be centrally located In relationship to all project units, and shall be located and designed so as to be functional, usable, and easily accessible from the units It Is Intended to serve. Credit for Indoor recreation facilities shall not exceed 25% of the required centralized community recreation area. City of Carlsbad Planning Department August 2, 2006 Gino DiFante P O Box 2422 Capistrano Beach CA 92624 SUBJECT: CP 06-01 /MS 04-11 - ROMERIA The City has completed a review of the application for a four-unit condominium development located on the north side of La Costa Avenue between Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. It is the Planning Director's determination that based on the attached findings, the project is not consistent with the City's condominium regulations (Chapter 21.45) and other applicable City Ordinances and Policies. This memo, including the listed findings, constitutes DENIAL of CP 06-01. Findings: 1. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element, and with all other elements of the City's General Plan. 2. Adequate public facilities necessary to serve this project will be provided as required by the City Engineer in conjunction with the approval of the parcel map required for this project. 3. That the proposed project does not comply with all applicable development standards included within Chapter 21.45, in that the project does not meet the following standards: 1) the project includes a project perimeter wall that is not allowed in the landscaped setback area from La Costa Avenue plus the project does not provide an average 50% of the required landscape buffer along the secondary arterial. Per the Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45) in the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), an average of 50% of the required setback area that is located closest to an arterial (La Costa Avenue) shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. Project perimeter walls cannot be located in this landscape buffer. The landscaped buffer shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage. The project currently does not meet this standard as there is no landscaping buffer provided and a perimeter wall is located within the landscaping buffer (setback); and, 2) the project does not meet the required 15 ft x 15 ft. patio or 120 square feet of balcony area on two out of the four units. Each project of 1-10 dwelling units must have a 15x15 foot patio or 120 square feet of balcony area to satisfy the recreational space requirements. It has been established that Unit 1 and Unit 3 meet this requirement Units 2 and 4 do not 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-46OO • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us meet the required recreational space private rear yard. Unit 2's recreational space measures less than the required 15 x 15 foot. Unit 4 does not comply with this requirement since the recreational space projects more than two feet into the front yard setback. 4. That the proposed project's density, site design and architecture are compatible with surrounding development, in that the neighborhood is developed with similar multiple-family structures. This decision may be appealed by you or any other member of the public to the Planning Commission within ten days of the date of this letter. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue in Carlsbad, along with a payment of $550.00. The filing of such appeal within such time limit shall stay the effective date of the order of the Planning Director until such time as a final decision on the appeal is reached. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Chris Sexton at 760-602-4624. Sincerely, DON NEU Assistant Planning Director DN:CS:bd c: David Rick File Copy Data Entry GINO DIFANTE P.O. Box 2442 • Capistrauo Beach, CA 92624 (949) 887-7557 • Fax: (760) 944-2885 August 3, 2006 Ms. Marcela Escobar-Eck Planning Director City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: CP 06-01 Project TheRomeria 7565 Romeria Street, La Costa, CA 92009 Dear Madam: This is to notify you that I hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Director dated August 2, 2006 denying the application identified above to convert an existing four-unit apartment building to a four-unit condominium development. 1 believe that the decision is arbitrary, based on inaccurate facts and fails to take into account legislation that affects planned developments in the project zone. I hereby request a hearing before the City Planning Commission. Concurrently with this letter I am tendering a payment of $550.00. Please advise me of the hearing date as soon as possible. Very truly yours, Gino Dif ante B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 2 DENIES THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO DENY ROMERIA - CP 06-01, based on the 3 following findings: Findings: 1. That the proposed project does not comply with all applicable development standards 6 included within Chapter 21.45, in that the project does not meet the following Planned Development standards: 7 a) Per the Planned Development Ordinance (PD), Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), an average of 50% of the required 30 foot setback area 9 that is located closest to La Costa Avenue (secondary arterial) shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic. Project perimeter walls 10 cannot be located in this required 50% average landscape buffer area. The landscaped buffer area shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage. The project currently does not meet this standard as there is no landscape buffer provided and a 6 foot tall project perimeter wall is located within the required landscape buffer setback area; 13 b) The project does not meet the PD private recreational space standards for one of the four units. Pursuant to the PD standards, each unit in projects of 1-10 dwelling 1. units in size must have a 15 foot x 15 foot patio or 120 square feet of balcony area to satisfy the private recreational space standards. In addition, proposed balconies are 16 not allowed to project into a required setback area. Unit 4 does not comply with these standards as the proposed 160 square foot balcony projects more than three 17 feet into the required 8' residence setback, which is measured from the edge of the project driveway;18 c) The existing structure does not meet the required PD project driveway setback standards, which require residences to be set back 8 feet, fully landscaped, and 20 garages to be set back 5 feet with both setbacks to be measured from the project driveway. The existing structure provides residence setbacks as little as 1.5 feet, with no landscaping, and garages with setbacks as little as 1.5 feet (Unit 1 garage); 22 and 23 d) The project does not comply with the PD architectural design elements standards. The project is required to provide at least three separate building planes on all 24 building elevations with a minimum 18 inches of offset in planes. Currently, the project only provides three separate plans on the south (street) side facing elevation with a minimum 18 inches of offset in the planes. However, the north, east and west 25 elevations do not meet this standard as they provide only 2 planes, instead of the required 3 planes. 27 28 PCRESONO. 6197 -2- 2. That the proposed project's density, site design and architecture are not compatible with 2 surrounding development, in that the neighborhood is developed with similar multiple-family structures, however the proposed condominium conversion project 3 cannot meet the minimum development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance.4 5 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." 8 You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If 9 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. 12 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, 1 . 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 15 NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 6197 -3- DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF November 1, 2006 DCC MEETING: October 23, 2006 CASE NO. CUP 05-18/CDP 05-35 CDP 06-21 CP 06-01 PROJECT NAME NS022-01 FOUR SEASONS WCF WOOLSON RESIDENCE ROMERIA TIME 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM RECEIVED o C'TYCF CARLSBAD•' *lf no time is indicated, listing is information only CP 06-01 - ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page 4 B. RD-M & Planned Development Regulations The project does not meet all the development standards of the RD-M zone and does not meet all the standards of the Planned Development Ordinance as outlined in Table A below: Table A: RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance RD-M Standards Height Setbacks Lot Coverage Table C General Development Standards Applicable to all Planned Developments Arterial Setbacks Visitor Parking Driveway Storage Space Required 35' Front - 20' Side- 5' Street Side -10' Rear -10' 60% Required 30' (La Costa Avenue) An average of 50% of the required setback area that is closest to the arterial shall be landscaped to enhance the street scene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. Project perimeter walls shall not be located in the landscaped buffer. 2 spaces 24 feet 392 cubic feet/unit Provided 21'8" Front - 20' Side -5.1' Street Side -3 1.57' Rear -24.33' 34% Provided 31.57' The project does not comply with the 50% average landscape standard which is intended to enhance the street scene and buffer the homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. In addition a 6' project perimeter wall is located in the required landscaped buffer area. 2 spaces 24 Feet 392 cubic feet/unit Comply? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Comply? No Yes Yes Yes CP06-01-ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page 6 Table A; RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum Building Height Minimum Building Setbacks Public Street Driveway (Project) Required 60% 35' 1) To front porch: 1 1 feet 2) To residential structure: 1 5 foot average 3) To street sideyard: 10 feet 4) To side entry, garage: 10 feet 5) To direct entry garage: 20 feet 1) Residence: 8 feet, fully landscaped 2) Garage: 5 feet 3) Garages facing directly onto a driveway shall be equipped with an automatic garage door opener. Provided 34% 21'8" 1)N/A 2) 1 5 foot minimum 3) 3 1.57 feet 4) 3 1.57 feet 5)N/A 1) 1 .5 foot minimum 2) 1 .5 foot minimum 3) Automatic garage door openers on all 4 units Comply? Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A No No Yes CP 06-01 - ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page 7 ' Table A; RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Required Provided Comply? Architectural Design Elements 1) There shall be at least 3 separate building planes on all building elevations. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include but not be limited to building walls, windows and roofs. 2) Building facades shall incorporate a minimum of four of the following types of design elements; a) Covered front porches (may count toward meeting recreation space requirements) b) A variety of roof planes c) Windows and doors recessed a minimum of two inches d) Paned windows and doors e) Exposed roof rafter tails f) Window and door lintels g) Dormer h) Accent and varied shape window i) Exterior wood elements j) Raised stucco trim around windows and trims k) Accent materials such as brick, stone, shingles, wood or siding 1) Knee Braces 1) There are at least 3 separate planes on the south building elevation. The minimum offset in planes is at least 18 inches. The north, east and west elevations of the building provide only 2 separate planes instead of the required 3 planes. 2) The project incorporates a minimum of four design elements that includes the following: paned windows and doors, accent and varied window shapes, raised stucco trim around windows and doors, and covered front porches. No Yes CP 06-01 - ROMERIA November 1,2006 PageS Table A: RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Resident Parking Visitor Parking Private Recreational Space Required One car garage (12x20 minimum)and 1 covered and uncovered 2 spaces 15' x 15' patio or 120 square feet of balcony area. Provided Two car garage (20x20 minimum )/unit 2 spaces Units 1,2, and 3 meet this requirement. Unit 4 does not comply with this requirement since the proposed 160 square foot balcony projects more than 3 feet into the required front yard setback. Comply? Yes Yes No The applicant sent a letter to the Planning Director on June 5, 2006 attempting to resolve the outstanding PD standards compliance issues. The first issue of concern was the wall located in the arterial setback from La Costa Avenue and the required 50% average landscape buffer area required. When the applicant applied for a building permit to construct the four-unit apartment building, one of the requirements was to construct a noise wall which is a requirement in the City's General Plan and the Noise Guidelines Manual. The project is located along La Costa Avenue where the traffic noise is great enough to require the interior and exterior noise to be mitigated per the Noise Guidelines Manual. The applicant has submitted an acoustical analysis to substantiate his claim that the interior and exterior noise needed to be mitigated with a sound wall when the four unit apartment building was built. However, the applicant needs to meet both the noise standards of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance PD requirements, including the more restrictive standard. The Planned Development Ordinance would be the more restrictive standard since the wall cannot be located within the required 50% average landscape buffer area along La Costa Avenue. The applicant could have designed the project and located the noise attenuation wall in a manner that met all applicable General Plan noise standards and the Zoning Ordinance PD standards. The applicant had another issue of not providing enough storage space. Since the date of the letter, staff has worked with the applicant to provide adequate storage space within the existing garage to meet the PD standards. The last issue the letter addressed was the private recreational space standards. Staff has determined that Unit 4 does not meet the private recreational space standards. Staff has allowed the applicant to provide both patio and proposed balcony space to meet the recreational space requirement for Units 2 and 3. Unit 4 has a patio and a proposed balcony combination, however, the proposed balcony projects three feet into the required 8 foot project driveway setback, which is measured from the project driveway. COLIA ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS 177 Riverside, #F Newport Beach, CA 92663 Certified Acoustical Consultants Phone 714 960-7511 Fax 714 960-6775 L6-056 Email: RColia@socal.rr.com April 25, 2006 Mr. Gino DiFante P.O. Box 2442 Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 SUBJECT: Addendum to Acoustical Analysis for the 4-Unit Romeria Condominiums at 7565 Romeria Street in Carlsbad: To the Planning Director, City of Carlsbad Dear Mr. DiFante; At your request I have reviewed your most recent site plan for the condominium conversion at the above referenced project in the City of Carlsbad. I find that the recommendations in my Report # R2-097, dated August 28, 2002 will still apply to your project. The recommendation for exterior noise control to meet the City standard of 60 dB CNEL for outdoor living areas is a City Noise Element wall along La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street. Your most recent site plan shows this wall. With this existing wall the City noise standards will be met It is thus, a requirement Without it the City noise standards will not be met The existing City Noise Element wall, not a project perimeter privacy wall, had to be constructed next to the right-of-way behind the site property line along La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street, as it show in my original report and on the site plan approved by the City in 2002. In order to reduce the current and future roadway noise impacts to the City Noise Element standards of 60 dB CNEL, this wall and its location is necessary to the project. If you have any further questions please call. Member INCE COLIA ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS 177 RiverS1de, #F "7 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Member, Institute of Noise Control Engineering Phone 714 960-7511 Fax 714 960-6775 Email: RColia@socal.rr.com R2-097 August 28, 2002 REVISED ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ROMERIA TOWNHOME APARTMENTS AT LA COSTA AVENUE AND ROMERIA STREET IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD Prepared For: GINO DIFINTE 32158 Camino Capistrano, #A275 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Prepare siA Acoustical Consultant MEMBER INCE REVISED ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ROMERIA TOWNHOME APARTMENTS AT LA COSTA AVENUE AND ROMERIA STREET IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD INTRODUCTION At the request of Gino Difinte, an acoustical analysis has been performed on the multi-family unit project known as the Romeria Townhome Apartments. The proposed project is located at the northwest corner of La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street in Carlsbad. The principal source of noise to the project will be from future vehicular traffic on La Costa Avenue, with lesser impacts from Romeria Street. The impacts from Romeria Street are minimized due to their lower traffic flows. There are no known aircraft or railroad impacts to the site. The noise criteria of the City of Carlsbad for current and projected conditions state that the noise intrusive to interior habitable spaces of residential units from exterior sources should not exceed 45 A-Weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Usable outdoor living areas are also to be limited to 60 dBA CNEL or less. The purpose of this report is to determine the exterior noise environment, design noise control measures to reduce the projected noise impacts, and present other mitigation measures, where necessary, to reduce other noise impacts to acceptable levels. ANALYSIS Exterior Noise Impact Figure 1 shows the location of the project site in relation to the existing adjacent roadways. Future traffic volumes on La Costa Avenue will determine the significant portion of the future noise impact. The future noise impact was projected by using the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108) and several roadway and model parameters. The key input parameters which established the potential noise impact include: Future Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Vehicle travel speed Roadway descriptor (freeway, primary, secondary, etc.) Active half width (distance between the roadway centerline and centerline of outside travel lanes) R2-097 August 28, 2002 Percentage of heavy trucks, medium trucks and autos in the total traffic volume Angle of view to the roadway Grade on the roadway segment adjacent to the site Site conditions Hourly breakdown of traffic flows in a 24-hour period. The key site parameters above were taken by roadway dimensions shown on the tract and grading plans provided. The roadway parameters such as roadway classification were also taken from the plans provided. The projected ADT values were taken from a traffic study performed by the City Public Works Department on July 22, 2002. La Costa Avenue is a two-lane undivided road. The year 2002 ADT for La Costa Avenue is 10,211 based on a 24-hour count. Jim Gale from the Public Works Department indicates the ADT is decreasing due to new streets with access to the freeway. For example, in 1998 the ADT was 12,000, and now it is about 10,000. Thus, the ADT for this study will be 10,211. The truck percentages used in the analysis are shown below. The roadway average speeds are 40 MPH. The projected future traffic volumes are shown below. TABLE 1 Projected Traffic Volumes (Year 2002) ROADWAY Future ADT Travel Speed La Costa Ave. 10,211 40 MPH The truck auto mixes used in the analysis was as follows: TABLE 2 ARTERIAL: Overall Day% Evening% Night% Auto 97.42% 75.51 12.57 9.34 Med. Trucks 1.84% 1.56 0.09 0.19 Hvy. Trucks 0.74% 0.64 0.02 0.08 -2- R2-097 August 28, 2002 The FHWA Noise Model projection of 64.9 dBA CNEL at a distance of 85 feet from the centerline of La Costa Avenue was used in the analysis (Table 3). Table 4 shows the projected future FHWA calculated noise levels for the four units closest to La Costa Avenue. These values will be used to determine the mitigation measures for the project. MITIGATION MEASURES Exterior Noise Control The future exterior noise impact to the outdoor proposed areas of the residential homes along La Costa Avenue for future conditions are as high as 64.9 dBA CNEL. Because the future noise levels of Lots 1-4 along La Costa Avenue will exceed 60 dBA CNEL, acoustical shielding of proposed outdoor areas along the roadways will be required. The acoustical barrier may consist of: 1. Standard masonry block walls, or 2. A 2x3 wood stud wall with 7/8-inch stucco or plaster on one wall side and Va inch stucco or plaster on the other. 3. A 2x3 wood stud wall with 1 inch solid wood fencing, such as Tongue and Groove, shiplap or plywood (with the seams between sheets fully caulked or sealed), and Va solid wood on the other. 4. Any other solid material with minimum density of 4 pounds per square foot of surface. 5. Earthen Berm. 6. Any combination of the above items. -3- R2-097 August 28, 2002 The noise control barrier must be solid from top to bottom with no openings or decorative cutouts. All gaps should be filled with grout or caulk. The calculations for the barrier height requirements were run for the first row of homes along the roadway. The required wall heights of 6 feet were specified by the developer for this project. The barrier shielding was determined using geometric relationships of pad height and road elevations in relation to the proposed barrier locations. The barrier locations are shown in Figure 2. The important barrier calculation parameters are shown in Table 5. The calculations in Table 5 show the maximum barrier height required is 6 feet above pad height to achieve levels less than 60 dBA CNEL. This table also shows the Top of Barrier (TOB) elevations needed to be effective and that all first floor observers will have shielded noise levels (SLEV and TOTAL) less than 60 dBA CNEL. The barrier results are summarized in Table 6. Note the Top of Wall (TOW) elevations are relative to pad grade. Exterior-To-Interior Noise Control The analysis performed in this study indicates the noise reduction provided by each exterior wall component in each proposed habitable unit. The A-weighted sound transmission loss (TL) associated with the building construction components which were used in the calculation of the composite building shell noise attenuation i. The TL values were calculated via mass law equations or obtained from reference materials. The noise spectra used is typical for motor vehicles. Exterior Wall 45 dBA Entry Door 25 dBA Vinyl Sliding Windows: Single strength (SSB) 22.2 dBA % inch 27.0 dBA The glazing requirements for the project to meet the state and City interior noise criteria of 45 dBA CNEL are summarized below. 1. Standard Single strength glass (3/32nd inch) or any window with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 22 or greater: • All first floor windows and other windows and all units of the project. -4- R2-097 August 28, 2002 2. All entrance doors at Lots 1-4 should be solid core or equivalent and must be fully weather-stripped at all perimeters. All interior noise levels are less than 45 dBA CNEL as required by the City and state noise standards. These recommendations are made with doors and windows closed. Because windows and doors must be closed to meet the interior noise standard, mechanical ventilation must be provided in ALL Units of the project, which meets the air change requirements of the UBC. Many clients meet this requirement by providing a summer switch on the Forced Air Units (FAU), ducting 20 percent make-up air from directly outside via sound attenuating ducts. Air-conditioning of the units may be provided as an alternative. CONCLUSIONS The California Noise Insulation Standards require that the noise study include: 1) a map of the site and its surrounding noise sources; 2) identification of the noise sources and their characteristics; 3) predicted noise spectra at the exterior of the proposed dwelling(s); 4) noise attenuation measures to be applied; and 5) analysis of the noise insulation effectiveness. These items have been discussed and included in the report which was "prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering", as the Noise Insulation Standards require. Following implementation of the recommendations contained herein, it can be expected that the intrusive interior noise criteria of the City of Carlsbad and State of California will be met. -5- TABLE 3 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL FHWA(RD-77-108) Client: Project: Projected CNEL, dB 75 70 65 60 57 55 Gino Difmte Romeria Townhome Apts. ROADWAY: ADT: AUTOS: MEDIUM TRUCKS: HEAVY TRUCKS: TRAVEL SPEED: ACTIVE HALF WIDTH: DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE: SINGLE LANE EQUIVALENT: ANGLE OF VIEW: ROAD GRADE HARD/SOFT: PROJECTED NOISE IMPACT: CNEL A: CNEL MT: CNEL HT: CNEL CONTOURS Date: 8-28-02 La Costa 10,211 97.42 % 1.84 % 0.74 % 40 MPH 6.0 FEET 85.0 FEET 84.8 FEET 180.0 DEGREES 0.0 % 0.5 64.9 dBCNEL 61.1 dB 57.1 dB 61.2 dB Distance To SLE, ft. 18.1 39.0 84.1 181.2 287.2 390.4 TABLE 4 Projected Noise Levels at Building Lines Lot Distance to Future CNEL Centerline, Ft. 1-4 85' 64.9 TABLE 5 SOUND BARRIER CALCULATION WORKSHEET AREA SORC PAD DSLE SORC OBS. OBS- BLOS TOB ATTN ULEV SLEV TOTAL WALI ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV BARR ELEV ELEV (dB) HT. DIST 1 101.6 103.3 85.0 106.6 108.3 40.0 107.5 109.3 6.2 64.9 58.7 6.0 TABLE 6 Summary of Barrier Requirements Lot No. Top of Wall Elevation Shielded Noise Impact CNEL 1-4 6'(109.3) 58.7 EventCeunMS? EventCount-157 Page 1 Traffic Data Service Southwest Event Counts DATASITS: Site: ChannelA: ChannelB: Survey Duration: Pile: Identifier: Algorithm: [018E] La Costa Ave Btwn Cadencla St & Romeria St EastbOUnd 2 - East bound. - Added to totals (1) 0 - Unused or unknown. - Excluded from totals. (0) 11:13 Mon 22 Jul 2002 to 09:12 Fri 26 Jul 2002 Z:\mcdata\CRLSSD\2002\018\018E26JUL2002. ECO (Base) A566R8D4 MC56-1 [MC55J (c)Microcom 07/06/99 . Event count PROFILE: Filter time: Name: Method: Unite: In profile: 14:00 Mon 22 Jul 2002 to 12:00 ThU 25 Jul 2002 Factory default profile Count axles divided by two. Non-Metric (ft, mi. f/s, mph, Ib, ton) 14587 Events • Mon 22 Jul 2002 - Tota)=2673(lncomplete), 15 minute drops,oooo pioo 0200 oaeo oxoo 0500 oeoo 0700 oeoo o;oo 1000 uoo 1200 noo 1400 - - - . - - - - - - - - - - 33fl 1500 leOO 1700 1900 19.00 2000 2100 2200 2300 2»i 204 il*. 109 " U34« 3Si Q.O .73 «8 64 IS It 07 131 76 102 111 5« 107 101 )2 »4 11 S 92 98 9) 52 69 67 10 79 60 <8 46 41 It 27 32 22 21 37 21 IS 16 22 8 12 12 9 1) C » Tue 23 Jul 2002 - Total*5Q5S, 16 minute drops, OOOO 0100 0200 03.00 0400 0.560.0600 0700 0100 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600. 1700 ItOQ 1900 2POO 2100 2200-2300jy 12 13 6 10 10 3 2 2 1 1 4 4 3 { 14 2 * ;w 4 2 3 i . 11 22 tW ill 29 101 31 13 49 ft • ( '74 275 £9 5) 82 «» 63 70 S« 56 **>,60 52 57te 217 7J 71 73 61 216 71 72 75 57 310 60 79 72. 79 305 3)6 3t( 4<) 374 65 96 »3 101 100 64 101 19 121 91 82 99 97 113 96 94 100 107 11* (0 2^0 77 56- HI 54 66 52 1«44 40 41 34 115 30 29 27 tf26 12 10 7 13 10 11 3 V•Wed 24 Jul 2002 -Total^5151, 15 minute drops,oooo oioo capo oaoo o«oo osoo oaoo 0700 oioo ODPO 1000 poo 1200.1300 1400 isoo 1600 n icoo HOP 2000 21110 z?oo 23po00 noo uop 200 60 40S MS 25Oi jBI^' JM ..tff^l.jj «4 H 79 61 66 37 l'S32 3 7 3J 1 17 45 7 U to U »71 6«: 72 7» 65 66 • 7T7 5) 89 65 71 72 60 . 56 77 62 19 97 'lit 126 72 H 67 5> 65 54 «6 «6 IS • 96 121 9.3 7) 64 £1 55 «1 -7« 73- £5 107 101 10) 19 61 .«37 54 37 21 23 10 AM PKHf OM5 (0 07HS (n=322), AMPHFao.tl PM Fk«r 17:00<O 11:00 (n«4«0|, PM PHFcO.lt • Thu 25 Jul 2002 - Total*irOTOncomplete), 15 minute drops, OOOO 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 P6«0 0700 OaOOO.OO 1000 UOO 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1SOO_2000 2100 2200 2300»: -L\.. iti JHi.'.lir 24 f 6 3S.. 26 14 10 24 5 '( 4 J S 30 97^ 55 56 59 61 6 6 7 5 4 10 37 )S 59 54 45 76 ( 6 2 4 2 . .18 .46 ..75 72. .74.... .64. .86 10" 3 0' 1 4 IS 65 65 64 57 63 92 v '- ''.'.; - i^a'-'^iVi- £iTO*;^. -' 1*>*1. :'i FIGURE 1: Site Location Map CD SITCPUH HV • MMA FIGURE 2: Recommended Barrier Locations - 6 Feet High SfTtPUM CD OS FIGURE 2: Recommended Barrier Locations - 6 Feet High FRIED AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 7564 Romeria St. Carlsbad, CA 92009 Organizational Effectiveness • Executive Coaching Office (760) 633-4444 • Fax (760) 633-1044 Professional Speaking • Training • Research E-mail • elizabeth@nefried.com October 15, 2006 To: City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Re: The Romeria Condominiums CP 06-01, 7565 Romeria Street, Gino DiFante As a neighbor of Gino DiFante and condominium owner near his units, I have eagerly been awaiting the completion of his project. I very much appreciate the care he has taken to insure the beauty and style of the property and think it enhances the neighborhood. It is my understanding that he wishes to get this property converted from apartments to condominiums. I am in strongly in favor of this, as I think it will enhance the value of my own property and insure a more stable population. Renters are usually transient and typically do not take the same pride in the property as home owners. Additionally, property management companies tend to do the minimum maintenance. These factors can ultimately have a negative impact the value of my condominium home. I would appreciate your considering his case carefully and work with him to do what is necessary to make this conversion. It will benefit my property and the surrounding properties. N. We help organizations create a stronger workforce and coach people who want to perform at their best! Visit our Web Site • http://www.nefried.com Eileen Donovan 7555 Romeria St Carlsbad, CA 92009 October 16,2006 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Carlsbad, Ca Re: The Romeria Condominiums CP-06-01 7565 Romeria Street Gino DiFante Dear City of Carlsbad Planning Commission, I am the President of the Villa Romeria Home Owners Association & a Carlsbad City resident for 7 years and my condominium complex resides next door to Gino DiFante's property. I am very happy with the addition of his Mediterranean style condominiums and believe that they make an excellent addition to our neighborhood. As a matter of fact, I was very pleased to see his construction going up because when I purchased my condominium 7 years ago I did so with full anticipation that as new developments went up in the surrounding lots that my property value would in turn rise. But if Mr. DiFante's property remains in "apartment" status then my property value & the overall property values of neighborhood will not be enhanced. In addition, I am quite concerned about this property being designated as apartments due to the very transient nature of renters. Homeowners tend to take more pride in their property and have a deeper sense of community when they own because they have made a substantial commitment to the community itself. I believe that by approving this property as condominiums it will be in the best interest of the entire neighborhood as it will increase the value of our properties, not to mention the benefit to the City of Carlsbad by having the ability to increase the property tax revenue by having this property approved as condominiums. Thank you for your time & consideration in this matter. Best Regard, Eileen Donovan October 16,2006 BingZhu& Sue Ting 7548 Romeria Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission California Re: The Romeria Condominiums - CP 06-01,7565 Romeria Street, Gino DiFante We are one of the Gino*s neighbors on Romeria Street and own a condominium. We like the beautiful Mediterranean design of the property. If the property meets all city requirements, fire code, etc, we would fully suggest to classify the property to be condominiums, which will not only improve our neighborhood value but also will increase city revenue. Sincerelj BingZhu & Sue Ting 10/22/2006 To: City of Carlsbad Planning Commission From: Joe De Santi, 7559 Roineria Street, La Costa, Ca. 92009 Re: The Romeria Condominiums- CP 06-01, 7565 Romeria Street, Gino Di Fante To Whom It May Concern, As an owner of a Condominium in La Costa, for the last 20 years and being a close neighbor to Gino Di Fante and his complex, I am very familiar with the progress and the process of his building's development. I think his building is very appealing and added a lot to our block. The care and design that went into its creation are very apparent with the fresh Mediterranean ambiance and the overall blending with the appearance of the other Condominiums in the neighborhood. I have discussed with Gino about his desire to make them condo, and I firmly believe it would be beneficial to all considered. As an apartment complex, we would see a high turn over rate in dwellers and the deterioration of the site would be evident without the rigid control that a Homeowners Association along with the pride of ownership that a Condominium owner brings to the table. Please take these factors into consideration for the benefit of my property and the property value of other owners in the area. Value goes up, tax revenues increase and everyone wins. Thank you for considering my statement hi your evaluation. Sincerely, ter Octobei 23, 2006 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Re: The Romeria Condominiums - CP 06-01, 7565 Romeria Street, Gino DiFantc. I'm one of Gino DiFante's neighbors on Romeria Street and own a condominium next to the property. I'm very1 pleased with the Mediterranean design of the property and think it's a beautiful property on Romeria Street. I believe that this property, as condominiums, will increase my property value and the value of like condos in the neighborhood. If this property remains apartments, the value of my property and the surrounding properties will not be enhanced. The other factors of concern I have, are that there is a higher turnover rate with apartment renters and poor property management of apartments can lead to a deterioration nf fhe apartments and the surroundmg neighborhood as well. As condominiums, there is a homeowners association to keep the property in good standing condition. Please take these aforementioned factors into consideration for the benefit of my property and the surrounding properties. Approving this property as condominiums will improve the neighborhood. From a homeowner's standpoint, it will be beneficial in increasing my property value os well as increasing piopeny lax revenue for the City of Carlsbad, Thank you for your time and consideration of this request Sincerely, ElizaDeth Scnleutker 7551 Romeria Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 Matthew & Sonia Staab 7602 Romeria St. Carlsbad, CA. 92009 760-505-7750 760-334-0333 fax October 25,2006 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Re: The Romeria - CP 06-01,7565 Romeria Street, Gino DiFante. As my above address indicates we are neighbors of Mr. DiFante and the Romeria property. We would like to express our support for Mr. DiFante's in bis rightful efforts to have his property, 7565 Romeria Street, approved and listed as Condominiums, We feel that this property, as condominiums, will potentially increase our area's property values, we do not want these properties listed as apartments that can undermine our property values. Condominiums will create ownership that will create well-kept property. We want ownership; ownership equals pride that leads to caring, considerate neighbors. Mr. DiFante took the time to build a beautiful dwelling all in great taste; in the process he was kind, considerate to all that lived around him. Please do the right thing and approve this property as condominiums for the betterment of our La Costa community. Thank you for your kind consideration Regards tthew & Sonia Staab GlNO DlFANTE P.O. Box 2442 • Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 (949) 887-7557 • Fax: (760) 944-2885 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED Chris Sexton Carlsbad Planning Department" n- TVC * CITY OF CARLSBAD From: Gmo DtFante pL,\NNING DEFT Date: September 25, 2006 Subject: CP 06-01 - The Romeria, 7565 Romeria Street; Planning Commission Hearing Re: Items requested by Planning Department for the November 1, 2006 Planning Commission Hearing. Items submitted: 1) 10 copies of site plan, existing landscape plan, building elevation plans, floor plans on 24" x 36" sheets of paper, stapled in complete sets, folded into 9" x 12" size. 2) One 8Vi" x 11" copy of reduced site plan, building elevation, floor plans and existing landscape plan. 3) 600' owners list; typewritten list of names and addresses of all property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property. 4) Mailing labels - two separate sets of mailing labels of the property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property. 5) Radius map - a map to scale, not less than 1" = 200', showing all lots entirely and partially within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. 6) Check to pay for the cost of mailing notices. 7) One 24" x 36" colored copy of the existing landscape plan. 8) 10 copies of the subject property acoustical analysis and addendum to it dated April 25, 2006. 9) Copy of the request for an acoustical analysis for the subject property by the City Planning Department on July 17, 2002. 10) Letter to Chris Sexton on Planning Department issues regarding subject property and proposed resolutions on plans submitted. RECEIVED GINO DlFANTE " • 2b P.O. Box 2442 • Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 ~ A o i o o A r> <949> 887-7557 • Fax: (760) 944-2885;!TV Oh CARLSBAD $£CF:II piAMNINGDEPT ^IV£Q To: From: Date: Subject: Dear Chris: Chris Sexton Carlsbad Planning Department Gino DiFante September 25, 2006 ;cPr CP 06-01 - The Romeria, 7565 Romeria Street; Planning Commission Hearing Submittal. I am providing all the items requested in your letter dated August 28, 2006. I want to let you know that I have drawn in balcony/decks on the existing landscape plan and the site plan to hopefully resolve the issue with the required recreational space. Please review the plans. The site plan and existing landscape plan also addresses the issue with the noise wall. The landscape plan shows existing landscaping along the noise wall to enhance the street scene of the subject property and to soften the visibility of the noise wall. There is also landscaping along the interior of the noise wall to enhance the homeowners' view of the noise wall. Hopefully, this will resolve the noise wall and landscape issue. There are notes on both plans regarding the proposed balcony/decks for Unit #2, Unit #3, and Unit #4, per the Planning Department issue resolution. There are notes on both plans regarding the noise attenuation wall, and I have provided 10 copies of the acoustical analysis for the subject property, hopefully to help resolve the issue. Chris, if there is anything more you will need from me for the hearing, please don't hesitate to ask. Please also let me know when you want me to submit the colored elevations and exhibit for the hearing. Chris, I'm sorry I was unable to get you the 8'/£ " x 11" reduced copies you needed before today. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Gino DiFante GlNO DlFANTE P.O. Box 2442 • Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 (949) 887-7557 • Fax: (760) 944-2885 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED To: Van Lynch it IM o n onnc Carlsbad Planning Department JUN 3 " Z005 CfTY OF CARLSBAD From: Gmo DiFante PLANNING DEPT Date: June 30, 2006 Subject: CP 06-01 - The Romeria, 7565 Romeria Street; Planning Department issue resolutions. Items submitted: 1) Wall Issue. City General Plan required noise element wall. • Copy of noise element of the City General Plan (specific sections that apply to my site or project). • Acoustical analysis and current addendum to the analysis. • Copy of Planning Department Plan Check form dated July 17, 2002 from Greg Fisher requesting an acoustical analysis be done for the project. • Copy of specific sections of the current plan development ordinance that apply to my site or project. • Photos and addresses of other planned developments or condominium projects on La Costa Avenue that have the same size noise element wall in the same site location as my noise element wall along the property line. f - *m 2) Storage Issue. • Storage area plan is provided loft storage in the garage of each unit will be installed per the Planning Department issue resolution. 3) Patio Area Issues. • Patio and balcony plan provided 135 square foot balcony/deck will be installed for unit #3 per the Planning Department issue resolution. • Optional balcony/deck for unit #4. Please see note on plan. GlNO DlFANTE P.O. Box 2442 • Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 (949) 887-7557 • Fax: (760) 944-2885 June 30,2006 Van Lynch City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: CP 06-01 - The Romeria Condominiums Site Location: 7565 Romeria Street, La Costa, CA 92009; corner of La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street. Dear Van: I have submitted to you the information required that you requested to resolve the issues with my project. I have provided documents and information to address the issue the Planning Department has with the required noise element wall, for you to review and possibly resolve the issue. A storage area plan is provided and a patio and balcony plan is provided that shows the resolution to the issues that you requested. Van, I have a note on the patio and balcony plan with respect to the existing patio area for unit #4. The landscaped corner of the patio area is 18 inches short of 15 feet. I show an optional balcony/deck for unit #4 on the plan that can be installed if you feel the existing patio area is too small for unit #4. Please respond to the information provided at your earliest convenience. I appreciate your cooperation and thank you for allowing the patio access to the balcony/deck area to be installed. The patio access really makes it more desirable. I look forward to working with you on my project and if you feel there is something more I can do to the project in order to get the condominium conversation approved with the Planning Department, please let me know. Please call me with any questions you might have or to meet with me to discuss the project. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Gino DiFante CP 06-01-THE ROMERIA March 29, 2006 Page 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Per the Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45) in the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), an average of 50% of the required setback area that is located closest to an arterial (La Costa Avenue) shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. Project perimeter walls cannot be located in this landscape buffer. The landscaped buffer shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage. The project currently does not meet this standard since the plans indicate there is no landscaping buffer and perimeter walls are located in this landscaping buffer (setback). 2. Please show on the site plan the storage space area required per the Planned Development Ordinance. Each unit is required to have 480 cubic feet of separate storage space per unit. If all storage is located in one unit, the space may be reduced to 392 cubic feet. The space may be designed as an enlargement of the required covered parking structure provided it does not extend into the area of the required parking stall. This requirement is in addition to closets and other indoor storage areas. 3. Each project of 1-10 dwelling units must have a 15x15 foot patio or 120 square feet of balcony area to satisfy the recreational space requirements. The only unit that complies with this requirement is Unit 1. Please show on the site plan how, the existing project proposes to comply with this development standard. 4. Engineering: None Fire Prevention: None City of Carlsbad Planning Department February 2, 2006 Gino DiFante P O Box 2442 Capistrano Beach CA 92624 SUBJECT: CP 06-01 - THE ROMERIA Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Condominium Permit, application no. CP 06-01, as to its completeness for processing. The application is complete, as submitted. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. In addition, you should also be aware that various design issues may exist. Please see the attached list of issues. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing. The Planning Department will begin processing your application as of the date of this communication. At this time, the City asks that you provide 3 complete sets of the development plans so that the project can continue to be reviewed. Please contact your staff planner, Chris Sexton, at (760) 602-4624, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, *£*w\s lev DON NEU Assistant Planning Director DN:CS:ls c: David Rick, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us CP 06-01 -THEROMERIA February 2, 2006 Page 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Please indicate on the site plan the location of the driveway and show the dimensions, specifically the width of the driveway at various locations. 2. Per the Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45) in the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), an average of 50% of the required setback area that is located closest to an arterial (La Costa Avenue) shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. Project perimeter walls cannot be located in this landscape buffer. The landscaped buffer shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage. The project currently does not meet this standard since the plans indicate there is no landscaping buffer and perimeter walls are located in this landscaping buffer (setback). 3. The floor plans are not to scale. Please correct this. 4. Please provide the interior dimensions of the garages on the floor plans. It was difficult for staff to determine the correct dimension since the plans are not to scale. 5. Please show on the site plan the storage space area required per the Planned Development Ordinance. Each unit is required to have 480 cubic feet of separate storage space per unit. If all storage is located in one unit, the space may be reduced to 392 cubic feet. The space may be designed as an enlargement of the required covered parking structure provided it does not extend into the area of the required parking stall. This requirement is in addition to closets and other indoor storage areas. 6. It is difficult for staff to determine if the existing project meets the Architectural Design Elements of the Planned Development Ordinance. Please show the following on the plans: a. Each building elevation must have at least three separate building planes. The minimum offset is 18 inches minimum and shall include but not limited to building walls, windows, and roofs. b. Building facades shall incorporate a minimum of four of the following types of design elements: covered front porches (may count toward meeting recreation space requirements); a variety of roof planes; windows and doors recessed a miriimum of 2 inches; paned windows and doors; exposed roof rafter tails; window and door lintels; dormers; accent and varied window shapes; exterior wood elements; raised stucco trim around windows and doors; accent materials such as brick, stone, shingles, wood or siding; and knee braces. 7. Each project of 1-10 dwelling units must have a 15x15 foot patio or 120 square feet of balcony area to satisfy the recreational space requirements. The only unit that complies with this requirement is Unit 1. Please show on the site plan how the existing project proposes to comply with this development standard. Engineering: 1. Engineering comments will be addressed in separate letter under MS 04-11. City of Carlsbad ^ '•^••••^••••••^•••••••••••^•••^••••MPlanning Department March 2, 2006 Gino DiFante P O Box 2442 Capistrano Beach CA 92624 SUBJECT: CP 06-01 - ROMERIA Dear Gino: Your project was deemed complete on February 2, 2006. There are issues of concern with the project that remain to be resolved. The issues are listed on the attached page(s). All issues will need to be resolved prior to project approval. Please contact me at (760) 602-4624, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, Chris Sexton CS:bd c: David Rick, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us City of Carlsbad Planning Department April 6, 2006 Gino DiFante P O Box 2442 Capistrano Beach CA 92624 SUBJECT: CP 06-01 - THE ROMERIA Dear Gino, Your project was deemed complete on February 2, 2006. There are issues of concern with the project that remain to be resolved. The issues are listed on the attached page. Currently, the proposed project does not comply with the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Planned Development Ordinance Section 21.45. At this time, City staff has determined you have a couple of options. The first is that since the project does not comply with the Planned Development Ordinance and staff cannot support approval, you have the option of withdrawing the application and applying for a refund. The other option would be that staff can take the project forward for denial and the decision can be appealed to the Planning Commission. Please contact me at (760) 602-4624, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, Chris Sexton CS:bd c: David Rick, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us CP 06-01 - ROMERIA March 2, 2006 Page 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Per the Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45) in the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), an average of 50% of the required setback area that is located closest to an arterial (La Costa Avenue) shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. Project perimeter walls cannot be located in this landscape buffer. The landscaped buffer shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage. The project currently does not meet this standard since the plans indicate there is no landscaping buffer and perimeter walls are located in this landscaping buffer (setback). 2. Please show on the site plan the storage space area required per the Planned Development Ordinance. Each unit is required to have 480 cubic feet of separate storage space per unit. If all storage is located in one unit, the space may be reduced to 392 cubic feet. The space may be designed as an enlargement of the required covered parking structure provided it does not extend into the area of the required parking stall. This requirement is in addition to closets and other indoor storage areas. This storage area must be located outside the required garage dimensions. 3. Each project of 1-10 dwelling units must have a 15x15 foot patio or 120 square feet of balcony area to satisfy the recreational space requirements. The only unit that complies with this requirement is Unit 1. Please show on the site plan how the existing project proposes to comply with this development standard. Engineering: 1. Issues and conditions will be addressed in MS 04-11. GlNO DIFANTE P.O. Box 2442 • Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 949.887.7557 • Fax: 760.944.2885 December 14, 2006 Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: TheRomeria CP 06-01 7565 Romeria Street Gino DiFante Dear Carlsbad City Council, Please review all of the enclosed information provide on my project. It will assist you in understanding the situation with my project and why I have appealed to the City Council. Very truly yours, Gino DiFante GlNO DlFANTE P.O. Box 2442 • Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 (949) 887-7557 • Fax: (760) 944-2885 November 10, 2006 Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: The Roineria -CP 06-01 Gino DiFante, Owner 7565 Romeria Street La Costa, CA 92009 Re: Reasons for my appeal to the Carlsbad City Council. Carlsbad City Council: I believe the Carlsbad Planning Commission's decision to deny my appeal and uphold the Planning Directors' denial of a condominium permit for my project CP 06-01 (The Romeria) was based upon inaccurate, inconsistent and misleading issues of denial, and a letter dated August 14, 2000 from the Planning Department, which have been applied to my project by the Planning Department. These issues and letter have been presented to the Planning Commission by the Planning Department in order to direct the Planning Commission to deny my appeal. I have submitted resolutions to the issues the Planning Department has with my project, but they refuse to acknowledge and apply these resolutions to the issues. I feel that my project has been singled out by the Planning Department because the Planning Department will not apply the resolutions to the issues on my project in order to approve my project's condominium permit. However, the Planning Department has applied my resolutions of the issues to other recently approved condominium projects in the same area as mine, but will not apply the issue resolutions to my project. I submitted all the information requested by the Planning Department for the Planning Commission hearing on September 25, 2006. The documents I submitted included resolutions to the two issues of denial stated hi the Planning Department's denial letter dated August 2, 2006. On October 19, 2006,1 learned from the DCC Report that the Planning Department applied two new additional issues to my project at the last minute - just before the hearing - which I believe do not apply to my project. The DCC Report also addressed and applied a response to a preliminary review by the Planning Department on August 14, 2000. The Planning Department preliminary review was not required for my project. The Planning Department has currently used this letter of August 14, 2000 to present to the Planning Commission to deny my condominium permit today. Carlsbad City Council November 10 Page Two This letter does not apply to my project today because it was written and based upon the old Planned Development Ordinance and not die current Planned Development Ordinance the Planning Department states my project needs to comply to. The letter is inaccurate and misleading and should not be addressed or applied to my project today. This is why I feel my project has been singled out by the Planning Department The City Engineering, Building, Fire and Police Departments have no issues with my project. I believe the current Planned Development Ordinance contradicts and is not consistent with the City General Plan, the Noise Element and City policy. The Carlsbad Planning Department has determined that the current Planned Development Ordinance and the development standards in the Ordinance are ambiguous and inconsistent and has recently written a new Planned Development Ordinance to be approved by the Carlsbad City Council. The Planning Department's issues of denial on my project's condominium permit are based on these ambiguous and inconsistent development standards in the current Planned Development Ordinance. Therefore, I believe the issues of denial on my project by the Planning Department are inaccurate, inconsistent and misleading. My project complies with the Ordinance and my condominium permit should be approved and not denied due to inaccurate, inconsistent and misleading issues by the Planning Department. I have submitted with this appeal form documents and information that support my reasons for appeal. Please review all information provided on the resolutions to the issues of denial and the inaccurate and misleading letter of August 14, 2000. Thank you for your time and consideration. Gino DiFante THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DENIAL LETTER DATED AUGUST 2,2006 The Planning Department denied my condominium permit based on two issues: A) the Noise Attenuation Wall issue and B) the Recreational Space issue. I appealed the denial based on those two issues to the Planning Commission. On October 19, 2006 the Planning Department added two new issues to the project (issues C and D) and revised the existing issues. The Planning Department stated on August 2, 2006 that the Romeria project's density, site design and architecture are compatible with the surrounding developments. Then on October 19, 2006 in the DCC Report the Planning Department changed its statement regarding the project to state that the project is not compatible with surrounding developments. City of Carlsbad Planning Department August 2,2006 Gino DiFante PO Box 2422 Capistrano Beach CA 92624 SUBJECT: CP 06-01/MS 04-11 - ROMERIA The City has completed a review of the application for a four-unit condominium development located on the north side of La Costa Avenue between Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. It is the Planning Director's determination that based on the attached findings, the project is not consistent with the City's condominium regulations (Chapter 21.45) and other applicable City Ordinances and Policies. This memo, including the listed findings, constitutes DENIAL of CP 06-01. Findings: 1. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element, and with all other elements of the City's General Plan. 2. Adequate public facilities necessary to serve this project will be provided as required by the City Engineer in conjunction with the approval of the parcel map required for this project. 3. That the proposed project does not comply with all applicable development standards included within Chapter 21.45, in that the project does not meet the following standards: 1) the project includes a project perimeter wall that is not allowed in the landscaped setback area from La Costa Avenue plus the project does not provide an average 50% of the required landscape buffer along the secondary arterial. Per the Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45) in the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), an average of 50% of the required setback area that is located closest to an arterial (La Costa Avenue) shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. Project perimeter walls cannot be located in this landscape buffer. The landscaped buffer shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage. The project currently does not meet this standard as there is no landscaping buffer provided and a perimeter wall is located within the landscaping buffer (setback); and, 2) the project does not meet the required 15 ft x 15 ft patio or 120 square feet of balcony area on two out of the four units. Each project of 1-10 dwelling units must have a 15x15 foot patio or 120 square feet of balcony area to satisfy the recreational space requirements. It has been established that Unit 1 and Unit 3 meet this requirement Units 2 and 4 do not 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us meet the required recreational space private rear yard. Unit 2's recreational space measures less than the required 15 x 15 foot. Unit 4 does not comply with this requirement since the recreational space projects more than two feet into the front yard setback. 4. That the proposed project's density, site design and architecture are compatible with surrounding development, in that the neighborhood is developed with similar multiple-family structures. This decision may be appealed by you or any other member of the public to the Planning Commission within ten days of the date of this letter. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue in Carlsbad, along with a payment of $550.00. The filing of such appeal within, such time limit shall stay the effective date of the order of the Planning Director until such time as a final decision on the appeal is reached, if you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Chris Sexton at 760-602-4624. Sincerely, DON NEU Assistant Planning Director DN:CS:bd c: David Rick File Copy Data Entry 9 10 11 12 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO DENY ROMERIA - CP 06-01, based on the following findings: Findings; 1. That the proposed project does not comply with all applicable development standards included within Chapter 21.45, in that the project does not meet the following Planned Development standards: 8 7 a) Per the Planned Development Ordinance (PD), Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), an average of 50% of the required 30 foot setback area that is located closest to La Costa Avenue (secondary arterial) shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic. Project perimeter walls cannot be located in this required 50% average landscape buffer area. The landscaped buffer area shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage. The project currently does not meet this standard as there is no landscape buffer provided and a 6 foot tall project perimeter wall is xxj four units. Pursuant to the PD standards, each unit in projects of 1-10 dwelling units m si26 must have a 15 foot x 15 foot patio or 120 square feet of balcony area to located within the required landscape buffer setback area; 13 b) The project does not meet the PD private recreational space standards for one of 14 " " "" '"" satisfy the private recreational space standards. In addition, proposed balconies areis', i 16 17 i.project driveway; 1 o not allowed to project into a required setback area. Unit 4 does not comply with these standards as the proposed 160 square foot balcony projects more than three feet into the required 8' residence setback, which is measured from the edge of the f , ^. c) The existing structure does not meet the required PD project driveway setback standards, which require residences to be set back 8 feet, fully landscaped, and garages to be set back 5 feet with both setbacks to be measured from the project driveway. The existing structure provides residence setbacks as little as 1.5 feet, with no landscaping, and garages with setbacks as little as 1.5 feet (Unit 1 garage); 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.. required 3 planes. 27" 28 PCRESONO. 6197 -2- d) The project does not comply with the PD architectural design elements standards. The project is required to provide at least three separate building planes on all fcv building elevations with a minimum 18 inches of offset in planes. Currently, the £ project only provides three separate plans on the south (street) side facing elevation with a minimum 18 inches of offset in the planes. However, the north, east and west levations do not meet this standard as they provide only 2 planes, instead of the 11 2. That the proposed project's density, site design and architecture are not compatible with 2 || fj> surrounding development, in that the neighborhood is developed with similar A.0'^ multiple-family structures, however the proposed condominium conversion project 3 r**s *v cannot meet the minimum development standards of the Planned Development 4 51| 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." 8 You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If 9 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. 12 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 15 NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 6197 -3- THE CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REVIEW LETTER DATED AUGUST 14,2000 Proper procedure for the Planning Department would have been to return the documents submitted for review with a letter stating that a Preliminary Review is not required for apartments and to refund the fee paid for the Preliminary Review. However, the Planning Department conducted a preliminary review that is not required on the apartment project. The Planning Department then makes comments and applies issues to the apartment project and leaves an open-end review letter in their file that does not include the correspondence and resolutions to this letter that were conducted in a meeting with Ann Hysong and Jeremy Riddle in September 2000. Today the Planning Department is using this letter to deny my condominium permit when the August 14,2000 letter does not apply to the project. In reiteration, the Preliminary Review letter of August 14, 2000 is inaccurate and misleading and does not apply to my project. GlNO DlFANTE P.O. Box 2442 • Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 (949) 887-7557 • Fax: (760) 944-2885 November 10, 2006 Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: The Romeria - CP 06-01 Dear Carlsbad City Council: I would like to explain the preliminary review response letter dated August 14, 2000, from Ann Hysong of the Planning Department, mentioned hi the DCC report for my project. The Planning Department never addressed this letter as an issue to my project before now. I have just learned of it hi the DCC Report. I feel mis letter should not be applied to my project today because it is inaccurate and misleading. Please allow me to explain why I feel this way. The letter was written hi August 2000 and is based on the old Planned Development Ordinance hi effect at the time. The Planning Department said my project needs to comply with the current Planned Development Ordinance hi order to convert my four unit project to condominiums, not the old Ordinance this letter refers to. Therefore, I believe the letter is inaccurate and should not be applied to my project today. I feel the letter is misleading because Ann Hysong never sent me or put in the city file a correspondence letter to the meeting Ann Hysong, Jeremy Riddle, and I had in September 2000, on the issues of concern in this letter from Ann Hysong and site plan notes with Jeremy Riddle, my city project engineer. I would like to tell you how the letter evolved. In July 2000, I submitted to the Building Department for preliminary review of my site plan from the Building and Engineering Departments. The person at the Building Department counter told me I should also submit to the Planning Department for preliminary review of my project even though I was not required to submit to the Planning Department. I was previously told that the apartment projects of four units or less do not require Planning Department review. The person at the counter suggested it was better for my project if I did. So I paid the additional fees and submitted to the Planning Department as well and this is how the letter evolved. I spoke to Ann Hysong after I received the letter to set up a meeting at the City with her and Jeremy Riddle to discuss and resolve the issues of concern she had with the project. We met in September 2000. Carlsbad City Council November JO, 2006 Page Two That day I presented to Ann a preliminary colored elevation from La Costa Avenue with the required noise attenuation wall. We discussed the issues of concern and resolved them. In this letter she suggested I change the site plan design and have the back of the building face La Costa Avenue and step the building back hi sections towards La Costa Avenue, and place the driveway on the interior side of the site with the garages facing the interior of the site. Interior meaning the north side of the lot. But as Jeremy Riddle said to Ann Hysong at the meeting that day, Gino cannot develop the site in the manner she suggested in the letter because the project needs to maintain a 30 foot La Costa Avenue arterial setback, a minimum 24 foot wide driveway with access to the site off of Romeria Street only, with the driveway apron a minimum of five feet away from the north side property line and the driveway apron a minimum 30 feet wide. Also that Policy 66 states that the front of the building, garages and front entryways should face the street. The design on the site plan Gino has submitted is the only design for the site that meets all the requirements. Ann Hysong agreed with Jeremy Riddle when she realized all of the other requirements to the site and supported the existing site plan. Ann also stated that the required noise attenuation wall would block the garage door visibility from La Costa Avenue and that satisfied her concern. Ann and I discussed the landscaping and certain details she would like to see on the site and design, such as colored concrete at the driveway entry from Romeria, detailed windows, wood, stone and wrought iron elements, balcony facades, etc. She told me to landscape and enhance the site as much as I can to help satisfy a condominium conversion hi the future if I ever decided to convert the apartments. We both agreed and I said to Ann that I would do all the things she suggested because I would be living there and I wanted the project to look good as well. She also suggested a side patio area for unit 4 since the patio area shown was smaller than the other units. Ann, Jeremy and I agreed that day that the issues of concern from the Planning Department had been addressed and resolved and that she would acknowledge the meeting and resolutions in a letter that would be sent to me as well as placed in my file at the Planning Department. I never received a correspondence letter from Ann Hysong on the meeting. Chris Sexton told me there was no letter in my file when we met at the City on Monday, October 23, 2006. My existing project is consistent with all of Ann Hysong's landscape and design details she suggested to me that day in the meeting. This is why I feel the letter is misleading, because these issues of concern have already been resolved. I don't understand why Ann Hysong's resolution letter is not in the Planning Department file for my project. I appreciate the City Council's time and effort hi reviewing all of the information provided to help with the approval of my condominium permit. Sincerely, Gino DiFante THE ROMERIA CP - 06-01 7565 Romeria Street La Costa, CA 92009 To: City of Carlsbad Re: Department approval dates of the Romeria project - Permit Number CB020453. Date: June 2006 Engineering Department Approved project: April 2, 2002 Planning Department Approved project; September 23, 2002 Fire Department Approved project: September 4, 2002 Jeremy Riddle of the City Engineering Department approved the project site plan in September or October of 2000, which allowed me to go ahead and have a full set of construction plans drawn up and engineering calculations done for the project in order to submit to the City Building and Engineering Departments on February 12, 2002. I paid the City fees and obtained the permit on February 7, 2003. 07-2003 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: 02/07/2003 # Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Project Title: Applicant: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Residential Permit Permit No. CB020453 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 7565 ROMERIA ST CBAD RESDNTL Sub Type: APT 2163001500 Lot#: 15 $655,916.00 Construction Type: VN Reference #: PRE00052 4 Structure Type: MF2-4 12 Bathrooms: 10 DIFANTE 4 PLEX APTS-7948 SF + 1830SFGAR Owner: GINO DIFANTE Status: ISSUED Applied: 02/12/2002 Entered By: RMA Plan Approved: Issued: 02/07/2003 Inspect Area: Orig PC#: Plan Check*: P O BOX 2442 92624 949 225-7488 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park in Lieu Fee Park Fee LFM Fee Bridge Fee Other Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'l Pot. Water Con. Fee Reel. Water Con. Fee $2,185.72 Meter Size $0.00 Add'l Reel. Water Con. Fee $1,420.72 Meter Fee $0.00 SDCWA Fee $0.00 CFD Payoff Fee $65.59 PFF $7,908.00 PFF (CFD Fund) $0.00 License Tax $1,240.00 License Tax (CFD Fund) $0.00 Traffic Impact Fee $1,272.00 Traffic Impact (CFD Fund) $0.00 Sidewalk Fee $0.00 PLUMBING TOTAL $0.00 ELECTRICAL TOTAL $0.00 MECHANICAL TOTAL $0.00 Housing Impact Fee $9,600.00 Housing InLieu Fee D5/8 Master Drainage Fee $0.00 Sewer Fee $0.00 Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES $0.00 $560.00 $8,016.00 $0.00 $11,937.67 $11,019.39 $0.00 $0.00 $1,082.88 $1,221.12 $0.00 $360.00 $110.00 $129.00 $11,700.00 $0.00 $20.46 $0.00 $0.00 $69,848.55 Total Fees: $69,848.55 Total Payments To Date: $1,420.72 Balance Due: $68,427.83 ATTACHED r;.-4 DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF November 1, 2006 DCC MEETING: October 23, 2006 CASE NO. PROJECT NAME TIME CUP 05-18/CDP 05-35 NS022-01 FOUR SEASONS WCF 9:00 AM CDP 06-21 WOOLSON RESIDENCE 9:30 AM CP 06-01 ROMERIA 10:00 AM RECEIVED 01CY OF CARLSBAD: ':";''-^Gr)EPT *lf no time is indicated, listing is information only The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: November 1,2006 Application complete date: April 6,2006 Project Planner: Chris Sexton Project Engineer: David Rick SUBJECT: CP 06-01 - ROMERIA - Appeal of a Planning Director decision, pursuant to Section 21.54.140 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, to deny a Condominium Permit to allow the conversion of a four-unit apartment complex into condominiums on a .32 acre site located at 2565 Romeria Street, on the northwest corner of Romeria Street and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6197 DENYING the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Director to DENY a Condominium Permit CP 06-01, based on the findings contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The applicant is appealing the decision of the Planning Director to deny a proposal to convert a four-unit apartment complex into condominiums. The issue related to this Condominium Permit is that the project does not meet all the development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.45) and therefore, the Planning Director denied the administrative Condominium Permit application and the applicant is now appealing that decision. Pursuant to CMC Section 21.54.140, whenever the Planning Director is the authorized decision maker, the decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The filed appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the burden of proof is on the appellant to establish by substantial evidence that the grounds for the requested action exist. The appeal hearing before the Planning Commission is de novo, but the Planning Commission shall determine all matters not specified in the appeal have been found by the Planning Director and are supported by substantial evidence. The Planning Commission shall consider the recommendations of the Planning Department, the decision of the Planning Director and all other relevant documentary and oral evidence as presented at the hearing. The Planning Commission may affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Planning Director, and make such order supported by substantial evidence as it deems appropriate, including remand to the Planning Director with directions for further proceedings. The Planning Commission action on an appeal shall be final unless appealed to the City Council CP 06-01 - ROMERIA November 1, 2006 Page 2 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND On July 18, 2000, the applicant submitted a Preliminary Review application for an apartment complex consisting of four townhome style apartments. A response to that preliminary review was mailed to the applicant on August 14, 2000, and in that response City staff advised the applicant that the proposed apartment project did not conform to the standards of the Planned Development Ordinance and that the applicant would be unable to convert the four unit apartment complex into airspace condominiums at a later date. On February 12, 2002 the applicant formally applied for a building permit to construct a four unit apartment complex. As a four-unit apartment building, the structure only required a building permit and did not require any discretionary permits such as a Condominium Permit (CP) or Site Development Plan (SDP). The building permit for the four-unit apartment project was issued on February 7,2003 and finaled on March 8,2005. The applicant is currently requesting to convert the four-unit apartment complex into condominiums. Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 21.45, Section 21.45.110 states that "Any application for a condominium conversion, shall not be subject to the amended provisions of this chapter but shall be processed and approved or disapproved pursuant to the ordinance in effect at the time that the original project was approved or constructed." Since the building permit was approved on February 7, 2003 the current project must comply with the current Planned Development Ordinance which was approved by the City Council on December 18, 2001, and became effective on January 18, 2002. The current four-unit apartment complex meets the development standards of the RD-M zone in which it is located; however, the proposed conversion of the four-unit apartment complex into condominiums does not meet all of the development standards of the applicable Planned Development Ordinance (PD). Detailed below are the development standards the project fails to comply with. The PD standards require a thirty foot arterial setback, with an average of 50% of the required setback to be landscaped to act as a buffer from traffic and to enhance the street scene. Project perimeter walls are expressly not allowed within the 50% average landscape buffer area. While the project provides a 31.57 foot setback, it does not meet the 50% average landscape buffer area standard. In addition, a six foot project perimeter wall is currently located in the 50% average landscape buffer area, which is in direct contradiction of the PD standards. The project also fails to meet the private recreational space standards for one of the four units. The PD standards require each unit to provide either a 15'xl5' patio or 120 square feet of balcony area. In addition, proposed balconies are not allowed to project into a required setback area. Units 1, 2 and 3 meet these standards with a combination of existing patios and proposed balconies. However, Unit 4 does not comply with these standards as the proposed 160 square foot balcony projects more than three feet into the required 8 foot residence setback, which is measured from the edge of the project driveway. The existing structure also does not meet the required PD project driveway setback standards, which require residences to be set back 8 feet, fully landscaped, and garages to be set back 5 feet, with both setbacks to be measured from the project driveway. The existing structure provides CP 06-01 - ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page3 residence setbacks as little as 1.5 feet, with no landscaping, and garages with setbacks as little as 1.5 feet (Unit 1 garage). The last PD standard the project fails to meet is the architectural design elements standard. The project must provide at least 3 separate building planes on all building elevations and the minimum offset in planes must be at least 18 inches. The south building elevation meets this standard, but the other three building elevations (north, east, and west) have less than the required three planes. On January 1, 2006, the applicant applied for a CP with the intention of converting the existing four-unit apartment complex into airspace condominiums. City staff met with the applicant on three separate occasions to discuss the project's non-compliance with the PD standards. The CP application was denied by the Planning Director on August 2, 2006, as the proposed project did not comply with the PD standards. IV. ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, and standards: A. Residential High (RH) General Plan Land Use Designation; B. Residential Density Multiple - RD-M Zone (CMC 21.24) and Planned Development Regulations (CMC 21.45); and C. Growth Management. The recommendation for denial of this CP was developed by analyzing the project's inconsistency with the applicable City regulations and policies. The reasons for recommending denial of the project are discussed in more detail in the sections below. A. General Plan The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is Residential High Density (RH). The RH designation allows residential development at a density range of fifteen to twenty-three dwelling units per acre with a growth management control point (GMCP) of 19.0 units per acre. At the GMCP the dwelling unit yield for the property is 6.08 dwelling units per acre. The project's proposed density is 12.5 dwelling units per acre (4 dwelling units). Although the project is less than the minimum density range of the RH General Plan Land Use designation, the General Plan Land Use Element provides that, when a legal lot is developed with one or more residential units that existed as of October 28, 2004, a project maybe approved at a density below the minimum of the density range; provided, the existing units are to remain and it is not feasible to construct the number of additional units needed to meet the minimum density without requiring the removal of existing units. The project's four existing units are to remain and it is not feasible to construct the number of additional units needed to meet the minimum density of the RH General Plan Land Use designation (five dwelling units) without requiring the complete removal of the newly constructed units (finaled on March 8, 2005). Therefore, the project is deemed consistent with the General Plan. CP 06-01 - ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page 4 B. RD-M & Planned Development Regulations The project does not meet all the development standards of the RD-M zone and does not meet all the standards of the Planned Development Ordinance as outlined in Table A below: Table A; RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance RD-M Standards Height Setbacks Lot Coverage Table C General Development Standards Applicable to all Planned Developments Arterial Setbacks Visitor Parking Driveway Storage Space Required 35' Front -20' Side -5' Street Side -10' Rear -10' 60% Required 30' (La Costa Avenue) An average of 50% of the required setback area that is closest to the arterial shall be landscaped to enhance the street scene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. Project perimeter walls shall not be located in the landscaped buffer. 2 spaces 24 feet 392 cubic feet/unit Provided 21 '8" Front - 20' Side -5.1' Street Side -3 1.57' Rear -24.33' 34% Provided 31.57' The project does not comply with the 50% average landscape standard which is intended to enhance the street scene and buffer the homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. In addition a 6' project perimeter wall is located in the required landscaped buffer area. 2 spaces 24 Feet 392 cubic feet/unit Comply? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Comply? No Yes Yes Yes CP06-01-ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page 5 Table A; RP-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Livable Neighborhood Policy Required 1) Facades create interest and character and should be varied and articulated to provide visual interest to pedestrians. 2) Homes should be designed to feature the residence as the prominent part of the structure in relation to the street. 3) An interconnected, modified (grid) street pattern should be incorporated into project designs when there are no topographic or environmental constraints. 4) Street trees should be planted in the parkways along all streets. 5) Pedestrian walkways should be located along or visible from all streets. 6) Park or plazas, which serve as neighborhood meeting places and as recreational activity centers should be incorporated into all planned unit developments. Provided 1) The project includes arched windows with architectural adornment and two-toned colored elevations. 2) The project incorporates front-loaded garages. All garages are separated by landscaping and a decorative front entry feature. Also, all dwelling units have street facing front doors. 3) The proposed project will not create any new streets. 4) The project will not require any street trees since no new streets will be created. 5) No walkways are required to be provided since no new streets will be created. 6) The project site is not required to provide community recreation areas. Comply? Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A CP06-01-ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page 6 Table A; RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum Building Height Minimum Building Setbacks Public Street Driveway (Project) Required 60% 35' 1) To front porch: 1 1 feet 2) To residential structure: 15 foot average 3) To street sideyard: 10 feet 4) To side entry, garage: 10 feet 5) To direct entry garage: 20 feet 1) Residence: 8 feet, fully landscaped 2) Garage: 5 feet 3) Garages facing directly onto a driveway shall be equipped with an automatic garage door opener. Provided 34% 21?8" 1)N/A 2) 1 5 foot minimum 3) 3 1.57 feet 4) 3 1.57 feet 5)N/A 1) 1.5 foot minimum 2) 1 .5 foot minimum 3) Automatic garage door openers on all 4 units Comply? Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A No No Yes CP06-01-ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page? Table A; RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Required Provided Comply? Architectural Design Elements 1) There shall be at least 3 separate building planes on all building elevations. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include but not be limited to building walls, windows and roofs. 2) Building facades shall incorporate a minimum of four of the following types of design elements; a) Covered front porches (may count toward meeting recreation space requirements) b) A variety of roof planes c) Windows and doors recessed a minimum of two inches d) Paned windows and doors e) Exposed roof rafter tails f) Window and door lintels g) Dormer h) Accent and varied shape window i) Exterior wood elements i) Raised stucco trim around windows and trims 0 Accent materials such as jrick, stone, shingles, wood or siding ) Knee Braces 1) There are at least 3 separate planes on the south building elevation. The minimum offset in planes is at least 18 inches. The north, east and west elevations of the building provide only 2 separate planes instead of the required 3 planes. 2) The project incorporates a minimum of four design elements that includes the following: paned windows and doors, accent and varied window shapes, raised stucco trim around windows and doors, and covered front porches. No Yes CP06-01-ROMERIA November 1,2006 PageS Table A; RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Resident Parking Visitor Parking Private Recreational Space Required One car garage (12x20 minimum)and 1 covered and uncovered 2 spaces 15' x 15' patio or 120 square feet of balcony area. Provided Two car garage (20x20 minimum)/unit 2 spaces Units 1,2, and 3 meet this requirement. Unit 4 does not comply with this requirement since the proposed 1 60 square foot balcony projects more than 3 feet into the required front yard setback. Comply? Yes Yes No The applicant sent a letter to the Planning Director on June 5, 2006 attempting to resolve the outstanding PD standards compliance issues. The first issue of concern was the wall located in the arterial setback from La Costa Avenue and the required 50% average landscape buffer area required. When the applicant applied for a building permit to construct the four-unit apartment building, one of the requirements was to construct a noise wall which is a requirement in the City's General Plan and the Noise Guidelines Manual. The project is located along La Costa Avenue where the traffic noise is great enough to require the interior and exterior noise to be mitigated per the Noise Guidelines Manual. The applicant has submitted an acoustical analysis to substantiate his claim that the interior and exterior noise needed to be mitigated with a sound wall when the four unit apartment building was built. However, the applicant needs to meet both the noise standards of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance PD requirements, including the more restrictive standard. The Planned Development Ordinance would be the more restrictive standard since the wall cannot be located within the required 50% average landscape buffer area along La Costa Avenue. The applicant could have designed the project and located the noise attenuation wall in a manner that met all applicable General Plan noise standards and the Zoning Ordinance PD standards. The applicant had another issue of not providing enough storage space. Since the date of the letter, staff has worked with the applicant to provide adequate storage space within the existing garage to meet the PD standards. The last issue the letter addressed was the private recreational space standards. Staff has determined that Unit 4 does not meet the private recreational space standards. Staff has allowed the applicant to provide both patio and proposed balcony space to meet the recreational space requirement for Units 2 and 3. Unit 4 has a patio and a proposed balcony combination, however, the proposed balcony projects three feet into the required 8 foot project driveway setback, which is measured from the project driveway. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 2 DENIES THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO DENY ROMERIA - CP 06-01, based on the 3 following findings: Findings; 1. That the proposed project does not comply with all applicable development standards 6 included within Chapter 21.45, in that the project does not meet the following Planned Development standards: _ a) Per the Planned Development Ordinance (PD), Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), an average of 50% of the required 30 foot setback area 9 that is located closest to La Costa Avenue (secondary arterial) shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic. Project perimeter walls 10 cannot be located in this required 50% average landscape buffer area. The landscaped buffer area shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage. The project currently does not meet this standard as 12 there is no landscape buffer provided and a 6 foot tall project perimeter wall is located within the required landscape buffer setback area; 13 b) The project does not meet the PD private recreational space standards for one of 14 the four units. Pursuant to the PD standards, each unit in projects of 1-10 dwelling . . units in size must have a 15 foot x 15 foot patio or 120 square feet of balcony area to satisfy the private recreational space standards. In addition, proposed balconies are 16 not allowed to project into a required setback area. Unit 4 does not comply with these standards as the proposed 160 square foot balcony projects more than three 17 feet into the required 8' residence setback, which is measured from the edge of the project driveway; 19 c) The existing structure does not meet the required PD project driveway setback standards, which require residences to be set back 8 feet, fully landscaped, and 20 garages to be set back 5 feet with both setbacks to be measured from the project driveway. The existing structure provides residence setbacks as little as 1.5 feet, 21 with no landscaping, and garages with setbacks as little as 1.5 feet (Unit 1 garage); 22 and 23 d) The project does not comply with the PD architectural design elements standards. The project is required to provide at least three separate building planes on all 24 building elevations with a minimum 18 inches of offset in planes. Currently, the project only provides three separate plans on the south (street) side facing elevation with a minimum 18 inches of offset in the planes. However, the north, east and west 26 elevations do not meet this standard as they provide only 2 planes, instead of the required 3 planes. 27 28 PCRESONO. 6197 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. That the proposed project's density, site design and architecture are not compatible with surrounding development, in that the neighborhood is developed with similar multiple-family structures, however the proposed condominium conversion project cannot meet the minimum development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance. 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 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. PCRESONO. 6197 -3- N. E. FRIED AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 7564 Romeria St. Carlsbad, CA 92009 Organizational Effectiveness • Executive Coaching Office (760) 633-4444 • Fax (760) 633-1044 Professional Speaking • Training • Research E-mail • elizabeth@nefried.com October 15,2006 To: City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Re: The Romeria Condominiums CP 06-01,7565 Romeria Street, Gino DiFante As a neighbor of Gino DiFante and condominium owner near his units, I have eagerly been awaiting the completion of his project. I very much appreciate the care he has takeii to insure the beauty and style of the property and think it enhances the neighborhood. It is my understanding that he wishes to get this property converted from apartments to condominiums. I am in strongly in favor of this, as I think it will enhance the value of my own property and insure a more stable population. Renters are usually transient and typically do not take the same pride in the property as home owners. Additionally, property management companies tend to do the minimum maintenance. These factors can ultimately have a negative impact the value of my condominium home. I would appreciate your considering his case carefully and work with him to do what is necessary to make this conversion. It will benefit my property and the surrounding properties. Sin N. We help organizations create a stronger workforce and coach people who want to perform at their best! Visit our Web Site • http://www.nefried.com Eileen Donovan 7555 Romeria St Carlsbad, CA 92009 October 16,2006 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Carlsbad, Ca Re: The Romeria Condominiums CP-06-01 7565 Romeria Street Gino DiFante Dear City of Carlsbad Planning Commission, I am the President of the Villa Romeria Home Owners Association & a Carlsbad City resident for 7 years and my condominium complex resides next door to Gino DiFante's property. I am very happy with the addition of his Mediterranean style condominiums and believe that they make an excellent addition to our neighborhood. As a matter of fact, I was very pleased to see his construction going up because when I purchased my condominium 7 years ago I did so with full anticipation that as new developments went up in the surrounding lots that my property value would in turn rise. But if Mr. DiFante's property remains in "apartment" status then my property value & the overall property values of neighborhood will not be enhanced. In addition, I am quite concerned about this property being designated as apartments due to the very transient nature of renters. Homeowners tend to take more pride in their property and have a deeper sense of community when they own because they have made a substantial commitment to the community itself. I believe that by approving this property as condominiums it will be in the best interest of the entire neighborhood as it will increase the value of our properties, not to mention the benefit to the City of Carlsbad by having the ability to increase the property tax revenue by having this property approved as condominiums. Thank you for your time & consideration in this matter. Best Regard, Eileen Donovan October 16,2006 BingZhu& Sue Ting 7548 Romeria Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission California Re: The Romeria Condominiums - CP 06-01,7565 Romeria Street, Gino DiFante We are one of the Ohio's neighbors on Romeria Street and own a condominium. We like the beautiful Mediterranean design of the property. If the property meets all city requirements, fire code, etc, we would fully suggest to classify the property to be condominiums, which will not only improve our neighborhood value but also will increase city revenue. BingZhu & Sue Ting 10/22/2006 To: City of Carlsbad Planning Commission From: Joe De Santi, 7559 Romeria Street, La Costa, Ca. 92009 Re: The Romeria Condominiums- CP 06-01, 7565 Romeria Street, Gino Di Fante To Whom It May Concern, As an owner of a Condominium in La Costa, for the last 20 years and being a close neighbor to Gino Di Fante and his complex, I am very familiar with the progress and the process of his building's development I think his building is very appealing and added a lot to our block. The care and design that went into its creation are very apparent with the fresh Mediterranean ambiance and the overall blending with the appearance of the other Condominiums in the neighborhood. I have discussed with Gino about his desire to make them condo, and I firmly believe it would be beneficial to all considered. As an apartment complex, we would see a high turn over rate in dwellers and the deterioration of the site would be evident without the rigid control that a Homeowners Association along with the pride of ownership that a Condominium owner brings to the table. Please take these factors into consideration for the benefit of my property and the property value of other owners in .the area. Value goes up, tax revenues increase and everyone wins. Thank you for considering my statement in your evaluation. Matthew & Sonia Staab 7602 Romeria St. Carlsbad, CA. 92009 760-505-7750 760-334-0333 fax October 25,2006 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Re: The Romeria - CP 06-01, 7565 Romeria Street, Gino DiFante. As my above address indicates we are neighbors of Mr. DiFante and the Romeria property. We would like to express our support for Mr. DiFante's hi his rightful efforts to have his property, 7565 Romeria Street, approved and listed as Condominiums. We feel that this property, as condominiums, will potentially increase our area's property values, we do not want these properties listed as apartments that can undermine our property values. Condominiums will create ownership that will create well-kept property. We want ownership; ownership equals pride that leads to caring, considerate neighbors. Mr, DiFante took the tune to build a beautiful dwelling all in great taste; in the process he was kind, considerate to all that lived around him. Please do the right thing and approve this property as condominiums for the betterment of our La Costa community. Thank you for your kind consideration Regards Lew & Sonia Staab October 23, 2006 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Re: The Romeria Condominiums - CP 06-01, 7565 Romeria Street, Gino DiFwitc. I'm one of Gino DiFante's neighbors on Romeria Street and own a condominium next to the property, I'm very pleased with the Mediterranean design of the property and think it's a beautiful property on Romeria Street. I believe that this property-, as condominiums, will increase my property value and the value of like condos in the neighborhood. If this property remains apartments, the value of ray property and the surrounding properties will not be enhanced. The other factors of concern I have, are that there is a higher turnover rate with apartment renters and poor property management of apartments can lead to a deterioration of fhe apartments and the surrounding neighborhood as well. As condomitiiums, there is a homeowners association to keep the property in good standing condition. Please take these aforementioned factors into consideration for the benefit of my property and the surrounding properties. Approving this property as condominiums will improve the neighborhood, From a homeowner's standpoint, it will be beneficial in increasing my property value os well as increasing property lax revenue for the City of Carlsbad. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request, Elizabeth SchJeutker 755 1 Romeria Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 ISSUE A NOISE ATTENUATION WALL Existing required noise attenuation wall and existing landscaping provided. (Not a project perimeter wall). The Planning Department refuses to apply the required noise barrier recommendations in the required acoustical analysis for the project in order to resolve this issue with the project. THE ROMERIA CP 06-01 NOISE ATTENUATION WALL ISSUE These comparable planned developments are located a half a mile up La Costa Avenue from my project, at the corner of La Costa Avenue and Levante Street. They were approved under the current Planned Development Ordinance. The projects have noise attenuation walls along the property line around the perimeter of the site in the required arterial setback area. The 24" boxed trees every 30 lineal feet are not provided for both of these projects per the current Planned Development Ordinance standards. The Casa La Costa project perimeter landscaping is provided to maintain the slopes up to the noise attenuation wall, not to comply with the standard in the Planned Development Ordinance, and Calle Andar Street is located in the arterial setback. Don Neu approved this noise wall and project on November 15, 2004 under the current Planned Development Ordinance. Don Neu denied my project's condominium permit based on this same required noise wall for my project. With regard to the North Park at La Costa project, located at the corner of La Costa Avenue and Levante Street. The Planning Department requested that the noise attenuation wall be located along the entire easterly property line in the arterial setback. The North Park at La Costa project perimeter landscaping is provided for a passive park at the comer of La Costa Avenue and Levante Street, not to comply with the standard of the Planned Development Ordinance. Guest parking and Corte Tradicion street are located in the arterial setback. Chris Sexton and Van Lynch consistently state that an acoustical analysis is not required for my project and my site. However, the Planning Department requested an acoustical analysis for the project on July 17,2002. The standard in the Ordinance does not acknowledge the noise element of the City General Plan. The standard in the Ordinance states the landscaping is required to enhance the street scene and buffer homes from traffic. With the required noise attenuation wall you can no longer see the landscaping from the street. The required noise attenuation wall becomes the buffer of the homes from traffic, and landscaping has been provided on the street side of the wall with planted 24"-box sized giant birds of paradise every 15 feet to enhance the street scene. There are 24"-box sized potted giant birds of paradise on the interior of the wall as well as a landscaped fountain area. The Romeria project's site plan, architectural design and construction conform to and meet "The Site Design Techniques" recommendations set forth in the noise element of the City General Plan and the Noise Guidelines Manual of the Planning Department. Chris Sexton acknowledged in a June 2006 letter to the Planning Director that the standard in the Ordinance contradicts the requirement of the noise element of the City General Plan. Am I to therefore understand that the Planning Department approves other projects with the same noise attenuation wall in the same site location as my project has, yet they use my project's required noise attenuation wall as an issue of denial on my project's condominium permit. December 14, 2006 Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: CP 06-01 - The Romeria ISSUE A NOISE ATTENUATION WALL Items provided to the City Council on this issue: (1) Planning Department request for an acoustical analysis for my project dated July 17, 2002 from Greg Fisher. (2) Acoustical analysis and the addendum to the analysis dated April 25, 2006, from Colia Acoustical Consultants, for my project. (3) Photos of the existing landscaping and noise attenuation wall for my project. (4) Certain sections of the City General Plan Noise Element that apply to my project. (5) Copy of the June 30, 2006 letter of submittal and letter to Van Lynch of the Planning Department on the resolutions to the issues with my project. (6) Copy of September 25, 2006 letter of submittal and letter to Chris Sexton. (7) Casa La Costa, Planned Development, located at the corner of La Costa Avenue and Levante Street. Copy of the July 18, 2002 preliminary review letter from the Planning Department on the noise attenuation wall for the Casa La Costa condominiums. Acoustical analysis recommendations for Casa La Costa. Photos of the Casa La Costa noise attenuation wall. (8) Northpark at La Costa, Planned Development, at the corner of La Costa Avenue and Levante Street. Copy of March 10. 2003 preliminary review letter from the Planning Department on the noise attenuation wall for this Planned Development. Acoustical analysis recommendations and photos of the noise attenuation wall for this Planned Development of detached single family homes. There is a problem with the requirements of this standard in the current Planned Development Ordinance, because the standard does not acknowledge the Noise Element of the City General Plan. The current Planned Development Ordinance states that the General Plan prevails over the Ordinance. ISSUE A December 14, 2006 Page Two Based on the noise element of the City General Plan, the noise attenuation wall is required for my project and my site because my project is located at the corner of La Costa Ayenue and Romeria Street. The wall is not a project perimeter wall as the Planning Department states. The wall is a noise attenuation wall that is required by the Noise Element of the City General Plan. The existing noise attenuation wall lowers the roadway noise impact as well as buffers the homes from traffic. Existing landscaping is provided in front of the noise attenuation wall to enhance the street scene and existing landscaping is provided on the ulterior of the wall to enhance the homeowners' scenery. Please review the existing landscape plan and photos to see that the landscaping is provided. Please review all items provided on this issue to resolve this issue. The Planning Department refuses to apply the recommendations of the required acoustical analysis to my project in order to resolve this issue. Stated hi the acoustical addendum letter of April 25, 2006, the existing noise attenuation wall and its exact location on the site is necessary to the project. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 'OCTOBER 18, 2006 PAGE 3 4. ZCA 05-02/LCPA 05-07 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENTS - A request for a recommendation to adopt a Negative Declaration, and recommendation of approval of a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to: (1) amend standards of the Planned Development (CMC 21.45), Parking (CMC 21.44) and Beach Area Overlay Zone (CMC 21.82) Chapters of the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate the development of high quality residential projects consistent with the minimum density and the Growth Management Control Point of the underlying General Plan Land Use designation, and; (2) amend the Planned Development Ordinance to clarify ambiguities and correct inconsistencies. Resolutions No. 6140, 6141, 6142 Staff Recommendation: RECOMMENDING ADOPTION/RECOMMENDING APPROVAL PLANNER: Gary Barberio, Chris DeCerbo, and Jennifer Jesser ENGINEER: N/A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Planning Commission Member Comments Planning Director Comments City Council Update City Attorney Comments TIME: 21.45.010 Chapter 21.45 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS* Sections: 21.45.010 Intent and purpose. 21.45.020 Applicability. 21.45.030 Definitions. 21.45.040 Permitted zones and uses. 21.45.050 Application and permit. 21.45.060 General development standards. 21.45,070 Small-lot, single-family and two- family, dwelling development standards. 21.45.080 Multiple-dwelling development standards. 21.45.090 Residential additions and accessory uses. 21.45,100 Amendments to permits. 21.45.110 Conversion of existing buildings to planned developments. 21.45.120 Expiration, extension and revisions. 21.45.130. Proposed common ownership land or improvements. 21.45.140 Maintenance. 21.45.150 Failure to maintain. 21.45.160 Model homes. . 21.45.170 Restriction on reapplication for planned development permit. * Priorordinance history: Ords. 1256,1261,9459.9493,9510.9535, 9568.9603,963 lt 9727.9758,9804.9823, NS-100. fcS-176. NS- 180, NS-204. NS-283, NS-288, NS-3S2 and NS-506. 21.45.010 Intent and purpose. The purpose of the planned development ordi- nance is to: A. Recognize the need for a diversity of housing _ .and product; types; B. Provide a method for clustered property de- velopment that recognizes that the impacts of envi- ronmentally and topographically constrained land preclude the full development of a site as a standard single-family subdivision; C. Establish a process to approve the following: separate ownership of dwelling units with lots or ex- clusive use areas of less than seven thousand five hundred square feet in size or as otherwise allowed by the underlying zone; condominium ownership in multiple-unit buildings; and conversion of existing, residential development to condominiums; D. Allow the development of small-lot subdivi- sions in existing R-l neighborhoods when the pro- posed site is contiguous to a higher intensity land use or an existing project of comparable or higher density; E. Permit the development of small-lot subdivi- sions in multi-family zones as an alternative product type to attached dwelling units; and F. Encourage and allow more creative and imaginative design by including relief from compli- ance with standard residential zoning regulations. To offset this flexibility in development standards, planned developments are required to incorporate amenities and features not normally required of stan- dard residential developments. (Ord. NS-612 § 1 (part), 2001) 21.45.020 Applicability. A. A planned development permit is required for the development of single-family lots or exclusive use areas of less than seven thousand five hundred square feet or as otherwise allowed by the underlying zone, attached condominiums and the conversion of existing residential development to condominiums. These regulations do not apply to attached residential units proposed for inclusion as part of a commercial development project. B. Any application for a planned development permit that was deemed complete prior to the effec- tive-date of the ordinance reenacting this chapter, shall not be subject to the amended provisions of this chapter but shall be processed and approved or dis- approved pursuant to the ordinance superseded by the ordinance codified in this chapter. C. Enlargement of buildings that are legally nonconforming is permitted provided that such enlargement does not increase the floor space more than forty percent of that existing prior to such enlargement and that the new addition complies with 709 (Carlsbad Supp. No. J.M3) Zl.HD.UOU TABLE C GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Density .Arterial Setbacks Building Setbacks Permitted Intrusions into Setbacks < Visitor Parking On Private/Public Streets Driveways Private Streets Public Streets Parkways with Street Trees Driveway (Project) Per the underlying General Plan designation. When two or more general plan land use designations exist within a planned development the density may not be transferred from one general plan designation to another without a general plan amendment All dwelling units and accessory structures adjacent to any arterial road shown on the Circulation Element of the General Plan shall maintain the following minimum setbacks from the right-of-way: Prime Arterial 50 Feet Major Arterial 40 Feet Secondary Arterial 30 Feet »"' Carlsbad Boulevard 20 Feet An average of 50% of the required setback area that is located closest to the arterial shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. Project perimeter walls shall not be located in the landscaped buffer. The landscaped buffer shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage. This arterial landscape setback, shall be commonly owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. All setbacks shall be measured from the property line, from the back of sidewalk or from the edge of the project driveway, whichever is closest to the structure. Projecting architectural features, which do not increase the useable living area of a dwelling unit, (including, but not limited to, cornices, eaves, belt courses, sills, buttresses and fireplaces) may intrude up to 2 feet into required building setbacks. I. 10 units or less: 1 space for each 2 units or fraction thereof. . • 2. 1 1 units or more: 5 spaces for the first 10 units, plus 1 space for each 4 units above 10. 3. Housing for senior citizens: 1 space for each 5 units. . 4. In cases where a fractional parking space is required, the required number of spaces shall be rounded to the nearest highest whole number. 1. Visitor parking may be provided: (I) along both sides of a minimum 34 foot wide private/public street or (2) in perpendicular bays. When visitor parking is provided on-strect not less than 24 lineal feet per space, exclusive of driveway entrances' and driveway aprons, shall be provided for each parking space, except where parallel parking spaces are located immediately adjacent to driveway aprons, then 20 lineal feet may be provided. I. Visitor parking must be provided in parking bays. Minimum 34 feet wide (curb-to-curb) with parkways (minimum 5.5' wide) and sidewalks (minimum 5' wide) on both sides of the street Minimum 34 feet wide (curb-to-curb) with parkways (minimum 7' wide) and sidewalks (minimum 5' wide) on both sides of the street Minimum 5.5 feet wide parkways are required along both sides of private streets. For small-lot, . single-family and two-family projects, a minimum of one street tree (24 inch box) per lot is required to be planted in the parkway along all streets. For multi-family projects, street trees shall be spaced no further apart than 30 feet on center within the parkway. Tree species should be selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk damage and minimize water consumption. 1 . Minimum 24 feet wide with no parking permitted in travel way. 2. Additional width may be required for maneuvering- area in front of garages, carports or uncovered parking spaces or to provide transition to a driveway approach. . NO more man tv singic*ranmyrtwo»iamny dwelling umu> snail DC locaica along a single-entry driveway. 4. Parkways/sidewalks may .be required. 5. Driveways in motor courts shall be constructed of concrete. 6. All driveways/motor courts shall be accented with enhanced pavement treatment (Cwtsbad Supp. No. 5.1-03)712 2I.45.OSO TABLE E (Continued) MULTIPL "f Architectural Design Elements Minimum Building Separation Resident Parking Visitor Parking Compact Parking / Recreational Space / Private / * / 7ConjJnon / ^DWELLING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I. Tnere shall be at least 3 separate building planes on all building elevations. The ,- minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include but not be limited to building walls, windows and roofs. 2. Building facades shall incorporate a minimum of four of the following types of design elements: a. Covered front porches (may count toward meeting recreation space require- ments); ,v b. A variety of roof planes; c. Windows and dqorsJECcsaeiajtiinimum of 2 incjics; d. Paned windows and dooo; e. Exposed rqflfiafler-UJIsr f. Window and door lintels; g. Dormers; ' h. AccegLand varied shape windows; i. Exterior' wood elements; j. Raised stucco trim around windows and doors; k. Accent materials such as brick, stone, shingles, wood or siding; and 1. Knee braces, 20 feet average with a minimum of 10 feet between structures. No structures (i.e., stairs, stairwells, balconies, etc.) are permitted to encroach into this setback. t. One 12 feet x 20 feet car garage and 1 covered or uncovered space per unit 2. Studio units - 1 .5 spaces; 1 covered per unit 3. Housing for senior citizens: 1.5 covered spaces per Unit, plus 1 covered space for an onsite manager's unit (when provided). 1.10 units or less: 1 space for each 2 dwelling units or fraction thereof. 2. 1 1 units or more: 5 spaces for the first 10 units, plus 1 space for each 4 dwelling units above 10. 3. Housing for senior citizens: 1 space for each 5' dwelling units. 4. Visitor parking spaces must be located no more than 1 50 ft. as measured In * logi- . cal walking path from the entrance of the unit It could be considered to serve. 5. Visitor parking must be provided in parking bays. For projects of more than 25 units, up to 25 percent of visitor parking may be pro- vided as compact spaces (8 feet by 15 feet). No overhang is permitted into any re- quired setback area or over sidewalks less than 6 feet wide. "~~ I. Projects of 1— 10 dwelling units: 15 ft. x 15 ft. patio or 120 square feet of balcony area, £&&• £#.FT. 2. Projects of more than 10 dwelling units: 10 ft x 10 ft. patio or 6 ft. x 10 ft. bal- cony. 1, Projects of more than 10 dwelling units: See General Standards, Table C. 1I) Setbacks are applicable 10 streets that include parkways anil sidewalks along both sides. For existing street! without parkways, the front setback shall be as follows: Front porch -16 feet, residence -20 fool minimum, side-entry garage -10 feet direct entry garage - 20 feet. (2) The average front yard setback is determined by adding together all of the. unit front yard setbacks (the setback for each unit should be meas- ured from that element of each building, excluding projections, thai is located closes) to the front property line) and dividing that local by the total number of project units. (Ord. NS-662 § 9, 2003; Ord. NS-612 § 1 (part), 2001) 717 (Orlsbad Supp. No. 3. K») 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6141 2 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING 4 APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO: (1) 5 AMEND STANDARDS OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, 6 PARKING AND BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE CHAPTERS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO FACILITATE THE 7 DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH QUALITY RESIDENTIAL 8 PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH THE MINIMUM DENSITY Q AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT CONTROL POINT OF THE UNDERLYING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION, 10 AND; (2) AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 11 ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY AMBIGUITIES AND CORRECT INCONSISTENCIES. 12 CASE NAME: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATION 13 AMENDMENTS M CASE NO.: ZCA 05-02 15 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 21.52.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal 16 17 Code, the City of Carlsbad has prepared an amendment to Title 21 of the Municipal Code 18 relating to standards of the Planned Development (CMC 21.45), Parking (CMC 21.44) and 19 -ft Beach Area Overlay Zone (CMC 21.82) Chapters of the Zoning Ordinance; and 21 WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is set forth in the draft City Council 22 || Ordinance, Exhibit "X," dated December 6, 2006, and attached hereto PLANNED 24 || DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENTS - ZCA 05-02; and || WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of October 2006, and26 | 27 II the 6* day of December 2006, hold duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearings, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Zone Code Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 i\ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Chapter 21.45 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 21.45.010 Intent and purpose. 21.45.020 Applicability. 21.45.030 Definitions. 21.45.040 Permitted zones and uses. 21.45.050 Application and permit. 21.45.060 General development standards. 21.45.070 Development standards for one-family dwellings and twin-homes on small lots. 21.45.080 Development standards for condominium projects. 21.45.090 Residential additions and accessory uses. 21.45.100 Amendments to permits. 21.45.110 Conversion of existing buildings to planned developments. 21.45.120 Expiration, extension and revisions. 21.45.130 Proposed common ownership land or improvements. 21.45.140 Maintenance. 21.45.150 Failure to maintain. 21.45.160 Model homes. 21.45.170 Restriction on reapplication for planned development permit. 21.45.010 Intent and purpose. A. The purpose of the planned development ordinance is to: 1. Recognize the need for a diversity of housing and product types; 2. Provide a method for clustered property development that recognizes that the impacts of environmentally and topographically constrained land preclude the full development of a site as a standard single-family subdivision; 3. Establish a process to approve the following: a. One-family dwellings and twin-homes on individual lots of less than 7,500 square feet in size or as otherwise allowed by the underlying zone; . b. Condominium projects consisting of two-family and multiple-family dwellings, as well as one-family dwellings developed as two or more detached dwellings on one lot; c. Condominium conversions; and d. Private streets; 4. Encourage and allow more creative and imaginative design by including relief from compliance with standard residential zoning regulations. To offset this flexibility in development standards, planned developments are required to incorporate amenities and features not normally required of standard residential developments. 21.45.020 Applicability. A. A planned development permit is required for the development of one-family dwellings or twin-homes on lots of less than 7,500 square feet or as otherwise allowed by the underlying zone, attached or detached condominiums, condominium conversions, and private streets. B. These regulations do not apply to attached residential units proposed for inclusion as part of a commercial development project. C. Any application for a planned development permit that was deemed complete prior to the effective date of the ordinance reenacting this chapter, shall not be subject to the amended provisions of this chapter but shall be processed and approved or disapproved pursuant to the ordinance superseded by the ordinance codified in this chapter. D. If there is a conflict between the regulations of this chapter and any regulations approved as part of the city's certified local coastal programs, a redevelopment plan, master -11- 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 21.45.060 General development standards. A. All planned developments shall comply with the general development standards specified in Table C below. Specific standards applicable to one-family dwellings and twin- homes on small-lots can be found in Table D; and standards applicable to condominium projects can be found in Table E. B. In addition to the provisions of this chapter, a planned development project shall be subject to the development standards of the project site's underlying zone. C. If there is a conflict between the development standards of this chapter and the development standards applicable to the project site's underlying zone, the standards of this chapter shall prevail. Exception: the development standards specified in the city's local coastal program, a redevelopment plan, master plan or specific plan shall prevail if such standards conflict with the standards of this chapter. 0. When approved, a planned development permit shall become a part of the zoning regulations applicable to the subject property. TABLE C GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REF NO C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 SUBJECT Density Arterial Setbacks .Permitted ntrusions into Setbacks/ Building .Separation Streets DEVELOPMENT STANDARD I Per the underlying General Plan designation. When two or more general plan land use designations exist within a planned development, the density may be transferred from one general plan designation to another with a general plan amendment. All dwelling units adjacent to any arterial road shown on the Circulation Element of the General Plan shall maintain the following minimum setbacks from the right-of- way: Prime Arterial 50 Feet Major Arterial 40 Feet Secondary Arterial 30 Feet Carlsbad Boulevard 20 Feet Half (50%) of the required arterial setback area located closest to the arterial shall be fully landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials, and: • Shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage; and • Shall be commonly owned and maintained Project perimeter walls greater than 42 inches in height shall not be located | in the required landscaped portion of the arterial setback, except nois* | attenuation walls that • Are required by a noise study, and • Due to topography, are necessary to be placed within the required landscaped portion of the arterial setback. Permitted intrusions into required building setbacks shall be the same as specified in Section 21.46.120 of this code. The same intrusions specified in Section 21.46.120 shall be permitted into required building separation. Private Public Minimum right-of-way width Minimum curb-to-curb width Minimum parkway width (curb adjacent) Minimum sidewalk width Minimum right-of-way width 56 feet 34 feet 5.5 feet, including curb 5 feet (setback 6 inches from property line) 60 feet -15- 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 TABLE E, CONTINUED CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS REF NO. E.7 cont E.S SUBJECT Resident Parking (6), cont. Private Recreational Space DEVELOPMENT STANDARD Multiple-family dwellings, cont. One-family and two-family dwellings Multiple-family riwpllinnc Required parking may be provided within an enclosed parking garage with multiple, open parking spaces, subject to the following: • Each parking space shall maintain a standard stall size of 8.5 feet by 20 feet, exclusive of supporting columns; and • A backup distance of 24 feet shall be maintained in addition to a minimum 5 feet turning bump-out located at the end of any stall series. Required resident parking spaces shall be located no more than 150 feet as measured in a logical walking path from the entrance of the units it could be considered to serve. Minium M are, per Un» ^^^SSSSSKL Minimum dimension of isfee+ recreational space Required private recreational space shall be located at ground level and designed so as to be functional, usable, and easily accessible from the dwelling it is intended to serve, and shall not have a slope gradient greater than 5%. Required private recreational space shall be located adjacent to the unit the area is intended to serve. Required private recreational space shall not be located within any required front yard setback area, and may not include any driveways, parking areas, storage areas, or common walkways. Open or lattice-top patio covers may be located within the required private recreation space (provided the patio cover complies with all applicable standards, including the required setbacks). Attached solid patio covers and second story decks/balconies may project into a required private recreational space, subject to the following: • The depth of the projection shall not exceed 6 feet (measured from the wall of the dwelling that is contiguous to the patio/deck/balcony). • The length of the projection shall not be limited, except as required by any setback or lot coverage standards. • The patio cover/deck/balcony shall comply with all applicable standards, including the required setbacks specified in Section 21. 45.090. Minimum total area per unit ,._ , . (patio, porch, or balcony) 60 S(1uare feet Minimum dimension of patio, „ . porch or balcony Required private recreational space shall be functional, usable, and easily accessible from the dwelling it is intended to serve. Projects within the RH general plan designation may opt to provide an additional 75 square feet of community recreation space per unit (subject to the standards specified in Table C of his Chapter), in lieu of providing the per unit private recreational space specified above. -24- CP 06-01 - ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page 4 B. RD-M & Planned Development Regulations The project does not meet all the development standards of the RD-M zone and does not meet all the standards of the Planned Development Ordinance as outlined in Table A below: Table A; RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance RD-M Standards Height Setbacks Lot Coverage Table C General Development Standards Applicable to all Planned Developments Arterial Setbacks Visitor Parking Driveway Storage Space Required 35' Front - 20' Side -5' Street Side -10' Rear -10' 60% Required 30' (La Costa Avenue) An average of 50% of the required setback area that is closest to the arterial shall be landscaped to enhance the street scene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. Project perimeter walls shall not be located in the landscaped buffer. 2 spaces 24 feet 392 cubic feet/unit Provided -21 '8" Front - 20' Side -5.1' Street Side -3 1.57' Rear -24.33' 34% Provided 31.57' The project does not comply with the 50% average landscape standard which is intended to enhance the street scene and buffer the homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. In addition a 6' project perimeter wall is located in the required landscaped buffer area. 2 spaces 24 Feet 392 cubic feet/unit Comply? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Comply? No Yes Yes Yes Jjn-HU 10134 flfl WttLSBflD HttilNKtKJNG hftX NO. flju b(K •DD PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST Plan Check No. £B_ Planner APN: Type of Zoning: CFD (In/out) *_0«te of participation: PU/AC. Facilities Management Zone: Remaining net dev acres: / "=or non-reaWantial devalopmtnt: Type of land uwd created by this permit:, .._, ) Legend; J3 Item Complete Q Item incomplete •> Needs your action environmental Revtew Required: YES \ NO/ TYPE DATE OF COMPLETION: • M. t^/^j/)i/ £***f' Compliance with conditions of approval? if net, state conditions which'require action. Conditions of Approval: __. Discretionary Action Required: APPROVAL/RBSOr NO. PROJECT NO. YES DATE TYP6 OTH6R RELATED CASES: ^ „. .. Compllwce with oondfttens or approval? If not state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval; O /6)DO- Coastal Zone AeeesarnernVCamplianoe Project she located in Coastal Zone? YES _ NOV* CA Coastal Commission Authority? YES _ N0_ rf California CoasteJ Commlselon Authority: Contact them at - 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 1 03, Sen Diego CA 92108*402; 161 8) 767-2370 Determine status (Coastal Permit Required or Exempt): _________ Coastal Permit Determination Form already completed? YES _ N0_ _ If NO. complete Coastal Permit Determination Form now. Coastal Permit Determination Log f : ' • .. Follow4lp Actions: 1 ) Stamp Building Plans ss "Exempt" or "Coastal Permit Required" (at minimum floor Plans!. 2( Complete Coastal Permit Determination Log as needed. ' (nckisionery Housing Fee requited: YE8)£. NO. _ (Effective date of IndusJonary Housing Ordinance - May 21 , 1 993.) PatTlntry CompietedTYE8~' NCTfC.' """•' (A/P/D3, Activity Maintenance, enter C9f , toolbar. Screens, Housing Fees, Construct Housing Y/N, Enter Fee, UPDATE!) ft«v 9/01 iriu nri VHKUBHU NU. /OU OUi lUD<i DO DD Site Plan: 1. Provide a fully dimensional site plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow, property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing street improvements, right- of-way width, dimensional setbacks and existing topographical lines (Including ell-side and rear yard slopes). 2. Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number, Policy 44 - NftJflhborboqd,Architectural Design Guidelines 1. Applicability: YES. 2. Project complies YES. Zoning: 1. Setbacks: Front: Interior Side: Street Side: Rear: Top of slope: Required Required Required Required Required Shown, Shown Shown Shown Shown C3QCI 2. Accessory structure 'setbacks: Front: Interior Side: Street Side Rear:_ "jra separation: 3. Lot Coverage: 4. Height: 6. Parking: Require Required Required Required IMJ Shown Shown, Shown Shown \ Shown Spaces Required T$% 2 a ft" ShownC? (breakdown by uses for commercial end Industrial projects required) Residential Quest Spaces Required £- Shown Additional Comma OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER DATE / . H!\ADMJN**• -~l ,t.\ COLIA ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS 177 Riverside, #F Newport Beach, CA 92663 Certified Acoustical Consultants Phone 714 960-7511 Fax 714 960-6775 L6-056 Email: RColia@socal.rr.com April 25,2006 Mr. Gino DiFante P.O. Box 2442 Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 SUBJECT: Addendum to Acoustical Analysis for the 4-Unit Romeria Condominiums at 7565 Romeria Street in Carlsbad: To the Planning Director, City of Carlsbad Dear Mr. DiFante; At your request I have reviewed your most recent site plan for the condominium conversion at the above referenced project in the City of Carlsbad. I find that the recommendations hi my Report # R2-OS17, dated August 28, 2002 will still apply to your project The recommendation for exterior noise control to meet the City standard of 60 dB CNEL for outdoor living areas is a City Noise Element wall along La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street Your most recent site plan shows this wall. With this existing wall the City noise standards will be met It is thus, a requirement Without it the City noise standards will not be met The existing City Noise Element wall, not a project perimeter privacy wall, had to be constructed next to the right-of-way behind the site property line along La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street, as it show in my original report and on the site plan approved by the City hi 2002. In order to reduce the current and future roadway noise impacts to the City Noise Element standards of 60 dB CNEL, this wall and its location is necessary to the project If you have any further questions please call. Member INCE ^ ^ ^^— FIGURE 2: Recommended Barrier Locations - 6 Feet High COLIA ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS 177 Riverside, #F Newport Beach, CA 92663 Certified Acoustical Consultants Phone 714 960-7511 Fax 714 960-6775 L6-056 Email: RColia@socal.rr.com April 25, 2006 Mr. Gino DiFante P.O. Box 2442 Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 SUBJECT: Addendum to Acoustical Analysis for the 4-Unit Romeria Condominiums at 7565 Romeria Street in Carlsbad: To the Planning Director, City of Carlsbad Dear Mr. DiFante; At your request I have reviewed your most recent site plan for the condominium conversion at the above referenced project in the City of Carlsbad. I find that the recommendations in my Report # R2-097, dated August 28,2002 will still apply to your project The recommendation for exterior noise control to meet the City standard of 60 dB CNEL for outdoor living areas is a City Noise Element wall along La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street. Your most recent site plan shows this wall. With this existing wall the City noise standards will be met. It is thus, a requirement Without it the City noise standards will not be met. The existing City Noise Element wall, not a project perimeter privacy wall, had to be constructed next to the right-of-way behind the site property line along La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street, as it show in my original report and on the site plan approved by the City hi 2002. In order to reduce the current and future roadway noise impacts to the City Noise Element standards of 60 dB CNEL, this wall and its location is necessary to the project. If you have any further questions please call. icr Member INCE' COLIA ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS 177 Riverside, #F '•? ' " "' L *- Newport Beach, CA 92663 Member, Institute of Noise Control Engineering Phone 714 960-751.1 Fax 714 960-6775 Email: RColia@socal.rr.com R2-097 August 28, 2002 REVISED ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ROMERIA TOWNHOME APARTMENTS AT LA COSTA AVENUE AND ROMERIA STREET IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD Prepared For: GINODIFINTE 32158 Camino Capistrano, #A275 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Acoustical Consultant MEMBER INCE REVISED ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ROMERIA TOWNHOME APARTMENTS AT LA COSTA AVENUE AND ROMERIA STREET IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD INTRODUCTION At the request of Gino Difinte, an acoustical analysis has been performed on the multi-family unit project known as the Romeria Townhome Apartments. The proposed project is located at the northwest corner of La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street in Carlsbad. The principal source of noise to the project will be from future vehicular traffic on La Costa Avenue, with lesser impacts from Romeria Street. The impacts from Romeria Street are minimised due to their lower traffic flows. There are no known aircraft or railroad impacts to the site. The noise criteria of the City of Carlsbad for current and projected conditions state that the noise intrusive to interior habitable spaces of residential units from exterior sources should not exceed 45 A-Weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Usable outdoor living areas are also to be limited to 60 dBA CNEL or less. The purpose of this report is to determine the exterior noise environment, design noise control measures to reduce the projected noise impacts, and present other mitigation measures, where necessary, to reduce other noise impacts to acceptable levels. ANALYSIS Exterior Noise Impact Figure 1 shows the location of the project site in relation to the existing adjacent roadways. Future traffic volumes on La Costa Avenue will determine the significant portion of the future noise impact. The future noise impact was projected by using the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108) and several roadway and model parameters. The key input parameters which established the potential noise impact include: Future Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Vehicle travel speed Roadway descriptor (freeway, primary, secondary, etc.) Active half width (distance between the roadway centerline and centerline of outside travel lanes) R2-097 August 28, 2002 • Percentage of heavy trucks, medium trucks and autos in the total traffic volume Angle of view to the roadway • Grade on the roadway segment adjacent to the site • Site conditions • Hourly breakdown of traffic flows in a 24-hour period. The key site parameters above were taken by roadway dimensions shown on the tract and grading plans provided. The roadway parameters such as roadway classification were also taken from the plans provided. The projected ADT values were taken from a traffic study performed by the City Public Works Department on July 22, 2002. La Costa Avenue is a two-lane undivided road. The year 2002 ADT for La Costa Avenue is 10,211 based on a 24-hour count. Jim Gale from the Public Works Department indicates the ADT is decreasing due to new streets with access to the freeway. For example, in 1998 the ADT was 12,000, and now it is about 10,000. Thus, the ADT for this study will be 10,211. The truck percentages used in the analysis are shown below. The roadway average speeds are 40 MPH. The projected future traffic volumes are shown below. TABLE 1 Projected Traffic Volumes (Year 2002) ROADWAY Future ADT Travel Speed La Costa Ave. 10,211 40 MPH The truck auto mixes used in the analysis was as follows: TABLE 2 ARTERIAL: Overall Day% Evening% Night% Auto 97.42% 75.51 12.57 9.34 Med. Trucks 1.84% 1.56 0.09 0.19 Hvy. Trucks 0.74% 0.64 0.02 0.08 -2- R2-097 August 28, 2002 The FHWA Noise Model projection of 64.9 dBA CNEL at a distance of 85 feet from the centerline of La Costa Avenue was used in the analysis (Table 3). Table 4 shows the projected future FHWA calculated noise levels for the four units closest to La Costa Avenue. These values will be used to determine the mitigation measures for the project. MITIGATION MEASURES Exterior Noise Control The future exterior noise impact to the outdoor proposed areas of the residential homes along La Costa Avenue for future conditions are as high as 64.9 dBA CNEL. Because the future noise levels of Lots 1-4 along La Costa Avenue will exceed 60 dBA CNEL, acoustical shielding of proposed outdoor areas along the roadways will be required. The acoustical barrier may consist of: 1. Standard masonry block walls, or 2. A 2x3 wood stud wall with 7/8-inch stucco or plaster on one wall side and Va inch stucco or plaster on the other. 3. A 2x3 wood stud wall with 1 inch solid wood fencing, such as Tongue and Groove, shiplap or plywood (with the seams between sheets fully caulked or sealed), and Va solid wood on the other. 4. Any other solid material with minimum density of 4 pounds per square foot of surface. 5. Earthen Benn. 6. Any combination of the above items. -3- R2-097 August 28, 2002 The noise control barrier must be solid from top to bottom with no openings or decorative cutouts. All gaps should be filled with grout or caulk. The calculations for the barrier height requirements were run for the first row of homes along the roadway. The required wall heights of 6 feet were specified by the developer for this project. The barrier shielding was determined using geometric relationships of pad height and road elevations in relation to the proposed barrier locations. The barrier locations are shown in Figure 2. The important barrier calculation parameters are shown in Table 5. The calculations in Table 5 show the maximum barrier height required is 6 feet above pad height to achieve levels less than 60 dBA CNEL. This table also shows the Top of Barrier (TOB) elevations needed to be effective and that all first floor observers will have shielded noise levels (SLEV and TOTAL) less than 60 dBA CNEL. The barrier results are summarized in Table 6. Note the Top of Wall (TOW) elevations are relative to pad grade. Exterior-To-Interior Noise Control The analysis performed in this study indicates the noise reduction provided by each exterior wall component in each proposed habitable unit. The A-weighted sound transmission loss (TL) associated with the building construction components which were used in the calculation of the composite building shell noise attenuation i. The TL values were calculated via mass law equations or obtained from reference materials. The noise spectra used is typical for motor vehicles. Exterior Wall 45 dBA Entry Door 25 dBA Vinyl Sliding Windows: Single strength (SSB) 22.2 dBA l/4 inch 27.0 dBA The glazing requirements for the project to meet the state and City interior noise criteria of 45 dBA CNEL are summarized below. 1. Standard Single strength glass (3/32nd inch) or any window with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 22 or greater: • All first floor windows and other windows and all units of the project. -4- R2-097 August 28, 2002 2. All entrance doors at Lots 1-4 should be solid core or equivalent and must be fully weather-stripped at all perimeters. All interior noise levels are less than 45 dBA CNEL as required by the City and state noise standards. These recommendations are made with doors and windows closed. Because windows and doors must be closed to meet the interior noise standard, mechanical ventilation must be provided in ALL Units of the project, which meets the air change requirements of the UBC. Many clients meet this requirement by providing a summer switch on the Forced Air Units (FAU), ducting 20 percent make-up air from directly outside via sound attenuating ducts. Air-conditioning of the units may be provided as an alternative. X CONCLUSIONS The California Noise Insulation Standards require that the noise study include: 1) a map of the site and its surrounding noise sources; 2) identification of the noise sources and their characteristics; 3) predicted noise spectra at the exterior of the proposed dwelling(s); 4) noise attenuation measures to be applied; and 5) analysis of the noise insulation effectiveness. These items have been discussed and included in the report which was "prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering", as the Noise Insulation Standards require. Following implementation of the recommendations contained herein, it can be expected that the intrusive interior noise criteria of the City of Carlsbad and State of California will be met. -5- TABLE 3 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL FHWA (RD-77-108) Client: Gino Difinte Project: Romeria Townhome Apts. Date: 8-28-02 ROADWAY. La Costa ADT: AUTOS: MEDIUM TRUCKS: HEAVY TRUCKS: TRAVEL SPEED: ACTIVE HALF WIDTH: DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE: SINGLE LANE EQUIVALENT: ANGLE OF VIEW: ROAD GRADE HARD/SOFT: 10,211 97.42 % 1.84 % 0.74 % 40 MPH 6.0 FEET FEET FEET 85.0 84.8 180.0 0.0 0.5 DEGREES PROJECTED NOISE IMPACT: CNEL A: CNEL MT: CNEL HT: 64.9 dBCNEL 61.1 dB 57.1 dB 61.2 dB CNEL CONTOURS Projected CNEL, dB Distance To SLE, ft. 75 70 65 60 57 55 18.1 39.0 84.1 181.2 287.2 390.4 TABLE 4 Projected Noise Levels at Building Lines Lot Distance to Future CNEL Centerline, Ft. 1-4 85' 64.9 TABLE 5 SOUND BARRIER CALCULATION WORKSHEET AREA SORC PAD DSLE SORC OBS. OBS- BLOS TOB ATTN ULEV SLEV TOTAL WALI ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV BARR ELEV ELEV (dB) HT. DIST 1 101.6 103.3 85.0 106.6 108.3 40.0 107.5 109.3 6.2 64.9 58.7 6.0 TABLE 6 Summary of Barrier Requirements Lot No. Top of Wall Elevation Shielded Noise Impact CNEL 1-4 6'(109.3) 58.7 ;76O 6O2 6562 * 2/ Page 7 of 11 EventCount-1 57 EventCount-157 Page 1 Traffic Data Service Southwest Event Counts DATASETS: Site: ChannelA: ChannelB: Survey Duration: Pile: Identifier: Algorithm: [018E] La Costa Ave Btwn Cadencla St & Romeria St EdStbOUHd 2 - East bound. - Added to totals. (1) 0 - Unused or unknown. - Excluded from totals. (0) 11:13 Won 22 Jul 2002 to 09:12 Fri 26 Jul 2002 Z:\mcdata\CRLSBD\2002\018\018E26JUL2002.ECO (Base) A566R8D4 MC56-1 [MC55] (c)Microcom 07/06/99 Event count PROFILE: Filter time: Name: Method: Unite: In profile: 14:00 Men 22 Jul 2002 to 12:00 Thu 25 Jul 2002 factory default profile Count axles divided by two. Non-Metric (ft, mi, f/s, mph, Ib. ton) 14587 Events • Mon 22 Jul 2002 - Tota4=2673(incomplete), 15 minute drops, 0000 0100 0100 9309 0400 0500 0600 0700 0600 0»0g 1000 HOP 1,200 1300 1400 1500 UQQ 1700 1100 11,9.00i»JO 2100 2200 2300 % H34 < 3>S «4 <5 »7 171 71 102 102 }( 107 101 92 94 116 *2 98 9) $2 69 SI 19 It «T it 49 41 3T 27 )2 22 37 21 15 22 9 12 12 1) 6 ' Tue 23 Jul 2002 - Total=5055, 15 minute drops, 0000 0100 0200 03.00 0400 OilO 0600 0.700 0100 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 ItOO 1900 2000 21PO 22 00- 2)00 J» 12 1 • 13 6 10 19 » 3 2 2 1 1 4 4 9 1 4 2 •0 42 } M} * . 1121 w29 31 49>( *?>iSi 83 SI •74 17* 71 £9 S3 82 24* (3 70 J« 56 MS 80 52 57 46 2»7 12 11 73 11 27( 71 72 76 51 310to 79 72 19 301 3»t 3|« 4U 374 65 96 1) 10« 100 $4 101 99 123 91 62 99 97 119 9< 94 100 107 11* tO MlIt 77 56 69 Z« Iff 11$ (9 54 66 52 44 40 47 34 29. 30 29 27 "2« 12 10 7 13 10 11 3 AMPkHrCfl:45lo07:4S(nt33t),AMPW»I.MPMP«Hr 17:00(0 1l:00(n«4«3),PMPHF=O.J4 * Wed 24 Jul 2002 - Total=5f51, 15 minute drops,oooo 010.0 tjfl* 0*00 040.0 osoo osoo 0100 DIDO owo jooo 1100 1200 uoo MOO isoo KOO 1700 i«oo uoo 2000 :a.. ft, 1011j >ffils 3 S ' r 5 0 . 0 '2 • fV" 2 3 1. ••**- •,»"..•«*".*» m'-:m^t 3 • 1 7 5 7 17 16 32 33 4S. »o 81 (3 •2 65 (» U 11 »0 61. 71' 67 • 61 wIt 72 59 55 304 245 SQZ JW 340 3fl* 4(0 40J S« 10 60 IS '11 65 . 56 54 70 66 77 • 6 • 73- • 72 5J 19 12( J7 42 M 97 lit 126 If «5 • 96 lit 91 69 107 10L 10) «S 7» 72 1J 11 .65 7> 54 ' 1140 22,00 2300 W"6J 37 S« .35.. »?337 J7 23 26 . M19 21 It 14. 24 6 6' 10 * Thu 25 Jul 2002- Total«1707(incomplete), 16 minute drops, oooo o 24 ISO^fJ4-v 6 2. 1 ' A JM Q4JM 05« ( '*[" " T 4 .2.. .16 >600 ( V^l ^ 30 £C (700 (w"*fr->mt7! A-tr IWfr]Nl 56 tT l^fJ 5Jj • ei 1100 UOP 1300 1400 1500 1600 1100 1BCO UOO 2006 2100 2200- 2300 61----------- _- «.--------_-__ FIGURE 1: Site Location Map sin HIM CD 0> 5' FIGURE 2: Recommended Barrier Locations - 6 Feet High 1 I I i I I I I I I I I I NOISE ELEMENT I INTRODUCTION A. BACKGROUND AND INTENT The goal of the Noise Element is to achieve and maintain an environment which is free from objectionable, excessive or harmful noise. The Noise Element - Identifies and defines existing and future envi- ronmental noise levels from sources of noise within or adjacent to the City of Carlsbad by means of Noise Contour maps. - Establishes goals, objectives and policies to mitigate these noise impacts. - Provides policies and action programs to imple- ment the Goals and Objectives. "The Goal of the Noise Element is to achieve and maintain an environment which is free from objectionable, ex- cessive or harmful noise." B. STATE LAW Section 65302(0 of California's Planning and Zoning Laws requires a Noise Element which identifies and appraises noise problems in the community. The Noise Element shall recognize the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control in the State Department of Health Services and shall analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and projected noise levels for all of the following sources: 1. Highways and freeways; 2. Primary arterial and major local streets; 3. Passenger and freight online railroad opera- tions and ground rapid transit systems; 4. Commercial, general aviation, heliport, helis- top, and military airport operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands, and all other ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport operation; 5. Local industrial plants, including, but not limited to, railroad classification yards; and 6. Other ground stationary noise sources identi- fied by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment. Noise contours shall be shown for all of these sources and stated in terms of community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or day-night average level (Ldn). The noise contours shall be prepared on the basis of noise monitor- ing or following generally accepted noise modeling tech- niques for the various sources identified in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive. The noise contours shall be used as a guide for establishing a pattern of land uses in the Land Use Element that minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive noise. The Noise Element shall include implementation measures and possible solutions that address existing and foreseeable noise problems, if any. The adopted Noise Element shall serve as a guideline for compliance with the state's Noise Insulation Standards.I C. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ELEMENTS The Noise Element is correlated with the Land Use, Circulation, and Housing Elements of the General Plan. The Land Use Element is related to the Noise Element in that noise can have a significant impact on land use. The Circulation Element is related to the Noise Element in that the majority of the noise created in Carlsbad is created by trains, planes or automobiles. The Housing Element relates to the Noise Element by promot- ing desirable residential environments which buffer exist- ^^^^^^^y Page NOISE ELEMENT ing and future residents from undesirable noise impacts. Consistent with state law, it is the policy of the City that the Noise Element be consistent with all General Plan Elements. II. SOURCES OF NOISE A. CIRCULATION 1. ROADS Roadway traffic noise is the most extensive noise problem faced by Carlsbad. Barring any dramatic changes in truck or automobile usage patterns, it is likely that the amount of traffic in Carlsbad will grow with the City's population. New development is occurring adjacent to major roadways throughout the City. Unless precaution- ary measures are taken, serious noise problems could result "Roadway traffic noise is the most extensive noise problem faced by Carlsbad." Vehicular noisehas three main componentsources: engine/transmission noise, exhaust noise and tire noise. The intensity of noise emissions from any given vehicle will vary with its size and other factors, such as speed, acceleration, braking, roadway grade and conditions of the roadway surface. Thus abusy downtown arterial with stop and go traffic is often noisier than an open highway with comparable traffic volumes. Noise contours have been prepared for all Circu- lation Element roadways in Carlsbad as shown on the current and future noise exposure maps (See Map I: Existing Noise Exposure Contour Map and Map 2: Future Noise Exposure Contour Map). Interstate 5 has the greatest existing and pro- jected roadway noise emissions. In addition, 1-5 impacts the greatest number of existing dwellings. There are a considerable number of existing single family and multi- family dwellings which are impacted by freeway noise levels in excess of 65 dBA CNEL. For these existing dwellings, noise attenuation is difficult. Construction of solid barriers along the freeway is possible, but cost may be prohibitive. The City can, however, educate property owners as to the methods of insulating existing residential units from freeway noise through the use of barriers and insulation materials. The City's "Development Review: Noise Guidelines Manual" is a useful reference. While other routes within the City have a lesser impact than does 1-5, many roads will still have significant noise impact potential and new projects should therefore be subject to noise impact evaluation. It is important that new development fronting on major roadways be compatible with the recommendations of this element. The action plan section of this element contains the measures intended to avert future problems caused by traffic noise. 2. AIRPORT McClellan-Palomar Airport is presently operat- ing as a general aviation facility and is located west ofEl Camino Real, just north of Palomar Airport Road in the City of Carlsbad. The airport's current annual operation of approximately 23 5,000 aircraft is expected to increase at the airport's ultimate buildout condition to approxi- mately 334,000. In general, land in the immediate vicinity of the airport or under the take offor landing approach is subject to noise levels which are unsuitable for residential development, schools, hospitals and other similar noise sensitive uses. Projected noise contours around the air- port are provided in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for McClellan-Palomar Airport and have been included in this Element (See Map 3: Airport Noise Contour Map). In 1989 the FAA began a detailed noise study for McCIellan-Palomar Airport. The findings of this study have been published in the proposed 1992 Part 150 Study forthe airport, which is currently under review as part of its adoption process. However, all new devel- opment in the vicinity of the airport should continue to be reviewed to ensure compliance with the noise standards Page 2 NOISE ELEMENT Newprojects should maximize the physical sepa- ration of structures from the railroad tracks. Additionally, prqj ect design should stress the orientation of units away from the railroad, limiting or acoustically designing win- dow openings onto the right-of-way, and construction of noise barriers such as solid walls, earthen berms, or berm/ wall combinations. B. LAND USE , To a great extent, the future ambient noise levels of the City will be determined by the type, intensity and location of future land uses. Future noise levels will also be affected by the construction of new roadways to serve new development and by land uses that generate noise. Noise levels may affect the desirability or livability of a community. Noise may also negatively impact the eco- nomic viability of a community by reducing the desirabil- ity of an area as a place to live, work, play, or shop. For these reasons, noise continues to be an important consid- eration of the City in future land use planning. "To a great extent, the future ambient noise levels of the City mil be deter- mined by the type, intensity and loca- tion of future land uses." Some land uses are more compatible with higher noise levels than are others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches and residences are generally consid- ered more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial activities. To respond to the sensitivity of certain land uses to higher noise levels, this element includes policies to reduce noise impacts on noise-sensi- tive uses such as residences. It may be appropriate to develop noise-sensitive uses such as residences, hospitals, or churches in noisy areas. In these instances, it is important that the proper measures are used to reduce noise impacts. In all cases sensitive site plan design is to be used as the first method to reduce noise impacts on a project. Sensitive site plan design measures will include, for example, increasingthe distance between the noise source and the receiver; plac- Page 4 ing non-noise sensitive uses such as parking areas, main- tenance facilities, and utility areasbetween the source and the receiver; using non-noise sensitive structures, such as a garage, to shield noise sensitive areas; and, orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source. These and other noise mitigation techniques are discussed in more detail in the City's Noise Guidelines Manual available in the Planning Department. C. OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 1. OFF ROAD MOTORCYCLE NOISE Motorcycle noise has been aproblem in Carlsbad In particular, complaints have been registered against recreational use of dirt bikes or two-cycle engine motor- cycles. The Police Department continues to enforce the prohibition of motorized off-road vehicles within the City, except as permitted at the Carlsbad Raceway. Localjurisdicrions have the authority to control loud or faulty mufflers, horn blowing, off-road vehicles and vehicle speed. Although noise limits may be set for off-road vehicles, they are rarely necessary since statutes against trespassing nearly always apply. Most trail bikes are not outfitted with the neces- sary lights, fenders, mufflers, spark arresters or baffles required by law. Consequently they are not licensed and cannot be legally operated on public streets. Continued police enforcement against theseunlicensed vehicles would likely reduce motorcycle noise on public streets. 2. MOTOR BOAT This noise problem does not affect very many of Carlsbad's residents. However, in response to noise complaints, the City has adopted a maximum speed limit for boats on the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and has pur- chased a boat for enforcement. The reduction in speed does reduce noise somewhat. If further control appears warranted, the City should consider setting curfews on the use of the lagoon or limit the types of boats which could use the lagoon. I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 I i NOISE ELEMENT C.3 Review existing City ordinances which relate to noise control for compatibility with the goals and policies of this Element. C. 4 Continue to enforce building codes to ensure adequate sound insulation between dwellings and to en- sure adequate sound insulation of interior areas from loud external noise sources. The City shall continue to enforce project conditions of approval related to noise control. C.5 Attempt to control noise primarily at its source. Where this is not feasible, controls along the transmission path of the noise should be required. C.6 Control noise generated through its own functions and activities and minimize noise impacts re- sulting from City-sponsored or approved activities. C.I Review City operations to make sure that noise generated by construction, maintenance activities, and street sweeping minimize significant adverse noise levels. C. 8 Periodically review the noise contours con- tained in this element. Substantial changes in traffic patterns or the availability ofnewnoise contour data may indicate the need for revisions. C.9 Participate in noise control and hearing conservation programs in all appropriate work environ- ments owned, operated, or otherwise under the control of the City. LAND USE A. GOALS A. 1 A City where land uses are not significantly impacted by noise. A.2 A City with industrial and commercial land uses which do not produce significantly adverse noise impacts. A.3 A City which controls mobile sources of noise to help assure that mobile noise sources do not substantially contribute to the noise environment B. OBJECTIVES B. 1 To achieve noise compatibility between in- dustrial/commercial and surrounding land uses and achieve an acceptablenoise environment in industrial/commercial areas. B.2 To achieve noise impact compatibility be- tween land uses through the land use planning/develop- mentreviewprocess. B.3 To actively control mobile noise violations. C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS C. 1 Encourage the development of compatible land uses in areas which are subject to excessive noise levels. C.2 Develop specific noise standards for use in reviewing noise sensitive development C.3 Require the use of project design techniques, such as, increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver; placingnon-noise sensitive uses such as parking areas, maintenance facilities, and utility areas between the source and the receiver; using non-sensitive structures, such as a garage, to shield noise sensitive areas; and, orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source to minimize noise impacts during any discretionary reviewofaresidential or other noise sensi- tive project C.4 Continue to enforce theState Motor Vehicle Code as it applies to excessive noise. The Carlsbad Police Department should Continue to reduce the number of I i i Page 6 if KOISE ELEMENT excessively noisy vehicles on city streets. The Depart- ment should also continue to deter persons from operating their motor vehicles in a noisy manner. C.5 Enforce the policy of the City that sixty (60) dBA CNEL is the exterior noise level to which all residential units should be mitigated. 65 dBA CNEL is the maximum noise level to which residential units subject to noise from McCIellan-Palomar Airport should be permitted. Additional disclosure actions (easements, deed restrictions, recorded notice, etc.) may be required of developers/sellers of noise im- pacted residential units. For residential properties identified as requiring a noise study, a study shall be prepared by an acoustical professional. This study shall document the projected maximum exterior noise level and mitigate theprojected exterior noise level to a maximum allowable noise level as identified in this policy. Interior noise levels should be mitigated to 45 dBACNEL when openings to the exterior ofthe residence are open or closed. If openings are required to be closed to meet the interior noise standard, then mechanical ventilation shall be provided. If the acoustical study shows that exterior noise levels cannot be mitigated to the level allowable as iden- tified in this policy or less, the development should ngtbe approved without one or more ofthe following findings: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect (noise). (2) Changes or alterations to avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect (noise) are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and notthe City of Carlsbad. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) -Specific economic, social, or other consid- erations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect (noise). If a project is approved with exterior noise levels exceeding the level allowable pursuant to this policy, all purchasers ofthe impacted property shall be notified in writing prior to purchase, and by deed disclosure in writing, that the property they are purchas- ing is, or will be, noise impacted and does not meet Carlsbad noise standards for residential property. Notwithstanding project approval, no residen- tial interior CNEL should exceed 45 dBA. C.6 Require that a "Noise" Study be submit- ted with all discretionary applications for residential projects of five or more single family dwelling units or any multiple family dwelling units located within or 500-feet beyond the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour lines as shown on Map 2: Future Noise Exposure Contour Map. C.7 Enforce the policy of the City that site design techniques such as increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver; placing non- noise sensitive uses such as parking areas, maintenance facilities and utility areas between the source and the receiver; using non-noise sensitive structures, such as a garage, to shield noise-sensitive areas; and orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source, be the first tool used to mitigate noise impacts on noise sensitive land uses rather than the construction of walls or berms.. C.8 Recognize that mitigation of existing or future noise impacts from Circulation Element road- ways, AT&SF railroad or McCIellan-Palomar Airport for existing or future development within the City, shall not be funded by the City. However, the City Page? NOISE ELEMENT shall assist applicants .with the processing of necessary permits for mitigating noise on private property, which permits may include right-of-way permits, encroachment permits, retaining wall permits and zoning variances. The City shall also assist property owners in the establishment of assessment districts, to fund noise mitigation improvements, in accordance with established City policies and procedures. C.9 Discourage the exclusive use of noise walls in excess1 of 6 feet in height as mitigation for noise along Circulation Element roadways. C. 10 Utilize natural barriers such as site topog- raphy or constructed earthen berms to mitigate noise on a project When noise walls are determined to be the only feasible solution to noise mitigation, then the walls shall be designed to limit aesthetic impacts. When over-height walls are necessary to mitigate noise, a berm/wall combination with heavy landscap- ing, a terraced wall heavily landscaped, or other similar innovative wall design technique shall be used to minimize visual impacts. CIRCULATION ROADS A. GOAL To provide a roadway system that does not subject surrounding land uses to significantly adverse noise levels. B. OBJECTIVE • To design and manage all roadways to maintain acceptable noise levels. C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS C. 1 Take measures to reduce traffic noise on streets throughout Carlsbad. This will include contin- ued enforcement of applicable sections of the Califor- nia Vehicle Code regarding equipment and/or opera- tion of motor vehicles. C.2 Consider noise impacts in the design of road systems and give special consideration to those road corridors in scenic or noise sensitive areas. C.3 Review traffic flow systems and synchro- nize signalization, wherever possible to avoid traffic stops and starts, which produce excessive noise, and to adjust traffic flow to achieve noise levels acceptable to surrounding areas. C.4 Apply the residential noise policies of this element in the review of proposals for the construction or improvement of any roadway, railroad, transit system or other noise producing facility. AIRPORT A. GOAL A City that achieves long-term compatibility between the airport and surrounding land use. B. OBJECTIVES B.I TominimizenoiseimpactsonCityresidents, the City has planned for non-residential land uses within the65 dBACNELNoise Contour ofMcClellan-Palomar Airport, as shown on Map 3: Airport Noise Contour Map. B.2 To develop and enforce programs dealing with airport noise disclosure, avigation easements and noise control that provide for noise compatibility with surrounding land uses. C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS C. 1 Encourage the development of compatible land uses and restrict incompatible land uses surround- ing airport facilities. Page 8 GlNO DlFANTE P.O. Box 2442 • Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 (949) 887-7557 • Fax: (760) 944-2885 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED To: Van Lynch HIMin?nnfiCarlsbad Planning Department JUN J u *UUD CJTY OF CARLSBAD From: GinoDiFante PLANNING DEPT Date: June 30, 2006 Subject: CP 06-01 - The Romeria, 7565 Romeria Street; Planning Department issue resolutions. Items submitted: 1) Wall Issue. City General Plan required noise element wall. • Copy of noise element of the City General Plan (specific sections that apply to my site or project). • Acoustical analysis and current addendum to the analysis. • Copy of Planning Department Plan Check form dated July 17, 2002 from Greg Fisher requesting an acoustical analysis be done for the project. • Copy of specific sections of the current plan development ordinance that apply to my site or project. • Photos and addresses of other planned developments or condominium projects on La Costa Avenue that have the same size noise element wall in the same site location as my noise element wall along the property line. f - 2) Storage Issue. • Stor^gi area plan is provided loft storage in the garage of each unit will be installed per the PlanVng Department issue resolution. 3) Patio Area Issues. • Patio and balcony plan provided 135 square foot balcony/deck will be installed for unit #3 per the Planning Department issue resolution. • Optional balcony/deck for unit #4. Please see note on plan. GlNO DlFANTE P.O. Box 2442 • Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 (949) 887-7557 • Fax: (760) 944-2885 June 30,2006 Van Lynch City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: CP 06-01 - The Romeria Condominiums Site Location: 7565 Romeria Street, La Costa, CA 92009; corner of La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street. Dear Van: I have submitted to you the information required that you requested to resolve the issues with my project. I have provided documents and information to address the issue the Planning Department has with the required noise element wall, for you to review and possibly resolve the issue. A storage area plan is provided and a patio and balcony plan is provided that shows the resolution to the issues that you requested. Van, I have a note on the patio and balcony plan with respect to the existing patio area for unit #4. The landscaped corner of the patio area is 18 inches short of 15 feet. I show an optional balcony/deck for unit #4 on the plan that can be installed if you feel the existing patio area is too small for unit #4. Please respond to the information provided at your earliest convenience. I appreciate your cooperation and thank you for allowing the patio access to the balcony/deck area to be installed. The patio access really makes it more desirable. I look forward to working with you on my project and if you feel there is something more I can do to the project in order to get the condominium conversation approved with the Planning Department, please let me know. Please call me with any questions you might have or to meet with me to discuss the project. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Gino DiFante CP 06-01-THE ROMERIA March 29, 2006 Page 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Per the Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45) in the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), an average of 50% of the required setback area that is located closest to an arterial (La Costa Avenue) shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. Project perimeter walls cannot be located in this landscape buffer. The landscaped buffer shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage. The project currently does not meet this standard since the plans indicate there is no landscaping buffer and perimeter walls are located in this landscaping buffer (setback). 2. Please show on the site plan the storagespace area required per the Planned Development Ordinance. Each unitis^Feqtfired to have 480 cubic feet of separate storage space peTTmitrJlaJI_storage1§1ocated in one unit, the space may be reduced to 392 cubic feet. The spac^payue"tte«igDsd_asan enlargement of the required covered /2&$v£•</£& parking structure providetflt does not extendlfittHhe^area of the required parking stall. ' \ This requirement is^naddition to closets and other indoor storage areas. 3. Each project of 1-10 dwelling units must have a 15x15 foot patio or 120 square feet of balcony area to satisfy the recreational space requirements. The only unit that complies with this requirement is Unit 1. Please show on the site plan how, the existing project proposes to comply with this development standard. 4. Engineering: None Fire Prevention: None GlNO DlFANTE P.O. Box 2442 • Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 .£ (949) 887-7557 • Fax: (760) 944-2885 LETTER OF TRANSMITT AL RECEIVED Chris Sexton _ ^ Carlsbad Planning Department^^r3^ Date: September 25, 2006 Subject: CP 06-01 - The Romeria, 7565 Romeria Street; Planning Commission Hearing Re: Items requested by Planning Department for the November 1, 2006 Planning Commission Hearing. Items submitted: 1) 10 copies of site plan, existing landscape plan, building elevation plans, floor plans on 24" x 36" sheets of paper, stapled in complete sets, folded into 9" x 12" size. 2) One 8Vi" x 11" copy of reduced site plan, building elevation, floor plans and existing landscape plan. 3) 600' owners list; typewritten list of names and addresses of all property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property. 4) Mailing labels - two separate sets of mailing labels of the property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property. 5) Radius map - a map to scale, not less than 1" = 200', showing all lots entirely and partially within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. 6) Check to pay for the cost of mailing notices. 7) One 24" x 36" colored copy of the existing landscape plan. 8) 10 copies of the subject property acoustical analysis and addendum to it dated April 25, 2006. 9) Copy of the request for an acoustical analysis for the subject property by the City Planning Department on July 17, 2002. 10) Letter to Chris Sexton on Planning Department issues regarding subject property and proposed resolutions on plans submitted. RECEIVED GlNO DlFANTE 1 " 5006 P.O. Box 2442 • Capislrano Beach, CA 92624 ;: ;'Y OF CARLSBAD <M9) m'75S7'Fax: (760) »"& ,';LAWNING DcPT To: Chris Sexton C//y f/ '^" ^ Carlsbad Planning Department p, ^ ^^ From: Gino DiFante Date: September 25, 2006 Subject: CP 06-01 - The Romeria, 7565 Romeria Street; Planning Commission Hearing Submittal. Dear Chris: I am providing all the items requested in your letter dated August 28, 2006. I want to let you know that I have drawn in balcony/decks on the existing landscape plan and the site plan to hopefully resolve the issue with the required recreational space. Please review the plans. The site plan and existing landscape plan also addresses the issue with the noise wall. The landscape plan shows existing landscaping along the noise wall to enhance the street scene of the subject property and to soften the visibility of the noise wall. There is also landscaping along the interior of the noise wall to enhance the homeowners' view of the noise wall. Hopefully, this will resolve the noise wall and landscape issue. There are notes on both plans regarding the proposed balcony/decks for Unit #2, Unit #3, and Unit #4, per the Planning Department issue resolution. There are notes on both plans regarding the noise attenuation wall, and I have provided 10 copies of the acoustical analysis for the subject property, hopefully to help resolve the issue. Chris, if there is anything more you will need from me for the hearing, please don't hesitate to ask. Please also let me know when you want me to submit the colored elevations and exhibit for the hearing. Chris, I'm sorry I was unable to get you the 8'/2 " x 11" reduced copies you needed before today. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Gino DiFante J r v . ,., ",~ ~ ,.\-\'..~'\ ,-~- Jj l~",il I~'"- r ) .', 8..1- I ~ rY~:s:~L4 C!...e>:r r-4 City of Carlsbad Planning Department July 18, 2002 Ann Gunter/Lightfoot Planning Group 702 Civic Center Drive Oceanside, CA 92054 SUBJECT: PRE 02-025 - CASA LA COSTA APN: 223-170-33 A preliminary review of your project was conducted on July 11, 2002. Listed below are the issues raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your project. The preliminary review does not represent an in-depth analysis of your project. Additional issues of concern may be raised after your application is submitted and processed for a more specific and detailed review. Planning; 1. The permits required for this project include: a Tentative Tract Map, a Condominium Permit (for air-space ownership units) and a Site Development Plan (for the Q overlay and the processing of the affordable units). 2. Staff does not initially support the proposal for a 24' wide driveway that functions as an internal street system. Fire and Engineering staff also comment on this issue. The overall site design with the street "backing" to RSF Road and pedestrian focus is noted and supported by staff. The street. width/driveway width issue needs discussion and resolution so that staff can support a project with scale of density proposed. 3. Staff's initial position is that the duplex unit does not need to conform to Table D in the PO ordinance since a multi-family project is proposed. However, this will be reviewed upon a redesign of the project to be sure there are no operational or other issues with such an arrangement. 4.Setback compliance will be re-assessed after project re-design, parameter is the setback off of a driveway (5') vs. a street (20'). The main A noise wall can be located in a setback area if warranted by a noise study. In this case, the wall will be considered a noise wall instead of a project 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us PRE 02-025 - CASA LA GOSTA JULY 18, 2002 PAGE 2 _ perimeter wall, Heavy landscaping, consistent with the City's Landscape Manual, will also be required. 6. Recreation area: calculate the recreation space required and provide as common active and private passive as required by the PD ordinance. A project of this scale will need to provide a range of active amenities that serve a range of age groups (children, teens, young and elderly adults). Provide a summary table that quantifies these areas and indicates their minimum required sizes. 7. RV spaces; also provide a summary table with calculations resulting in the .overall RV storage requirement for this project. 8. Rancho Santa Fe road landscaping needs to be consistent with the City's Landscape Manual. 9. Be sure guest parking dispersal is adequate to serve all units and that pedestrian pathways or sidewalks physically link guest parking areas with residential units. 10. Archeo/paleo monitoring will be required during grading. 1 1 . Garage floor plans will need to depict storage areas that are in excess of, or in addition to, minimum garage area dimensions (20 x 20' interior dimensions). 1 2. Provide a letter from Coast Waste indicating their ability to service the project. Engineering: Significant Issues 1. In order to facilitate the compliance of this project with Order No. 2001-01 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the following are some criteria that must be incorporated into the design of the project: a) Efforts should be made to ensure that post development storm run-off flows and velocities do not exceed pre-development storm run-off flows. This can be proved via engineering calculations in a project hydrology/hydraulic report. This report must be submitted as part of the discretionary review application. b) Revise the plan to incorporate Best Management Practices (BMP's) as outlined in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks, latest edition. Depending on the anticipated pollutants generated from the site, these measures may include but are not limited to one or a combination of grass swales, pollution control basins, inlet filters, PRE 02-025 - CASA LA COSTA JULY 18, 2002 PAGES Housing and Redevelopment Department: 1. Generally, the Housing & Redev. Dept. does not support the project as proposed. 21.85.040G states "The design of the inclusionary units shall be reasonably consistent or compatible with the design of the total project development in terms of appearance, materials and finished quality." These plans don't meet this standard. The differences between the market rate and affordable units makes the affordable units stand out too much. We could support the project if they made the affordable units more similar to the market units. This could be accomplished by having 2-car garages, second story balconies and varying the floor plan to have larger (more s.f.) 2 br units, 3 bedroom floor plans, or 2 br. + plus lofts. Please contact Eric Munoz at (760) 602-4608 if you have any questions, or Jeremy Riddle with any Engineering questions at 602.2737. Sincerejy, X3ARY E.WAYNE Assistant Planning Director GEW:EM:mh c: Michael J. Holzmiller Don Rideout Jeremy Riddle Bob Ledesma Martin Aguilera Craig Ruiz Bill Plummer File Copy Data Entry ! Medlin & Associates Acoustical Consultants Acoustical Analysis Report Casa La Costa Condominiums Report Number CLC1 Prepared for: The Life Group 28118 Agoura Road Agoura Hills, CA 91301 and The Lightfoot Planning Group 702 Civic Center Drive Oceanside, CA 92054 Submitted by: !/ Kathy Medljh December 12, 2002 760-930-6515 . 3faz 130941, Qoxtofad, ea 92013-0941 SUMMARY Six-foot high (minimum) free-standing sound walls are recommended on the project boundaries facing La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. Four-foot high (minimum) walls are recommended on the southern project boundary and on the boundary facing Levante Street between La Costa Avenue and the project entrance. Sound walls may be of any non-porous material with a mass of at least four pounds per square foot, containing no gaps or openings. Mechanical ventilation is recommended for those buildings along the perimeter of the project facing La Costa Avenue, Rancho Santa Fe Road, and the southern project boundary. Medlinft Associates Summary Casa La Costa INTRODUCTION The Life Group, Inc. plans to build thirty-nine condominiums at the southwest corner of the intersection of La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). According to city guidelines, a noise report is required for "residential projects requiring a discretionary permit containing five or more dwelling units...located within or 500 feet beyond the 60 dB(A) CNEL1 noise contour line of the Noise Contour Map approved as part of the Carlsbad General Plan."2 This report has been prepared in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual dated September 1995. It constitutes a "One-Step Complete Noise Report" as defined on page 39 of the Manual. Any inconsistencies between methods prescribed in the Manual and those used this report are noted as such. This report only addresses the impact of road traffic noise on the project. Excluded are impacts resulting from nearby establishments (fire station, church, child care center, shopping center), use of the project (tenant-generated noise), construction, and aircraft VICINITY MAF«w state CARL 30AP i Figure 1: Vicinity Map 1 Community Noise Equivalent Level; see Appendix 2 for definitions 2 City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual, September 1995 Medlin & Associates 1 Casa La Costa PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project comprises thirty-nine single-family attached dwellings to be built on a roughly pentagonal plat located at the southwest corner of La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road in Carlsbad (Figure 2). The site is bounded on two other sides by Levante Street to the northwest, and Centella Street on the west, both which are lightly-traveled local streets. The site is partially graded, with slopes leading up to La Costa and Rancho Santa Fe. Additional grading is planned which will lower the elevation of usable land, effectively increasing the heights of these slopes. The site lies on a CNEL 70 contour for future (2010) noise as shown on the General Plan map "Future Noise Exposure Contours". The site is located approximately four miles away from McClellan-Palomar Airport, and is not within the Airport Influence Area. Other uses in the area include a church and accompanying child center to the south (with parking lot), a shopping center across Rancho Santa Fe Road, a Boys and Girls Club, some vacant lots and additional residential units. A fire station is situated within the project boundaries, but is scheduled for removal. The layout of the project lends itself to noise mitigation. The site is sunken beneath the level of the two busiest roads, with the outer buildings forming an intrinsic noise barrier around the rest of the project. An access road runs along the perimeter of the site facing onto La Costa Avenue, Rancho Santa Fe Road, and the southern project boundary. The buildings are set close to this road, allowing more useable space within the central part of the project. With the exception of a few auxiliary patios, there are no recreational areas on the access-road side of the buildings. Most recreational spaces, including main patios, balconies, barbecues, and a playground, are either on side yards or within the inner part of the project. For noise modeling purposes, these areas will be considered "back yards" as described in "Future Noise Environment" below. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Exterior Noise Chapter IV of the Noise Element of the Carlsbad General Plan addresses land use measures for the control of noise within the city. Specifically, section C.5 under "Land Use" states that "sixty (60) dBA CNEL is the exterior noise level to which all residential units should be mitigated" which are not subject to noise from Palomar Airport. Section C.5 goes on to state that if exterior noise levels cannot be mitigated to this level, then development should not be approved without one or more of the following: (1) "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect (noise)" Medlin & Associates 2 Casa La Costa 'l2-dl-2004 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: 12/01/2004 # Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Project Title: uity of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Residential Permit Permit No: CB041488 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 7729 CALLE ANDAR CBAD RESDNTL 2231704400 $557,398.00 3 9 Sub Type: CONDO Lot#: 0 Construction Type: VN Reference #: CT020029 Structure Type: MF2-4 Bathrooms: 7.5 CASA LA COSTA-BLDG 2- 3 UNITS Status: ISSUED Applied: 02/10/2004 Entered By: RMA Plan Approved: Issued: 12/01/2004 Inspect Area: Orig PC#: PC030067 # 20-22, 6775 SF.1396 SF GAR.174 SF DECKS-7729,7731 & Plan Check*: PC040011 Applicant: TRIMARK PACIFIC-CASA LA COSTA L L C C/O SOCT SANDSTROM 613 W VALLEY PKWY #200 ESCONDIDO CA 92025 Owner: TRIMARK PACIFIC-CASA LA COSTA L L C C/O SOCT SANDSTROM 613 W VALLEY PKWY #200 ESCONOIDCVCA 92025 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park in Lieu Fee Park Fee LFMFee Bridge Fee Other Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee , v Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'l Pot. Water Con. Fee Reel. Water Con. Fee $1,929.94 $0.00 $1,254.46 $0.00 $0.00 $55.74 $5^3.1.00 $6.00 $930.00 $0.00 $1 .272,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Meter Size Addl Reel. Water Cort. Fee Mete Fee SDCWA Fee CFD Payoff Fee PFF PFF (CFD Fund) License Tax License Tax (CFD Fund) Traffic Impaet Fee Traffic Impact (CFD Fund) Sidewalk Fee PLUM6ING TQT^L ELECTRICAL Housing Impact Fee Housing inLieu Fee Housing Credit Fee Master Drainage Fee Sewer Fee Additional Fees TQTA1 PSRlf T FEES- $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,144.64 $9,364.29 $0.00 $0.00 $1,139.28 $1,284.72 $0.00 $450.00 $110.00 $153.50 $0.00 $0.00 ' $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $34,019.57 Total Fees: $34,019.57 Total Payrnejits To Date:$0.00 Balance Due:$34,019.57 Inspector: 6540 12/01/04 0002 01 02 CGF" 34019-57 FINAL APPROVAL Date: f/Clearance: NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the 'Imposition' of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as fees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date this peimit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required Information with the City Manager for processing in accoidance 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 changes, 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 oiven a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. 12-01-2004 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: 12/01/2004 # Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Project Title: uny or oansDaa 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Residential Permit Permit No: CB041488 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 173/•?72§ CALLE ANDAR CBAD RESDNTL Sub Type: CONDO Status: ISSUED 2231704400 Lot#: 0 Applied: 02/10/2004 $557,398.00, Construction Type: VN Entered By: RMA Reference #: CT020029 Plan Approved: 3 Structure Type: MF2-4 Issued: 12/01/2004 9 Bathrooms: 7.5 Inspect Area: CASA LA COSTA-BLDG 2-3 UNITS Orig PC#: PC030067 # 20-22, 6775 SF.1396 SF GAR.174 SF DECKS-7729,7731 & Plan Check#: PC040011 Applicant: TRIMARK PACIFIC-CASA LA COSTA L L C C/O SOCT SANDSTROM 613 W VALLEY PKWY #200 ESCONDIDO CA 92025 Owner: TRIMARK PACIFIC-CASA LA COSTA L L C C/O SOCT SANDSTROM 613 W VALLEY PKWY #200 ESCONDIDO CA 92025 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park in Lieu Fee Park Fee LFM Fee Bridge Fee Other Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'l Pot. Water Con. Fee Reel. Water Con. Fee $1.929.94 Meter Size $0.00 Add'l Reel. Water Con. Fee $1,254.46 . Meter Fee $0.00 SDCWA Fee $0.00 CFD Payoff Fee $55.74 PFF $5,931.00 PFF (CFD Fund) $0.00 License Tax $930.00 License Tax (CFD Fund) $0.00 Traffic Impact Fee $1,272.00 Traffic Impact (CFD Fund) $0.00 Sidewalk Fee $0.00 PLUMBING TOTAL $0.00 ELECTRICAL TOTAL $0.00 MECHANICAL TOTAL $0.00 Housing Impact Fee $0.00 Housing InLieu Fee Housing Credit Fee $0.00 Master Drainage Fee $0.00 Sewer Fee Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,144.64 $9,364.29 $0.00 $0.00 $1,139.28 $1.284.72 $0.00 $450.00 $110.00 $153.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $34,019.57 Total Fees: $34,019.57 Total Payments To Date:$0.00 Balance Due:$34,019.57 6540 12/01/04 0002 01 02 CGP 34019.57 Inspector: FINAL APPROVAL Date: $//~Clearance: NOTICE: Please lake NOTICE that approval of your project includes the 'Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exactions.* You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(3), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 332.030. 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 changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing dr service fees in connecfon 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 lo^vhich the statuteJif limitations has previously otherwise expired. IJ ,9/1-rll PA-t2..ttC.A-7 .?-A-Cc:J~~ City of Carlsbad^ ••••••^•^•^^••••^••^^^•^•^••^•••••iPlanning Department March 10, 2003 Touchstone Communities 11668Sardis Place San Diego, Ca 92131 Kerry Garza SUBJECT: CT 02-25/SDP 02-10/PUD 02-13 - NORTHPARK AT LA COSTA Hi Kerry, Here is a list of hopefully the remaining planning issues. Please make the corrections and resubmit two sets of plans to the planning department. Planning: 1. Please provide all required guest parking on-site as required Chapter 21.45.060 of the CMC. 2. Please show full compliance in regards to Architectural Guideline #4. Each required plane must have a minimum of 30 square feet. Provide the square footage for each plane on the elevation drawings and provide a comment on the title sheet within the compliance table. 3. Due to the purpose and intent of SP208, staff recommends that you meet with the neighbors to the north (lots 1-7) to discuss possible privacy/fencing concerns and/or issues. This must be addressed prior to a hearing date. O As discussed at our meeting, please show the proposed noise attenuation wall along the entire easterly property line (lots 7 & 8, guest parking and passive park area). Please also have the noise study reflect these changes as welt as the required wall/fence height for lot 8. 5. Regarding the front yards for lots 10, 11 and 12, greater landscape detail is required to determine what retaining walls/walkways require safety railings. Please add this information to the conceptual landscape plan. If you have any questions regarding your Planning issues, please call Greg Fisher at (760) 602-4629. Engineering: 1. Provide a letter from the soils engineer that supports site drainage concentrated less than 5-feet from the foundation of the proposed structures (see the site plan and preliminary grading plan), Are there any 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad ca us iff ' - mJ-^'.J^rlt:^^if^^l5T^^r-iul'o-^' '^^^^^SS^1^^^^ 1Kl"& *< #*s> ^TablemrFMurejE^eraQpt^^ <A& ,J\ ,> t i-i* <t — »/<Hi . frnfr^ ;%JWS«MM!iC8WKS.4?*5''' *SP* '•Mi/'s^ <« i> ! -ftt J! * <*f~>^t*'«|r iS»«6SW5>'*rt * •• ^S^V^OVWt" »» Receiver Locations R-l ~ Lot 1 Private Outdoor Use Area R-2 ~ Lot 2 Private Outdoor Use Area R-3 ~ Lot 3 Private Outdoor Use Area R-4 ~ Lot 4 Private Outdoor Use Area R-5 ~ Lot 5 Private Outdoor Use Area R-6 ~ Lot 6 Private Outdoor Use Area R-7 ~ Lot 7 Private Outdoor Use Area R-12- Lot 12 Private Outdoor Use Area R-13 ~ Lot 11 Private Outdoor Use Area R-14 ~Lot 10 Private Outdoor Use Area R-15 ~ Lot 9 Private Outdoor Use Area R-16 ~ Lot 8 Private Outdoor Use Area Unmitigated CNEL 55.0 56.1 57.2 58.5 60.0 60.8 68.1 47.0 46.9 57.2 52.3 63.8 Barrier Height N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 feet/7 feet N/A N/A N/A N/A 6feet/7feet Mitigated CNEL * * * * * 60.0/60.0 60.8/59.6 * * * * 61.8/59.9 * Unmitigated CNEL noise level is in compliance; no mitigation is required for this lot. Pursuant to comply with the City of Carlsbad requirements, the project design may be modified to limit the sound attenuation barriers on Lots 7 and 8 at the proposed outdoor use areas to a maximum height of 6 feet. The restrictive six-foot high sound wall is the greatest feasible height consistent with visual impacts desirable by the City. The difference in noise attenuation provided by the six-foot high sound barrier as compared to the seven-foot high barrier results in a less than significant noise impact to these lots. Additionally, a six-foot high sound attenuation barrier is feasible if a permanent noise easement is placed upon Lots 7 and 8 in this project. This easement would require that potential owners or renters of the property are notified in writing of the less than significant noise-impacted nature at the respective private outdoor use areas. This provision will ensure compliance with the City of Carlsbad Noise Element. For more information, please refer to the attached Site Development Plan Showing Future Exterior CNEL at Outdoor Use Areas with Proposed Sound Attenuation Barrier Locations and Heights. Douglas Eilar & Associates Project #A21124 December 23,2002 Page 9 6.2 Interior Proposed sound attenuation barriers will not block the traffic noise from higher floors or rooms with a direct line-of sight to the roadways, and interior noise levels may consequently exceed the 45 CNEL requirement. Mitigation to these upper floors and/or unprotected rooms is feasible and attainable through common construction practices, but would require a supplemental exterior-to- interior acoustical analysis to determine the exact nature and extent of this mitigation, if applicable, at the time the building plans are submitted. 7.0 CERTIFICATION The findings and recommendations of this acoustical analysis report are a true and factual analysis of the potential environmental effects associated with this proposed development. This report was prepared by Michael Burrill, Jessica Rasmussen and Douglas Eilar. Michael Burrill, Acoustical Consultant Douglas K. Eilar, Principal Douglas Eilar & Associates Project #A21124 December 23,2002 Page 10 8.0 REFERENCES 1. California Department of Transportation, Sound32 Traffic Noise Model. 2. City of Carlsbad, Noise Element to the General Plan. 3. Heeden, Robert A., Compendium of Materials for Noise Control, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, November 1978. 4. SanDAG, Regional Transportation Internet Sites (traffic counts and projections). 5. Wyle Laboratories, December, 1973, Development of Ground Transportation Systems Noise Contours for the Carlsbad Region. 6. 1998 California Building Code, Based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Appendix Chapter 12, Division II - Sound Transmission Control, Section 1208 - Sound Transmission Control. Douglas Eilar & Associates Project #A21124 December 23,2002 Page 11 I 11I I 11fliiiljiI!1' fv\ 08-17-2004. Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: 08/17/2004 # Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Project Title: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Residential Permit Permit No: CB042087 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 3184 CORTE TRADICION CBAD RESDNTL Sub Type: SFD 2231705000 Lot#: 4 $259,887.00 Construction Type: NEW Reference*: CT02-25 Status: Applied: Entered By: ISSUED 03/08/2004 SB Plan Approved: 1 SFD 3.5 Structure Type: 4 Bathrooms: TRADITIONS @ LACOSTA PLN 2 2829 SF LIVING.475 SF GARAGE, 13 SF PORCH Issued: 08/17/2004 Inspect Area: Orig PC#: PC04-18 Plan Check*: Applicant: HALLMARK COMMUNITIES STE 200 10675 SORRENTO VALLEY RD SAN DIEGO CA 92121 858558-3310 Owner: Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park in Lieu Fee Park Fee LFM Fee Bridge Fee Other Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'l Pot. Water Con. Fee Red. Water Con. Fee / $1,039*36 $1.00 $675.58 $0.00 $0.00 $25.99 $0.00 $0.00 $310.00 $530.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$O;QO$6.00 $^f.G0 $0.00 $0.00 1 " '. • Meter Size Add't Red. Water Con. Fee Meter Fee SDCWAFee CFD Payoff Fee PFF PFF (CFD Fund) License Tax License Tax (CFD Fund) Traffic Impact Fee Traffic Impact (CFD Fund) Sidewalk Fee PLUMBING TOTAL ELECTRICAL TOTAL MECHANICAL TpTAL Housing Impact Fee Housing InLieu Fee Housing Credit Fee Master Drainage Fee Sewer Fee Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEfiS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,729.94 $4,366.10 $0.00 $0.00 $460.60 $519.40 $0.00 $168.00 $60.00 $56.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,941.47 Total Fees: $12,941.47 Total Payments To Date;$0.00 Balance Due: $12,941.47 9128 08/17/04 0002 01 02 12941.47 07-2003 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: 02/07/2003 # Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Project Title: Applicant: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Residential Permit Permit No: CB020453 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 7565 ROMERIA ST CBAD RESDNTL 2163001500 Lot#: , $655,916.00 Construction Type: VN Reference #: PRE00052 Sub Type: APT 15 Status: ISSUED Applied: 02/12/2002 Entered By: RMA Plan Approved: 4 . Structure Type: MF2-4 12 Bathrooms: 10 DIFANTE 4 PLEX APTS-7948 SF + 1830SFGAR Issued: Inspect Area: Orig PC#: Plan Check#: 02/07/2003 Owner: <3INO DIFANTE P O BOX 2442 92624 949 225-7488 ^07/03 }302 01 02 CGP * Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park in Lieu Fee Park Fee LFM Fee Bridge Fee Other Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'l Pot. Water Con. Fee Reel. Water Con. Fee $2,185.72 Meter Size $0.00 Add'l Reel. Water Con. Fee $1,420.72 Meter Fee $0.00 SDCWA Fee $0.00 CFD Payoff Fee $65.59 PFF $7,908.00 PFF (CFD Fund) $0.00 License Tax $1,240.00 License Tax (CFD Fund) $0.00 Traffic Impact Fee $1,272.00 Traffic Impact (CFD Fund) $0.00 Sidewalk Fee $0.00 PLUMBING TOTAL $0.00 ELECTRICAL TOTAL $0.00 MECHANICAL TOTAL $0.00 Housing Impact Fee $9,600.00 Housing InLieu Fee D5/8 Master Drainage Fee $0.00 Sewer Fee $0.00 Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES $0.00 $560.00 $8,016.00 $0.00 $11,937.67 $11,019.39 $0.00 $0.00 $1,082.88 $1,221.12 $0.00 $360.00 $110.00 $129.00 $11,700.00 $0.00 $20.46 $0.00 $0.00 $69,848.55 Total Fees: $69,848.55 Total Payments To Date: $1,420.72 Balance Due: $68,427.83 STORAGE- ATTACHED ISSUE B RECREATIONAL SPACE The existing private recreational space provided per unit is larger than what is required. This issue has been revised several times by the Planning Department. The Planning Department states first that the proposed balcony for Unit #4 overhangs more than two feet into the front yard setback. Then they revised the issue, saying that it overhangs into the driveway (project) setback - a new issue. Then they revised it to the front yard setback again. The proposed balcony for Unit #4 does not overhang more than two feet into the front yard setback and the new issue driveway (project) setback does not apply to my project. The planning Department will not apply the existing private recreational space provided per unit which is a larger space than what is required, in order to resolve this issue. THE ROMERIA CP 06-01 RECREATIONAL SPACE ISSUE The existing private recreational space provided for each unit is larger than what is required in the Planned Development Ordinance. Yet the Planning Department states that my project does not meet the recreational space standard in the Planned Development Ordinance. The standard states to provide a 15 foot by 15 foot patio, or 120 square feet of balcony area. The standard does not state the patio needs to be a perfect square. Fifteen feet by fifteen feet equals 225 square feet, so the standard is to provide a minimum of 225 square feet of adequate and usable patio area. The Planning Department will not apply the larger than required existing private patio and yard areas to my project in order to resolve this issue. I have proposed to construct balconies over the existing patio areas to resolve this issue. On June 30, 2006,1 submitted an existing patio area and proposed balcony plan to Van Lynch. On August 2, 2006, I received a denial letter on my project for the condominium permit. The letter stated that the proposed balcony for Unit #4 was overhanging into the front yard setback more than the two feet that is allowable. I believe Van Lynch measured incorrectly, because the front yard setback is 15 feet. He measured at a front yard setback of 20 feet. The proposed balcony does not project or overhang more than two feet into the front yard setback, whether it is 15 feet or 20 feet. The RDM Zoning and the P.D. Ordinance state a front yard public street setback to be 15 feet. On September 25, 2006, I submitted all the information required for the Planning Commission hearing. The information submitted consisted of resolutions to the two issues of denial cited in the August 2, 2006 denial letter. I also proposed balconies for Units 2, 3 and 4, which comply with all the setback requirements to resolve this issue of denial. On October 19, 2006, I received the DCC Report for the Planning Commission hearing and learned that the recreational space issue had been revised to state that the proposed balcony for Unit #4 is now projecting into the Driveway (Project) setback and no longer the front yard setback. The Driveway (Project) issue is one of two new issues applied to my project in the DCC Report. The Planning Department revised existing issues and added two new issues to the project ten days before the Planning Commission hearing. The new and existing issues do not apply to the project. I am willing to construct the balconies to resolve the issue if the City Council requires this. The major concern I have with the balconies is that the balconies will shade and darken the interior of the lower levels of Units 2, 3 and 4. This will create a less desirable and less appealing living area, and create greater energy consumption and cost, especially when there is existing larger than required private recreational space per unit already provided. My experience is that every time I resolve an issue, the Planning Department applies new issues to the project to keep it from being approved. This is not fair to me or my project for the Planning Department to do this. Please review the information provided on this issue. December 14, 2006 Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: CP 06-01 - The Romeria ISSUE B RECREATIONAL SPACE Please review the notes on the bottom right hand side of the existing landscape plan I submitted on September 25, 2006. The notes consist of the existing patio and yard area sizes and proposed balcony/deck to resolve the issue. The proposed balcony/deck size for unit #4 is 155 square feet, not 160 square feet as stated in the DCC Report. The Romeria Street setback is 15 feet and the proposed balcony/deck for unit 4 does not project more than 3 feet into the 15 foot front yard setback. This now has been changed to the driveway project setback. Please review the proposed balcony/deck area diagrams on the existing landscape plan. The driveway project setback is a new issue as of Thursday, October 19, 2006 in the DCC Report. I will address this issue separately. {-U-1 • EXCLUSIVE USt ARLA FOR #1 'EU-2 ' EXCLUSIVE USE AREA FOR #2 OI-3J EXCLUSIVE USE AREA FOR #3 fcU-4J EXCLUSIVE USE AREA FOR #4 COMMON LANDSCAPE AREA EU I EXCLUSIVE USE AREA IS PRIVATE LANDSCAPING EXISTING PATIO & YARD AREA SIZES PROVIDED: UNIT 1 - 1565 SQ. FT. PATIO & SIDE YARD UNIT 2- 369 SQ.ST. PATIO UNITS- 246 SQ.FT. PATIO UNIT 4 - 583 SQ. FT. PATIO & SIDE YARD M AREA'S A' Si EU CLA CITY REQUIRED PATIO AREA SIZE IS 15 FT.XI5 FT. = 225 SQ.FT. PLANNING DEPT. PROPOSED BALCONY/ DECK PER THE PLANNING DEPT. ISSUE RESOLUTION. FOR UNIT #2 & UNIT #3 & UNIT #4 UNIT #2-160 SQ.FT. BALCONY/DECK UNIT #3-160 SQ.FT. BALCONY/DECK UNIT #4-155 SQ. FT. BALCONY / DECK CITY REQUIRED BALCONY/ DECK SIZE IS 120 SQ.FT. PM U ^ X U< LU 00 Q O <(D CL U cc. LU ^ O meet the required recreational space private rear yard. Unit 2's recreational space measures less than the required 15 x 15 foot.,. Unit 4 does not comply with this requirement since the recreational space projects more than two feet into the front yard setback. 4. That the proposed project's density, site design and architecture are compatible with surrounding development, in that the neighborhood is developed with similar multiple-family structures. This decision may be appealed by you or any other member of the public to the Planning Commission within ten days of the date of this letter. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue in Carlsbad, along with a payment of $550.00. The filing of such appeal within such time limit shall stay the effective date of the order of the Planning Director until such time as a final decision on the appeal is reached. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Chris Sexton at 760-602-4624. Sincerely, DON NEU Assistant Planning Director DN:CS:bd c: David Rick File Copy Data Entry 1 9 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO DENY ROMERIA - CP 06-01, based on the following findings: Findings; 1. That the proposed project does not comply with all applicable development standards included within Chapter 21.45, in that the project does not meet the following Planned6 Development standards: a) Per the Planned Development Ordinance (PD), Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), an average of 50% of the required 30 foot setback area that is located closest to La Costa Avenue (secondary arterial) shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic. Project perimeter walls 10 cannot be located in this required 50% average landscape buffer area. The landscaped buffer area shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage. The project currently does not meet this standard as 12 jj there is no landscape buffer provided and a 6 foot tall project perimeter wall is located within the required landscape buffer setback area; 13 b) The project does not meet the PD private recreational space standards for one of the four un'ts- Pursuant to the PD standards, each unit in projects of 1-10 dwelling 1 5 t&Jf units m sae must have a *5 foot x ^ foot patio or 12t* square feet of balcony area tosatisfy the private recreational space standards. In addition, proposed balconies are 16 A Aof* not allowed to project into a required setback area. Unit 4 does not comply with these standards as the proposed 160 square foot balcony projects more than three 17 feet into the required 8* residence setback, which is measured from the edge of the project driveway; c) The existing structure does not meet the required PD project driveway setback standards, wnich require residences to be set back 8 feet, fully landscaped, and 20 /J & f garages to be set back 5 feet with both setbacks to be measured from the project driveway. The existing structure provides residence setbacks as little as 1.5 feet, with no landscaping, and garages with setbacks as little as 1.5 feet (Unit 1 garage); 22 and 23 d) The project does not comply with the PD architectural design elements standards. The project is required to provide at least three separate building planes on all 24 it &r building elevations with a minimum 18 inches of offset in planes. Currently, the £ project only provides three separate plans on the south (street) side facing elevation with a minimum 18 inches of offset in the planes. However, the north, east and west elevations do not meet this standard as they provide only 2 planes, instead of the required 3 planes. 27 28 PCRESONO. 6197 -2- CP06-01-ROMERIA November 1,2006 PageS Table A; RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Resident Parking Visitor Parking Private Recreational Space Required One car garage (12x20 minimum)and 1 covered and uncovered 2 spaces 15' x 15' patio or 120 square feet of balcony area. Provided Two car garage (20x20 minimum)/unit 2 spaces Units 1,2, and 3 meet this requirement. Unit 4 does not comply with this requirement since the proposed 160 square foot balcony projects more than 3 feet into the required front yard setback. Comply? Yes Yes No The applicant sent a letter to the Planning Director on June 5, 2006 attempting to resolve the outstanding PD standards compliance issues. The first issue of concern was the wall located in the arterial setback from La Costa Avenue and the required 50% average landscape buffer area required. When the applicant applied for a building permit to construct the four-unit apartment building, one of the requirements was to construct a noise wall which is a requirement in the City's General Plan and the Noise Guidelines Manual. The project is located along La Costa Avenue where the traffic noise is great enough to require the interior and exterior noise to be mitigated per the Noise Guidelines Manual. The applicant has submitted an acoustical analysis to substantiate his claim that the interior and exterior noise needed to be mitigated with a sound wall when the four unit apartment building was built. However, the applicant needs to meet both the noise standards of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance PD requirements, including the more restrictive standard. The Planned Development Ordinance would be the more restrictive standard since the wall cannot be located within the required 50% average landscape buffer area along La Costa Avenue. The applicant could have designed the project and located the noise attenuation wall in a manner that met all applicable General Plan noise standards and the Zoning Ordinance PD standards. The applicant had another issue of not providing enough storage space. Since the date of the letter, staff has worked with the applicant to provide adequate storage space within the existing garage to meet the PD standards. The last issue the letter addressed was the private recreational space standards. Staff has determined that Unit 4 does not meet the private recreational space standards. Staff has allowed the applicant to provide both patio and proposed balcony space to meet the recreational space requirement for Units 2 and 3. Unit 4 has a patio and a proposed balcony combination, however, the proposed balcony projects three feet into the required 8 foot project driveway setback, which is measured from the project driveway. 21.45.080 MULTIPL 'TArcnilcciural Design Elements Minimum Building Separation Resident Parking Visitor Parking Compact Parking Recreational Space / Private / * ' /Comhion / TABLE E (Continued) />nr>£? ^DWELLING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Tfiere shall be at least 3 separate building planes on all building elevations. The x minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include but not be limited to building walls, windows and roofs. 2. Building facades shall incorporate a minimum of four of the following types of design elements: __ a. Covered front porches (may count toward meeting recreation space require- ments); ,v b. A variety of roof planes; c. Windows and doorsjicejselijnimrnum of 2 injjics; d. Paned wlndows.ind.dQQa; e. Exposed rojCnfietlailsr f. Window and door lintels; g. Dormers; h. AccenLand varied shape windows; 1. Exterior wood elements; j. Raised stucco trim around windows and doors; k. Accent materials such as brick, stone, shingles, wood or siding; and 1. Knee braces. 20 feet average with a minimum of 10 feet between structures. No structures (i.e., stairs, stairwells, balconies, etc.) are permitted to encroach into this setback. 1. One 12 feet x 20 feet car garage and 1 covered or uncovered space per unit. 2. Studio units - 1.5 spaces; 1 covered per unit 3. Housing for senior citizens: 1.5 covered spaces per unit, plus 1 covered space for an onslte manager's unit (when provided). 1. 10 units or less: 1 space for each 2 dwelling units or fraction thereof. 2. 1 1 units or more: 3 spaces for the first 10 units, plus 1 space for each 4 dwelling units above 10. 3. Housing for senior citizens: 1 space for each 5' dwelling units. 4. Visitor parking spaces must be located no more than 150 ft as measured In a logi- . cal walking path from the entrance of the unit it could be considered to serve. 5. Visitor parking must be provided In parking bays. For projects of more than 25 units, up to 25 percent of visitor parking may be pro- vided as compact spaces (8 feel by 15 feet). No overhang is permitted into any re- quired setback area or over sidewalks less than 6 feet wide. *~ 1. Projects of 1— 10 dwelling units: 15 ft. x 15 ft patio or 120 square feel of balcony area. £&<T £#- FT, 2. Projects of more than 10 dwelling units: 10 ft. x 10 ft. patio or 6 ft. x 10 ft. bal- cony. . Projects of more than 10 dwelling units: See General Standards, Table C. (1) Scibacki are applicable to streets that include parkways and sidewalks along both sides. For existing streets without parkways, the front setback shall be as follows: Front porch -16 feet, residence • 20 foot minimum, side-entry garage -10 feet, direct entry garage • 20 feel. (2) TTie avenge front yard setback is determined by adding together all of the. unrt front yard setbacks (the setback for each unit should be meas- ured from thai element of each building, excluding projections, thai is located closest to the front property line) and dividing that total by the total number of project units. (Ord. NS-662 § 9, 2003; Ord. NS-612 § J (part), 2001) 717 (Carlsbad Supp No 5. W») City of Carlsbad ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMORANDUM DATE: June 11,2002 TO: Gino Difante, 7559 Romeria St FROM; John Maashoff, Engineering SUBJECT: CB020453; Cross Section and Calculations Required Please provide a detailed cross section and calculations showing proposed structures will not surcharge the existing storm drain or affect the ability to maintain/repair the storm drain if necessary. The City should be able to excavate and repair the storm drain using conventional trenching methods without compromising the integrity of any proposed structures. Cc: Building File John Maasboff told me to move the building over an additional 10 feet from the original site plan design and set back towards Romeria Street hi order to satisfy this issue. That changed the existing 12 foot city drainage easement into a 24 foot city drainage easement. This is what caused the patia area for Unit 3 to become smaller, but the patio area is still larger than the required 225 square feet. :i. 24,010 Chapter 21.24 RD-MRESroENTIAL DENSITY-MULTIPLE ZONE* Sections: 21.24.010 Intent and purpose. 21.24.020 Permitted uses. 21.24.030 Building height 21.24.040 Front yard. 2124.050 Side yard. 21.24.060 Setbacks—Subterranean parking. 21.24.070 Rear yard. 21.24.080 Yards—Structures over thirty- five feet in height 21.24.090 Accessory structures. 21.24.100 Lot area. 21.24.110 Lot coverage. 21.24.120 Lot width. 21.24.130 Improvements required. 21.24.140 Special conditions for certain lots. Prior ordinance history: Ords. 9060. 9251, 9336, 9455, 9513, 9534, 9638, 9658. 96T4, 9785, 9804. 1256.1261. NS-186, NS- 243. NS-274. NS-283. NS-355. NS-409, NS-662, NS-663 and NS- 675. 21.24.010 Intent and purpose. A. The intent and purpose of the RI>M resi- dential density ^multiple zone is to: 1. Implement the residential medium density (RM), residential medium-high density (RMH) and residential high density (RH) land use designations of the Carlsbad general plan; and 2. Provide regulations and standards for the development of residential dwellings and other permitted or conditionally permitted uses as speci- fied in this chapter. (Ord. NS-718 § 14 (part), 2004) 21.24.020 Permitted uses. A. In the RD-M zone, notwithstanding any other provision of this title, only the uses listed in Table A, below, shall be permitted, subject to the requirements and development standards specified by this chapter, and subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.44 governing off-street parking re- quirements. B. The uses permitted by conditional use per- mit, as indicated in Table A, shall be subject to the provisions of Chapters 21.42 and 21.50. TABLE A PERMITTED USES hi the table, below, subject to all applicable permitting and development requirements of the Municipal Code: • "P" indicates use is permitted. • "CUP" indicates use is permitted with the approval of a conditional use permit. • "Ace" indicates use is permitted as an accessory use. USE Accessory buildings/structures (ex. garages, workshops, tool sheds, patio covers, decks, etc.) (see note 1, below) (defined: Section 21.04.020) Animal keeping (household pets), subject to Section 21.53.084 Animal keeping (wild animals), subject to Section 2 1 .53.085 Aquaculture (defined: Section 2 1 .04.036) Bed and breakfasts, subject to Section 2 1 .42,0 1 0( 1 2)(A) (defined: Section 21.04.046) Biological habitat preserve, subject to Section 2 1 .42.0 1 0( 1 5XA) (defined: Section 21. 04.048) P CUP X X X Ace - X X X (Cidstud Supp. No. (0, 1144)606 ..1.24.020 3) Within the RMHcmdRHjpTd use designations, one-family dwellings are permitted when developed as two or more detached units on one tot Also, a single one^BSn^dweiling shall be permitted on any legal lot that existed as of October 28,2004, and which is designated and zoned for residential use. Any proposal to subdivide land or construct more than one dwelling shall be subject to the density provisions of the general plan and intent of the underlying residential land use designation. 4) A conditional use permit is not required for a golf course if it is approved as part of a master plan for a planned community development 5) Mobile homes must be certified under the National Mobilehome Construction and SafetyStandards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. Section 5401 et seq.) on a foundation system pursuant to Section 18551 of the State Health and Safety Code. 6) Public/quasi-public accessory utility buildings/facilities include, but are not limited to, water wells, water storage, pump stations, booster sta- tions, transmission/distribution electrical substations, operating centers, gas metering/regulating stations or telephone exchanges, with the nec- essary accessory equipment incidental thereto. (Ord. NS-718 § 14 (part), 2004) 21.24.030 Building height A. No building shall exceed a height of thirty- five feet (Ord. NS-718 § 14 (part), 2004) 21.24.040 Front yard. A. There shall be a front yard of not less than twenty feet hi depth with exceptions as follows: 1. Fifteen feet shall be permitted providing carport or garage openings do not face onto the front yard; and 2. Ten feet shall be permitted providing car- port or garage openings do not face onto the front yard, and that the remaining front yard is land- scaped with a combination of flowers, shrubs, trees and irrigated with a sprinkler system. Landscape plans and irrigation system plans shall be approved by the planning director prior to issuance of a build- ing permit for a proposed structure. (Ord. NS-718 § 14 (part), 2004) 21.24.050 Side yard. A. Every lot shall have side yard as follows: 1. Interior lots shall have a side yard on each side of the lot of not less man five feet in width; 2. Comer lots and reversed corner lots shall have side yards as follows: a. On the side lot line which adjoins another lot, the side yard shall be the same as that required on an interior lot, and b. On any side of a lot which is adjacent to a street, the side yard shall be ten feet, with exception that: the required ten-foot side yard abutting a street may be reduced to five feet, providing parking spaces do not open directly onto the street and, that the side yard is landscaped and maintained as pre- scribed in Section 21.24.040; 3. A zero foot side yard setback shall be per- mitted to one interior side yard, provided: a. That the owners of both lots common to the proposed zero side yard are in agreement with the concept, b. That a specific plan is filed with the city for approval, showing the proposed building locations, parking, and side yard areas for both lots, and c. That the remaining side yard shall be not less than twenty-five percent of the total lot width measured at die front setback line. (Ord. NS-718 § 14 (part), 2004) 21.24.060 Setbacks—Subterranean parking. A. Zero foot setback for subterranean parking shall be permitted provided the required setbacks for the dwelling structure are landscaped and main- tained as prescribed in Section 2124.040. (Ord. NS- 718 § 14 (part), 2004) 2124.070 Rear yard. A. " There shall be a rear yard of not less than ten feet in depth. (Ord. NS-718 § 14 (part), 2004) 21.24.080 Yards—Structures over thirty- five feet in height A. The above specified yard requirements ap- ply only to those structures up to a height of thirty- five feet. For any other structure which has had its height increased by approval of a specific plan, the yards shall be increased at a ratio of one and one- half additional foot horizontally, for each eight feet (Carlsbad Supp. No. 10.11-04)608 2L45.070 f- TABLE D (Continued) SMALL-LOT, SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - must have a plane change of a minimum of 18 inches between the two-car and one-car garages. This configuration must also break the roof plane with a design element such as a gable or trellis. Garages that are recessed 20 feet back from the forward-most plane of the house are exempt from this provision. Such garages may occur only when they do not exceed 40% of the wjdth of the home along the street frontage. . ' In special circumstances, when lots less than 5,000 square feet in size are permitted in a planned development, three-in-a-row car garages may not be used. Tandem garages are exempt from this requirement 2. 25% of all driveways for non-alley*loaded projects must be designed as "Pasadena" driveways with grass or enhanced pavement in the middle. 3. Driveways for side-loaded garages must incorporate enhanced pavement to improve appearance. • , (1) Lot width is measured 20* behind the front property line. (2) Setbacks are applicable to streets that include parkways and sidewalks along both sides. For existing streets without parkways, the front setback shall be as follows: Front porch - 15*. Residence - 15' (average), 10' (minimum), Side-entry garage - 10', Direct entry garage - 20'. (3) The avenge frontyird setback is determined by adding together all of the unit frontyard setbacks (the setback for each unit should be measured from (hat element of each building, excluding projections, that is located closest to the front property line) and dividing that total by the total number of project units. (4) Oarage standards do not apply to alley loaded projects. (Ord. NS-612 § 1 (part), 2001) 21,45.080 Multiple-dwelling development standards. A. . In addition to the general development standards found in Table C, planned developments that Include multiple-dwelling units shall comply with the following development standards listed in Table E, Multiple-Dwelling Development Standards. MULTIPLE TABLEE DWELLING DEVELOPMENT STANDARD! Stanrlflffj Livable Neighborhood Policy Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum Buildine Heieht Minimum Building Setbacks - Private or publ jc street (l) Driveway (Project) Requirement Must comply with city council Policy 66, Principles for the Development of Livable Neighborhoods. 60% on a protect basis. 35 feet. 1. To front porch; 1 1 feet 2. To residential structure: 15 foot average.*2' 3. To street side yard: 10 feet 4. To side entry garage: 10 feel 5. To direct-entry garage; 20 feet. 1. Residence: 8 feet, fiilly landscaped. 2. Garage: 5 feet 3. Garages facing directly onto a driveway shall be equipped with an automatic earaee door opener. (Carbbad242)716 ISSUE C DRIVEWAY (PROJECT) New issue as of October 19, 2006. This issue does not apply to my project. The Planning Department applied this new issue to my project on October 19, 2006 in the DCC Report after I had already appealed to the Planning Commission based on two issues of denial - Issue A and Issue B. THE ROMERIA CP 06-01 December 14, 2006 Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: CP 06-01 - The Romeria ISSUE C DRIVEWAY (PROJECT) This is a new issue applied to my project on October 19, 2006 in the DCC Report. Items provided to the City Council on this issue: (1) Driveway project photos of Casa La Costa and Northpark at La Costa - Planned Developments. (2) Casa La Costa and Northpark at La Costa site plans that show the driveway projects. My project complies and is only subject to comply to the public street setbacks of La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street because I do not have a driveway project on my site. A driveway project is a new non-conforming named private street within a Planned Development and is only permitted in a Planned Development. The driveway project (new street) is named in order to establish an address for each of the residences located on the new street. Attached or detached homes along the driveway project (named new street) are subject to the driveway project setbacks stated hi the current Planned Development Ordinance. A driveway project (new street) is non-conforming because it is only 24 feet wide and has no curbs or sidewalks on both sides of the street. A conforming street in the City of Carlsbad's Liveable Street Standards is 34 feet wide and has curbs and sidewalks on both sides. One example of a driveway project (new street) in Casa La Costa is 7729 Calle Andar and 7731 Calle Andar. Casa La Costa Planned Development consists of several driveway projects (new streets). Northpark at La Costa consists of one or more driveway projects as well. 3184 Corte Tradicion is one address on a driveway project in Northpark at La Costa. My project address is 7565 Romeria Street, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, and my project consists of a normal driveway, not a new street with a name and separate address for the units. Please review the items provided to resolve this new issue applied to my project at the last minute, by the Planning Department. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 2 DENIES THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO DENY ROMERIA - CP 06-01, based on the following findings: Findings; 1. That the proposed project does not comply with all applicable development standards 6 included within Chapter 21.45, in that the project does not meet the following Planned Development standards: 7 a) Per the Planned Development Ordinance (PD), Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), an average of 50% of the required 30 foot setback area 9 that is located closest to La Costa Avenue (secondary arterial) shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic. Project perimeter walls 10 cannot be located in this required 50% average landscape buffer area. The landscaped buffer area shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 * 1 lineal feet of street frontage. The project currently does not meet this standard as 12 there is no landscape buffer provided and a 6 foot tall project perimeter wall is located within the required landscape buffer setback area; 13 b) The project does not meet the PD private recreational space standards for one of 14 £Y)tde f°ur un'fa' Pursuant to the PD standards, each unit in projects of 1-10 dwelling 1 5 tfcdf un'ts in S'ze mus* have * ^ foot * ^ 'oot pat'° or ^ S4u*re feet of balcony area to r^i^ satisfy the private recreational space standards. In addition, proposed balconies are 16 ' not allowed to project into a required setback area. Unit 4 does not comply with ' these standards as the proposed 160 square foot balcony projects more than three 17 L^i feet into the required 8* residence setback, which is measured from the edge of the project driveway; 1 o c) The existing structure does not meet the required PD project driveway setback s , standards, which require residences to be set back 8 feet, fully landscaped, and 20 ft ^ , garages to be set back 5 feet with both setbacks to be measured from the project $ driveway. The existing structure provides residence setbacks as little as 1.5 feet, 21 fltf' w'tn no landscaping, and garages with setbacks as little as 1.5 feet (Unit 1 garage); 22 and 23 d) The project does not comply with the PD architectural design elements standards. The project is required to provide at least three separate building planes on all 24 n£i/ building elevations with a minimum 18 inches of offset in planes. Currently, the ,£. project only provides three separate plans on the south (street) side facing elevation / 0 with a minimum 18 inches of offset in the planes. However, the north, east and west 26 oc^ ' e'eva(lons <*o not meet this standard as they provide only 2 planes, instead of the required 3 planes. Tf 28 PCRESONO. 6197 -2- CP 06-01 - ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page 5 Table A; RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Livable Neighborhood Policy Required 1) Facades create interest and character and should be varied and articulated to provide visual interest to pedestrians. 2) Homes should be designed to feature the residence as the prominent part of the structure in relation to the street. 3) An interconnected, / modified (grid) street pattern should be incorporated intoV project designs when there are no topographic or environmental constraints. 4) Street trees should be planted in the parkways along all streets. 5) Pedestrian walkways should be located along or visible from all streets. 6) Park or plazas, which serve as neighborhood meeting places and as recreational activity centers should be incorporated into all planned unit developments. Provided 1) The project includes arched windows with architectural adornment and two-toned colored elevations. 2) The project incorporates front-loaded garages. All garages are separated by landscaping and a decorative front entry feature. Also, all dwelling units have street facing jront-doors.^x>*^.-- ^ " *^^ <x — ^^3> The proposed project will not create any new streets. Sw ^^^^^ 4) The project will not require any street trees since no new streets will be created. 5) No walkways are required to be provided since no new streets will be created. 6) The project site is not required to provide community recreation areas. Comply? Yes Yes Y/A N/A N/A N/A City of Carlsbad Utility Bill P.O. Box 9009 • Carlsbad CA 92018-9009 • (760) 602-2420 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS ACCOUNT NUMBER 08025700-00 SERVICE ADDRESS 7565 ROMERIA ST 1 METER SIZE 5/8 METER NUMBER 0077006749 Previous Balance, Payment 11/lC/Otf, BALANCE FORWARD^ •; Water Usage' 3 9 1.51 Monthly Delivery Charge CURRENT CHARGES TO AVOID PENALTY PAY BEFORf TOTAL AMOUNT DUE ' Recyclable and made from recycled paper PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT City of Carlsbad Utility Bill P.O. Box 9009 • Carlsbad CA 92018-9009 • (760) 602-2420 ACCOUNT NUMBER - o n _ c ,0 o O 2 5 SERVICE ADDRESS 7565 ROMERIA '00-00 Q CHECK TO INDICATE CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS ST 1 TO AVOID PENALTY PAY BEFORE 12/18/06 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $14.28 GINO DIPANTEPO BOX 2442CAPISTRANO BEACH, CA 92624-2442 Please make checks payable to: City of Carlsbad P.O. Box 9009 Carlsbad, CA 92018-9009 DflDS57DODDDDODDDmeflM City of Carlsbad Utility Bill P.O. Box9009 • Carlsbad CA 92018-9009 • (760) 602-2420 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS ACCOUNT NUMBER 08025600-00 METER SIZE 5/8 " SERVICE ADDRESS 7565 ROMERIA ST 2 METER NUMBER 0077006750 PREVIOUS READING OQ77/ PREVIOUS READ DATE 10/17/Qff * DAYS IN BILLING CYCLE 30 CURRENT READING 0089- CURRENT READ DATE 1 >• % l . ) f C.j'-' CURRENT USAGE ^ , ;, " 12 USAGE LAST YEAR TOT At AMOUNT DUE - £ ~\- .„- "'< <*» ,' « M :*• fi Previous BalancePayment ll/lS/O* BALANCE FORWARD Water Usage 12 9 1*68Monthly Delivery Charge CURRENT CHARGES /',-•.- ' ' TO AVOID PENALTY PAY BEFORE TOTAL AMOUNT DUS .,- 6*. 87 Or. 00 20.16 29.91 ) 1 t - 12/18/06 $29.91 j'arfirvani Trash collection for Ncwill be delayed_on^ CManage^ettf, a|, 7 6 Q -: " *-^ :a$lyl DETACH AT PERFORATION PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT Recyclable and made from recycled paper City of Carlsbad Utility Bill P.O. Box 9009 • Carlsbad CA 92018-9009 • (760) 602-2420 ACCOUNT ™MBER08025600-00 O CHECK TO INDICATE CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS SERVICE ADDRESS 7565 ROMERIA ST 2 TO AVOID PENALTY PAY BEFORE 12/18/06 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $29.91 GINO DIFANTEPO BOX 2442 CAPISTRANO BEACH, CA 92624-2442 Please make checks payable to: City of Carlsbad P.O. Box 9009 Carlsbad, CA 92018-9009 OflOE5bQOODOOODQ05'cmO City of Carlsbad Utility Bill P.O. Box 9009 • Carlsbad CA 92018-9009 • (760) 602-2420 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS ACCOUNT NUMBER 08025500-00 METER SIZE 5/8 " SERVICE ADDRESS 7565 ROMERIA ST 3 METER NUMBER 0077006756 - PREVIOUS READINa 0013 PREVIOUS READ DATE 10/17/0*: * DAYS IN BILLING CYCLE 30 CURRENT READING 0014 CURRENT READ DATE u/ae/o* t UNIT * 748 GAUON9 • . ' /* - • */:> ' -. li> '•(-** !• . , * * n"- • , CURRENT USAGE . 1" USAGE LAST YEAR TOTAL AMOUNT DUf- - ?** ', ' - <,' ; . "» Previous BalancePayment 11/16/06 BALANCE FORWARD Water Usage 1 9 1.51Monthly Delivery Charge ' CURRENT CHARGES TO AVOID PENALTY PAY BEFORE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 22.14 -22.14 0.00 1.519.75 11.26 12/18/06 $11.26 t ** ^v»^|r^/ThanJcsgivinc*")/ n; * 4Trash.be.Manigeraeafe DETACH AT PERFORATION PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT Recyclable and mad* from recycled paper City of Carlsbad Utility Bill P.O. Box 9009 • Carlsbad CA 92018-9009 • (760) 602-2420 ACCOUNT NUMBER.. fi _ f SERVICE ADDRESS 7565 ROMERIA 500-00 G CHECK TO INDICATE CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS ST 3 TO AVOID PENALTY PAY BEFORE 12/18/06 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $11.26 GINO DIPANTE PO BOX 2442 CAPISTRANO BEACH, CA 92624-2442 Please make checks payable to: City of Carlsbad P.O. Box 9009 Carlsbad, CA 92018-9009 OflOZSSQOaQODDOOOllSbl City of Carlsbad Utility Bill P.O. Box9009 • Carlsbad CA 92018-9009 • (760) 602-2420 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS ACCOUNT NUMBER 08025400-00 SERVICE ADDRESS 7565 ROMER1A ST 4 METER SIZE 5/8 » METER NUMBER 0077006757 Previous Balance..Payment 11/16/06 . BALANCE FORWARD i ' ' **• Water Usage 5 9 1,81 -Monthly Delivery Charge CURRENT CHARGES TO AVOID PENALTY PAY BEFORf TOTAL AMOUNT DUB $17^30 ' - 4, ' t •*.*"•,,£ •", *• f,,» ,.-;.. .•;*,£»;'4V.'t/ r - v#-*''*.,' ' -"l . ^' > -T . J'-^l -*• W DETACH AT PERFORATION ^ PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT City of Carlsbad Utility Bill P.O. Box9009 • Carlsbad CA 92018-9009 • (760) 602-2420 »• •" ^f-y » ; * , "I ' *?«£ . - ** ' -^ «^ "V *' •» %^-^k'-JN^ *«»*/»* ». *•%!';^:%i';^'^:;''M^:n^ T' - *M'' \-<$ '•> .'f4'^%»/- *^^<^*'t^^- ^ Recyolabla and made from recycled paper ACCOUNTNUMBER08025400-00 G CHECK TO INDICATE CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS SERVICE ADDRESS 7565 ROMERIA ST 4 TO AVOID PENALTY PAY BEFORE 12/18/06 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $17.30 GINO DIPANTEPO BOX 2442 CAPISTRANO BEACH, CA 92624-2442 Please make checks payable to: City of Carlsbad P.O. Box 9009 Carlsbad, CA 92018-9009 DfiDaSMOODDDDDDD0173DQ 2l\45.070 TABLE D (Continued) SMALL-LOT, SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS must have a plane change of a minimum of 18 inches between the two-car and one-car garages. This configuration must also break the roof plane with a design element such as a gable or trellis. Garages that are recessed 20 feet back from the forward-most plane of the house are exempt from this provision. Such garages may occur only when they do not exceed 40% of the width of the home along the street frontage. . ' In special circumstances, when lots less than 5,000 square feet in size are permitted in a planned development, thrce-in-a-row car garages may not be used. Tandem garages are exempt from this requirement 2. 25% of all driveways for non-alley-loaded projects must be designed as "Pasadena" driveways with grass or enhanced pavement in the middle. 3. Driveways for side-loaded garages must incorporate enhanced pavement to improve appearance. • (1) Lot width is measured 20' behind the front property line. (2) Setbacks are applicable to streets that include parkways and sidewalks along both sides. For existing streets without parkways, the front setback shall be as follows: Front porch -15', Residence - 15' (average), 10* (minimum). Side-entry garage -10', Direct entry garage - 20'. (3) The average fiontyard setback is determined by adding together all of the unit frontyard setbacks (the setback for each unit should be measured from that element of each building, excluding projections, that is located closest to the front property line) and dividing that total by the total number of project units. • (4) Oarage standards do not apply to alley loaded projects. (Ord. NS-612 § 1 (part), 2001) 21.45.080 Multiple-dwelling development standards. A. In addition to the general development standards found in Table C, planned developments that include multiple-dwelling units shall comply with the following development standards listed in Table E, Multiple-Dwelling Development Standards. MULTIPLE- Standards Livable Neighborhood Policy Maximum Lot Coveraee Maximum Building Height Minimum Building Setbacks Private or public street (l) Driveway (Project) !>WFiLL!NG DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Reouirement Must comply with city council Policy 66, Principles for the Development of Livable Neighborhoods. 60% on a protect basis. 35 feet. 1. To front porch: 1 1 feet. 2. To residential structure: 15 foot average/2' 3. To street side yard: 10 feet 4. To side entry garage: 10 feet 5. To direct entry garage: 20 feet 1. Residence: 8 feet, fully landscaped. 2. Garage: 5 feet 3. Garages facing directly onto a driveway shall be equipped with an automatic earaee door opener. (CarUbad2-02)716 CP06-01-ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page 6 Table A: RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum Building Height Minimum Building Setbacks Public Street Driveway (Project) Required 60% 35' 1) To front porch: 11 feet 2) To residential structure: 1 5 foot average 3) To street sideyard: 10 feet 4) To side entry, garage: 10 feet 5) To direct entry garage: 20 feet 1) Residence: 8 feet, fully landscaped 2) Garage: 5 feet 3) Garages facing directly onto a driveway shall be equipped with an automatic garage door opener. Provided 34% 21'8" 1)N/A 2) 1 5 foot minimum 3) 3 1.57 feet 4) 3 1.5 7 feet 5) N/A 1) 1.5 foot minimum 2) 1 .5 foot minimum 3) Automatic garage door openers on all 4 units Comply? Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A No No Yes.X <tf *s*7 Ill99" !i I 11 in m1\|| i ' L bin i'ii P l| I 1 !rBS nimm ? >1 •<, «I If i • Lli •« I i!!3 P if !H I nnKs» !«!! SSSSsss 5->±5s ss1;1 f O ft -Ifi *w n Ifi I PEC. RAFTINGS Hit MM City of Carlsbad ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMORANDUM DATE: June 11,2002 TO: Gino Difante, 7559 Romcria St FROM; John Maashoff, Engineering SUBJECT: CB0204S3: Cross Section and Calculations Required Please provide a detailed cross section and calculations showing proposed structures will not surcharge the existing storm drain or affect the ability to maintain/repair the storm drain if necessary. The City should be able to excavate and repair the storm drain tsing conventional trenching methods without compromising the integrity of any proposed structures. Cc: Building File John Maashoff told me to move the building over an additional 10 feet from the original site plan design and set back towards Romeria Street in order to satisfy this issue. That changed the existing 12 foot city drainage easement into a 24 foot city drainage easement. This is what caused the patio- area for Unit 3 to become smaller, but the patio area is still larger than the required 225 square feet. , EXISTING N£ICHBO«i «'WOOD FENCE ! iiH a.a 53 i i o> ROMEWA STREET *l ® ,5, ,.;. 5, 3 <.;. 8 DO 2 m m ^IO,-iO 30 O m30 g a i » il § !!! Ill si IHIi § 111!.H iii '»!! il SHE i HI « fjI s?s !? "§ liyi i i $ { i! 5r : a i ! i 3 9E 3 5 5-i i i s i * i5 1!+ y I si? iff! **ii ! 5 I | 7^44 V §!!! 1I 9 9 9 * M e • sm O OWNER. GINODIFANTE ?O BOX 2442 CAPRISTRANO StACH, CA 92624 THEROMERIA CP 06-01 7565 ROMERIA STREFI CARLSBAD, CA. 92009 DRAWN BY: LUNA DESIGNS RU8EN LUNA POX BOX 3JII VISTA. CA 92085 I.Mi! Ii! i l l{S i'lI i ! ! Il i -> , » I If 1 f . , ^jil'-«_^..._4~----------"i~S--^ -Xtaksf* i 1,1 i !!*§sr n!P PEC. RAFTING intHw ~ ;.p ~ )~'" ~rri J-~\to) 12-U1-2004 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: 12/01/2004 # Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Project Title: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Residential Permit Permit No: CB041488 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 7729 CALLE ANDAR CBAD RESDNTL 2231704400 $557,398.00 9 Sub Type: CONDO Lot#: 0 Construction Type: VN Reference*: CT020029 Status: Applied: Entered By: ISSUED 02/10/2004 RMA Plan Approved: Structure Type: Bathrooms: MF2-4 7.5 CASA LA COSTA-BLDG 2- 3 UNITS Issued: 12/01/2004 Inspect Area: Orig PC#: PC030067 # 20-22, 6775 SF.1396 SF GAR.174 SF DECKS-7729,7731 & Plan Check#: PC040011 Applicant: TRIMARK PACIFIC-CASA LA COSTA L L C C/O SOCT SANDSTROM 613 W VALLEY PKWY #200 ESCONDIDO CA 92025 Owner: TRIMARK PACIFIC-CASA LA COSTA L L C C/O SOCT SANDSTROM 613 W VALLEY PKWY #200 ESCONDIDO CA 92025 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fe© Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park in Lieu Fee Park Fee LFM Fee Bridge Fee Other Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'l Pot. Water Con. Fee Reel. Water Con. Fee $1,929.34 Meter Size $0.00 Add'l Reel. Water Con. Fee $1,254.46 Meter Fee $0.00 SDCWA Fee $0.00 CFD Payoff Fee $55.74 PFF $5,931.00 PFF (CFD Fund) $0.00 LicehseTax $930.00 License Tax (CFD Fund) $0.00 Traffic Impact Fee $1,272,00 Traffic Impact (CFD Fund) $0.00 Sidewalk Fee $0.00 PLUMBING TOTAL $0;00 ELECTRICAL TOTAL $O.OC) MECHANICAL TOTAL $0.00 Housing Impact Fee $0.00 Housing InLieu Fee Housing Credit Fee $0.00 Master Drainage Fee $0.00 SeWer Fee Additional Fees TOTAt PERMIT FEES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,144.64 $9,364.29 $0.00 $0.00 $1,139.28 $1,284.72 $0.00 $450.00 $110.00 $153.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $34,019.57 Total Fees: $34,019.57 Total Payments To Date:$0.00 Balance Due:$34,019.57 Inspector: 4540 12/01/04 0002 01 02 CGR 34019-57 FINAL APROVAL Date:Clearance: NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the 'Imposition' of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as fees/exactions.' You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other reputed 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 changes, 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. 12-01-2004 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: 12/01/2004 # Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Project Title: or uarisoaa 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Residential Permit Permit No: CB041488 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 173/-7729 CALLE ANDAR CBAD CONDO Status: ISSUED 0 Applied: 02/10/2004 VN Entered By: RMA CT020029 Plan Approved: RESDNTL 2231704400 $557,398.00, Sub Type: Lot#: Construction Type: Reference*: 3 Structure Type: MF2-4 Issued: 12/01/2004 9 Bathrooms: 7.5 Inspect Area: CASA LA COSTA-BLDG 2- 3 UNITS Orig PC#: PC030067 # 20-22, 6775 SF.1396 SF GAR.174 SF DECKS-7729,7731 & Plan Check#: PC040011 Applicant: TRIMARK PACIFIC-CASA LA COSTA L L C C/O SOCT SANDSTROM 613 W VALLEY PKWY #200 ESCONDIDOCA 92025 Owner: TRIMARK PACIFIC-CASA LA COSTA L L C C/O SOCT SANDSTROM 613 W VALLEY PKWY #200 ESCONDIDO CA 92025 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park in Lieu Fee Park Fee LFM Fee Bridge Fee Other Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'l Pot. Water Con. Fee Reel. Water Con. Fee $1,929.94 Meter Size $0.00 Add'l Reel. Water Con. Fee $1,254.46 . Meter Fee $0.00 SDCWA Fee $0.00 CFD Payoff Fee $55.74 PFF $5,931.00 PFF (CFD Fund) $0.00 License Tax $930.00 License Tax (CFD Fund) $0.00 Traffic Impact Fee $1,272.00 Traffic Impact (CFD Fund) $0.00 Sidewalk Fee $0.00 PLUMBING TOTAL $0.00 ELECTRICAL TOTAL $0.00 MECHANICAL TOTAL $0.00 Housing Impact Fee $0.00 Housing InLieu Fee Housing Credit Fee $0.00 Master Drainage Fee $0.00 Sewer Fee Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,144.64 $9,364.29 $0.00 $0.00 $1,139.28 $1,284.72 $0.00 $450.00 $110.00 $153.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $34,019.57 Total Fees: $34,019.57 Total Payments To Date:$0.00 Balance Due:$34,019.57 6540 12/01/04 0002 01 02 C.GP 34019-57 Inspector: FINAL APPROVAL Date: f/Clearance: NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you. must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(3), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing dr service fees in connection with this project NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. --~,-~ ! ~"',',-','",'-,',',"',,'"',,'"'0'"<,,.,.",C,/""",'''... '~~~-='--'--.--:> ~~.,."M ,-,1 ~IIi I ...i j iiF"~="~_.. ;::- ~- I ..I L :;r~"; 'j~'I=- |8-SSI1 ili?ii!!^P*i5^i^«P$igPIf illl PalPilri^^IsPsNPfs T; ---:--¥] --~ e'+S4 L4 ~~1"'4 j)t2.J II ';-lIh'I'''-C!'~v~C:;J 5'(~ II II ~~~~~'~_.~~,--~,., ~~~ l1:li t " ,I , i .. l II j t'-~"..is~..,.f~ ~ .- . ~.r"..- j tiI) --, L. ,.. l ~ ~i w, """I I .~ tJlrfA 0 ~?"rL4 fltlt/6~ f~-vU ~6f~~ f /JO f/ ~j~17"'Z fl--.$C<</'~~ (),,--4 (1M'C/fvtJ t:y &4-?~ .!A ~:7;'A ~f'??Ulf?~ pc€v'tdh~ JI l4, t<tOl flK--1L3 ...,...::'1.l ~~~" ~ i1 '"'ILl. ~ t4-:;/:j- #0 U Cd/5/4 cf/~I/V~ ~v<'c:>-,'c:54P',cp O.~)/~$ >6r~ Av^ut'5 f- - ! 5 0 V* CO 1 , -....... ~ IJ~~C:~ ?4--~..:r~ <r" ..., a II'...:)!II:;;:IU(j,'11:1~~~ ;(fv~~ rf7 LA-C-t->S.-/J4- J?/"-I v'Gu./4'T' (4.v:~7 I 1 ~r . ~ lJIIII'I .--...--- /'f",4$f/~Y ;tf ;/r"tP"~('k pp/y".ld fJuv~~( L£~(~ 1~ [I c;p,qf ,f~~V tj .',I" (110 J fv'!~r( //#fJ f-~yiJtfd? ~.~~.~,-./ -- , _., ;;...~,, "'...-I.~ ~~~."- ,~ ..v-~ ~""~..~. -~~.",,".. ~ 08-17-2004. Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: 08/17/2004 # Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Project Title: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Residential Permit Permit No: CB042087 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 3184 CORTE TRADICION CBAD RESDNTL Sub Type: SFD 2231705000 Lot#: 4 $259,887.00 Construction Type: NEW Reference*: CT02-25 1 SFD 3.5 Structure Type: 4 Bathrooms: TRADITIONS @ LACOSTA PLN 2 2829 SF LIVING.475 SF GARAGE, 13 SF PORCH Status: ISSUED Applied: 03/08/2004 Entered By: SB Plan Approved: Issued: 08/17/2004 Inspect Area: Orig PC#: PC04-18 Plan Check#: Applicant: HALLMARK COMMUNITIES STE 200 10675 SORRENTO VALLEY RD SAN DIEGO CA92121 858 558-3310 Owner: Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park in Lieu Fee Park Fee LFMFee Bridge Fee Other Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'l Pot. Water Con. Fee Reel. Water Con. Fee $1,039,36 Meter Size $f .00 Aden Reel. Water Con, Fee $675.58 MeterFee $0.00 SDCWAFee $0.00 CFD Payoff Fee $25.99 PFF $0.00 PFF (CFD Fund) $0.00 License Tax $310.00 License Tax (CFD Fund) $530.00 Traffic Impact Fee $0.00 Traffic Impact (CFD Fund) $0.00 Sidewalk Fee $0.00 PLUMBING TOTAL $0,00 ELECTRICAL TOTAL $aOt MECHANICAL tOTAL $0.00 Housing Impact Fee $0.00 Housing InLfeu Fee Housing Credit Fee $0.00 Master Drainage Fee $0.00 Sewer Fee Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FteS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,729.94 $4,366.10 $0.00 $0.00 $460.60 $519.40 $0.00 $168.00 $60.00 $56.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,941.47 Total Fees: $12,941.47 Total Payments To Date;$0.00 Balance Due: $12,941.47 9128 08/17/04 0002 01 02 12941.47 SIGNATURE ..llii: ~~ ISSUE D ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ELEMENTS New issue as of October 19, 2006. My project complies and meets this standard. The Planning Department applied this new issue to my project on October 19, 2006 in the DCC Report after I had already appealed to the Planning Commission based on two issues of denial - Issue A and Issue B. THE ROMERIA CP 06-01 December 14, 2006 Carlsbad City Council .1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: CP 06-01 - The Romeria ISSUE D ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ELEMENTS This is a new issue applied to my project on October 19, 2006 in the DCC Report. My project does comply to this standard and each elevation provides more than the required three separate planes. Balcony/deck and windows are considered planes in the current Planned Development Ordinance. Please review the elevations and number of planes for each elevation that I have provided to resolve this new last minute issue. The Romeria project's density, site design and architecture are compatible with the surrounding developments, as stated by the Planning Department on August 2, 2006, hi the denial letter from the Planning Department. Then, on October 19, 2006, hi the DCC Report, the Planning Department changes its statement regarding the project, saying that is not compatible; another last minute change by the Planning Department. meet the required recreational space private rear yard. Unit 2's recreational space measures less than the required 15 x 15 foot. Unit 4 does not comply with this requirement since the recreational space projects more than two feet into the front yard setback. 4. That the proposed project's density, site design and architecture are compatible with surrounding development, in that the neighborhood is developed with similar multiple-family structures. This decision may be appealed by you or any other member of the public to the Planning Commission within ten days of the date of this letter. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue in Carlsbad, along with a payment of $550.00. The filing of such appeal within such time limit shall stay the effective date of the order of the Planning Director until such time as a final decision on the appeal is reached. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Chris Sexton at 760-602-4624. Sincerely, DON NEU Assistant Planning Director DN:CS:bd c: David Rick File Copy Data Entry 1 2 20 22 23 24 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO DENY ROMERIA - CP 06-01, based on the 3 following findings: Findings; 1. That the proposed project does not comply with all applicable development standards 6 7 _ g 10 12 located within the required landscape buffer setback area; 13 b) The project does not meet the PD private recreational space standards for one of 14 p£toe four UD'ts< Pursuant to the PD standards, each unit in projects of 1-10 dwelling 15 t& f units m size must oave a ^ foot x ^ foot pat'° or 12° square feet of balcony area to satisfy the private recreational space standards. In addition, proposed balconies are 16 17 project driveway; included within Chapter 21.45, in that the project does not meet the following Planned Development standards: a) Per the Planned Development Ordinance (PD), Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), an average of 50% of the required 30 foot setback area that is located closest to La Costa Avenue (secondary arterial) shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic. Project perimeter walls cannot be located in this required 50% average landscape buffer area. The landscaped buffer area shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage. The project currently does not meet this standard as there is no landscape buffer provided and a 6 foot tall project perimeter wall is not allowed to project into a required setback area. Unit 4 does not comply with ?||4| these standards as the proposed 160 square foot balcony projects more than three feet into the required 8' residence setback, which is measured from the edge of the - , (, c) The existing structure does not meet the required PD project driveway setback standards, which require residences to be set back 8 feet, fully landscaped, and gara8es <o be set back 5 feet with both setbacks to be measured from the project driveway. The existing structure provides residence setbacks as little as 1.5 feet, with no landscaping, and garages with setbacks as little as 1.5 feet (Unit 1 garage); u d) The project does not comply with the PD architectural design elements standards. The project is required to provide at least three separate building planes on all fcy building elevations with a minimum 18 inches of offset in planes. Currently, the /<project only provides three separate plans on the south (street) side facing elevation with a minimum 18 inches of offset in the planes. However, the north, east and west elevations do not meet this standard as they provide only 2 planes, instead of the26 required 3 planes. 27 PCRESONO. 6197 -2- 2. That the proposed project's density, site design and architecture are not compatible with 2 ^surrounding development, in that the neighborhood is developed with similar A,g^" multiple-family structures, however the proposed condominium conversion project 3 rTy <>f cannot meet the minimum development standards of the Planned Development )irt/$ Ordinance. 5 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." . 8 You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If 9 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. 12 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, 14 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 15 NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 6197 -3- CP 06-01 - ROMERIA November 1,2006 Page? Table A; RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Required Provided Comply? Architectural Design Elements 1) There shall be at least 3 separate building planes on all building elevations. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include but not be limited to building walls, windows and roofs. 2) Building facades shall incorporate a minimum of four of the following types of design elements; a) Covered front porches (may count toward meeting recreation space requirements) b) A variety of roof planes c) Windows and doors recessed a minimum of two inches d) Paned windows and doors e) Exposed roof rafter tails f) Window and door lintels g) Dormer h) Accent and varied shape window i) Exterior wood elements j) Raised stucco trim around windows and trims k) Accent materials such as brick, stone, shingles, wood or siding 1) Knee Braces 1) There are at least 3 separate planes on the south building elevation. The minimum offset in planes is at least 18 inches. The north, east and west elevations of the building provide only 2 separate planes instead of the required 3 planes. 2) The project incorporates a minimum of four design elements that includes the following: paned windows and doors, accent and varied window shapes, raised stucco trim around windows and doors, and covered front porches. No Yes \ 5 N X i ! I EC. AFTING-SS ELEVATIONS KOWIHinUT rnUIM :> 1l:i"-<,s~iic~~.€-:i11"1!:ii'" ~iioi!'i''is ~i:i'~~ ."i~ . i ~~~,~.:;"<~T- .:. '1B '" ,:> 'I III II '. I' ~if~ ~g~.~=i2S ~a~i=3:'~~;g'1"~=:;IZ~e-Iri ==:C:OO I"'0na., ?Z~s;' ~.,~!!!~ ~-i ",II JI h ". III. II ~ .,,~ ~ I ~1" ~I-"0,',I~ ~<,> ~ . !~!~H ~:i~ ~~~~~~~~;''''":\1<;A~~~~;::.,,,"Q ~~C~.-.iii ;"-.;;!1~,f..f .~~_u -'~;;"~::.~-- ~~~~~~;~ 3~!It!",-!:i~ ~~:3~ ~§~~c -.ii ~""=-~E .~ ~, ,~c1 I I i~'[8.'\."'"'jII~",I i ~.;~ ~ Ii "j ~o , \ ~ I II j 'F .'Ec,.." . I .."I I ~,.- '~~~ ;,{, 01Z::cmO2::-f-mZ"'c- ,==-.-of: ~~:r,m"mm ~i~:z:I ,';:i,O ~B::l'!.'i'~mQ'g:z:l.,.,- .;;=::I> a:,R> ~a I .~..~ . , " , " , ' ,, :: , ..., . 1 ~1 " .~ " " , , ,, " , '~ , ',0, :.r~~ 1/ti (U;rr~iA £~7 ?'rLJ~/f4#c£> .f- I I............... , ~"""""".""" &ail'-II '. > ;.' ~_.- £~t7 51!,?~\! ~;?-~ ?/I-;/; 5"0,3 l/,A?-f~> -~, I -~ ~ --" ..~...~ -::::!:;1'i'-:' J.\ \\ \, ~ ,, .£. ~1 7/4? ~47J~ ~,.,;,.r /' II: wG57-5,,,~ f v1Ub? .1 .. I :1 ~ I i<...' ,I riI, I ptMl ~/O? fe-AN~> "'Q ;J 0 ,~a.l f't7tf (uJdJ t:; I ,\I "c.- .t .. ~ """""'" 1 (J4;7It- t-k u$~ " ~4-1.~ ..=.. f,~/~ f~d ~:~r---" ----------~-----r-~r_1 ~I tnit II~: H~""..' jI'I\~, of~.,.p -, J ,'L M '.. .'...Ii ".,,...1: 1"'. .,.""-- L'." ~ y ~~lft /d rt f~~i {!P7 ~.--::-- !-G &.. I I ... I I ~<--"'-;~ .... -......f - '".~ ~ I t --- 1'.~:J r-- ~~ A-.~'.------. ,l j r I I!'! ~~,- ...~ 1J...'f 'a\~,,\'--I '", I ~."\ t --- ~ k !/"1~f1':X{~7 (~f:7 ~~60/.f¥ /'"t #,1-;J;;:5 >- J ~-1-- j:-Ir lj;~/'-1- ;5?-&(.G ~p~~£ !-tel) #f'~--t.4r't- tA7<f).>6AP~ ~-1 . r- r- ---_.- . ~ - -~._,'t --"1&'I ~....... -.-..--- "IC.f"~~/'~ /t-r" L.4-~.t:~ PJ?,$-''//?' /4?Lt~ ,?A;¥P56r4-f'c .;;,---{""",/ /f1L-/~ /.41-1..0 f (!d-.v~ ,Nb/L:f7~/?~ ~?--f-~>/-WqtJf/~7' ~'l.--l.?'/.fff;0 ~~ 5~ -- lit"