Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-07-11; City Council; ; Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, and Minor Subdivision Pacific Wind SDP 15-18CA Review (}.L-- Q CITY COUNCIL Staff Report Meeting Date: To: From: Staff Contact: Subject: Project Name: Project No.: July 11, 2017 Mayor and City Council Kevin Crawford, City Manager fl('" Austin Silva, Associate Planner austin.silva@carlsbadca.gov or 760-602-4631 Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, and Minor Subdivision to allow for the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction of a 93-unit apartment (92 affordable units, plus one manager unit) development, including a development standards modification, and a street abandonment for a portion of Harding Street near the intersection of Carol Place. Pacific Wind SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) Recommended Action That the City Council hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's decision to approve Site Development Plan No. SDP 15-18, Coastal Development Permit No. CDP 16-04, and Minor Subdivision No. MS 16-01. Executive Summary On April 5, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the Pacific Wind project, which is a proposal to allow for the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction of a 93-unit apartment (92 affordable units) development, including a development standards modification for a reduced parking requirement. The item was continued to the Planning Commission agenda of April 19, 2017, to continue discussion and deliberation. On April 19, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project 4-2-1 with Commissioners Velyn Anderson, Neil Black, Lisa Rodman, and Kerry Siekmann voting yes, and Commissioner Marty Montgomery and Chairperson Jeff Segall voting no (Commissioner Patrick Goyarts absent). An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was submitted on April 28, 2017, by the Carlsbad Alliance for Responsible Development. Discussion Project Background: On November 6, 2012, the City Council approved a residual receipts loan in the amount of $7.4 million to assist a developer (Harding Street Neighbors, LP) in acquiring 42 existing duplex units on property located in the Barrio Carlsbad neighborhood to provide housing affordable to low income households. The loan documents were subsequently approved on January 29, 2013. The subject parcels are located along Harding Street, Carol Place, and Magnolia Avenue, generally north of Tamarack Avenue, south of Magnolia Avenue, east of Jefferson Street and west of Interstate 5. In approving the loan, the City Council identified the following public benefits: 1. Physical enhancement of a deteriorating neighborhood in the historic Barrio Carlsbad neighborhood through clean-up of the properties and minor rehabilitation of existing dwellings units to improve the health and safety of the residents. 2. Added diversity of housing opportunities for low and moderate income households through the rent restrictions and income qualifications; and additional rental homes. 3. Increase in inventory of low and moderate income affordable units within the city that would help the city meet Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) numbers set forth by the San Diego Association of Governments. 4. Reduced crime in the area through redevelopment of the site, and considerably better management of the units; this area had high crime rates and the rental homes had not been well maintained representing health and safety concerns for the residents and creating blighting conditions in the neighborhood which were leading to higher crime levels. The project was initially proposed as an acquisition and substantial rehabilitation project until the developer could acquire additional properties (with private monies) to allow for the construction of a larger apartment complex. The City Council was concerned that if the developer was unable to purchase additional properties, the city subsidy of $176,380 per unit would be too high for the yield of 42 affordable units. The Council decided that more affordable housing units for low income households were needed to warrant the requested city subsidies. Consequently, the City Council required that the developer immediately pursue purchase of additional properties and obtain land use approvals for a larger apartment complex, which would produce more affordable housing. A larger project would meet the intent of the general plan land use designation of 30 dwelling units per acre, as well as the State requirements to provide affordable housing. The funding agreement calls for acquisition and redevelopment of the site to be completed by December 31, 2018, or within four years after close of construction financing, whichever is later. The developer is not able to apply for construction financing until the land use permits are approved by the city. An additional term within the loan agreement requires the developer to obtain land use approvals and building permits for the new construction project by August, 2017, unless an extension was granted by the City Council. The developer is on target to meet this deadline for the land use approvals, but will likely be forced to request an extension to obtain the building permits and initiate construction. The original intent of the property acquisition was to consolidate the parcels and construct a high density affordable housing development with an estimated 140 units, based on the assumption that more properties could be acquired to ultimately create almost 7 acres for development. The developer initially proposed a development that included 120 units on a 4.8-acre site and also proposed abandoning a larger portion of Harding Street and all of Carol Place. City staff was not supportive of abandoning Carol Place because of its need for public use; city staff has observed that parents routinely use this street to park for pick-up and drop-off at Jefferson Elementary School. Based on staff concerns and the developer's inability to acquire one of the remaining privately held duplexes within the development footprint, the project proposal has been further scaled back to 93 units on 4.04 acres. The current project site consists of 22 existing parcels with 22 duplex buildings totaling 44 existing rental housing units, which would be demolished to accommodate the proposed apartments (refer to the reduced plans attached to Planning Commission Staff Report; Exhibit 5). Project Description The applicant is proposing to construct a 93-unit apartment {92 affordable units, plus 1 manager unit) project comprised of six buildings. The residential units will be located in five three-story buildings, and a two-story community recreation building will be located on the corner of Jefferson Street and Carol Place. Approximately 525 feet of the southerly end of Harding Street will be abandoned where it intersects with Carol Place. As a result, Harding Street would end in a cul-de-sac approximately 225 feet east of Magnolia Avenue and Carol Place would also end in a cul-de-sac where it currently intersects with Harding Street. Access to the site would be provided through a gated entrance at the end of the cul-de-sacs on Carol Place and on the north side of Harding Street. The proposed affordable apartment development complies with the General Plan and all applicable ordinances, standards, and policies, which are discussed in more detail in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 5 and April 19, 2017. Planning Commission Hearing: The Planning Commission considered the Pacific Wind project on April 5, 2017. During the public comment period, 22 people spoke on the item and 20 of them were in opposition to the project. The issues raised by those in opposition were traffic impacts, the heights of the buildings, parking, pollution, air quality, construction pollution, emotional damage, cut through traffic being blocked by the street abandonment, isolation from the community because of the gates, invasion of privacy, safety (Fire Department access), and the change to the character of the neighborhood. Two people spoke in favor of the project, citing the need for affordable housing in the city and that the project is in an ideal location for affordable apartments because it is close to Jefferson Elementary, churches, Pine Avenue Park, and a grocery store. Public testimony was then closed and due to time constraints, the project was continued to the meeting on April 19, 2017. At the subsequent meeting, city staff and the applicant responded to the public's comments and answered questions from the Planning Commission. Staff responded to traffic concerns by explaining that there is only a net increase of 206 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and the traffic study concludes that the re-routing of traffic from Harding Street to Jefferson Street will not have a significant impact on the Jefferson Street traffic. Staff informed the Commission that the Police and Fire Departments had reviewed the proposed abandonment of Harding Street and had no safety concerns. Staff responded to parking concerns by stating that affordable apartment projects have a reduced demand for parking, which is supported by multiple studies. The project is also within walking distance to Jefferson Elementary, a grocery store, churches, Pine Avenue Park, and transit. Staff noted that the last three affordable housing projects approved in the city included parking reductions. There was also additional discussion regarding the compatibility of a three- story building (Building 4) with the adjacent one-story residential uses. Although the proposed apartment buildings are consistent with the height standards for the RD-M Zone, the applicant was willing to revise the building plans to lessen the visual impact on the adjacent properties. The discussion led to the placement of a condition on the project requiring the relocation of two units at the south end of Building 4 to the west end of Building 2, thereby creating a two-story element at the south end of Building 4. Although the character of the neighborhood will change because this is a new development, staff explained that the proposed density of 23 dwelling units an acre is at the bottom of the range for the R-30, Residential General Plan Land Use designation. Thus the proposed project is more compatible than an alternative project with a higher density, or one that could invoke the Density Bonus Ordinance allowing for more units with the same parking rate. Another point of discussion by the Planning Commission was the gating of the project for both pedestrians and vehicles. The Planning Commission asked the applicant if they would consider removing the gates from the plan. The applicant responded that they preferred not to remove the gates, although they were open to leaving the pedestrian gate open during daytime hours. A motion was made, but did not pass, to limit gate access at the discretion of the project management company. The Planning Commission voted to approve the project 4-2-1 with Commissioners Velyn Anderson, Neil Black, Lisa Rodman, and Kerry Siekmann voting yes, and Commissioner Marty Montgomery and Chairperson Jeff Segall voting no (Commissioner Patrick Goyarts absent). Project Appeal and Response: The appeal submitted on April 28, 2017, is based on the grounds that there was an abuse of discretion and error on the part of the Planning Commission and that their decision to approve the project was not sufficiently supported by the facts presented to the Planning Commission. The project is being appealed for several reasons, which are discussed below with staff responses. CEQA Determination The appeal states that the project's approval violates the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in relying on Section 15194 (Affordable Housing) without offering any support. The appellant states: "The city provides absolutely zero analysis as to its contention that there are no 'unusual circumstances or cumulative impacts that would result in significant impacts.' To the contrary, the project nearly triples the number of residents in the area, does not accurately or appropriately deal with the increased demand for parking, completely destroys circulation by vacating Harding Street, does not take into account the many developments currently or soon-to-be underway in the Barrio area, and overall is more than likely to have adverse impacts on the community and the environment." The appellant further states that the project does not qualify for a CEQA exemption due to its size. In order to qualify for an exemption under Section 15194 of the State CEQA statues, the project must be less than 100 units. As mentioned above, the originally envisioned project was more than 100 dwelling units. However, the project was scaled back in size because of the inability to acquire a parcel and design infrastructure around it. The most recent Housing Element and correspondence between staff and the developer discusses a second phase that would bring the total unit count over 100 units. However, a second phase cannot be completed unless the developer is able to acquire the remaining parcel. The owner of the remaining parcel has expressed that he has no interest in selling the property to the developer. At this time there is no known or planned second phase, and the CEQA analysis is appropriately tailored to the project presented to the city. Therefore, any assertion that the developer is attempting to unlawfully piecemeal the projects to avoid environmental analysis is unfounded. Traffic Impact The appeal discusses the purpose of CEQA and raises a potential significant impact from project traffic. There is no evidence that there would be a significant traffic impact. The city requires Traffic Impact Studies for new developments that exceed 500 Average Daily Trips (ADT), which is derived from the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region. The proposed project has a net increase of 206 ADT, in addition to the 352 ADT that are generated by the existing 44 units. Typically, a traffic study is not required for a project generating an additional 206 ADT. However, staff suggested that a traffic study should be completed to analyze the impacts of the abandonment of a portion of Harding Street. The traffic study found that an average of 171 vehicles per day would be rerouted to Jefferson Street, which represents approximately 2.3 percent of the overall traffic on Jefferson Street. Additionally, the rerouting of the traffic was evaluated in the peak hour intersection analysis, and the intersection of Jefferson Street and Magnolia Avenue was found to operate at acceptable levels of service. The traffic study also took into account "developments currently or soon-to-be underway11 in the Barrio area. Also, a "Horizon" analysis was completed that determines the long-range (20+ years) future condition impacts in addition to the proposed projecf s traffic. These analyses all found that the addition of project traffic would not result in Level of Service (LOS) deficiencies. Compatibility/Coastal Views The appeal disputes staff's findings that the proposed apartments are compatible with the surrounding development and will not obstruct public views of the coastline, nor otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone. The proposed apartments are compatible with surrounding development in that they meet the development standards for the Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M) Zone. The RD-M Zone implements the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Residential High (R-30) land use designation. The property line that is shared with the homes on Jefferson Street is considered the side yard, which requires a five-foot setback from the property line. The appeal states that the building is located roughly five feet from existing homes. Building 4 is situated closest to the side property line with an actual setback distance of 141-7" to the staircase of the building, therefore the referenced five feet is not correct The portion of the building containing habitable space is setback 19'-1" from the side property line and additional trees are being provided for landscape screening. In addition, during the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant agreed to reduce the height of the south end of Building 4 from three stories to two stories to increase the compatibility of the building with the adjacent properties. A condition of approval was added by the Planning Commission requiring this change to the project. Regarding coastal views, the project site is not located near any public lands or public rights-of- way within view of the coastline. The site is surrounded by residential development to the north and west, and commercial development to the south. Interstate 5 freeway is to the east, and does not provide any views to the coastline. Also, the proposed project will not damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone because the project site is already developed with 22 duplex buildings (44 residential units), none of which are considered architecturally significant. Parking The appeal argues that even though the proposed parking is code compliant by way of a development standards modification, there is not enough existing parking for the current residents and their guests and that "it is ridiculous to contend that an increase in density would necessitate a decrease in parking." Multiple studies and publications such as the "City of San Diego Affordable Housing Parking Study," have found that affordable housing developments do not require as much parking as market rate developments. The proposed affordable apartment development will include 165 parking spaces for 93 units, with 92 of the units being affordable to very low and extremely low income households. The number of proposed parking spaces is consistent with the density bonus parking standards in the Zoning Ordinance, and also meets the requirements contained in the recently-enacted State Assembly Bill 744. Based on the ratios recommended in the City of San Diego study, this project would include 158 spaces. A parking study was also recently conducted by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers for the Quarry Creek affordable apartment project that was approved on March 16, 2016, with a parking reduction. That study reviewed two affordable housing developments in Carlsbad (Glen Ridge Apartments and Hunter's Point Apartments) and found that there are excess parking spaces available in both developments. Applying the peak usage characteristics from the Glen Ridge and Hunters Point projects to this proposed project would indicate a need for 148 or 109 spaces, respectively. Furthermore, the last three affordable apartment developments approved in Carlsbad (Quarry Creek, Harding Veteran's Housing, and Oak Veteran's Housing) all included parking reductions. The appeal states that the project is not located in proximity to transit services. However, there are bus transit stops that are within a quarter mile of the project site. In the U.S., X mile or a five minute walk has generally been assumed to be the distance that the average American will walk rather than drive. In addition, other amenities such as Jefferson Elementary, Pine Avenue Park, churches, and a grocery store are within walking distance to the project site. Additional details on parking and transit are included in the Planning Commission staff report. Abandonment of a Portion of Harding Street The appellant claims that the abandonment of Harding Street does not meet the general requirements of Part 3 of the Streets and Highways Code, Section 8320, et seq., nor the requirements for a "summary vacation" of that street under Part 4 of the Streets and Highways Code, section 8330, et seq. without requiring the dedication of a new realigned street. The claim further states that staff and the developer improperly relied on a court case to process the abandonment through Section 66445(j) of the Government Code (Subdivision Map Act) to circumvent requirements of the Streets and Highways Code. As a result of utilizing the Subdivision Map Act, the appellant claims thaf Harding Street would be gifted to the developer without justification or compensation. In response to the appellant's claim, the abandonment is being processed in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act as is permitted by the Act, but there is no gifting of public lands to the developer. The city would only relinquish easement rights, not property title. The property underlying the street is currently owned by the developer and no exchange in title interest is proposed, so compensation is unwarranted. In addition, the abandonment is justified. After analyzing several project redesigns that included reductions in the amount of street abandonment and reviewing the project traffic study, staff concluded that the abandonment of Harding Street would not have a significant impact on the surrounding streets and, therefore, was able to support the abandonment. The appellant also claims that once Harding Street is abandoned the only access point into the south side of this residential neighborhood will be restricted to Jefferson Street at Magnolia Avenue. The appellant is concerned that, should there be an accident or catastrophe which blocks Jefferson Street between Anchor Way and Magnolia Avenue, there will be no access into or out of the southern part of the Barrio neighborhood to or from Tamarack Avenue. The appellant further states that during school pick-up and drop-off at Jefferson Elementary School, the closing of Harding Street without a replacement street would create significant health and safety issues that will directly impact emergency personnel traveling into and out of the Barrio neighborhood via Tamarack Avenue. The Police and Fire Departments have reviewed the development plans and have no concerns regarding access to and from the project in the event of blocked roadways during a neighborhood emergency. In the event that an unforeseen street obstruction (i.e. water main break, vehicle collision, etc.) were to occur on Jefferson Street between Anchor Way and Magnolia Avenue, residents south of such blockage would be able to exit the area by accessing Jefferson Street or Anchor Way. Residents north of blockage potential incident would travel north via Magnolia Avenue to Harding Street, Madison Street or Roosevelt Street. Emergency vehicles would be attending the incident, not attempting to pass through it. Non-emergency incidents or congestion, such as during pick-up and drop-off of students at Jefferson Elementary School, would be temporary, and drivers would be required to pull over and allow emergency vehicles to pass through. Attached in Exhibit 7 is the Fire Department response to review of the project. Abandonment of Carol Place The appellant correctly explained that during review of the project, staff objected to the abandonment of Carol Place under the original proposal without making specific findings. No specific findings were made because the project no longer included the abandonment of Carol Place once it was presented to the Planning Commission. Staff determined that Carol Place needed to be retained for pick up and drop off of students attending Jefferson Elementary School and identified this as an issue for the applicant to' resolve during project review. The applicant redesigned the project accordingly. Impacts to Quality of Life The appellant states that surrounding neighbors of the project site "will suffer a significant decrease in quality of life due to noise, odors, lights and open windows (given the project does not include air-conditioning), blockage of sunlight, loss of privacy and reduction in air quality." In most cases, residential noise is associated with devices or activities that are intermittent, such as air conditioning units, landscaping tools, trash trucks, community activity areas, and internal vehicular circulation. The area currently experiences ambient noise from the aforementioned devices and activities because the site is currently developed with 44 residential units, and therefore, the noise impacts associated with the additional units is not expected to be significant. In response to the appellant's concerns regarding a "significant decrease in the quality of life due to odors, lights and open windows," residential development is not a known generator of unpleasant odors. Furthermore, trash enclosures will be located on the east side of the buildings opposite the existing residential uses. Additionally, there are no lights proposed on the site that would be directed toward the adjacent residential uses. Regarding potential blockage of sunlight and loss of privacy, the portion of the building containing habitable space is setback 19'-1" from the side property line, which is in excess of the required five foot setback. In addition, during the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant was conditioned to reduce the height of the south end of Building 4 from three stories to two stories to help increase compatibility with adjacent properties. The applicant has also included additional trees along the property line adjacent to existing residential uses to act as a natural landscape screen. Concerning air quality impacts, the proposed project is in compliance with the City of Carlsbad's Climate Action Plan (CAP) in that a multi-family housing development with less than 70 dwelling units does not meet the screening threshold to require a greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis. The 93-unit apartment project has a net increase of 49 units, and is therefore not subject to CAP measures. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for more information regarding this analysis Gates Finally, the appeal states that abandoning Harding Street and gating off the development will prevent the community from accessing Harding Street from Jefferson Street, and that the site should remain "open" so the general public can have open unhindered access to Harding Street for ingress, egress and parking purposes. As explained previously in this report, Harding Street can still be accessed via Jefferson Street by using Magnolia Avenue instead of Carol Place. Street parking for the segment of Harding Street that is proposed to be abandoned is primarily used by the residents and guests of the existing residential units located on that portion of Harding Street. During the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant stated they would leave the pedestrian gates open during daylight hours so that pedestrian access could be provided to Harding Street via Carol Place. Also, a Knox box will be installed at the vehicular gates to allow access for emergency vehicles. Staff has addressed the concerns and assertions raised in the appeal and is recommending that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve the proposed 93 unit apartment development. Fiscal Analysis All required improvements needed to serve this project would be funded and/or constructed by the developer. Next Steps City Council's action on this item is final. Environmental Evaluation (CEQA) The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 21159.21 and 21159.23 of the California Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15194, Affordable Housing Exemption. The project meets the criteria set forth in Section 15192 (Threshold Requirements for Exemptions for Agricultural Housing, Affordable Housing, and Residential Infill Projects) and Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption). The proposed apartment project is in compliance with the City of Carlsbad's Climate Action Plan (CAP) in that a multi-family housing development with less than 70 dwelling units does not meet the screening threshold to require a greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis. The 93-unit apartment project has a net increase of 49 units, and is therefore not subject to CAP measures. Public Notification This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting date. Exhibits 1. City Council Resolution . 2. Location Map 3. Appeal Form dated April 28, 2017 & Attachments 4. Applicant's Response to Appeal 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7233 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 5 & April 19, 2017 7. Planning Commission minutes dated April 5, 2017 & April 19, 2017 8. Pacific Wind Review and Comment Memo dated May 16, 2016 from the Fire Department 9. Public Comments RESOLUTION NO. 2017-139 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND MINOR SUBDIVISION TO ALLOW FOR THE DEMOLITION OF 44 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 93-UNIT APARTMENT (92 AFFORDABLE UNITS) DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MODIFICATION, AND A STREET ABANDONMENT FOR A PORTION OF HARDING STREET NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF CAROL PLACE, IN THE RESIDENTIAL-DENSITY MULTIPLE ZONE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: PACIFIC WIND CASE NO.: SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) EXHIBIT I WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined that pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on April 5, 2017 and April 19, 2017, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider Site Development Plan SDP 15-18, Coastal Development Permit 16-04, and Minor Subdivision 16-01, as referenced in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7233 approving the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 4-2-1 (Anderson, Black, Rodman, and Siekmann voting yes, and Montgomery and Segall voting no) with Commissioner Goyarts absent; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2017, the appellant Fred M. Johnson, timely filed an appeal with the city as provided pursuant to Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission to approve said Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, and Minor Subdivision; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be hear, said City Council considered all factors relating to the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision is denied, and that the findings contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7233 on file in the City Clerk's office and incorporated herein by reference are the findings and conditions of the City Council. EXHIBIT I 3. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply: "NOTICE TO APPLICANT" 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 Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record is filed with a deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or 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 City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA, 92008. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 11th day of !!!!Y, 2017, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: M. Hall, K. Blackburn, M. Packard. M. Schumacher, C. Schumacher. None. (SEAL) 1 Everett DeLano DeLano & DeLano 2 220 W. Grand Ave. Escondido, CA 92025 3 (760) 510-1562 www.delanoanddelano.com 4 Attorneys for Carlsbad Alliance for 5 Re5pon5ible Developme11L RECEIVED M 11 V ' !! 1 i1 \7 /-II ilJLU-- CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLE~ OFFICE 6 7 NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF SUBSTITUTED COUNSEL 8 Appeal Filed: April 28, 2017 Appeal From: Planning Commission Decision of April 19, 2017, 9 Re Approval of SDPlS-18/CDP 16-04/MS16-01 (Dev 15-058) (Pacific Wind) and Passing of Resolution No. 7233 10 11 TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, 1200 Carlsbad 12 Avenue, Carlsbad, California: 13 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Everett DeLano is the newly designated 14 attorney of record for the Carlsbad Alliance for Responsible 15 Development, in place and instead of Courtney Ro:s5-Tai t of Ska.ne 16 Wilcox LLP. Accordingly, all documents, notices, correspondence, 17 etc., should be served on Everett DeLano of DeLano & DeLano, instead 18 of Skane Wilcox LLP, at: 19 Everett DeLano DeLano & DeLano 20 220 W. Grand AvP.. Escondido, CA 92025 21 (760) 510-1562 www.delanoanddelano.com 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: May 15, 2017 Carl.sbad Alliance for Resporn:;.l.lJle Development CI By : ~ ' j \, • , I i / I ~ i L" l ) ii a.....____ Dr. Fred M. Johnson \I 1 1_1 I -· I St<8~ne \I\JILCOX ~~) .... -r."".~.K'I+~ .... (·,:t:,.\1~~H.t~ "i!."x~·:.(~0 ~::~~.~.~;_·~:J.::.i v,:~\.i.~l-;,~: ATTACHMENT 1 April 27, 2017 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of SDP 15-18/CDP 16~04/ MS 16-01 (Dev. 15-058) ("Pacific Wind") and the Passing of Resolution No. 7233 on April 19, 2017 Please let this correspondence serve as Carlsbad Alliance for Responsible Development's (hereafter "CARD"), together with Dr. Fred M. Johnson's ("Dr. Johnson''), formal appeal of the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission's (the "Commission") decision to approve the Paci1fo Wind Project (the "Project") at the special meeting held on April 19, 2017. As you are aware, opponents of the Project were heard during the April 5, 2017 meeting. Unfortunately, the Commission decided to adjourn the original meeting prior to hearing rebuttal arguments from the Project's developer, thus at the April 19th meeting, Commissioners heard only from the developer and did not allow comments by the community who are largely opposed to the Project as proposed and approved. CARD appeals the Project on several grounds, including, but not limited to, clear violations of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA''), as well as violation::; of lhe letter and spirit of the General Plan and related zoning rules and regulations. I. Background The City Council approved a $7 .4 million loan in 2012-2013 to the partnership of C&C Development and Irvine Housing Opportunities to purchase 21 or more duplex lots on Harding Street in the historic Barrio neighborhood of the Carlsbad Village area. The development partnership was incorporated and is now known as Harding Street Neighbors LP ("Developer"). The Developer was also required to secure additional properties and construct a large higher density affordable housing project consisting of 140 units on the site. "No later than December 31, 2015 or.three (3) years after acquisition of the property, whichever is later, the developer must (a) obtain all planning approvals and building permits necessary to construct the future required improvements for a new, larger (higher density) affordable housing development or (b) immediately initiate work to substantially rehabilitate the existing units with an investment of at least $75,000 per unit, including all improvements and amenities (if larger project is not feasible for any reason)." (See "City Council Agenda Bill/Resolution No. 2013-026'' page 2.) "Developer must commence construction of the improvements for a new, larger (higher density; approximately 140 units) affordable housing development or the substantial rehabilitation of the existing units (iflarger project is not feasible for any reason) no later than December 31, 2016." (See "City Council Agenda Bill/Resolution No. 2013-026" page 2.) cross-tait@skanewilcox.com I skanewilcox.com tel. 213.452 .. ·;200 ! fax 213-452-12011055 West i'' Street, Suite i700, Los Angeles, Cl\ 900"17 I ,, I . I Planning Commission RE: Appt!al 1.?f'I'-!anning Cr)!Jt//iissum ·~5 A/ip; ·ova! 1?f .\'OP i 5-i i'f/CDP ! {i-(}4i AJS J 6-0 I r Dev. I 5~05S) ("Pac{frc 1Find"j ar,d the Passing i.fR.esolution .No. 7233 on April 19, 2017: A11ACH.M.I..'NT 1 April 27, 201 7 Page 2 In August of 2015, the Developer submitted fill additional set of plans which called for the development of 120 units and for the abandonment of Carol Place and portions of Harding Street ("August 2015 Plan"). This initial plan utilized the entire Assemblage of all the properties acquired by the Developer. In or about February 2016, the Developer submitted an updated plan dated February 9, 2016 ('February 2016 Plan") which removed from the development prQiect parcels on Magnolia between Jefferson and the 5 Freeway, the retention of Carol Place as an improved road, and the partial abandonment of Harding Street between Carol Place and Magnolia A venue. The approximately four parcels which were included on the August 2015 Plan were removed from the February 2016 Plan, with the stated purpose that the retained duplexes that were not part of the February 2016 Plan would continue to be used as affordable housing units until an additional 21 to 26 affordahle housing units could be proposed for development at a future date. It is clear that this redesigned February 2016 Plan reducing the proposed affordable housing project from 120 units (where 140 were required Wlderthe loan documents) to 90 affordable housing units in an effort to qualify for a CEQA exemption, in violation of sections 15192( o) and 15194( <l.)( 1) of the state regulations/guidelines for CEQA. In or about April 2016. the Developer submitted updatf'.d plans dated April 25, 2016 ("April 2016 Plans") which increased the affordable housing units to be built on site to 93 units (21 one-bedroom, 18 two-bedroom, and 54 three-bedroom) with 166 total on-site resident parking spaces. Again, the April 2016 Plans kept the site to under 100 affordable housing units and continued to exclude the approximately four additional parcels which were originally included in the August 2016 Plan. This appeal is being taken pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code section 21.54.150 on the grounds that the Planning Commission's approval of the project and the passing of Planning Commission Resolution No. 7233 on April 19, 2017, wa~ an abuse of discretion and error on the part of the Planning Commission and that their decision to pass the project was not sufficiently supported by the facts presented to the Planning Commission and is being appealed for the following reasons: II. The Project's Approval Violates CEOA The Co111111i::;::;lon determined that the Project is exempt from environmental review mandated by CEQA, relying on Section 15194. The City contends that the Project meets the requirements of section 15194, without offering support for such a contention. By way of example, the Project must meet subsection (c), which in part provides that "the project is located within either an incorporated city or a census defined place with a populations density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile and there is no reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment or the residents of the project due to unusual circumstaIIces or due to the related or cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the project." The City's "CEQA Analysis" states that the "project is located in the City of Carlsbad in an urbanize, developed area and falls within the population density described in Section cross-talt@ska11ewi!cox.com I skanewilcox.com te!. 213-452-1200 I fax 213-452-1201 1055 West i'~ Str~et, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Planning Commission H.t,: Appi!al of Pi arming Conu;ifssion 's Approvd <?f'SDP ! 5-18:'CD/1 u; .. ()4/ AfS ! 15-0 I ( D,~v. ! 5-058} ('Pac[fic ff/ind) and the Pas.~hg of Resolution No. 7233 on .April i9. YOU: AJ1AC.HMEN[ j _.:'.\.prii 27, 2017 Page3 (c)(l)(C) ... The City has reviewed a Focused Traffic Impact Analysis and has concluded that project presents no significant impacts. The City has not identified any unusual circumstances or cumulative impacts that would result in significant impacts. Although the Project proposes the vacation of a portion of Harding Street, the City has reviewed a [ circulation study] that examines the impact of the proposed vacation and detennined that no adverse impacts would result to traffic circulation or parking.'' See City of Carlsbad, Pacific Wind Apartments -CEQA Analysis, dated February 22, 2017, Page 2. The City provides absolutely zero analysis as to its contention that there are no "unusual circumstances or cumulative impacts that would result in ~ignificant impacts." To the contrary, the Project nearly triples the number ofresidents in the area, does not accurately or appropriately deal with the increased demand for parking, completely destroys circulation by vacating Harding Street, does not take into account the many developments currently or soon-to-be underwny in the Barrio area, and overall is more than likely to have adverse impacts on the community and the environment. Additionally, it is clear that this Project should not be exempt under Section 1 S 194 for several reasons. One of the elements that a Project must meet to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15194 is related to size. Tn order to he exempt under this Section, the Project must be less than 100 units. Here, it is well known that the Project was originally intended to consist of 140 units. In fact, the original $7.4 million loan authorized by the City Council to assist the developer in acquiring the existing duplexes was slated to be utilized to acquire nll 27 parcels. The Developer ended up purchasing 26 of the 27 parcels, with one owner unwilling to sell. Because of this holdup, the 2017 Housing Element Update by the City asserts that "Due to challenged created by the one parcel not acquired, three of the lots tho developer did a\;4uirt: will nut be redeveloped at this time, and existing duplexes on them are planned to be substantially rehabilitated instead. Acquisition of the remaining parcel may enable a second construction phw;e on this and the three parcels on which units will be rehabilitated. This will potentially add 21 to 25 low income units to Pacific Wind, or a total of 114 to 118 units." Also see letter dated April 4, 2017 from Courtney Ross-Tait to Planning Commission, Carlsbad City Council and Austin Silva attached as .Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. Regardless of the City's contention that the Project should avail itself of this exemption, it is clear from the record that the developer is attempting to unlawfully pit:cemt:fil lhe Project so that it would fall into the exemption and avoid environmental analysis. We look forward to the City Council addressing this issue, and if not, for this issue to be addressed to the Court. A. The Purpose of CEOA CEQA is a statute that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. Yes, there are several legislative exemptions, but just because a project "could" fall into an exemption, does not necessarily mean that the local agency should avoid environmental review of a project that obviously will have a significant impact on the environment. In all honestly, to do so is a dereliction of duty and is mmecessary. When in doubt, or ifthere is any evidence of a cross-tait@skanewilcox.com l skanewi!cox.com tel. 213-452-1200 l fa;,c 2-13-452-1201 '1055 \Nesi t~ Street. Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017 I :: I i ! Planning: Cormnis:sion RE: ,ippeaf 1.:(P!anning CoTJimissiorr'.'i Approvd oj'SDP 15-/8:'CDP .!6-04/ A1S 16--ftl rDei,. i 5-053) (·P:-1c[lic tf7nd"J mui the Pa.\'Sing <lResoluiion No. 7233 on April 19, 2t.il ?: ATTACHMENT l. 1t\.prii 27~ 20!7 Page 4 significant impact (such as this project). the community relies on its commissioners and elected to do the right thing by the community and the surrounding environment. The City should undertake at least the bare minimum of environmental review, instead of relying on a tenuous determination of exemption. The City is approving a HUGE development, increasing development dramatically, forcing the abandorunent of an entire street and one of the few roads that allows circular access to the surrounding community and elementary school, and overall negatively affecting the community, its quality of life, and the coastal environment. Coastal Views The City now contends that the "project consists of the demolition of 44 dwelling units and the construction of apartments with 92 units. The proposed apartments are compatible with the surrounding development of one story two-family structure::; aml one-story commercial buildings. The three-story apartment building will not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from the public lands or the public right-of-way, nor otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone." See Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 3, 201'/ . .First, there is absolutely zero support for the City's contentions. After discussions with the Coastal Commission, it is clear that the intent of the Local Coastal Program has been abandoned by the City, and due diligence as steward of this portion for the coast is lost. To even insinuate that replacing two-story building with three-story buildings and moving said buildings roughly within five (5) feet of existing homes without any review of view corridors or analysis of other scenic resources is difficult to comprehend, and is without evidence or merit. III. The Project's Approval Constitutes a Gift of a Public Street for Private Purposes and Will Exacerbate Already Existing Street Parking Issues in the Immediate Community and Jeopardizes the Health, Safety and Public Welfare of the Surrounding Residents and the Public in General First, absent the Developer dedicating and constructing a replacement street, the Parking Study utilized by the Planning Commission to justify approval of the project was inadequate to support the abandonment ofllarding Street for the fmandal benefit of the Developer. The closing down of Harding Street, which currently provides access and additional street parking for this area, cannot be done without an appropriate study beirig done in compliance with CEQA. St:e lt:lller dated June 14, 2016 from John Bailey to Don Neu, Carlsbad City Planner, which is attached, with referenced enclosures, as Exhibit "B" and is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. Second, the abandonment or vacation of Harding Street does not meet the general requirements of Part 3 of the Streets and Highways Code, sections 8320, et seq., nor the requirements for a '~Swnmary Vacation" of that :sln:el under Part 4 of the Streets and Highways Code, sections 8330, et seq., without requiring the dedication and construction of a "new'' realigned street. Accordingly, to get around this issue, the Developer, city staff and city attorney improperly relied upon the Subdivision Map Act and the case of Citizens for Responsible . Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1032, I 09 Cal.Rptr.3d 702, to surrender Harding Street to the Developer without justification or cross-tait@sl<anewilcox.com I skanewi!cox.com tel. 213-452-1200 I fax 213-452-1201 1055 West 7Hi Street. Suite '1700, Los Angeh~s, CA 900"17 Planning Commission J?f;: .AJJj)fal ~?!~ f'!anning (\u,unission ~'-i ,4J)j.:roval ,~f'SI)P 15-18/( ... f)!-:-16-04/ Al:.\" 16-0 I rl)cr:1• l 5,.0:5:~} ('J.l-:-ac[flc tVini.i") an(.{ the fia3.~·int~ l!f'l!esoiufion .1.'\=o. 7233 on ..!'ipril 1 Y~ 201 ?: ~11"'/At... "I{;_\1L::v·1· l April 27, 20!7 Page 5 compensation. There were no findings made by city staff and/or the Pfanning Commission justifying this gift of public land at the expense of the city's obligation to hold public streets for the benefit of the general public and the immediately surrounding neighbors of the project. The city, by way of the Planning Commission, has a fiduciary duty and obligation to put the interests of the community and the public, when dealing with public streets, to protect those assets for the benefit of all its residents. In this instance, the city put their financial interests and investment in the project above those of the public in genernl to utilize Harding Street a::; a continued public access road. While the Subdivision Map Act and the Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development case generally support that a street can be abandoned or vacated under the Subdivision Map Act without" ... compliance with the Streets and Highway Code procedures and findings," it is not without limitation. The August 2015 Plan called for the abandonment of Harding Street and Carol Place. However, city staff apparently objected to any abandorunent of Carol Place a~ :-.till being needed for parking and drop off for students at Jefferson Elementary and, therefore, the Developer resubmitted the February 2016 Plans with just the abandonment of Harding Street. No findings of fact were made. Tt was simply city staff's intention to keep Carol Place as a necessary public road to service the community. The abandonment procedure under the Subdivision Map Act is discretionary. In fact. Government Code section 66445G), which Associate Planner Austin. Silva stated, in pertinent part, in a February 22, 2017 letter that: "Before a public easement vested in another public entity may be abandoned pursuant to this section, that public entity shall receive notice of the proposed abandonment. No public easement vested in another public entity shall be abandoned pursuant to this section if that public entity objects to the proposed abandonment." (Emphasis added) In light of the above, should the City, or any other public agency which has an interest in Harding Street, object for any reason to the abandonment of Harding Street, it will not and cannot be approved under the Subdivision Map Act procedure. With regard to this project, the City had a fiduciary duty to the citizens of Carlsbad to object and/or not permit the abandonment of Harding Street under Government Code section 6644 S(j) and Titles 20 ond 21 of Carlsbad Municipal Codes. The City had a direct conflict of interest in that it has a financial interest in the Project, while at the same time it must look out for what is in the best interests of the surroun~ing residents and the public in general. In fact, city staff and the Planning Curnm.b:siun put the interests of the Developer and the City, s financial interests in this Project ahead of what is in the best interests of the surrounding neighbors and the public in general to have open access to an existing and fully improved public street. This is particularly troublesome in that this area is already heavily impacted with a substantial shortage of available street parking. See letter dated March 28, 2017 from John Bailey to Don Neu, cross-ta!t@skanewilcox.com I skanewilcox.com tel. 213-452-1200 i fax 213-452-1201 Hl55 Wes! t;1 Street, Suile '1700, Lo$Angeies, CA 90017 Planning: Cm'Hni:-:;:;ion /{}{: /;1pJ>i!al {/. 'f) !ar;n.ing· (~··,.:J11uni.\·.'l·ion ~:r J ·'1ppro ;Ju/ r.~j-,Sl)P l 5-18/(."'i) P 16-0,{/ Ai\~ J 6 ... () I ( l)eJ.:. 15-,058) (··1, acfiic l}7rfr.l ~') orul the 1~~rs.s·.inf} oJ"i{r:t·J·oi uilon A\.1. 7 ]3 3 or1. _;J,pril l.Y, 20 f 7: ~,1 :f. J.A (J"il.11.t'/Vl' j A.pril 27, 20 ! 7 Page 6 Carlsbad City Planner. which is attached as Exhibit "C" and is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in fulL When Harding Street is abandoned and physically closed off, the only access point into the South side of this residential neighborhood will be restricted solely to Jefferson at Magnolia. The proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan (revised April 2016) specifically calls for the Village and Barrio to have open and free access for pedestrians and bicycles. The abandonment of Harding Street under the approved April 19, 2017 Resolution No.7233, without a replacement street, is in direct conflict with what City staff is advocating under the proposed Village and Barrio Ma<rt.er Plan, with open access throughout the community. In other words, the abandonment of Harding Street now leaves all children and their parents in the neighborhood with Jefferson/Magnolia as the only access point to and from Jefferson Elementary. Additionally, after discussions with an expert in the field of fire safety, it is clear that the abandonment of Harding Street will result in a lack of ready direct ladder access to the structures, and a resulting time delay for emergency vehicles to arrive in a timely manner to an accident or fire. The only access will be through a closed gate, and then a parking lot with pedestrians and vehicles, through a round-about via Carol Place. All of these factors would invariahly contribute to an unreasonable delay, which in case of fire or other emergency, mny prove to have fatal consequences. The answer to this obvious safety issue is to keep Harding Street open and locate the proposed buildings on the east side of Harding Street, where they would produce a more aesthetic, panoramic view of the Barrio. Third, Jefferson and Carol Place/Harding Street are the only two main access points into and out of the Barrio off of Tamarack between Interstate 5 and the railroad tr::icks. If Harding is vacated without a replacement road, Jefferson will be the only access point into and out of the south side of the Barrio. Should there be an accident or catastrophe which blocks Jefferson A venue hetween Anchor Way and Magnolia, there will be no access into or out of the southern part of the Barrio neighborhood from or to Tamarack. Furthermore, during the school year Jefferson is heavily impacted with traffic and street parking issues while children are picked up and dropped off at Jefferson Elementary School. The closing off of !larding Street without requiring a replacement street poses significant traffic, health, welfare, and public safety issues that will directly impact emergency personnel and the public/residents access into and out of the Darrio neighborhood from and to Tarmifm.:k. Although staff represented that the police and fire departments for the city had no objections to the approved Plan, there were in_fact no °'signed off' approvals in the record from either the police and/or fire chief that were brought to the attention of the public. In fact, this "single" versus "double" access issue alone, for public safety reasons, should have ended the discussion about vacating or abandoning any part of Harding Street unless the Developer is willing and able to dedicate and construct, a replacement street. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission abused its discretion by giving a gift of this public street to the Developer to benefit the financial interests of the Developer and the City's investment at the expense of the public. Fourth, while it is recognized that the City may have a vested financial interest in the Project's success, it also has an overriding duty and obligation to retain, preserve and maintain cross-tait@skanewilcox.com I skanewifcox.com tel. 2.13-452-1200 I fa)( 213-452-1201 "1055 West 7'1' Street, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90047 Planning Commission i?.i~·: ~--ipjJ£id :.?/ 1.i-/i;11ninfl (.:OiJH;;i:::~viun ·:) ,,.-JpJjFOFai (!/.S'l)f; ! 5-i 8/(.,~.t)i' /6 ... 04/ Af)' ! 6-0 J { l)ev. J 5--05{!,j (~~1-;ac-f/ic Jf'inti~) anll ihe 1-~~,ssfn:;· t~f''.l(eso!ution .t.Jo. 7 l 33 on. .c-11:;ril 19, 20 i ?: .All ~it 111'11!..~1\ll.' i Aprii 27, 2017 Page 7 the public streets for the safe use and enjoyment of all the local surrounding residents of the site, as well the public in general. Accordingly, the faithful and diligent performance of these responsibilities to the residents of Carlsbad should have taken absolute priority over and abo:ve the personal financial interests of a private developer and/or City and the Planning Commission abused its discretion in permitting the abandonment of Harding Street without a replacement street. Fifth, although the 166 resident parking spaces proposed for the roughly 93 affordable housing units to be built on the site may be "Code compliant," if the Project did not have the affordable housing allowed reductions the parking spaces required under Munic.ipal Code section 21.44.020 Table A would be 199 (175.50 resident and 23.25 visitor). The development site currently has roughly 180 parking spaces consisting of garages, driveways and street parking to serve roughly 52 existing units on Harding Street and Carol Place. In the evening (6 p.m. to 5 a.m.) essentially all of these 180 spaces are already inadequate to meet current demand. By almost doubling the number ·of units on this proposed Project site with less available street and on-site parking spaces, will almost certainly negatively impact the surrounding ueighburn uf this proposed "gated" community. Simply, there is not enough parking for the existing residents, units, and their guests, but the City is willing to approve the applicant's request that the "development standards modification [that will] provide less than the required amount of parking" citing "[t]he proposal to reduce the required parking spaces from 199 to 165 is supported by the project's proximity to goods and services as well as public transit. Studies acknowledge that affordable housing in close proximity to transit and services are candidates for a lesser parking demand ... 137 parking spnces would be required of the proposed development. Moreover, parking is mimagell at the properties in such a way that each unit is assigned a parking permit to park one vehicle, and based upon need, a second parking permit can be assigned for a two-bedroom or three-bedroom WI.it. The <k:vdupt:r has found that not every one bedroom unit utilizes a parking permit, and not every two-bedroom and three-bedroom unit utilizes two parking permits. Tue excess parking is not used through the permit system becomes available as guest parking." It is ridiculous to contend that an increase in density would necessitate a decrease in parking, especially in an area that is completely overwhelmed by lack of parking, circulating cars, cars parked unlawfully in homeowners' spaces, and upcoming population growth. Moreover, the Project does not sit in proximity to transit services as stated. Further, although the approved Plan calls for pedestrian and bicycle access during the <.lay light hours, it is essentially at the discretion of the Developer to control that access. ln fact, it will be closed off in the evenings under the approved Plan. However, and more importantly, vehicle access to this area is necessary, not on1y for traffic flow, but for continued access to street parking and to allow a dual access point in and out of the South side of the Barrio. Lastly, the surrounding neighbors and the public in general have the need and a right to a~1.:ess these public streets for ingress, egress and parking purposes. By abandoning Harding Street and gating off this development, the City has done a great disservice to all the surrounding neighbors and the local community in general. On its face it appears inappropriate to give a cross-tait.@skanewi!cox.com I skanewilcox.com tel. 213-452-1200 I fax 213-452-'1201 i055 West ?'i1 Street. SL1it€: 1700, Los r'\ngeles, CA 00017 Phnning: (;l)mtnission Flt...~ Apj.Jear r?.t' f1!t';nning (.\JlJ-J.iUf.t\·ion :s Aii/n·o1-1-ai 1.~f-5LiP I 5-18.:( ,'I)P J 6-04/ l·.-.t/! f f, ... fj l f /)~:v. I 5-058j t'•,('j/,,,,·t;(.' fif; .. ,.j''; -,1 ... ,,JiJJ1n Pc'"'·:i-n'·it.T 1·r(·e,·r:·1·,,1·i .. ,1 'A/,· 7~ ... ~'.l,1-:.·; A1·:1-if :{i );'j·.1r·;. ~-,·""'!"-'i/-~i-./A,fl..'.~1·1·1· i f ~1;.ur. !: dti. / ,, h<i $o "L ~ I.).) Ire, <.f .l' t1 Ju .• u, ..... (:-, ....... ..; --~= ~ ... _h ,(. 1..7. ..... •• ,"':i .. ..o,.r':l•..,,::..:.a:l.L.:, ,1 i\.pri127, 2017 Page3 significant "gift" of public land to a private developer for its own personal use and financial gain to the detriment of the surrounding neighbors and the community in general. More importantly, the approved "gated" Project not only effectively blocks all access of the community to a public street but is in direct conflict with the overall visions and proposal::; :sptci1foally oullined in the proposed Village and Barrio Plan (revised April 2016) and poses a significant threat to public safety. In other words, the Project site should remain "open," not gated, so that the surrounding neighbors as well as the general public can continue to have open unhindered access to Harding Street (or a replacement street) for ingress, egress and parking purposes. 1 V. The Approved Plan Significantly and Negatively Impacts the Surrounding Neighborhood and Fails to Properly Integrate and Assimilate the Project Into the Surroundin!! Community The Plan calls for three-story housing units to come within approximately 10 to 15 feet of the property lines of the Project's surrounding neighbors, gates off the Project and isolates it from the neighborhood. The residences that surround this Project are all one-story units, whose privacy and space are now being invaded by proposed three-story buildings. In fact, the surrounding neighbors will suffer a significant decrease in quality of life due to noise. odors, lights and open windows (given the project does not include air-conditioning), blockage of sunlight, loss of privacy and reduction in air quality. The Planning Commission abused their discretion in approving the Project in its current form, instead of: (a) maximizing the use of as much of the Assemblage as possible running from Magnolia A venue through Harding Street to Carol Place by constructing three-story buildings abutting the I-5 corridor with ground level first floor parking similar to the Tavara Senior Apartments constructed on the comer of Palm Avenue and Harding Street; (b) retaining Harding Street to connect up to Carol Place to keep the dual access points to the south side of the Barrio, as well as the street parking that now exists; and ( c) integrates and assimilates the entire project with the surrow1diug m:ighbmhood, which would include, but not be limited to, an "ungated" project. See letter dated April 17, 2017, from John Bailey to the Planning Commission members, a copy of which, together with the referenced enclosures, is anached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. Should you have any questions, comments, concerns, or clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact our office directly. Kindest regards, t.'cf ~ .;/J Courtney Ross-Tait SKANE WILCOX LLP cross-talt@skanewilcox.com I skanewilcox.com tel. 213-452-1200 j fax 213-452-1201 H}55 West i'1 Street, Suite 'l700, Los Angeles, CA 000·17 l · l S~<arie \/\/It.COX (,Al~~· ~1 .. :;_.\'.';G~i..tS $.\'I.~~;-.~,,:) '!]..':!~ !'"F ..... ~~c ;1C~ ~; .. ';, vr :'..A~ ATTACHMENT 2 c/o Courtney Ross-Tait, Skane Wilcox LLP 1055 W. 7th Street, FL 17, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 452-1200 Email: Cross-Tait@SkaneWilcox.com cross-tait@$kanewiicox.com ! skanewiicox.com tel. 213-452-1200 i fax 213-452-i20i 1055 West 7m Street, Suite 1700, Los AnfJeies , C/\ D0017 Planning Commission RE: Pac·iflc Wind.Proj.JCI Apdl 4, '.:017 Page2 the developer's purchasing of properties near and around longtime resident Mr. Gonzales' home. It appears to CARD that the developer is attempting to obtain approval for the 93 units and avail i~lf of the exemption, while simultaneously taking steps to acquire additional properties in furtherance of expanding the Project. Further, the City's findings refer to the fact that the development will be consistent with the Cily regulatory agn:emtmt with the develupr;r relate<.! to affordable housing. To date, the community has not been provided with the agreement to ascertain the findings made by the City, and review the attributes and parameters of the project. II. CEQA Development Does Not Comply with 15192 We understand that you have found that the Project is consistent with the General Plan; we disagree. Further, the Project is inconsistent with the applicable zoning at the date of submission. This is obvious from the City's rush to approval of the Village and Barno Master Plan in an attempt to rectify the zoning issues after the fact. Moreover, the Project has not gone through sufficient community-level environmental review as required by the statute. Regardless of whether an Environmental Impact Report was certified as to the lead agency'i; plan, we disagree that there was sufficient and meaningful community-level environmental review to satisfy the requirements of section I 5192. The City has an obligation to at least prepare an Initial Study for the Project, ifnot additional environmental review to comply with CEQA. Discovery is ongoing, but it remains possible that a Project of this magnitude will have an adverse impact upon wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and vertebrates. The City has failed to do any such study, thus it is impossible for the City to detenn.ine if the Project complies with Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Native Plant Protection Act, or the California Endangered Species Act. It remains unclear if the Project will result in negative effects on protected species. This Project is in a coastal area, therefore it is likely there will be negative effects on the cnvirorunent. Without proper review, the City is unable to ascertain the spcoi.fic impacts on the environment. Additionally, a Project of this magnitude will have significant impacts on the air and water, as well as an increase in environmental contaminants. m. De-veJopment Is an Unlawful Taking of Public Streets Construction otthe Project, as proposed, will result in an unlaWfuI taking of Harding Street and portions of Carol Place. According to the City's parking study. abandonment of Harding Street results in a loss of public accessibility, walkability, and bikeability. The taking of Harding Street will create adverse effects on the neighborhood, and on the children that attend the local elementary school. N. Development Does Not Take Into Account the Aesthetics, Traffic, and Euvfronmental Effects As A Result of Increa:,~d Density cross-talt@skanewlleox.com l skanewilcox.com tel. 213-452-1200 J fax 213-452-1201 1055 West71ll Street, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017 EXHIBIT "A" Page 2 of 3 l I · 1 I I I ! i Planning Commission RE.: Pacifi,· Wind Project April 4, :!O 17 Page3 The PrQject will negatively impact the environment and the community. The significant increase in density will substantially increase population and trafficj and disrupt circulation, and decrease public safety. Ohviously, the Project as proposed does not fit the surrounding community and the community members are concerned that the City has failed to review the impacts on the environment, and instead have relied on an exemption to avoid environmental review and push the project through. Our firm has been engaged to assist in furtherance of obuuning sound and lawful environmental review, to ensure that the Project reflects the community's wishes, and to maintain the integrity of the area. It is our goal to resolve these issues without the need for intervention by the courts. In the event this is not possible, please be aware that CARD is ready and willing to pursue any and all legal remedies under the laws of California, including but not limited to, filing a Petition for Writ of Mandate under CEQA · Please do not hesitate to contact our office directly should you have any questions, comments, concerns, or clarifications. Kindest regards, t7 .a --/·1 ~~~~-ti~ Courtney Ross-Tait SKANE WILCOX LLP cross.tait@skan,;wilco,u:nm I ~kanewllcox.com tel.213·452-1200 I fax213-452-1201 1055 West71h Street, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017 EXHIBIT 11A11 Page 3 of 3 Don Neu, City Planner Planning Division City of Carlsbad 1635 Furaday Avenue Carisbad, CA 92008 ;'i; '· J ," THE BAILEY LEGAL GROUP 25014 Las Brisas Road South. Suite 8 Murrieta, California Y2!>b2 Telephone: (951) 304-7566 facsimile: (951) 304-7571 June 14, 2016 Via U.S. mail and email Re: Carlsbad/Pacific Wind Project-Revised Plans (SDP 15-18/MS 15J Dear Mr. Neu: As I am sure you are aware, my wife and I own a home on Maa~olia Avenue which is several doors down from the above-referenced Pacific Wind Project, which is a proposed "gated" 93 unit affordable housing apartment .project ("Project"). Although I have been in contact with Austin Silva, the Associate Planner responsible to administratively process this Project, as well as Todd Cottl·e, a representative of the developer, I honestly believe my comments and concerns regarding thifi ProjP.~t are not being takon into ·serious consideration. The plan for this Project currently calls for the City to abandon Harding St.n'!et from roLtghly M~gnolia Avenue to Carol Place. No replacement street is proposed to be rededicated or constructed. To assist in conceptualizing what is being proposed, I have attached collectively as Exhibit "l" a "Harding Street Minor Subdivision (MS - 16-01)" and an "Inform.:i.tion.:1.l .Site Plan" which LV',jt'LlH:!.C' depict 1:lle Site plan for the Project and the proposed portion of Harding Street to be ·"abandoned." In the Novi::,111};1:;:.1. 2015 uraft · or the Village Iii Barrio Master Plan ("11/15 Plan''), under a section entitled the "Barrio Edge Development," it was recommended that for this site any ". -. New Development should not be closed off from the existing neighborhood. In the example shown, the street [i.e., HarctingJ can be moved closer to the Interstate ... Parking can primarily be accommodated mid block accessed off an alley in the general location of the existing street ... [i.e., Harding]." (See 11/15 Plan, Part l, item 6 'on page 2:19.J However, thP. "R;n·rio Edge Development" which was discussed in the 11/15 Plan, was deleted in its entirety from the April 2016 Village & Barrio Revised Master Plan ("4/16 Plan") without any comment regarding why the section was removed. EXHIBIT 11811 Page 1 of 24 £>age Two June 14, 2016 On May 26, 2016, I sent an ernail to Mr. SilVi3 ;ind Mr_ Cottle inquiring as to what input, if any, they had with regard to the deletion of the "Barrio Edge Development" discussion from the 4/16 P.lan. In response to that inquiry, Scott Donnell sent me an email dated 'May 31, 2016, providing a br.iP.f "Pxplana.tion'' for tho deletion, a co~y ur which email, together with the letter from the developer referred in Mr_ Donnell's 5/31/16 email, are collectively attached as Exhibit "2." l\.!J you can :,ee from the ~11t:losures, the developer is of the opinion that "Opening the site up to the existing neighborhood invites the potential for the wrong element to access the site ... " and "Putting the parking mid block off a narrow alley that is open to the public wi 11 luvlte crime ... " (.t::xhibJ.t "2," pgs. 5-6.J As a resident in the neighborhood i~ediately surrounding the Project, I find this Orange Count"y developer's speculative views and opinions regarding the 11/15 Plan to be somewhat offensive and definitely contrary to the 4/16 Plan'o overall stated goals and objectives-. There can be little dispute that the current Pacific Wind Project's proposed plans for a "gated" complex are directly. opposed and opposite to the overall visions of walk-ability and accessibility as. repeatedly staterl ;,nri emphasized in the 4/16 Plan, which is now under consideration by the City. I was also surprised to read a 3/19/16 Union Tribune article stating that the "City Counc: i 1 ;,ipproved a $7. ,1 million loan in 2012. , • ., for the developer to " ... purchase 21 of the duplex lots ... " in the Pacific Wind. Assemblage. It was during the first part of March 2D16, I realized for the first time that not only does the City have a general "go'ITernmental" rA~ponsibility in sGaing to it that thi~ Proje~L ls planned and built in accordance with the City's development standards, but it (City) also has a yested interest in making sure the Project is financi.ally successful. After learning of the city'::s financial interest in the l?roject, I had further communications with Todd Cottle and Austin Silva from about the middle of March 2016 through the first week of June 2016 in an attempt to discuss some mitigation possibilities that would address some of my conce.r:H::s al.>uuL t.he Projecc, Without any success. A copy of the chain of emails from March 16, 2016 through June 6, 2016, are collectively attached hereto as Exhibit "3." As you can see from this recent chain of emails, the developer is now having a "traffic study" done ;ipr.;irently to opine as to the potential negative or positive impacts of closing down Harding Street. It is my understanding that the developer's traffic study is independent of the traffic study now being conducted by Kimley-Horn &. Associates, T.nc., in connection with the 4/16 Plan. Without prejudging the developer's traffic study, I, as a resident in the Barrio, strongly believe that the City must give more serious cons ide:cation to t:hP. pntentially signific.:i.nt negative imJ.>dt:ts upon the residents in the immediate area surrounding the Project, as well as the public in general, should Harding Street be abandoned. ln this regard, r make the following comments and observations, which I believe you <1nd EXHIBIT"B" Page 2 of 24 Page Three June 14, 2016 your staff need to take into consideration while evaluating the proposed abandonment of Harding Street and the gating off of this Project: ( l) Absent th.e developer ded i r.;iting and c~nstructing a replat;emeri"C street, I do not believe a basic "parking study" alone of the immediate area is going to yield sufficient information to justify the City's proposed abandonment of Harding Street. It is my belief that the closing down of Carol Place and/or Harding stret:L, which currently provides access and additional street parking for this area, cannot be don~ without an appropriate study being done in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA"). Neither the developer nor anyone on your ota£f ha:5 in.dicctLecl Lo me t:hat. a CEQA analysis is exempt or otherwise not needed for the City to abandon Harding Street as proposed under the current plans for the Project; (2) r also do not believe the abandonment or vacation of Harding Street meets the general requirements of Part 3 of · the Streets and Highways Code, sections 8320, et seq., nor· the require~ents for a "Summary Vacation" of that street under Part 4 of the 'straete .:ind Highways Code, sections 8330, et seq., without requiring the dedication and construction of -a "new" realigned street. Accordingly, I would suggest that the City Attorney also review and weigh in on the proposed abandonment of Hardinq Street before Cir.y staff makas any rccomrnendatlon or decision on the issue; (3) · Jefferson and Carol Place/Harding Street are the only two main access points into and ont of the Barrio off of Ta111d.c:c1r,;k between Interstate 5 and the railroad tracks. If Harding is vacated without a replacement road, Jefferson will be the only access point into and out of the south side of the Barrio. Should there be an accident or catastrophP 1.Jhich blocks Jeffcr::ion Avenue b~Lween Anchor Way and Magnolia, there will be no access into or out of the southern part of the Barrio neighborhood from or to Tamarack. Furthermore, during the school year Jefferson is heavily impacted with traffic and street parking issues . while children are picked up drn.l ur·oppect off at Jefferson Elementary School. I believe the closing off of Harding Street without requiring a replacement street poses significant traffic, health, welfare, and public safety issues that will directly impact emergency per.sonnel and th<'! public/re5icte11L~ access into and out of the Barrio neighborhood from and to Tamarack. Therefore, I would suggest that these public safety "access issues" should also be discussed with the appropriate police and fire· department personnel . In f.act, I firmly believe this "si n<Jle" versuD "double" access issue alone, for public safety reasons, should end the discussion about vc1cating or abandoning any part of Harding Street unless the developer is \,illing and able to dedicate and construct a replacement street; (4) The abandonment of Harding Street without an alternative dedicated road to replace it would essentially be a "gift" of public land/streets tn this private developer. While I .t:<=c.:oynize that the City EXHIBIT"B" Page 3 of 24 r l. Page Four June 14, 2016 () may have a vested tinancial interest in the Project's success, it also has an overriding duty and obligation to retain, preserve and maintain the public streets for the safe use and enjoyment of all the local surrounding residents of the site, ;i ~ well the public in general. Tile faithful and diligent performance of these responsibilities to the residents of Carlsbad should take absolute priority over and above the personal financial interests of a private developer and/or City; (5) Although the 165 resident parking spaces proposed for the roughly 93 affordable housing units to be built on the site may be "Code compliant," if the Project did not have the affordable housing allowed l:'Gduction,:i the parking :::<J:Jd(.;eS required under. Municipal Code section 21.44.020 Table A would be 199 (175.50 resident and 23.25 visitor). The development site currently has roughly 180 parking spaces consisting of garages, driveways and street parking to serve roughly 52 existing unit-s on fiaL<.Ung screet and Carol Place. In the evening (6 p.m. to 5 a .m. J essentially all of these 180 spaces are already inapequate to meet current demand. By almost doubling the number of units on this proposed Project site with less available street and on site parking spacQs, will almost certainly negatively impact the surrounding neighbors of this proposed "gated" comrnuni ty. ( 6) The surroundinq neighbors anrt th<> public in general have the need and a right to access these public streets for ingress, egress and parking purposes. By abandoning Hardin9 Street and gating · off this development, the City will be doing a great disservice to all the surroundinq neighbors and thP. local community in general. On iL:s face ic -appears inappropriate to give a s:ignificant "gift" of public land to a private developer for its own personal use and financial gain to the detiiment of the surrounding neighbors and the community in general. More import.;mtly, the currGnt propo3ed "gated" Projecc not. only would effectively block all access of the community to a public street but is in direct conflict with the overall visions and proposals specifically outlined in the 4/16 Plan and poses a significant threat to public safety. In other wo.cda, the E>rojecL :slt.e should remain "open," not gated, so that the surrounding neighbors as well as the general public can continue to have open unhindered access to Harding Street (or a replacement street) for ingress, egress and parking purposes. In light of the above, I suggest and request that you, the City Attorney and the appropriate police and fire safety personnel take a closer look at this Pacific Wind Project while it is still in its ear.ly stages to ensure City Staff and the developer are giving proper weight and consideration to the above copcerns and issues, and in particular to the potentially severe negative impacts of this proposeq Project upon the surrounding neighbors and the public in general. EXHIBIT 11811 Page4 of24 Carlsbad/// Pacific Wind Project· Revised e.\ans ' ) of3 ., . ·: Subject: Carlsbad I I I Pacific Wind Project -Revised Plans From; Ju!m Bailey <jballey@tblglaw.com> Date: 5131/2016 11 :30 AM To: Scott Donnell <scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov> C:C: Austin Silva <austin.silva@carlsbadca.gov>, Todd Cottle <todd@c-cdev.com>, Kathi Lacroix <klacroix@tblglaw.com> Hi Scott, Thank you for llle explanation and the attachments regarding the April 2016, revisions to the Village & Barrio Master Plan. Austin, We .firmly believe that any abandonment of Harding Street as reflected in the Pacific Wind revised plan (2/9/16) is going to have an extremely negative and detrimental impact on our surruunding neighborhood unless there is a re-dedication and improvement of an alternative street to provide replacement access and street parking to the public and the surrounding neighbors. At your earliest opportunity your earliest opportunity would you please call me to discuss these issues further. Thank~, John •••PLEASE NOTE NEW K~1A1L ADDRESS AND FIRM NAME.••• John B:tllcy The" Di11Uc;y Lc;al G1uup 25014 Lru< Brisas Soullt, Suite B Murri~la, CA 9l56Z {9s1J 304.1s,& om .. {Y5l)J04-7571 Fax ibnHe:'WRltbJ;Jnw.c.oru !=orwarded Message ·----- Subject:RE: Carlsbad/ I I Pacific Wind Project· Revised Plans Date:Tue, 31 May 2016 17:22:46 +0000 from:Scott Donnell <5cott.1Jonnell@carlsbadca.gov> To:John Bailey <jbailey@tblglaw.com>, Austin Silva <Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov>, Todd Cottle <todd@c-cdev.com> CC:Kathi Lacroix <klacroix@tblglaw.com> Hi John, EXHIBIT "B" Page 8 of 24 EXHIBIT " ~ " PAGE I OF to 6/9/2016 7:30AM j I l I i 1· i l I I l I r I I i ! l I I I I I I Carlsbad /// Pacific Wind Project-Revised Plans ·--, of3 I'm writing regarding the deletion of the Barrio Edge Development discussion. The text and accompanying graphic were deleted following conversations and input with anrl ;imong ttaff. the <;onsultant, and c&c Development, the Pacific Wind developer. This included a letter from C&C, attached. Dover Kohl prepared the graphic and text as a suggestion for how this area could redevelop. However. plan.~ 11ad already been submitted by C&C, ancl the conflict between the master plan and C&C's plans created ~ confusion. The intent of Dover Kohl's work was to simply suggest conceptually how the area could redevelop. This works in many instances where no development plans have been submitted; however, since a project 't. had DI ready been submitted, it seeineu l.tetter to delete the suggestion and let the Pacific Wind proceed on its • own merits based on overall master plan objectives expressed for the Barrio. I am working on a table th;it irlentifies and describes change$ between the November 2015 dlld Aprll 2016 . master plan drafts. · l hope this answer provides clarity. Scott Donnell Senior Planner 1635 raraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 www.carlsbadca.gov 760-602-46 l 8 !760-602-8560 fax I scott.donnell@carlsbaclca.gov . From:John Bailey (mailto:jbailey@tblglaw.com] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2016 2:00 PM To: Austin Silva <Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov>; Todd Cottle <todd@c-cdev.com> Cc: Scott Donnell <Scott.Donnell@carlsbadca.gov>: Kathi LaCroix <klacroix@tblglaw.com> Subject; Carlsbad Ill P.icific Wind Project -Revised Plans Austin and Todd. I was out of the Stat~ for a few weeks in late April to early May and have now just about caught up on everything. · As I am sure you are both aware the "Barrio Edge Del•elopment" discussion which was in the original November 2015 Village & Barrio Master Plan (see Plan, Part 1, item 6, 2:l.9) was completely deleted from the April 2016 Revist>:d Pinn. For the sake oftrn11sparcncy would each uf you please tell me the substance of any communications ( oral or written) eit11er of you had with Scott Donnell, other city staff and/or Dover Kohl concerning that discussion in the in the original November 2015 Plan and/or why it was deleted, without comment, from the April 2016 Revised Plan. In-addition to the above we still have some significant concerns about the City's potential VllC'l-'ltion or ~bandonment of Harding Street, without the 1-e-dedicaLiuu and improvement of an alternative street to provide replacement access and street parking to the public and surrounding neighbors. Where are we on this issue and have either of you given any thought or consideration to my suggestion tbat Todd's company consider dedicating tile Magnolia lots from Harding Street to the freeway (i.e. APN1s 204-292-01 & portion of204-292-16) as additional screened parking area for the development? EXHIBIT " 2-" EXHIBIT 11811 Page 9 of 24 PAGE c OF Ju 6/9/2016 7:30AM 'I I r I I l I ! I I Carlsbad I/ I Pacific Wind Project-Revised Plans .-.... , of3 _ . .-.,....., . ·1 ) At your earliest convenience would each of you please give me a call so we can discuss the above as weU as the current status of the Pacific Wind Project. Thanks, John .John Baircy The Bailey Le&~I Croup 25014 Las Brisas South, Suite n . Mvrrl,·t"t C\. 9'2,<i2 (951) 304-7566 Ollite (951)304-7S71 Fa• ibstHe \®tb!iraw.com No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG -www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6201 / Virus Database: 4591/12335 -Release Date: 05/31/16 -Attachments: - Cottle 1.13.pdf EXHIBIT "B" Page 10 of 24 EXHIBIT " -z_ " PAGE 77 OF ;c 991 KB 6/9/2016 7:30AM I I I I Scott Donnell From: Sent Tu; Cc: Subject: Attachments; Hi Scott, Todd Cottle <todd@c-cdev.com> Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:06 AM Scott Donnell Debbie Fountain; Austin Silva; Pat Whitaker; Rochelle Mills; Barry Cottle; Scolt Adams Letter Addressing Village and Barrio Master Plan 160113 Carlsbad Letter Addressing Darrio Ma~tt:r Plan.pdf Attached is a letter with our comments on the draft Village and Barrio Master plan. We appreciated the opportunity to provide comments. We also "tested" our current site plan and design against the proposed design standards. We didn't see a conflict. Thanks and please don't hesitate to contact us w_ith any questions. Todd Cottle .. c & C Deveropment Co., LLC 14211 Yorba SL, Ste. 200 Tuetin, Cl\ 02780 714-288-7600 x250 866-570-0728 (fax) todd@c-cdev.com EXHIBIT"B" Page 11 of 24 EXHIBIT " Z. " PAGE <{ OF /b . I Carlsbad /! I Pacific Wind Project· Revised Plans (SDP lS· 18 /M.-() Subject: Carlsbad /II Pacific Wind Project-Revised Plans (SOP 15-18 /MS 15} From; John Balley <Jballey@tblglaw.com> Date: 6/6/2016 3:50 PM To: Austin Silva <austin.silva@carlsbadca.gov> CC! jason.geldert@carlsbadca.gov, Kathi Lacroix <klacroix@tblglaw.com> Austin, Thank you for speaking with me this afternoon. It is mv understanding from our conversation that the City is still willing to consider the abandonment and/or vacation of a significant portion of 1-farding Street without requiring the developer to re-dedicate and re-construct a replacement road along the 5 frppway outside the P.:1cific Wind project {~DP 15-18 /MS 15). I firmly believe the abandonment" of Harding Street as proposed under the current Pacific Wind plans is golngto have an extremely negative and detrimental impact on the available street parking outside this "gated" project's boundaries. It is also going to prevent free public acc~ss through the area ::1s Initially rocommendcd in the November 2015 VIiiage & Barrio Master Plan. t:rom the middle of March thru the end of May 2016, f have attempted to discu~s with the developers representative, Todd Cottle, some mitigation possibilities to address my concerns and issues but without any success (see chain of emails below). I am now informed that the developer has contracted to have a traffic study done to opine as to the potential negative or positive impacts of dosing down Harding Street. Did the City "require" the developer to r.nnductthis traffic study as a condition to any declslo n by the City on the potential abandonment of Harding Street? Also would you please let me know as soon as the tr3ffic study has been complt!ted and submitted to the City so I can come in and obtain a copy for review? Thanks, John ,.••PLEASE N01'E NEW EMAILAOORESSAND ~IRM NAMF.••• John Dailey The Bailey ~gal Gn,up 250141.as 8rlsas South, Suite 8 Murrieta, CA 92SS2 (951) 304-7566 Olf!ce (951) 304-7571 Fax ibailey@tbJgJaw.con, CONFIOl;NTIAUTY NOTICE:The Information (ontalned in this elearonk mail message istonlldenriol infonnation intended onlyfort~e use of the Individual or entity to whom Jt~ intended to bedErecttd. ThP. ~nrlProfthis rno.sc:~a 1c; o Mcmbc.r ofthr:SU1t~ lid•.,, Cciltromra,ar,a its contents may b& privile.c,ed from disclosure um1erthe AttarneyClieht Privileg•, the AttomeyWorl<Product Privilege, the Right of Privacy contained in the Caliromi;, Constitution, and o~herrlghts and privlfeges that predud" disclosure of confidential information. Tlie information In this message may also be pn,tected by the ElectronicCommunJcalions Priv~cyAct, lB use Section$m0-2Sl1. Jfthe readerofthiJ message lsno1 the intended reclpleht, you are ~~l,y,,otlliecl diatanyclissemlnaUon, distrillot/on or E~fflllf f4J 3 no of7 EXHIBIT 11 8 11 Page 18 of 24 6/9/2016 7:37 AM Carlsbad I I/ Pacific Wind Project· Revised()ns (SDP 15-18 /M_. •0 PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS ANO FIRM NAME.••• John Balley Th .. Sail ey Legal Group 25014las Brisassouth. Suite 8 Murrieta, C/1. 92562 (9Sl) 304-7566 Office (951) 304-7571Fax Jltailev@tbl~!aw . .c:im CONFIOENTIAUlY NOTICE: The infonnation contlincd in this electtonicmaa message is confidential information intcn<ied onlyforthe use of the individual or entity to whom It islnlended to bedirocted. The sellderof this message is aMemberofthe Stare Bar of C.lifornla, and its ton tents maybe privileged from disclosure <1nder the Attorney Client Privilege, the Attorney Wolf< Product Privilege, the Right of Privacy oontalned In the California Constitution. and other rieht, and Drivlr~es that .P!'Pt'lurf~l'lido:s:.v.,-ol conti4enb~nl intorm11tCon. The: i11rv11ui!.tlftm In lhls messaee may also be protea:ed by the: Electronic CommuniQtions Privacy Ac:t.18 use Sections 2510-2521. lfthe reader of this mijssage Is not the intended recipient, you are hereby no lilied that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this comm~rilcalioo ii strictly prohibited. If you bilVe r~eiwd thi~ communication in error, please fmmedialelynotify the sender by re tum e-mail or at the telephone number above and delele the originol mess;ge. --------Forwarded Message ------ Subject:carlsbad /// Pacific Wind Project-·Revised Plans Date:Thu, 26 May 2016 14:00:13 -0700 From:John Bailey <ibailey@tblglaw.com> To:Austin Silva <austin.si/va@carlsbadca.gov>, Todd Cottle <todd@c-cdev.com> CC:Scott Donnell <scott.donnell@carfsbadca.gov>, Kathi laCroix <klacroix@tbfglaw.com> Austin and Todd, I was out of the State for a few weeks in late Aprll to early May and have now just about caught up on everything. As f am sure you are both aware the "Barrio Edge Development" discussion which was in the original November 2015 Village & Barrio Master Plan (see Plan, Part 1, itP.m 6, 2:19) was completely deleted from the AprH 2016 Revised Plan. For the sake of transparency would each of you please tell me the substance of any communications {oral or written) either of you had with Scott Donnell, other city staff and/or Dover Kohl concerning that discussion in the in the original November 2015 Plan and/or why it was deleted, without comment, from the April 2016 Revised Pran. In-addition to the above we still have some significant concerns about the City's potential vacation or abandonment of Harding Street, without the re-dedication and improvement of an alternative street to provide replacement access and street parking to the public and surrounding neighbors. Where are we on this issue and have either of you given any thought or consfderation to my suggestion that Todd's company consider dedicating the Magnolia lots from H::irding Street to the freew;;iy {i.e. APN's 204-292-01 & portfon of 204-292-16} as additional screened parking area for the development? At your P.arliest convenience would eDch of you please give me a call so we can discuss the above as well as the current status of the Pacific Wind Project. EXH·ISIT "3 s4 of7 EXHIBIT"B" Page 20 of 24 6/9/2016 7:37 AM Carlsbad/// Pacific Wind Project -Revise~:.P.J)ns (SDP 15-18 /M ... Thanks, John John Bailey The Balley Legal Group. Z!i014 La~ BrtSH.SouUJt3tlte n Murrieta; CA 9256Z (951} 304-7565 Oflict (SSlJ 304-7571 Fax ~jJey@tblglew.ro111 -------Forwarded Message------- Subject:Carlsbad I// Pacific Wind Project -Revised Plans Date:Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:11:24 -0700 From:John Bailey <ih;:iiJpy@tblelaw.com"> cl.:iy, To:Ctay Orey <clay.orey@yahoo.com> CC:Kathi Lacroix <klacroix@tblglaw.com>, Todd Cottle <todd@c-cdev.com>, Austin Silva <au.stin.silva@carlsbodca.gov> I have attached an Assessor's Parcel Map depicting the "Not Included Lots" referenced in my emall- below to Todd Cottle. Please note that I mi~kimly identified 204-291-35 in my emal! below, The correct APN is 204-291-16. The zoning density will not change. It remains ROM which is essentially 30 units per acre. The actual residential density when construction is complete for the proposed Assemblage wilJ increase from roughly 52 exsisting dwellings (i.e. 26 duplex lots} to about 96 residential units (i.e. 90 units under the revised plan plus the 3 duplexes made up of "Not Included Lots"). From a practical stand point there are about 180 garage, driveway and street parking spaces available right. nuw Lt1c1t serve the roughly 5.Z existing duplex units. The revised plan proposes 163 residential (no visitor) on site parking spaces to serve the 90 affordable units. This does not seem adequate. I believe however that the proposed number {163) of spaces are "code compliant" under the City's current low income housing code (i.e. 21.86.90.G, Table E)-My concern is thal If the aty abandons-Harding Street we, as surrounding neighbors, not only lose public access through the neighborhood but we also forfeit about 30-40 street parking spaces that now serve the Assemblage and the surrounding neighbors. Prior to the Pacific Wind "revised plan" being submitted to the City, I proposed the Developer dedicate . and reconstruct a New Street along Interstate 5 should the City decide to vacate Harding Street. I did not and do not believe, for a myriad of reasons, that the Public or the surrounding neighbnn; receive :my benefit for the City to vacate Harding Street. However, I do like the revised Pacific Wing plan which is why I suggested that Mr. Cottle consider dedicating the Magnolia lots from Harding Street to the freeway {i.e. APN's 204-292-01 & portion of 204-292-16) as additional screened parking area for the development. EXHJ-BIT "3 " of7 EXHIBIT 11811 Page 21 of 24 6/9/2016 7:37 AM i I f I Carlsbad/// Pacific Wind Project-Revised.Pl~ns (SDP 15-18 /M-. t As to the aesthetics of the project, whether positive or negative, I beHeve those are more subjective and will vary between every individual. Page 2 ofthP Plans. that 1.ittached to my email to Todd Cottle will give you and idea as to what the architecture will look like. However I would suggest you actually go to the City Planning Department on Faraday Ave. and review the plans so you can get a better idea of what is actually being proposed for the architecture, landscaping, etc. f hope this is responsive to your questions and concerns but please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss these issues any further. John John Bailey The Bailey Legal Group 25014 las B<isa, South, S(!ite e Munle la, CA 92562 l!>Sl} 30+.7.SGG offfce (951) 304-7S71fax jbailev@t!!!Ji!~f9.!!l --~-----Forwarded Message----- Subject:Re: Carlsbad/// Pacific Wind Project~ Revised Plans Date:Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:16:51 +0000 (UTC} From:Clay Orey <clay.orey@yahoo.com> Repfy-To:Clay Orey <day.orey@yahoo.com> John: To:John Bailey <ibailey@tblglaw.com>, Todd Cottle <todd@c-cdev.com> . CC:Austin Silva <austin.si/va~carlsbadca.gov>, Kathi laCroix <klacroix@tblgJaw.com>, Scott Donnell <scoj:!:,tjonnell@carlsbadca.gov> Ns another owner in the area, i would be interested lo see a map of exactly which other Jots are owned by this company and what the final screened parking would look like. Aside from trying to avoid adding lo an already strained parking situation on the surrounding streets one of my main concerns is maintaining_ and improving !he aesthetics of 1he neighborhood. Anything that positively or negatively impacls the property values in the area is going to be of great interest to not only mvself but all of · 111e olln:ei JJIVJJ(;lrly owners as well. Additionally, do we have a final accounting of how 1his is going to impact 1he current population density in the area? Are we increasing, decreasing or staying neutral. Thank you for your time and consideration. Clay Orey From: John Bailey <jbailey@tb!glaw.com> To: Todd Cottle <todd@c-cdev.com> Cc: Austin Silva <austin.silva@carlsbadca.gov>; Kathi Lacroix <klacroix@tblglaw.com>; Scott Donnell <scolt.donnell@carlsbadca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2.11 PM Subject: Carlsbad Ill Pacific Wind Project -Revised Plans EXHlBlT u 3 " of7 EXHIBIT 11811 Page 22 of24 6/9/2016 7:37 AM Carlsbad/ I I Pacific Wind Project-Revised P,J,q.ns [SDP 15-18 /M ... :· ) Todd, Thank you for taking the time last Thursday (3/10/16) to discuss with me the revised plans for the Pacific Wind project. I must say however that I was very surprised to learn last week from a 3/9/16 Union Tribune article (sec atroched) that the "City Coum;il approved a $7-4 million Joan in 2012 .. .'.' for your company to " ___ purchase 21 of the duplex lots .. _" in the Assemblage. In our phone conversation you indicated the City Joan has not yet been paid off and that the City holds a security Interest in the properties that were purchased. Although 1 have not checked or confirmed in the public records that the City does have a security interest, I now have a better understanding why the City appears so willing to "abandon" Harding Street in order to insure that your project is successful. As I mentloned in our conversation, this revised plan is significant improvement over the previously proposed project Attached are a few pages of the revised plans which reflect: a) there will now be SO units (18 1-bedroom, 18 2-bedroom, and 54 3-bedroom) for this gated low income llou:siny project; and b) there Will be roughly four lots, APN's 204-291-35, 204-291-17, 204-292-01, and a portion of 204-292-16, ("Not Included Lots"} in the original assemblage that will not be a part of the project. -In our conversation of 3/10, you stated you were still not certain what your company was going to do with the other Not Included Lots on Magnolia Avenue and Harding Street. You indicated in our discussion that you could rehab them for rental, but at this point there Is no clear plan. Although I still have some concerns ~bout the future development for these Not 1nc1uaea Lots and their potential impact on the neighborhood, I do believe this revised plan is significantly better. The above being safd I still have some concerns about the City's potential vacatlonfabandonment of' Harding Street, ,iyithout tile re-dedication and Improvement of an alternative street to provide replacement access and street parking to the public and surrounding neighbors. To alleviate this concern, would your company and/or it's investors consider dedicating the Magnolia lots from Harding Street to the freeway (i.e. APN's 204-292-01 & portion of 204-:292-16) as additional screened pa rklng area for the development? This additional parking would take pressure off the surrounding streets Immediately outside your project If your company and/or its investors are willing 1o consider this alternative, I befieve It INOUld be a "fair trade or offset" to the public and ~urrounding residents for the City's propo~ed abandonmeul for the portlon of Harding street that lies Within your proposed gated project Please give the above some thoughtful consideration and then call me at your convenience to further discuss the issue. Uurlng the interim, and by blind copy of this email, I am requesting written comments from your surrounding neighbors who have expressed an interest in being kept informed of your proposed development plans. f will do my best to provide you Vllith their thoughts, comment and/or concerns as soon as possible_ Thank you fbr your attention to this matter, and please feel free to call me at your convenience. John ... PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS AND FIRM NAl'nE.- JohO Bailey The Bailey Legal Group 25014 Las Brisas South, Suite B Murrieta, CA92562 (9S1 J 304-7566 Office (9S1) 304-7571 F,x illi!iL~!i!)!c@m No virus found in this message. EXH·fBf·T "3 s» ; of7 EXHIBIT "B" Page 23 of 24 6/912016 7:37 AM I· I I I Carlsbad I I I Pacific Wind Project-Revised f.la,ns (SDP 15-18 IM ... ' ' ; ) '~) Checked by AVG· www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6201 / Virus Database: 4598/12373 -Release Date: 06/06/16 · EXHIBIT 11 3 u 'of7 EXHIBIT"B" Page 24 of 24 6/9/2016 7:37 AM Don Neu, City Planner ("""·. ' .. THE BAILEY LEGAL GROUP 25014 Las-Brisas Road South, Suite B Murrieta, California !12~62 Telephone: (951} 304-7566 Facsimile: (951) 304-7571 March 28, 20 I 7 City of Carlsbad Planning Division · 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Via email and U.S. mail Re: Carlsbad /Pacific Wind Project (SDP 15-18/CDP 16~04/MS 16-01) Pear Mr. Neu: I have received Associate Planner, Austin Silva's, Jetter dated February 22, 2017, which responds to my letter dated June 14, 2016, to you, as City Planner, concerning the above-referenced Project. When we met at the July_ 13, 2016 Planning Commission meeting;you acknow I edged receipt of my June 14, 2016 Jetter and informed me th~t you would be responding to my Jetter. Mr. Silva makes a vague statement ·in his February 22nd lener·that the traffic study ( dated 8/23/16 and revised 11/29/16) '\ .. was reviewed by _staff several tim~s before it was recently accepted ct.s a final complete version ... " in what appears to be an attempt to explain the approximate]y eight-month lapse of time that it took to respond to the issues raised in my Jetter of June 14, 2016 to you. . Preliminarily, it appears that Mr. Silva's responses to my concerns, as delineated in his letter. are more in the fomi of "conclusions" as opposed to explanations. With that said, I will briefly set forth some of my concerns with regard to Mr. Silva's February 22, 2017 letter. Although Mr. Silva acknowledges that Harding Street does provide access between Magnolia Avenue and Carol Place, he then makes conclusionary statements that " ... that access is primarily for the residents who live on Harding Street .. .'~ and " ... provides additional parking primarily for the residents Jiving on Harding Street" (Pg. 1, Item l ), and EXHIBIT "C11 Page 1 of 6 , Page Two March 28, 2017 c·· that the " ... Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the developmc11L plan and no concerns were raised with access to and from the Project ... " (Pg. 2, Item 3). My impression from reviewing Mr. Silva's letter and the parking study, is that it appears that the parking study was drafted for the primary purpose of simply justifying the City's efforts to ultimately approve the Pacific Wind Project calling for the abandonment of Harding Street, without requiring the developer to dedicate or construct a replacement street. Although a traffic expert will be needed to evaluate the parking study in more depth, I have noted in the August 7.3, 2016 study [as revised on November 29, 2016], that the parking survey was conducted from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Jefferson Avenue, MagnoUa Avenue, Harding Street and Carol Place, during the weekdays. As I have been saying to City staff for the past year and a hal( and as mentioned in my letter of June 14, 2016 to you, the time frame during which the demand for parking is at its highest is 6:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. Between the hours of7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. during.the week is when most of the residents in the neighborhood are working, and there is plenty cif street parking available. The relevant time frame for the parking study needed to include the· time frame from 6:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., when demand is at its highest. Furthermore,. and more importantly, although the developer is demolishing 44 residential units on HardL11g Sa;eet and Carol Place, it is replacing those 44 dwelling units (primarily made up of two bedroom homes), with 93 resident~a) apartment units (21 one bedroom, 18 two bedroom> and 54 three bedroom units). It is also my understanding that after approval of the Minor Subdivision (MS-16-01 ), the remaining parcels that will not be a pat;t of the Pacific Wind Project will later be develope.d into another 20-26 unit affordable housing project. · · While I appreciate there will be n regulatory agreement that will govern these affordable apartment units, the density in this development area is being more than doubled, and street parking and public access are being completely eliminated. Although the proposed on-site p1:1Tking spaces ( 165) for this Project may be Code compliant for affordable housing, typical projects of this size would require 199 parking spaces under current Municipal Code section 21.44.020 Table A. Mr. Silva also indicates that the City will be processing a California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA,,) exemption for the Project under th,;: affordable housing exemption. Please let a copy of this correspondence se.rve as my fonnal request that the Planning EXHIBIT "C" Page 2 of 6 • l ' ' Page Three March 28, 2017 ("'•. , .. Commission, on April 5, 2017, of':ny approval of the Site Plun for the Pacific Wind Project, SD P 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01, on the grounds thatI believe the City's planning staffhas wrongfully determined that the Project is exempt from CEQA under section I 5 194 of the California Code of Regulations. As a threshold matter, in order for the Project to avail itself of this particular exemption, the Project must also meet the criteria in section 15192. I, as a resident and/or stakeholder of Carlsbad, take issue with the approval of the . Project because of the procedural and substantive defects and unique impacts of the Project . on the public health, safety, and welfare. Further, the Project vvill have substantive impacts on the environment and the quality of life for the surrounding neighbors, school, and the community at large. The bases of my concerns, as well as some ofmy neighbors, are as follows: (1) Contlicts with transportation, circulation, economy, noise, and air quality elements-and goals under the existing General Plan for this area and the proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan, as revised April 2016 ("Plan''), to wit: (a) The change in use may create patterns of transportation and circulation that conflict with Plan goals fur open pedestrian, bicycle and traffic movement through the neighborhood; (b) 1=,oss of parking spaces and the abandonment of street access may create patterns of transportation that conflict with Plan goals and the needs of the surrounding neighbors and the over::iU community; (c) The Project may have a negative impact on the loca] economy and tax revenues? ( d) The change in transportation and circulation patterns may have adverse air quality impacts. (2) The changing nature of the parcel, with attendant changes in trip generation, queuing, parking requirements, and urban decay, should have prompted some initial EXHIB.IT "C" Page 3 of 6 't Page Four March 28, 2017 c~-.. ('''',·,. environmental review pursuant to CEQA under Public Resources Code sections 21000, et seq.> and (a) The Project does not meet all the criteria set forth in section I 5192; (b) The Project does meet the criteria set forth in section 15194; and ( c) It is clear the developer is splitting this Harding Street Assemblage and will, in effect, increase the size of the Projr:ct in the future to wen over lOOunits, in violation of section 15192(0) and 15194(d)(I). In addition to the above, I have also read the case and stcitute cited in Mr. Silva's February 22nd letter. While Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1032, 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 702, confirms that a street can be nbnndoned 01 vacated under the Subdivision Map Act without " ... compliance with the Streets and Highway Code procedures and findings/' it is not without limitation. Mr. Silva and I discussed in early 2016 the initial draft of this Project that originally caJied for the abandonment of Harding Street and Carol Place. During those discussions, Mr. Silva indicated to me that he and other City staff were not opposed to the i:tbandonment of Harding Street, brit City staff would not consent to the abandonment of Carol Place. For that reason, and perhaps for other reasons, the developer ·submitted the plans to caU for just the abandonment of Harding Street and not Carol Place. The abandonment procedure under the Subdivision Map Act is discretionary. Tn fac.t, Government Code section 66445(j), which Mr. Silva cites in his February 22ni.1 letter, states, in pertinent p_art: "Before a public easement vested in another public entity may be abandoned pursuant to this section, that public entity shall receive notice of the proposed abandonment. No public easement vested in another public entity · shall be abandoned pursuant to this section if that public entity objects to the proposed abandonment." (Emphasis added) In light of the above, should the Cityt or any other public agency which has an interest in Harding Street, object for any reason to the abandonment of Harding Street, it will not and cannot be approved under the Subdivision Map Act procedure. In this situation, it appears the City has a direct conflict of interest in that it has a financial interest in the Project, while at the same time it must look out for what is in the best EXHIBIT 11C11 Page 4 of 6 Page Six March 28, 2017 ,,....._ ( . Honorable Arthur Niel Black Honorable Keny Siekmann Honorable Stephen ''Hap" L' Heureux Honorable Jeff Segall Honorable Patrick Goyarts (Via email only c/o Planning Commission Clerk at planning@carlsbadca.gov) City Council Members: Honorable Matt Hall, Mayor (matt.hall@carJsbadca.gov) Honorable Keith Blackbum (keith.blackburn@carlsbadca.gov) · Honorable Mark Packard (mark.packard@carlsbadcagov) Honorable Cori Schumacher (cori.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov) Honorable Michael Schumacher (michaeI.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov) (Via emaiJ only} Neighbors (Via email only) Austin Silva (Via email_ only) EXHIBIT "C" Page 6 of 6 I I -~ THE BAlLEY LEGAL GROUP 25014 Las Brisas Road South, Suite S Murrieta, California 92562 T!,!lephone: (951} 304-7566 Fac~imile: (951) 304-7571 April 17, 2017 Honorable PJanning Commission Members Honorable Velyn Anderson, Chainnan Honorable Marty Montgomery Honorable Arthur Niel Black _ Honorable Kerry Siekmann Honorable Lisa Rodman Honorabie Jeff Segall Honorable Patrick Goyarts (Via email only c/o Planning Commission Clerk at planning@carlsbadca.gpv) Re: Carlspad/Paci.fic Wind Project (SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01) Dear Honorable Commissioners: At the April 5, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, the City Attorney indicated that the issues regarding the California Environmental (Juality Act (CEQA) relating to the Pacific Wind Project were not before the Commission. However, the "Planning Commission Resolution No. 7233" which staff seeks approval, makes specific findings (page 9, para. 21 through page 14, para. 23) as to why the Pacific Wind Project b exempt fi-om and/ur uoes not need to comply with CEQA. In that the Resolution is based on findings related to CEQA, it would appear that the underlying CEQA issues are clearly before the Commission and should be considered before approving the final Resolution. For your refe~ence and review, I have also attached the first ten pages of a "City Council Agenda Bill/Resolution No. 2013-026" which essentially approved the financing for this Assemblage in January of 2013 . Aside from the fact that the developer has not met the time deadlines outlined on page 2 of the Bill, the Environmental Review Section of the Bill clearly stated: "The future larger (high density) apartment development will require a separate environmental review and approval, if it is detennined that the subject project will proceed. The environmental review for new construction project will be completed a1 a later date and represent a review of the project at the time it is proposed." (Page 4, Agenda Bill) EXHIBIT 11 D11 Page 1 of 13 ·, Honorable Cori Schumacher (r.ori.sc.humacher@carlsbadca.gov) Honorable Michael Schumacher (michaei.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov) (Via email only) Austin Silva (via email only) Neighbors (via email only) EXHIBIT "011 Page 3 of 13 r I I .,, Page2 As noted ~bove, there wm be an additional dupfex unit acquired at the close of escrow with additional private financing; therefore, the total number of units for the prqject will increase to 44. Upon acquisition, the project will have the following affordability level:.; • 20 units for households earning 60%' of the San Diego County Area Median Income ~~ . • ·23 units will be affordable to households earning 90% of AMI; .. 1 unit will be for an on-site property manager. 1-1nancial Assistance As part of the project financing, the Developer partnership has requested that the City provide a residual receipts loan in the rounded amount (>f $7,400,000 to assist in the acquisition of the property. The City Council approved the full amount of (he requested financing on November 6, 2012 from the Housing Trust Fund. The· City Council requested that the loan documents be returned for approval by the Council. The loan documents have been drafted anrf Are presented for City Council review and approval, and authorization ta execute. Financial Assistance Documents · As proposed and if approved, the City assistance ($7,408,000) will be provided in the form of a residual receipts loan secured by a note and deed of trust. The outstanding princf pal and accrued iriterest on the City loan will be amortized over a fifty-five year period and repaid from surplus cash in equal annual installments comprised of principal and interes\, In the event that there is not adequate cash surplus to pay an annual installment, the outstanding balance shall accrue with simple interest at 3% per annum. The terms of the City assistance is the same Joan structure that has been utlllzed for each previous affordable housing project developed in the City of Carlsbad, with the exception of the following specific key .conditions related to the uniqueness of this project -acquisition/rehabilitation/new construction: [ 1: Developer must acquire the additional properties required: to construct a new. larger (highe~·r density; approximately 140 units) affordable housing development on the site within 18 months from the date of approval of this agreement; or 2. No later than December 31, 2015 or three (3} years after the acquisition of the Property, whichever is later, the Developer must (a) obtain all planning approvals and building permits necessary to construct the future required Improvements for a new, larger (higher density) affordable housing development or (b) immediately initiate work to substantially rehabilitate · the existing units with an inves1ment of at least $75,000 per unit, including all improvements and ami;mities (if larger project is not feasible for any reason). [ 3. Developer must commence construction of.the improvements for a new, larger (higher J density; approximately 140 units) affordable housing development or the substantial rehabilitation of the existing u11ih:1 (if larger pro;ect Is not feasible for any reason) no later · than by December 31, 2016. EXHIBIT 11D11 Page 5 of 13 I I /. Page3 4. Developer must complete construction of the improvements for a new, larger (higher density) affordable housing development or the substantial rehabilitation of the existing units {if:larger project is notfeasible for any reason) by December 31, 2018, or four (4) years after construction financing closing for the larger development, whichever Is later. If any of the above conditions are not met and the City does not agree to extend the deadlines for satisfaction of the conditions. the City may rledare a breach of contract or a default on the Joan agreement resulting in a requirement for the development partnership to · immediately repay the fulf amount of the Joan with interest to the City of Carlsbad. In order for the project to receive the $7,408,000 loan, the Developer is required to enter into loan and regulatory agreements with the City of Carlsbad. The City Council is being asked to authorize the Interim City Manager, or designee, to execute the loan documents in the form set forth herein and deposit said doounienfa to escrow for recordation against the sul.Jject · property, following final review and approval by the City Attorney, or designee. The required documents are explained further below: 1. Loan Agreement states the terms and conditions relating to the City's loan. 2. Regulatory Agreement . records the terms of affordability and the operational requirements for the project 3. Promissory Note is executed by the Developer and expresses their intent to repay the loan. 4. Deed of Trust is recorded against the property to secure the City/Agency's interest in the subject property and related improvements. It is important to also note that the City w·m ultimately be required to subordinate the subject documents fo the senior lien holder, which will initially be Bank of America. If approved, the attached resolution authorizes the Interim City Manager, or designee, to execute subsequent loan documents as well as a subordination agreement; upon final review and approval by the City Attorney, or deslgnee. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from the California Environmentnl Quality Act {CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15194 -Affordable Housing. The financial assistance from the City of Carlsbad will be used by the developer to acquire existing residential units and rehabilitate them, and then to rent-restrict the units to be affordable to lower income households. This proposed project was reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Planner nas determined that the proposed project is exempt from additional environmental review per Section 15194 (affordable housing exemption) of CEQA because the project site is 1) no larger than five acres, 2} is in an urbanized area, and 3) the-project site has been previously developed for qualified urban uses (residential). The project also consists of the construction, conversion, or use of residential housing consisting of 100 or fewer units that are afforda61e to low-inc9me · househotds, and the developer will legally commit to ensure the continued availability and EXHIBIT "D11 Page 6 of 13 3 Page4 use of the housing units for lower income households for a period of at least 30 years at monthly costs deemed to be affordable rent for lower income households. Dhe Mure larger (higher density) apartment development will require separate environmental eview and approval, if it is determined that the subject project wiU proceed. The nvironmental "review for th~ new construction project will be completed at a later date and epresent a review ot the project at the time it is proposed. FISCAL IMPACT: The financial assistance in the form of a $7,408,000 residual receipts loan will be provided from the Housing Trust Fund, which has a current undesignated fund balance of approximately $19.8 million .. These funds may be used for affordable housing purposes only: _these are not general fund monies that may be used for other services or projects. EXHIBITS; 1.. City Council Resolution No. 2013-026 • to approve the loan documents Jn the form submitted to the Cily Council for the Carol/Harding Acquisition and Affordable Apartment · Development, and to authorize the Interim City Manager to execute said docume~ts. 2. Project Location Map 3. "Loan Agreement 4. Deed of Trust 5. Promissory Note 6. Regulatory Aweement EXHIBIT "D" Page 7 of 13 i I I l ! i I r 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 2.8 _ . ......_ ) RESOLUTION NO. 2013-026 A RESOUlTTON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE THE LOAN DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM SUBMIITED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A RESIDUAL RECEIPTS LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,408,000 TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PARTNERSHlP OF C&C DEVELOPMENT AND IRVINE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES, KNOWN AS HARPING STREET NEIGHBORS LP, FOR TIIE ACQUISITION OF FORTY-TWO (<I~) RENTAL UNITS TO BE RESTRICTED FOR LOW INCOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITIDN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE Cl1Y OF CARLSBAD. AND AUTHORIZING THE INTF.RIM CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENTS. WHEREAS. C&C Development and Irvine Housing Opportunities (IHO) did pnrtner and propose to acquire 21 duplex (42 total) rental residential units and convert them to rent- restricted affordable housing for lower income households on Harding Street. Carol Place and Magnolia A venue in the historic Barrio neighborhood of the Village Area within the Northwest Quadrant of the City of Carlsbad; and · WHEREAS, C&C Development and IHO did request that the City ofCarlsbad provide fmancial assistance in the form of an acquisition loan in the amount of $7,408,000 that will convert to ll rci1iduaJ receipts permanent loan to assist iu tl1e development of a new affordable housing rental opportunity within Carlsbad or the substantial rehabilitation of the existing development; and WHEREAS, C & C Development and IHO recently created. a new partnership known as Harding Street Neighbors, LP. and request that said approved loan proceeds be disbursed to said partnership for acquisition of the subject property; and WHEREAS, Harding Street Neighbors, LP has agreed to diligently pursue the development of a new, larger (higher density) atfordable housing development on the site of the subject property, or to substantially rehabilitate the existing units if the new, larger (higher density) development is nol feasible for any reasons. EXHIBIT 11D11 Page 8 of 13 I I I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City 2 of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 }/// 24 JIii 25 !Ill 26 Ill/ 27 28 I. The above recitations are true and correct. 2. The City Council approved the financial assistance request ($7,408,000) for the acquisition of property for an affordable housjng development at Carol Place, Harding Street, Magnolio Avenue in the historic Barrio neighborhood of the Villag~ area by C&C Development and Irvine Housing Opportunities (IBO), now known as Harding Street Neighbors, LP, on November 6, 2012. 3. That the City Council hereby approves the loan documents as to fonn as submitted herein, and authorizes the Interim City Manager, or designee, to execute all loan documents related to pro-vision of the City financial assistance in the fonn of a residual receipts loan, subject to final review and approval by the City Attorney, to fund the subject acquisition of property by Harding Street Neighbors; LP (C&C- Development and Irvine Housing Opportunities) for development of a low income- restricted affordable housing project "th.rough acquisition and new construction or acquisition and substantial rehabilitation. and to deposit said documents to escrow for recordation at time of property acquisition. · 4. That the City Council authorizes th~ City· Manager, or designee, to also execute subsequent subordination agrcement(s) subordinating the City's Regulatory Agreement and Deed of Trust to the Deed of Trust to senior liens for pennanent lenders, as required, subje_cr to review and approval by the City Attorney, and subject to the City Manager :.finding that no other financing that does not require subordination is reasonably available and the loan amount subordinated to by the City noes not exceed $4 million dollars unless good cause i~ demonstrated to the City Manager to exceed this amount. 5. That the City Council authorizes the Finance Director to disburse the loan proceeds as set forth within this approval in the t-0tal amount of $7,408,000, and appropriately account for the residual receipts loan for the subject affordable housing project, and as set forth in the approved loan documents. EXHIBIT "D11 I Page 10 of 13 .. : "'':\. ' ·! .,.. ) EXHIBIT 2 PROJECT LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT "D" Page 12 of 13 9 Subsequent Acqubit ion EXHIBIT "D" Page 13 of 13 RESPONSE TO APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV.15-058) PACIFIC WIND EXHIBIT 4 On April 19, 2017, the City Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 7233 approving SDP 15-18, CDP 16-04, and MS 16-01 for the Pacific Wind project. On April 28, 2017, an appeal of that approval was filed by Fred M. Johnson on behalf of the Carlsbad Alliance for Responsible Development ("Appeal"). The appeal was accompanied by several attachments as follows: Attachment 1: Document from Skane Wilcox re Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of SDP 15-18/CDP 167-04/MS 16-01 (Dev. 15-058) ("Pacific Wind") and the Passing of Resolution No. 7233 on April 19, 2017, dated April 27, 2017 ("Appeal Letter"). Attachment 2: Letter from Courtney Ross-Tait, Skane Wilcox LLP, re: Pacific Wind Project, dated Aptil 4 2017. A number of issues were raised in the appeal documents, and this document has been prepared to respond to the comments presented in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 to the Appeal. Responses to Attachment 1: Comment 1: This comment informs the City of the appeal filed by Carlsbad Alliance for Responsible Development ("CARD") and Dr. Fred Johnson of the Planning Commission's approval of the Pacific Wind project at its hearing on April 19, 2017. The comment provides a brief description of the two hearings at which the Planning Commission considered the project and states that the Planning Commission did not allow comments by the community at the April 19, 2017 hearing. The Planning Commission heard presentations from staff and the project applicant, and extensive comments from members of the community at the April 5, 2017, meeting. After all members of the public had an opportunity to speak1 the Planning Commission closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. The Planning Commission reconvened on April 19, 2017, and pursuant to the Planning Commission's hearing procedures, provided the applicant with the opportunity to address the public comments that were made at the April 5 hearing. The applicant was asked to limit his testimony to just responding to the comments made at the April 5 hearing. The Commission made its decision after hearing and taking into consideration the comments from all members of the community who were present and testified at the April 5 hearing. Comment 2: This section of the appeal letter provides background information regarding the proposed project. The project proposes the development of 93 affordable housing units. The comment alleges that the project was reduced in size in order to qualify for an exemption under 1 As noted in the Staff Report, the original purpose of this segment of Harding Street was to serve the houses fronting the street. As these houses will be demolished and the development reconfigured such that the multi-family units will no longer rely upon Harding Street frontage or 01ientation, the purpose of this segment of the street was no longer deemed necessary. Moreover, the City determined that the removal of the street would not create any safety concerns with the Fire Depaiiment and Police Depa1iment and would not impact traffic, circulation or parking. Comment 9: The comment notes that a prior alternative plan for the project called for the abandonment of both Harding Street and Carol Place; however, because City staff determined that Carol Place was needed for access to Jefferson Elementary School, the applicant revised its proposal to only affect Harding Street. The fact that the application was revised to take into consideration the comments and concerns of City staff to protect access to an existing elementary school is entirely permissible and appropriate. No findings of fact are required by the City for the applicant to revise its plans voluntarily in response to comments from City staff. Comment 10: The appeal letter notes that the abandonment procedure under the Subdivision Map Act is discretionary. The City has not objected to the abandonment of Harding Street. For the reasons discussed in the Staff Report, the City has determined that Harding Street is no longer required to provide street frontage to the proposed multi-family development. The appeal letter expresses the desire to preserve Harding Street so that residents who do not live on Harding Street can use that street to serve their parking needs. With the configuration of the proposed project eliminating any residences fronting Harding Street, the project eliminates the need for any future residents to use Harding Street for parking. The project provides adequate parking for its future residents, and will not impact the adjacent neighborhood. Those residents who live on other streets in the neighborhood can either park in their garages or on streets fronting their residences. Comment 11: The appeal letter presents an argument that the proposed project conflicts with the proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan -which has not been adopted -because it does not provide open access throughout the community for pedestrians and bicycles. As noted, the Village and Barrio Master Plan has not been adopted and therefore, consistency findings are not required for policies in an unadopted Plan. The City has further determined that adequate pedestrian and vehicular access will remain in the neighborhood with the existing streets for children and parents to access Jefferson Elementary. Comment 12: The City Fire Department has reviewed the project plans, including the proposed abandonment of Harding Street, and has determined that the proposed development as designed does not present any safety concerns, an.d that response times will be maintained. The appeal letter has not cited any evidence in support of its speculation regarding emergency vehicle delays that would contradict the determination of the City Fire Department and Police Department, who are the City's experts with respect to emergency response times and safety, and have both approved the project plans. Comment 13: The comment expresses concern if an accident occurs that blocks Jefferson Avenue between Anchor Way and Magnolia that there would be no access in and out of the 5 south side of the Barrio. There would be a detour available that vehicles could use. Cars could go east on Chestnut Avenue and south on Pio Pico Drive to access Tamarack Avenue. The City police and fire depai1ments have reviewed the circulation plan and as staff stated at the hearing, on the record, neither department expressed an objection to the proposed development based upon its circulation. Finally, it should be noted that with respect to concerns about circulation issues when school is in session, the traffic counts and traffic analysis were conducted when the Jefferson Elementary School was in session. The traffic impact analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads showed no significant impacts from the project based on the City's criteria. In addition, counts were conducted for seven days when school was in session to determine the amount of cut~through traffic on Harding Street. The analysis of this seven day count indicated that the amount of traffic re-routed to Jefferson Street with the construction of the Project is nominal (approximately 2.3% of the traffic on Jefferson Street). Comment 14: The City agrees with the comment that the City has the duty to ensure that public streets are maintained for the safety of all its residents. Based upon its thorough review of the proposed development, and the review by the City Police and Fire Departments, the City believes that it has taken into consideration the need to ensure the continued safety of its residents and the public. Comment 15: The appeal letter questions the number of parking spaces that the project provides. The project will provide 166 resident parking spaces which meets the requirements for ufforduble housing projects pursuant to SB 1818, the State Density Bonus law. At the public hearing, in response to questions regarding the number of parking spaces that will be provided, the project applicant described his prior experience in managing the parki1ig for a number of affordable housing projects that he has developed and continues io manage, and why the number of parldng spaces is more than adequate to serve the needs of the project. Those reasons include the tenant composition, the factthe apartment units are affordable, on-site management of parking by the complex manager, and use of public transit by residents. Unlike the current situation, where residents from other streets park on Harding Street and other local streets, the proposed project will provide onsite parking with an access-controlled multi-family residential development with an on-site manager. Each unit is provided with an identified parking space or spaces depending upon the number of bedrooms and parking violations, e.g., parking in an already-assigned space, will be enforced. This differs considerably from the existing, unmonitored situation. For these reasons, the City has determined that the project provides an adequate number of parking spaces. Comment 16: The appeal letter notes that pedestrian and bicycle access will be provided through the project during daylight hours. The appeal letter expresses concern that vehicle access to this area-presumably the project site --is necessary for traffic flow and continued access to street parking, and dual access in and out of the south side of the Barrio. The project traffic impact analysis has examined traffic flow and determined that the vacation of Harding Street and the design of the project will not have an adverse impact on traffic flow. With respect to non-Harding Street residents needing access to the project area for street parking, see Response to Comment 10. With implementation of the project, parking will be provided on-site for future residents. 6 i i l 1 p r I t r i I t I Comment 17: The appeal letter restates the opinion that the surrounding neighbors need to access the public streets, i.e., Harding Street, for ingress, egress and parking purposes. See response to Comments 10 -16. Comment 18: The appeal letter identifies three design alternatives. The Planning Commission listened to the testimony of the public and sunounding residents, including comments regarding maintaining Harding Street and rendered its decision upon thorough consideration of all comments including comments that addressed these design alternatives. These comments and alternatives will be provided to the City Council prior to its consideration of the proposed project and appeal. Responses to Attachment 2: Comment 1: This introductory paragraph states that the correspondence is the response and opposition of Carlsbad Alliance for Responsible Development. No response is required. Comment 2: The comment states that the commenter disagrees with the City's determination that the project is exempt from compliance with CEQA under the affordable housing exemptions provided under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15192 and 15194. The Planning Commission Staff Report and Planning Commission Resolution No. 7233 review in detail the criteria set forth in CEQ A Guidelines Sections 15192 and 15194 and provide evidence in support regarding the project's compliance with these criteria. See Response to Comments 2-5 to Attachment 1. Comment 3: Paragraph 1 of the comment states the opinion of the commentex that they disagree that the project is consistent with the General Plan. The April 5, 2017 Staff Report to the Planning Commission at page 3-5 discusses the General Plan consistency findings for the project. The project's density and land use is consistent with the General Plan R-30 land use designation for the project site. The project also furthers a number of General Plan goals and policies. The second paragraph asserts that the project is inconsistent with the applicable zoning. The April 5, 2017 Staff Report at page 5 discusses the project's consistency with the applicable Residential Density-Multiple Family Zone. The comment references the Village and Barrio Master Plan which has not been adopted. Therefore, the applicable zoning for the project site is the RD-M Zoning discussed in the Staff Report. The third paragraph in this comment states that the project has not gone through sufficient community-level environmental review as required by CEQA. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 1519l(c)(l), "Community-level enviromnental review" includes an EIR certified on a lead agency's General Plan. The City conducted a comprehensive General Plan update in 2015 and certified an environmental impact report in connection with the General Plan update. The project is consistent with the land uses set forth in the General Plan. The process of revising the General Plan began nearly eight years ago, including a two-year public involvement process called Envision Carlsbad. Envision Carlsbad was an extensive community visioning and outreach effort that involved more than 8,000 residents, 100 community groups and organizations, scores of business owners and elected officials and city staff members. The 7 The second paragraph of this comment asse1is without any evidentiary support that the project will have significant impacts on air and water and environmental contaminants. First, no evidence has been presented regarding any potential significant impacts. S~cond, unlike CEQA categorical exemptions which may not apply if certain exceptions are identified, such as a significant effect due to unusual circumstances, statutory exemptions are absolute, in that the exemption applies if the project fits within its terms. (Great Oaks Water Co. v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 956, 966 fn. 8.) Here, the City has demonstrated that the Project, the whole of which includes the development of the 93 units and the street vacation, meets the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15192 and 15194 and is thus considered statutorily exempt. Comment 5: See Responses to Comments 7, 8 and 10 to Attachment 1. Comment 6: See Response to Comment 4 [to Attachment 2], above, and Response to Comment 3 to Attaclunent 1. 318867443.2 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7233 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 15-18, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 16-04 AND MINOR SUBDIVISION MS 16-01 TO ALLOW FOR THE DEMOLITION OF 44 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 93-UNIT APARTMENT (92 AFFORDABLE UNITS) DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MODIFICATIONS, AND A STREET VACATION FOR A PORTION OF HARDING STREET NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF CAROL PLACE, IN THE RESIDENTIAL-DENSITY MULTIPLE ZONE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: PACIFIC WIND CASE NO.: SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) I WHEREAS, Harding Street Neighbors, LP, "Owner/Developer," has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as PARCEL A: LOTS 1 TO 9, INCLUSIVE, 11 TO 13 INCLUSIVE, AND 24 TO 33 INCLUSIVE, OF PALM VISTA IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF NO. 2969, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 16, 1953. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 13 OF PALM VISTA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 2969; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 13, SOUTH 19°17'11" EAST 161.15 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 13, SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 14, SOUTH 61°51'52" WEST 68.06 FEET; THENCE NORTH 08°26'25" WEST 42.85 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14°49'18" WEST 95.30 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25°13'44" WEST 26.19 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 13, SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 61°51'52" WEST 55.14 FEET FROM SAID MOST NORTHERLY CORNER; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE NORTH 61°51'52" EAST 55.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 8, 9, 11 AND 12 AS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED AUGUST 24, 1967 AS FILE NO. 127829 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. APN(s): 204-292-01 (LOT 1); 204-292-02-00 (LOT 2); 204-292-10-00 (LOT 3); 204-292-11-00 (LOT 4); 204-292-12-00 (LOT 5); 204-292-13-00 (LOT 6); 204-292-14-00 (LOT 7); 204-292-17-00 (LOT 8); 204-292-18-00 (LOT 9); 204-292-20-00 (LOT 11); 204-292-21-00 (LOT 12); 204-292-22-00 (LOT 13); 204-291-27-00 (LOT 24); 204-291-26-00 (LOT 25); 204-291-25-00 (LOT 26); 204-291-24-00 (LOT 27); 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 204-291-23-00 (LOT 28); 204-291-19-00 (LOT 29); 204-291-20-00 (LOT 30); 204-291-21-00 (LOT 31); 204-291-22-00 (LOT 32); 204-291-14-00 (LOT 33) PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF LOT 236 OF THUM LANDS, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1681, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DECEMBER 9, 1915, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE CENTER LINE OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE, DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 61°21' WEST, 446.86 FEET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTER LINE OF ADAMS STREET, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND CONVEYED BY THE SOUTH COAST LAND COMPANY TO DEAN F. PALMER, BY DEED DATED MAY 5, 1927, AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1335, PAGE 384 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND AS CONVEYED TO SAID PALMER AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID LINE, SOUTH 28°39' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 487.47 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED BY SOUTH COAST LAND COMPANY TO LAURA JONES BY DEED DATED MAY 14, 1929, AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1629, PAGE 431 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID PROLONGATION AND THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND SO CONVEYED TO SAID JONES, SOUTH 61 °21' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 536.38 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED BY SOUTH COAST LAND COMPANY TO P.J. WHELDON AND MARY H. WHELDON BY DEED DATED JULY 7, 1926, AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1180, PAGE 463 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND SO CONVEYED TO SAID WHELDON AND ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF, NORTH 28°39' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 487.47 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE CENTER LINE OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTER LINE NORTH 61°21' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 536.38 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 8 OF PALM VISTA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF NO. 2969, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 16, 1953, SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 61°58'46" WEST, 71.99 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE (1) NORTH 22°36'42" WEST, 359.22 FEET; THENCE (2) NORTH 18°34'28" WEST, 131.94 FEET TO A POINT IN THE CENTER LINE OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE, LAST SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 61°54'01" EAST, 162.74 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SAID CENTER LINE AN THE CENTER LINE OF HARDING STREET, FORMERLY 5TH STREET, AS SAID STREET IS PC RESO NO. 7233 -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 SHOWN ON THE RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF ALLES AVOCADO ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF NO. 2027, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 17, 1927. APN(s): 204-292-16-00 PARCEL E: LOT 10 OF PALM VISTA IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 2969, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 16, 1953. EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER GRANT DEED RECORDED MAY 9, 1967, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 64674, OFFICIAL RECORDS APN(s): 204-292-19-0 ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, and Minor Subdivision as shown on Exhibits "A" -"RR" dated April 5, 2017, on file in the Planning Division, SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01-PACIFIC WIND as provided by Chapter 21.06, Chapter 21.53.120, Chapter 21.201.030, Chapter 20.24, and Chapter 20.28 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on April 5, 2017 and April 19, 2017, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, and Minor Subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission APPROVES SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 -PACIFIC WIND based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: PC RESO NO. 7233 -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 Findings: Site Development Plan (SDP 15-18) 1. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated April 5, 2017 including, but not limited to the following: A. Land Use Goal 2-G.3: Promote infill development that makes efficient use of limited land supply, while ensuring compatibility and integration with existing uses. Ensure that infill properties develop with uses and development intensities supporting a cohesive development pattern. The applicant is proposing to redevelop an infill site in the Barrio that is underutilized as it relates to density. The Barrio is an appropriate location for dense development because of its connection to commercial services in the Village, as well as easy access to nearby public transit and Interstate 5. The project site is identified in Figure 10-1 (Housing Element Sites Inventory) of the General Plan as an underutilized site for lower and moderate income housing. Further, the project falls within the density range (23 du/ac - 30 du/ac) for the R-30 General Plan Land Use designation and is consistent with the development standards of the RD-M zone. B. Housing Goal 10-G.3: Sufficient new, affordable housing opportunities in all quadrants of the city to meet the needs of current lower and moderate income households and those with special needs, and a fair share proportion of future lower and moderate income households. Housing Policy 10-P.19: Address the unmet needs of the community through new development and housing that is set aside for lower and moderate income households consistent with priorities set by the Housing and Neighborhood Services Division, and as set forth in the city's Consolidated Plan. The proposed project will provide 92 affordable housing units dedicated to low income households. Low-income is defined as households that earn 80 percent of the median income for the area. Income limits are adjusted for household size so that larger families may have higher income limits. C. Housing Policy 10-P.20: Encourage the development of an adequate number of housing units suitably sized to meet the needs of lower and moderate income larger households. The proposed affordable apartment project will provide 92 affordable apartments dedicated towards low-income households, with 18 two-bedroom units and 54 three-bedroom units being provided, which constitutes 77.4% of the total units. The larger units will meet the needs of larger household sizes. D. Mobility Goal 3-G.5: Implement transportation demand and traffic signal techniques to improve mobility. Mobility Policy 3-P.5: Require developers to construct or pay their fair share towards improvements for all travel modes consistent with the Mobility Element, the Growth Management Plan, and specific impacts associated with their development. Mobility Policy 3-P.8: Utilize transportation management strategies, non-automotive enhancements (bicycle, pedestrian, transit, train, trails, and connectivity), and traffic signal management techniques as long-term transportation solutions and traffic mitigation measures to carry out the Carlsbad Community Vision. The applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees prior to issuance of building permit that will go towards future road improvements. Additionally, the developer is required to pay a fair share contribution of the total design and construction cost to modify the traffic signal and related pavement striping at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Tamarack Avenue to convert the signal to eight phases with protected left turns in northbound and southbound directions on Jefferson Street. PC RESO NO. 7233 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. E. Mobility Policy 3-P.26: Identify and implement necessary pedestrian improvements on streets where pedestrians are to be accommodated per Table 3-1, with special emphasis on providing safer access to schools, parks, community recreation centers, shopping districts, and other appropriate facilities. Mobility Policy 3-P.32: Require developers to improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity with the city's bicycle and pedestrian master plans and trails master planning efforts. In addition, new residential developments should demonstrate that a safe route to school and transit is provided to nearby schools and transit stations within a half mile walking distance. The project has been conditioned to: (1) Provide pedestrian and bicycle improvements on Jefferson Street, including the replacement of the striped crosswalk on Jefferson Street at the intersection of Carol Place and Jefferson Street with a raised crosswalk approved by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp), (2) Install bike route signage for a Class Ill bikeway route consistent with the City of Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan on Jefferson Street between Anchor Way and Tamarack Avenue, (3) Upgrade as needed, the pedestrian ramps at the northerly end of Harding Street and the westerly end of Carol Place to current American Disability Act (ADA) standards, all subject to approval by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp). F. Public Safety Policy 6-P.28: Encourage physical planning and community design practices that deter crime and promote safety. The project has been designed to prevent crime and has incorporated design review recommendations from the Police Department. For example, fencing and walls are used around the perimeter of the property to discourage access to unmonitored areas and to define and outline the property. Also, the parking area will be gated and secured 24 hours a day. G. Noise Goal 5-G.2: Ensure that new development is compatible with the noise environment, by continuing to use potential noise exposure as a criterion in land use planning. Noise Policy 5.P.2: Require a noise study analysis be conducted for all discretionary development proposals located where projected noise exposure would be other than "normally acceptable." A noise analysis was prepared by BridgeNet International (September 4, 2015) and determined that a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 40 will be needed for the glass window assemblies in buildings two through six. That the requested development or use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental settings, will not be detrimental to existing development or uses or to development or uses specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed development or use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or traffic circulation, in that the project site is located within an urbanized area and involves the redevelopment of a infill lot which is located in close proximity to commercial/retail services, professional offices, social and community services, and public transportation. The proposed 93-unit multi-family residential use will not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which the use is located in that multi-family residential is a use permitted within the Residential-Density Multiple (RD-M) Zone and is compatible with other residential uses surrounding the project site. The proposed project density of 23 dwelling units per acre is within the density range (23 du/ac -30 du/ac) for the R-30 General Plan Land Use designation and the development meets the development standards for the RD-M zone. According to the traffic study prepared by Urban Crossroads (November 29, 2016) the abandonment of Harding street will have a nominal impact to the traffic on Jefferson Street. Traffic counts were conducted on Harding Street and Carol Place to determine cut-through vehicular traffic between Magnolia Avenue and Jefferson Street, 24 hours a day, for a week straight (November 1, 2016 -November 7, 2016) when Jefferson Elementary School was in session. It was found that an average of 171 vehicles per day would be rerouted to Jefferson Street, which represents approximately 2.3% PC RESO NO. 7233 -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. 4. 5. 6. of the overall traffic on Jefferson Street. Additionally, the rerouting of the traffic was evaluated in the peak hour intersection analysis and the intersection of Jefferson Street and Magnolia Avenue was found to operate at acceptable levels of service. That the site for the intended development or use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in that the 93-unit apartment project complies with the development standards of the Residential-Density Multiple (RD-M) Zone and Carlsbad Municipal Code, except for a requested development standard modification to allow a reduction in the required number of parking spaces. Justification for allowing the development standard modification is further discussed in finding number six of this resolution. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested development or use to existing or permitted future development or use in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained, in that the 93-unit apartment project complies with all of the minimum development standards of the Residential-Density-Multiple (RD-M) Zone and the Carlsbad Municipal Code, except for a requested development standard modification to allow a reduction in the required number of parking spaces. Justification for allowing the development standard modification is further discussed in finding number six of this resolution. Landscaping throughout the project site will be provided consistent with the requirements of the city's Landscape Manual. That the street systems serving the proposed development or use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the 93-unit apartment project will take access via Harding Street on Magnolia Avenue and Carol Place on Jefferson Street. According to a traffic study prepared by Urban Crossroads (November 29, 2016), all of the study area intersections were found to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) during one or both the AM and PM peak hours. As the project is located across the street to Jeffersoh Elementary School, the AM (7-9 AM) and PM (2-4 PM) were chosen to reflect school drop-off and pick-up times. Furthermore, the intersection analysis results indicates that the addition of project traffic is not anticipated to result in an LOS deficiency. Therefore, the surrounding streets and intersections are designed to adequately handle the 206 Average Daily Trips (ADT) generated by the project and the daily average of 171 vehicles added to Jefferson Street as a result of the Harding Street abandonment. -That with the application of the development standard modification, the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed. A development standard modification is appropriate for the site in that: A. The proposal to reduce the required parking spaces from 199 to 165 is supported by the project's proximity to goods and services as well as public transit. Studies acknowledge that affordable housing in close proximity to transit and services are candidates for a lesser parking demand. The project applicant is an affordable housing developer and manager that has other properties and experience with onsite parking demand. That experience has shown that the absence of guest parking spaces onsite at a rate of one per four dwellings is not a demand that needs to be satisfied. The developer has submitted a parking summary showing the parking utilization for properties they own throughout Southern California. That summary found that an average parking rate of .64 spaces per one-bedroom unit, 1.41 spaces per two- bedroom unit, and 1.81 per three-bedroom unit is needed. Based off these numbers, 137 parking spaces would be required of the proposed development. Moreover, parking is managed at the properties in such a way that each unit is assigned a parking permit to park one vehicle, and based upon need, a second parking permit can be assigned for a two- PC RESO NO. 7233 -6- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. 8. bedroom or three-bedroom unit. The developer has found that not every one bedroom unit utilizes a parking permit, and not every two-bedroom and three-bedroom unit utilizes two parking permits. The excess parking that is not used through the permit system becomes available as guest parking. The parking summary is attached to the staff report for reference. Additionally, parking studies were conducted by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers at similar affordable housing developments (Glen Ridge Apartments and Hunter's Point Apartments) for the Quarry Creek affordable housing development what was approved with a parking reduction on March 16, 2016. That parking study found that the Hunter's Pointe property had 197 spaces occupied out of the 378 parking spaces at the peak parking time at 9:00 P.M. on a Monday evening with a parking rate of 1.17 spaces per unit. The parking study for the Glen Ridge apartments indicates that at the peak parking time on a Sunday at 9:00 . P.M., 124 spaces out of 150 were occupied with a parking rate of 1.59 spaces per unit. Using the parking rate for Hunter's Pointe, 109 parking spaces would be required of the project, and 148 would be required using the parking rate for Glen Ridge. The parking studies are attached to the staff report for reference. The City of San Diego published an Affordable Housing Parking Study (WilburSmith Associates) in December 2011, for use in developing a regulatory framework for parking requirements in affordable housing developments. Field observations were conducted at 21 sites, and a parking model was developed based upon the findings in the analysis. It was recommended that the parking model be used to create a look-up table of new affordable housing parking requirements. The parking requirements were determined based on the type of affordable housing and its context regarding transit availability and walkability. The parking model has three parking rates; low, medium, and high. The low parking rate would be a location in a more suburban setting that isn't walkable and not accessible to transit. The high rate would be a setting in an urban location that is walkable with access to transit. Taking the conservative approach and using the low parking rate, the proposed project would require 158 parking spaces using the parking model in the study. The parking model is attached to the staff report for reference. Further, although a density bonus has not been requested, the parking ratios for housing developments identified in Table E of the Density Bonus ordinance are the same as the developer is proposing (165 spaces) for this affordable apartment project. The project does qualify for a density bonus if it were to be requested by the developer. Table F of the staff report summarizes the parking rates and requirements using the above-mentioned sources. A standards modification for reduced parking is supported by the city's Housing Policy Team. That the proposed project helps achieve the city's affordable housing goals as set forth in the Housing Element of the General Plan by providing an affordable apartment project with 92 of the 93 units designated as affordable to very low and extremely low income households. Per the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the City of Carlsbad is expected to produce 912 housing units for very low income households for the reporting period of January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2020. As of the latest Housing Element Progress Report for 2015, 35 units for low income households have been permitted with 877 units remaining. The proposed 92-unit affordable apartment units will reduce the amount of remaining units and help the city achieve its affordable housing goals. That the Housing Policy Team has reviewed the applicant's pro forma and has recommended that the parking reduction is necessary to make the project feasible and to allow the project to be developed to satisfy the City's need to provide housing which is affordable to low-income households. PC RESO NO. 7233 -7- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Coastal Development Permit {CDP 16-04) 9. 10. 11. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies in that the proposed building will not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or the public right of way or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone. The project is consistent with the surrounding development of residential buildings. No agricultural uses currently exist on the site, and the property is not within the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone that would require mitigation for conversion to urban uses. There are no sensitive coastal resources within the property and the site is not located in an area of known geologic instability or flood hazard. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that no public opportunities for coastal shoreline access are available from the subject site and no public access requirements are conditioned for the project since it is not located between the first public road and the ocean. The residentially designated site is not suited for water-oriented recreation activities. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the City's Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, BMP Design Manual and Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants, and soil erosion. No steep slopes or native vegetation is located on the subject property and the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction. Minor Subdivision {MS 16-01) 12. 13. 14. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the project implements the goals and policies of the General Plan as discussed in finding number one of this resolution; is consistent with all minimum requirements of Titles 20 and 21 governing lot size and configuration; and has been designed to comply with all applicable city regulations. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for residential development on the General Plan and are designated with a similar density of 23-30 dwelling units per acre. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed, in that all required minimum development standards and design criteria required by the applicable zoning ordinances are incorporated into the project except for a requested development standards modification to allow a reduction in the required number of parking spaces. Justification for allowing the development standards modification is further discussed in finding number six of this resolution. 15. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that the project has been designed and conditioned such that there are no conflicts with established easements. PC RESO NO. 7233 -8- 1 16. 2 3 17. 4 5 18. 6 7 8 19. 9 10 11 20. 12 13 14 General 15 21. 16 17 22. 18 19 , 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that units are designed to allow for solar exposure and take advantage of prevailing breezes. That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental resources and that the proposed housing can be adequately served by the existing public services and no new facilities are required. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in that the project site has been previously developed and does not contain and sensitive resources of habitat. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project has been designed in accordance with the Best Management Practices for water quality protection in accordance with the city's sewer and drainage standards and the project is conditioned to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. That the project is consistent with the City's Landscape Manual and Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 18.50). The City Planner has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it is therefore exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Sections 21159.21 and 21159.23 of the California Public Resources Code ("CEQA) and the implementing guidelines at Section 15194 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an affordable housing project. In making this determination, the City Planner has found that the criteria listed in Section 15192 of the State CEQA Guidelines have been met. Section 15194 states that CEQA does not apply to any development project that meets specific criteria. Each of the criteria set forth in Section 15194 is set out below and an explanation provided demonstrating how the project meets and satisfies the criteria. The criteria set out in Section 15194 are the same criteria set forth in CEQA Section 21159.23 and the findings set forth herein satisfy both Section 15194 of the CEQA Guidelines and CEQA Section 21159.23. (a) The project meets the threshold criteria set forth in [CEQA Guidelines] section 15192. The Section 15192 analysis is provided at the end of this discussion. (b) The project meets the following size criteria: the project site is not more than five acres in area. Finding: The project site is 4.04 acres in size. PC RESO NO. 7233 -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (c) The project meets both of the following requirements regarding location: {1) The project meets one of the following location requirements relating to population density: A. The project site is located within an urbanized area or within a census-defined place with a population density of at least 5,000 persons per square mile. B. If the project consists of 50 or fewer units, the project site is located within an incorporated city with a population density of at least 2,500 persons per square mile and a total population of at least 25,000 persons. C. The project is located within either an incorporated city or a census defined place with a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile and there is no reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment or the residents of the project due to unusual circumstances or due to the related or cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the project. Finding: The project is located in the City of Carlsbad in an urbanized, developed area and falls within the population density described in Section (c)(l)(C). The Project proposes the replacement of existing residences with new multi-family residences. The City has reviewed a Focused Traffic Impact Analysis and has concluded that project presents no significant impacts. The City has not identified any unusual circumstances or cumulative impacts that would result in significant impacts. Although the Project proposes the vacation of a portion of Harding Street, the City has reviewed a circulation study that examines the impact of the proposed vacation and determined that no adverse impacts would result to traffic circulation or parking. (2) The project meets one of the following site-specific location requirements: A. The project site has been previously developed for qualified urban uses; or B. The parcels immediately adjacent to the project site are developed with qualified urban uses. C. The project site has not been developed for urban uses and all of the following conditions are met: 1. No parcel within the site has been created within 10 years prior to the proposed development of the site. 2. At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses. 3. The existing remaining 25 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that have previously been developed for qualified urban uses. Finding: "Qualified urban use" means any residential, commercial, public institutional, transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses (CEQA Guidelines Section 1519l(k)). The project satisfies criteria (2)(A) because the project site is currently developed with residential uses which is a "qualified urban use." The project also satisfies criteria (2)(8) because the immediately adjacent pa rcels to the project site are developed res idential uses and a school, both of which are considered "qualified urban uses." D. The project meets both of the following requirements regarding provision of affordable housing. PC RESO NO . 7233 -10- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. The project consists of the construction, conversion, or use of residential housing consisting of 100 or fewer units that are affordable to low-income households. 2. The developer of the project provides sufficient legal commitments to the appropriate local agency to ensure the continued availability and use of the housing units for lower income households for a period of at least 30 years, at monthly housing costs deemed to be "affordable rent" for lower income, very low income, and extremely low income households, as determined pursuant to Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. Finding: The Project consists of the construction of 92 units of affordable residential housing that will be made available to low-income households. The development includes. a unit for the project's resident managers. The project will be restricted to lower income households for a period of 55 years by the Affordable Housing Agreement as well as the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and will be developed consistent with the City regulatory agreement for this affordable housing development. Section 15192 Compliance CEQA Guidelines Section 15192 sets forth additional criteria which must be met for a project to be exempt from CEQA. These criteria are the same as those set forth in CEQA Section 21159.21, and the finding set forth herein satisfy the requirement of both CEQA Section 21159.21 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15192. tn order to qualify for an exemption set forth in sections 15193, 15194 or 15195, a housing project must meet all of the threshold criteria set forth below. (a) The project must be consistent with: (1) Any applicable general plan, specific plan, or local coastal program, including any mitigation measures required by such plan or program, as that plan or program existed on the date that the application for the project pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code was deemed complete; and Finding: The project site is designated "R-30, Residential 23-30 du/ac" in the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program. The project's density is 23 du/acre and is consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. (2) Any applicable zoning ordinance, as that zoning ordinance existed on the date that the application for the project pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code was deemed complete, unless the zoning of project property is inconsistent with the general plan because the project property has not been rezoned to conform to the general plan. Finding: The project site is designated RD-M, Residential Density-Multiple and is consistent with the development standards set forth in the Section 21.24 of the Carlsbad Zoning Code. (b) Community-level environmental review has been adopted or certified. Finding: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15191(c)(l), "Community-level environmental review" includes an EIR certified on a lead agency's General Plan. The City conducted a comprehensive General Plan update in 2015 and certified an environmental impact report in connection with the General Plan update. The project is consistent with the land uses set forth in the General Plan. The process of revising the General Plan began nearly eight years ago, including a two-year public involvement process called Envision Carlsbad. Envision Carlsbad PC RESO NO. 7233 -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 was an extensive community visioning and outreach effort that involved more than 8,000 residents, 100 community groups and organizations, scores of business owners and elected officials and city staff members. (c) The project and other projects approved prior to the approval of the project can be adequately served by existing utilities, and the project applicant has paid, or has committed to pay, all applicable in-lieu or development fees. Finding: The project site is in an urbanized area already developed with residential uses served by existing utilities which are sufficient to serve the proposed project. Any development fees for utility connections will be paid by the project applicant, if required by the City. ( d) The site of the project: (1) Does not contain wetlands, as defined in Section 328.3 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Finding: The project site is in an urbanized area already developed with residential uses and adjacent to a school. No wetlands are present on the project site. (2) Does not have any value as an ecological community upon which wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and protection. Finding: The project site is in an urbanized area already developed with residential uses and adjacent to a school. It does not provide wildlife habitat. {3} Does not harm any species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.) or by the Native Plant Protection Act {Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900} of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code}, the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050} of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code. Finding: The project site is in an urbanized area already developed with residential uses and adjacent to a school. The project site does not provide habitat for any listed or protected species. {4} Does not cause the destruction or removal of any species protected by a local ordinance in effect at the time the application for the project was deemed complete. Finding: The project site is in an urbanized area already developed with residential uses and adjacent to a school. The project site does not provide habitat for any locally-protected species. (e) The site of the project is not included on any list of facilities and sites compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Govern'ment Code. Finding: The project site is not on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. (f) The site of the project is subject to a preliminary endangerment assessment prepared by a registered environmental assessor to determine the existence of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any nearby property or activity. In addition, the following steps have been taken in response to the results of this assessment: PC RESO NO. 7233 -12- 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 (1) If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release shall be removed, or any significant effects of the 'release shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance in compliance with state and federal requirements. (2) If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance in compliance with state and federal requirements. Finding: A Phase I environmental assessment was prepared, and no environmental conditions requiring remedial measures were identified. (g) The project does not have a significant effect on historical resources pursuant to Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code. Finding: The project site is in an urbanized area already developed with residential uses and adjacent to a school. None of the existing structures on the site are considered historical resources pursuant to Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code. (h) The project site is not subject to wild/and fire hazard, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, unless the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of a wild/and fire hazard. Finding: The project site is in an urbanized area already developed with residential uses and adjacent to a school. (i) The project site does not have an unusually high risk of fire or explosion from materials stored or used on nearby properties. Finding: The project site is in an urbanized area already developed with residential uses and adjacent to a school. There are no industrial or manufacturing uses adjacent to the project site that would pose a risk of high fire or explosion. (j) The project site does not present a risk of a public health exposure at a level that would exceed the standards established by any state or federal agency. Finding: The project proposes the development of93 residential units on a site already developed with residences. (k) Either the project site is not within a delineated earthquake fault zone or a seismic hazard zone, as determined pursuant to Section 2622 and 2696 of the Public Resources Code respectively, or the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of an earthquake or seismic hazard. Finding: The project site is not within a delineated earthquake fault zone. The project site is in an urbanized area already developed with residential uses and adjacent to a school. (I) Either the project site does not present a landslide hazard, flood plain, flood way, or restriction zone, or the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of a landslide or flood. Finding: The project site is not within a landslide hazard, flood pla in, flood way or restriction zone. PC RESO NO. 7233 -13- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 23. (m) The project site is not located on developed open space. Finding: The project site is an urbanized area developed for residential uses. (n) The project site is not located within the boundaries of a state conservancy. Finding: The project is located in the City of Carlsbad; no State conservancy land is involved. (o) The project has not been divided into smaller projects to qualify for one or more of the exemptions set forth in sections 15193 to 15195. Finding: The whole of the project is being considered in the application before the City. The project proposes the development of 93 residential units on a 4.04 acre site. The proposed apartment project is in compliance with the City of Carlsbad's Climate Action Plan (CAP) in that a multi-family housing development with less than 70 dwelling units does not meet the screening threshold to require a greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has published screening thresholds to guide agencies in determining which projects require greenhouse gas analysis and mitigation for significant impacts related to climate changes. With this guidance, the city has determined that new development projects emitting less than 900 MTC02e annual GHG would not contribute considerably to climate change impacts, and therefore do not need to demonstrate consistency with the CAP. A multi- family development of more than 70 dwelling units would exceed the threshold and would be subject to CAP measures. The 93-unit apartment project has a net increase of 49 units, and is therefore not subject to CAP measures. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. Conditions: NOTE: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading 19 or building permit, whichever occurs first. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Site Development Plan/Coastal Development Permit/Minor Subdivision. 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Site Development Plan/Coastal Development Permit/Minor Subdivision documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development, different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. PC RESO NO. 7233 -14- 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 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of fede ral, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of bu ilding permit issuance. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Site Development Plan/Coastal Devel opment Permit/Minor Subdivision, (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's approval is not validated. Prior to submittal of the bu ilding plans, improvement plans, grading plans, or final map, whichever occurs first, developer shall submit to the City Planner, a 24" x 36" copy of the Site Plan, conceptual grading plan and preliminary utility plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. The copy shall be submitted to the city planner, reviewed and, if found acceptable, signed by the city's project planner and project engineer. If no changes were required, the approved exhibits shall fulfill this condition. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Building Division from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within 24 months from the date of project approval. Bu ilding permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Po licy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not pa id, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void. PC RESO NO. 7233 -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 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction executed by the owner of the rea l property to be developed. Said notice is to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the City Planner, notifying all interested parties a.nd successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Site Development Plan/Coastal Development Permit/Minor Subdivision by Resolution No. 7233 on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the fi le containing complete project details and all condit ions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Rest riction. The City Planner has t he authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. Developer shall submit and obtain City Planner approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City's Landscape Manual. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping and irrigation as shown on the approved Final plans. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. All irrigation systems shall be maintained to provide the optimum amount of water to the landscape for plant growth without causing soil erosion and runoff. The first subm ittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Division and accompanied by the project's bu ilding, improvement, and grading plans. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Community Development and Planning. - No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When so required, t he Developer shall submit and obtain approval ofthe Fire Chief and the City Planner of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply w ith the approved plan. Developer shall report, in writing, to the City Planner within 30 days, any address change from that which is shown on the permit application. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any units, the Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement w ith the City to provide and deed restrict 92 dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households for 55 years, in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the City Planner no later than 60 days prior to the request to final the map. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest. Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas enclosed by a six-foot-high masonry wall with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of sa id receptacles shall be approved by the City Planner. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Developer shall submit and obtain City Planner approval of an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. PC RESO NO. 7233 -16- 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. 22. The windows and doors on the first through third floors of buildings two through six shall have an STC rating of 40 to reduce interior noise levels below 45 dBA CNEL, unless determined otherwise through a noise analysis during building permit review. The two units located on the southerly end of the third floor of building four shall be relocated to the westerly end of the third floor of building two. This will create a two-story element on the southerly end of building two and a three-story element on the westerly end of building two. Engineering NOTE: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions below shall be satisfied prior to grading permit, or building permit, whichever comes first; or pursuant to an approved construction schedule at the discretion of the appropriate division manager or official. General 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the city engineer for the proposed haul route. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for the development of the subject property, unless the district engineer has determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of permit issuance and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections and driveways in accordance with City Engineering Standards. The property owner shall maintain this condition. Prior to approval of the parcel map, the Developer shall provide proof that Caltrans has reviewed the proposed development and any mitigation required has or will be implemented. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the contractor shall submit a Construction Plan to the city engineer for review and approval. Said Plan may be required to include, but not be limited to, identifying the location of the construction trailer, material staging, bathroom facilities, parking of construction vehicles, employee parking, construction fencing and gates, obtaining any necessary permission for off-site encroachment, addressing pedestrian safety, and identifying time restrictions for various construction activities. Said plan shall also address permit and construction phasing for duplex, street and utility demolition and address utility service and street access for the remaining units fronting Harding Street during demolition and construction. Fees/ Agreements 28. 29. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for recordation, the city's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for recordation the city's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement. PC RESO NO. 7233 -17- 1 2 3 4 5 6 30. Grading 31. Developer shall cause property owner to submit an executed copy to the city engineer for recordation a city standard Permanent Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Maintenance Agreement. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall prepare and submit plans and technical studies/reports as required by city engineer, post security and pay all applicable grading plan review and permit fees per the city's latest fee schedule. 7 Storm Water Quality 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 32. 33. 34. 35. Developer shall comply with the city's Stormwater Regulations, latest version, and shall implement best management practices at all times. Best management practices include but are not limited to pollution control practices or devices, erosion control to prevent silt runoff during construction, general housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices or devices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to stormwater, receiving water or stormwater conveyance system to the maximum extent practicable. Developer shall notify prospective owners and tenants of the above requirements. Developer shall complete and submit to the city engineer a Determination of Project's SW PPP Tier Level and Construction Threat Level Form pursuant to City Engineering Standards. Developer shall also submit the appropriate Tier level Storm Water Compliance form and appropriate Tier level Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Developer shall pay all applicable SWPPP plan review and inspection fees per the city's latest fee schedule. This project is subject to 'Priority Development Project' requirements. Developer shall prepare and process a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP), subject to city engineer approval, to comply with the Carlsbad BMP Design Manual latest version. The final SWQMP required by this condition shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer with final grading plans. Developer shall pay all applicable SWQMP plan review and inspection fees per the city's latest fee schedule. Developer is responsible to ensure that all final design plans (grading plans, improvement plans, landscape plans, building plans, etc.) incorporate all source control, site design, pollutant control BMP and applicable hydromodification measures. Dedications/Improvements 36. 37. Developer shall cause owner to dedicate to the city and/or other appropriate entities easements for public street & public utility purposes as shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map or separate recorded document. All land so offered shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the city. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated. Additional easements may be required at final design to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Developer shall design the private drainage systems, as shown on the tentative map and site plan to the satisfaction of the city engineer. All private drainage systems (12" diameter storm drain and larger) shall be inspected by the city. Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees for private drainage systems. PC RESO NO. 7233 -18- 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 38. 39. 40. Developer shall prepare and process public improvement plans and, prior to city engineer approval of said plans, shall execute a city standard subdivision Improvement Agreement to install and shall post security in accordance with C.M.C. Section 20.16.070 for public improvements shown on the tentative map. Said improvements shall be installed to city standards to the satisfaction of the city engineer. These improvements include, but are not limited to: A. Remove segment of Harding Street improvements to be abandoned including applicable utilities. B. Convert Carol Place into a cul-de-sac with installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, street light, street pavement and driveway approach as shown on the conceptual drainage and improvement plan. C. Convert Harding Street into ~ cul-de-sac with installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, street light, street pavement and driveway approach as shown on the conceptual drainage and improvement plan. D. Install water services and fire hydrants as shown on the conceptual drainage and improvement plan. E. Install public sewer facilities including a man hole in Harding Street, Carol Place and Magnolia Avenue and a new public sewer main in the Harding Street cul-de-sac. Said sewer main and manholes in Harding Street and Magnolia Avenue shall be installed with lateral connections to Lot 34 and 35 prior to abandonment of the existing sewer main in Harding Street. F. Replace the striped crosswalk on Jefferson Street at the intersection of Carol Place and Jefferson Street with a raised crosswalk approved by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp). G. Install bike route signage for a Class Ill bikeway route consistent with the City of Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan on Jefferson Street between Anchor Way and Tamarack Avenue. H. Upgrade, as needed, the pedestrian ramps at the northerly end of Harding Street and the westerly end of Carol Place to current American Disability Act (ADA) standards, all subject to approval by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp). Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 36 months of approval of the subdivision or development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. The developer shall pay a fair share contribution of the total design and construction cost to modify the traffic signal and related pavement striping at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Tamarack Avenue to convert the signal to 8-phases with protected left turns in northbound and southbound directions on Jefferson Street, as planned per the city's current Capital Improvement Program. Fair share shall be determined in accordance with the "Methodology for Calculating Equitable Mitigation Measures" per Appendix B of the December 2002 Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies or other method deemed acceptable to the city engineer. An estimated cost to redesign and construct the signal modifications shall be provided by the developer subject to the approval of the city engineer. Developer shall design, and obtain approval from the city engineer, the structural section for the access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with city standards due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500. Prior to completion of grading, the final structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted together with required R-value soil test information subject to the review and approval of the city engineer. 41. Developer shall abandon the drainage easement recorded on Tract Map 2969 and a portion of Harding Street per section 66434(g) of the Subdivision Map Act as shown on the tentative parcel PC RESO NO. 7233 -19- 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 42. map. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, all public entities vested in the public easement for Harding Street shall be notified of the proposed abandonment and no portion of the public easement vested in another public entity shall be abandoned if the public entity objects to the abandonment. All above ground utility boxes such as electrical transformers shall be located on private property and outside the public right-of-way subject to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Non-Mapping Notes 43. Add the following notes to the final map as non-mapping data: A. Developer has executed a city standard Subdivision Improvement Agreement and has posted security in accordance with C.M.C. Section 20.16.070 to install public improvements shown on the tentative map and site plan. These improvements include, but are not limited to: l. Remove segment of Harding Street improvements to be abandoned including applicable utilities. 2. Convert Carol Place into a cul-de-sac with installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, street light, street pavement and driveway approach as shown on the conceptual drainage and improvement plan. 3. Convert Harding Street into a cul-de-sac with installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, street light, street pavement and driveway approach as shown on the conceptual drainage and improvement plan. 4. Install water services and fire hydrants as shown on the conceptual drainage and improvement plan. 5. Install public sewer facilities including a man hole in Harding Street, Carol Place and Magnolia Avenue and a new public sewer main in the Harding Street cul-de-sac. Said sewer main and manholes in Harding Street and Magnolia Avenue shall be installed with lateral connections to Lot 34 and 35 prior to abandonment of the existing sewer main in Harding Street. 6. Replace the striped crosswalk on Jefferson Street at the intersection of Carol Place and Jefferson Street with a raised crosswalk. 7. Install bike route signage for a Class Ill bikeway route consistent with the City of Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan on Jefferson Street between Anchor Way and Tamarack Avenue. B. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available. C. Geotechnical Caution: The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action that may arise through any geological failure, ground water seepage or land subsidence and subsequent damage that may occur on, or adjacent to, this subdivision due to its construction, operation or maintenance. D. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor as defined by City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards or line-of-sight per Caltrans standards. E. The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action that may arise through any diversion of waters, the alteration of the normal flow of surface waters or drainage, or the concentration of surface waters or drainage from the drainage system or other PC RESO NO. 7233 -20- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Utilities 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. improvements identified in the city approved development plans; or by the design, construction or maintenance of the drainage system or other improvements identified in the city approved development plans. F. There are no public park or recreational facilities to be located in whole or in part within this subdivision. The subdivider is therefore obligated to pay park-in-lieu fees in accordance with section 20.44.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and has either paid all of said park in-lieu fees or agreed to pay all of said park-in-lieu fees in accordance with section 20.16.070 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The developer shall agree to design landscape and irrigation plans utilizing recycled water as a source and prepare and submit a colored recycled water use map to the Planning Division for processing and approval by the district engineer. ·, Developer shall install potable water and/or recycled water services and meters at locations approved by the district engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans. The developer shall agree to install sewer laterals and clean-outs at locations approved by the city engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. The developer shall design and agree to construct public water, sewer, and recycled water facilities substantially as shown on the tentative map and site plan to the satisfaction of the district engineer and city engineer. The developer shall submit a detailed potable water study, prepared by a registered engineer that identifies the peak demands of the project (including fire flow demands). The study shall identify velocity in the main lines, pressure zones, and the required pipe sizes. Said study shall be submitted concurrently with the improvement plans for the project and the study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the district engineer. Code Reminders The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the 20 following: 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 49. 50. 51. 52. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Developer shall pay a Public Facility fee as required by Council Policy No. 17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Developer shall pay the Local Facilities Management fee for Zone 1 as required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90.050. Developer shall pay a landscape plancheck and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as required by Chapter 20.44 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code. 53. This tentative map shall expire two years from the date on which the planning commission or city council voted to approve this application. PC RESO NO. 7233 -21- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 54. 55. 56. 57. Developer shall pay planned local area drainage fees in accordance with Section 15.08.020 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on the tentative map are for planning purposes only. Subdivider shall comply with Section 20.16.040(d) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code regarding the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 17 .04.320. NOTICE TO APPLICANT An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village 10 Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the appeal must be in 11 writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a determination on the appeal prior to any judicial review. 12 13 14 15 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.11 You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest 16 them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other requ ired information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with 17 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. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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. PC RESO NO. 7233 -22- The City of Carlsbad Planning Division EXHIBIT6 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. G) P.C. AGENDA OF: April 5, 2017 Application complete date: July 21, 2016 Project Planner: Austin Silva Project Engineer: David Rick SUBJECT: SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058)-PACIFIC WIND -Request for approval of a Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit and Minor Subdivision to allow for the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction of a 93-unit apartment (92 affordable units) development, including a development standards modification, and a street abandonment for a portion of Harding Street near the intersection of Carol Place, in the Residential-Density Multiple Zone and within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The City Planner has determined that this project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15194 (Affordable Housing) of the State CEQA Guidelines. This project is not located within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7233 APPROVING Site Development Plan SDP 15-18, Coastal Development Permit CDP 16-04 and Minor Subdivision MS 16-01 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND On January 29, 2013, the City Council authorized financial assistance ($7.4 million) to assist a developer (Harding Street Neighbors, LP) to acquire existing duplex units located in the area of the Barrio consisting of 27 parcels along Harding Street, Carol Place, and Magnolia Avenue, generally north of Tamarack Avenue, south of Magnolia Avenue, east of Jefferson Street and west of Interstate 5. The development site was later reduced to 22 parcels, although the units on five of the original 27 parcels that are not proposed redevelopment will remain as affordable units. The funding agreement calls for acquisition and redevelopment of the site to be completed by December 31, 2018. The intent of the property acquisition was to consolidate the parcels and construct a high density affordable housing development with 140 units. However, the development was scaled back to 93 units due to the inability to acquire one of the privately held duplexes. The developer initially proposed a development that included 120 units on a 4.8 acre site and abandoning a larger portion of Harding Street and all of Carol Place. City staff was not supportive of abandoning Carol Place because of its need for public use as it was observed by city staff that parents routinely use this street to park for pick-up and drop-off at Jefferson Elementary School. The sidewalk on Carol Street also receives substantial use as parents walk their children to and from school. The site has been reduced to 4.04 acres and consists of 22 parcels with 22 duplex buildings consisting of 44 rental housing units. The 22 duplexes are each located on their own parcel and will be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) -PACIFIC WIND · April 5, 2017 Pa e 2 The applicant, Harding Street Neighbors, LP, comprised of a partnership between affiliates of C & C Development and Innovative Housing Opportunities, is proposing to construct a 93-unit apartment (92 affordable units) project that is spread out over six buildings. One unit is for an apartment manager and in not an affordable unit. The residential units will be located in five three-story buildings, and a one-story community recreation building will be located on the corner of Jefferson Street and Carol Place. Approximately 525 feet of the southerly end of Harding Street will be abandoned where it intersects with Carol Place. As a result, Harding Street would end in a cul-de-sac approximately 225 feet east of Magnolia Avenue and Carol Place would also end in a cul-de-sac where it currently intersects with Harding Street. Access to the site would be provided through a gated entrance at the end of the cul-de-sacs on Carol Place and on the north side of Harding Street. The site is designed so that the apartment buildings are located away from the freeway so that noise impacts from the freeway are reduced as much as possible. The parking is located along the easterly portion of the site along with a maintenance building, which is tucked in the southeast corner of the property. Outdoor amenities are scattered throughout the site including resident gathering areas, tot- lots, a basketball court, and a neighborhood plaza at the northeast corner of Jefferson Street and Carol Place in front of the community building. Innovative Housing Opportunities will provide programs and services such as cooking and nutrition, health and wellness, financial planning, career skills, youth leadership, youth and adult learning programs, strong family classes, and child development. The buildings are attractively designed and include a use of multiple exterior building materials such as smooth stucco, horizontal lap siding, composite shingle siding, hardi panels, stone veneer, and concrete tile roofs. Architectural detailing enhances the buildings which include simulated wood corbels, simulated wood brackets, decorative light fixtures, fa<;:ade projections and recesses, covered building entries with supporting wood posts with stone veneer bases, and varying roof planes. Table A below includes the General Plan Land Use designations, zoning and current land uses of the project site and surrounding properties. TABLE A-SURROUNDING LAND USES Location General Plan Designation Zoning Current Land Use Site R-30 RD-M Two-family residential North R-15/R-30 RD-M Two-family residential South Visitor Commercial (VC) Commercial Tourist (C-T) Gas station/restaurant & bar East Transportation Corridor Transportation Corridor Interstate 5 Freeway West R-30 RD-M Duplexes Ill. ANALYSIS The proposed project is subject to the following ordinances, standards and policies: A. General Plan; B. Residential-Density Multiple (RD-M) Zone (C.M.C. Chapter 21.24); C. Coastal Development Regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (C.M.C. Chapter 21.201) and the Coast Resource Protection Overlay Zone (C.M .C. Chapter 21.203); D. Parking Ordinance (C.M .C. Chapter 21.44); E. Site Development Plan (C.M.C. Chapter 21.53.120); F. lnclusionary Housing Ordinance (C.M.C. Chapter 21.85); G. State of California Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 2) H. Growth Management (C.M.C. Chapter 21.90) SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 {DEV 15-058)-PACIFIC WIND April 5, 2017 Pa e 3 The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project's compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below. A. General Plan R-30 -Residential Land Use Designation The R-30 Residential land use designation allows housing at a density between 23 and 30 dwelling units per acre with a Growth Management Control Point {GMCP) of 25 dwelling units per acre. Table B below includes the project site's gross and net acreage, the number of dwelling units allowed by the General Plan's GMCP density and the proposed projects number of dwelling units and density. TABLE B-DENSITY Gross Acres Net Acres DUs Allowed at GMCP Density DUs Proposed and Project Density 4.04 4.04 101 93 units at 23 du/ac The proposed 93-unit apartment project will be depositing eight units into the city's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank because it is below the Growth Management Control Point. Housing Element By providing an affordable apartment project with 92 of the units designated as affordable to low income households, the proposed project helps achieve the city's affordable housing goals as set forth in the Housing Element of the General Plan. Per the Regional Housing Needs Assessment {RHNA), the City of Carlsbad is expected to produce 693 housing units for low income households for the reporting period of January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2020. As of the latest Housing Element Progress Report for 2015, 45 units for low income households have been permitted with 648 units remaining. The proposed affordable apartment project will reduce the amount of remaining units by 92, and help the city achieve its affordable housing goals. Further compliance with the General Plan is outlined in Table C below. TABLE C-GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT GOAL/POLICY COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL/POLICY Land Use Goal 2-G.3: Promote infill The applicant is proposing to redevelop an development that makes efficient use infill site in the Barrio that is underutilized of limited land supply, while ensuring as it relates to density. The Barrio is an compatibility and integration with appropriate location for dense existing uses. Ensure that infill development because of its connection to properties develop with uses and commercial services in the Village, as well development intensities supporting a as easy access to nearby public transit and cohesive development pattern. Interstate 5. The project site is identified in Figure 10-1 {Housing Element Sites Inventory) of the General Plan as an underutilized site for lower and moderate income housing. Further, the project falls within the density range {23 du/ac -30 du/ac) for the R-30 General Plan Land Use designation and is consistent with the development standards of the RD-M zone. SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) -PACIFIC WIND April 5, 2017 Pa e 4 ELEMENT GOAL/POLICY COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL/POLICY Housing Goal 10-G.3: Sufficient new, The proposed project will provide 92 affordable housing opportunities in all affordable housing units dedicated to low quadrants of the city to meet the income households. Low-income is needs of current lower and moderate defined as households that earn 80 income households and those with percent of the median income for the area. special needs, and a fair share Income limits are adjusted for household proportion of future lower and size so that larger families may have higher moderate income households. income limits. Policy 10-P.19: Address the unmet needs of the community through new development and housing that is set aside for lower and moderate income households consistent with priorities set by the Housing and Neighborhood Services Division, and as set forth in the city's Consolidated Plan. Policy 10-P.20: Encourage the The proposed affordable apartment development bf an adequate number project will provide 92 affordable of housing units suitably sized to meet apartments dedicated towards low-income the needs of lower and moderate households, with 18 two-bedroom units income larger households. and 54 three-bedroom units being provided, which constitutes 77.4% of the total units. The larger units will meet the needs of larger household sizes. Mobility Goal 3-G.5: Implement transportation The applicant will be required to pay traffic demand and traffic signal techniques impact fees prior to issuance of building to improve mobility. permit that will go towards future road improvements. Additionally, the Policy 3-P.5: Require developers to developer is required to pay a fair share construct or pay their fair share contribution of the total design and towards improvements for all travel construction cost to modify the traffic modes consistent with the Mobility signal and related pavement striping at the Element, the Growth Management intersection of Jefferson Street and Plan, and specific impacts associated Tamarack Avenue to convert the signal to with their development. eight phases with protected left turns in northbound and southbound directions on Policy 3-P .8: Utilize transportation Jefferson Street. management strategies, non- automotive enhancements (bicycle, pedestrian, transit, train, trails, and connectivity), and traffic signal management techniques as long-term transportation solutions and traffic mitigation measures to carry out the Carlsbad Community Vision. SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 {DEV 15-058) -PACIFIC WIND April 5, 2017 Pa e 5 ELEMENT GOAL/POLICY COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL/POLICY Mobility Policy 3-P.26: Identify and implement The project has been conditioned to: {1) necessary pedestrian improvements Provide pedestrian and bicycle on streets where pedestrians are to be improvements on Jefferson Street accommodated per Table 3-1, with including the replacement of the striped special emphasis on providing safer crosswalk on Jefferson Street at the access to schools, parks, community intersection of Carol Place and Jefferson recreation centers, shopping districts, Street, with a raised crosswalk approved and other appropriate facilities. by a Certified Access Specialist {CASp), (2) Install bike route signage for a Class Ill Policy 3-P.32: Require developers to bikeway route consistent with the City of improve pedestrian and bicycle Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan on Jefferson connectivity with the city's bicycle and Street between Anchor Way and Tamarack pedestrian master plans and trails Avenue, (3) Upgrade as needed, the master planning efforts. In addition, pedestrian ramps at the northerly end of new residential developments should Harding Street and the westerly end of demonstrate that a safe route to Carol Place to current American Disability school and transit is provided to Act (ADA) standards, all subject to approval nearby schools and transit stations by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp). within a half mile walking distance. Public Policy 6-P.28: Encourage physical The project has been designed to prevent Safety planning and community design crime and has incorporated design review practices that deter crime and recommendations from the Police promote safety. Department. For example, fencing and walls are used around the perimeter of the property to discourage access to unmonitored areas and to define and outline the property. Also, the parking area will be gated and secured 24 hours a day. Noise Goal 5-G .2: Ensure that new A noise analysis was prepared by development is compatible with the Bridge Net International {September 4, noise environment, by continuing to 2015) and determined that a Sound use potential noise exposure as a Transmission Class (STC) rating of 40 will criterion in land use planning. be needed for the glass window assemblies in buildings two through six. Policy 5.P.2: Require a noise study analysis be conducted for all discretionary development proposals located where projected noise exposure would be other than "normally acceptable." B. Residential-Density Multiple Zone (C.M.C. Chapter 21.24) The proposed project is required to comply with all applicable land use and development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (C.M.c.) including the Residential Density-Multiple Family Zone (C.M.C. Chapter 21.24) and Site Development Plan {C.M .C. Chapter 21.53.120), which is discussed in more detail in Sections C and D, respectively. Table D below summarizes compliance with the RD-M Zoning. SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) -PACIFIC WIND April 5, 2017 Pa e 6 TABLED -RD-M COMPLIANCE R-DM Standards Required Proposed Setbacks Front: 20' Front (fronting Jefferson St.): Interior Sides: 5' Interior Side (north): 17.5' Rear: 10' Interior Side (south): 10' Interior Side (west): 14'7" Rear: 10' Lot Coverage 60% max 34.4% Building Height 35' with minimum 3:12 roof 34'11" w/4:12 roof pitch pitch or 24' if less than a 3:12 roof pitch Comply 27' Yes Yes Yes C. Coastal Development Regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (C.M.C. Chapter 21.201) and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (C.M.C. Chapter 21 .203) Mello II Segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies. The project is located in the Mello II Local Coastal Program Segment. The subject site has an LCP Land Use Plan designation of Residential High (R-30), which allows for a density of 23-30 du/acre and 25 du/acre at the Growth Management Control Point (GMCP). However, the project density of 23 du/ac is consistent with the R-30 General Plan Land Use designation as discussed in Section A above. Therefore the project is consistent with the Mello II Segment of the LCP. The project consists of the demolition of 44 dwelling units and the construction of apartments with 92 affordable units. The proposed apartments are compatible with the surrounding development of one story two-family structures and one-story commercial buildings. The three-story apartment building will not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or the public right-of-way, nor otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone . No agricultural uses currently exist on the previously graded site, nor are there any sensitive resources located on the developable portion of the site. The proposed apartments are not located in an area of known geologic instability or flood hazard. Since the site does not have frontage along the coastline, no public opportunities for coastal shoreline access are available from the subject site. Furthermore, the residentially designated site is not suited for water-oriented recreation activities. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the City's Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Carlsbad Best Management Practices Design Manual and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants, and soil erosion. No steep slopes or native vegetation is located on the subject property and the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction. D. Parking (C.M.C. Chapter 21.44) The required parking for the proposed 93-unit apartment project is shown in Table E below. The applicant is requesting a development standards modification to provide less than the required amount of parking. Justification for supporting a reduced parking requirement is discussed in Section E below. SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) -PACIFIC WIND April 5, 2017 Pa e 7 TABLE E -PARKING COMPLIANCE Unit Type/Number of Unit Parking Ratio Spaces Spaces Comply Required Provided 1 bedroom (21) 1.5 spaces/unit 31.5 21 No (Standards 2 plus bedrooms (72) 2 space unit 144 144 Modification is requested; Guest parking .25 space/unit 23.25 O* justification provided in Total= 199 165 section E) *Parking is being provided based off the density bonus parking standards in which guest parking is factored into the parking requirement for each unit type. E. Site Development Plan (C.M.C. Chapter 21.53) Section 21.53.120 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that a Site Development Plan (SDP) be processed for an affordable housing project. The SDP for affordable housing projects may allow less restrictive development standards than specified in the underlying zone or elsewhere, provided that the project is in conformity with the General Plan and adopted policies and goals of the city, and it would have no detrimental effect on public health, safety and welfare. Additionally, Program 2.2 of the General Plan's Housing Element "Flexibility in Development Standards," describes how the Planning Division "may recommend waiving or modifying certain development standards to encourage the development of low- income housing." The applicant is requesting a modified development standard for the proposed affordable apartment project to reduce the amount of required parking from 199 spaces to 165 spaces. The proposed standard modification allows for additional site area for development and amenities for the affordable apartment units. The project's consistency with the General Plan is discussed in Section A of this report, and the modification to development standards will not have a detrimental effect on public health, safety, or welfare for the following reasons: • The proposal to reduce the required parking spaces from 199 to 165 is supported by the project's proximity to goods and services as well as public transit. Studies acknowledge that affordable housing in close proximity to transit and services are candidates for a lesser parking demand. The project applicant is an affordable housing developer and manager that has other properties and experience with onsite parking demand. That experience has shown that the absence of guest parking spaces onsite at a rate of one per four dwellings is not a demand that needs to be satisfied. The developer has submitted a parking summary showing the parking utilization for properties they own throughout Southern California. That summary found that an average parking rate of .64 spaces per one-bedroom unit, 1.41 spaces per two-bedroom unit, and 1.81 per three- bedroom unit is needed. Based off these numbers, 137 parking spaces would be required of the proposed development. Moreover, parking is managed at the properties in such a way that each unit is assigned a parking permit to park one vehicle, and based upon need, a second parking permit can be assigned for a two-bedroom or three-bedroom unit. The developer has found that not every one bedroom unit utilizes a parking permit, and not every two-bedroom and three- bedroom unit utilizes two parking permits. The excess parking that is not used through the permit system becomes available as guest parking. The parking summary is attached for reference. Additionally, parking studies were conducted by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers at similar affordable housing developments (Glen Ridge Apartments and Hunter's Point Apartments) for the Quarry Creek affordable housing development what was approved with a parking reduction on March 16, 2016. That parking study found that the Hunter's Pointe property had 197 spaces occupied out of the 378 parking spaces at the peak parking time at 9:00 P.M . on a Monday evening with a parking rate of 1.17 spaces per unit. The parking study for the Glen Ridge apartments indicates that at the peak parking time on a Sunday at 9:00 P.M., 124 spaces out of 150 were SOP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058)-PACIFIC WIND April 5, 2017 Pa e 8 occupied with a parking rate of 1.59 spaces per unit. Using the parking rate for Hunter's Pointe, 109 parking spaces would be required of the project, and 148 would be required using the parking rate for Glen Ridge. The parking studies are attached for reference. The City of San Diego published an Affordable Housing Parking Study (WilburSmith Associates) in December 2011, for use in developing a regulatory framework for parking requirements in affordable housing developments. Field observations were conducted at 21 sites, and a parking model was developed based upon the findings in the analysis. It was recommended that the parking model be used to create a look-up table of new affordable housing parking requirements. The parking requirements were determined based on the type of affordable housing and its context regarding transit availability and walkability. The parking model has three parking rates; low, medium, and high. The low parking rate would be a location in a more suburban setting that isn't walkable and not accessible to transit. The high rate would be a setting in an urban location that is walkable with access to transit. Taking the conservative approach and using the low parking rate, the proposed project would require 158 parking spaces using the parking model in the study. The parking model is attached for reference. Further, although a density bonus has not been requested, the parking ratios for housing developments identified in Table E of the Density Bonus ordinance are the same as the developer is proposing (165 spaces) for this affordable apartment project. The project does qualify for a density bonus if it were to be requested by the developer. Table F summarizes the parking rates and requirements using the above-mentioned sources. A standards modification for reduced parking is supported by the city's Housing Policy Team and findings are included in the appropriate Planning Commission resolution. TABLE F -PARKING REQUIREMENTS (total numbers resulting in fractional spaces have been rounded up) Source Units Parking Rate Spaces Required City of Carlsbad Municipal Code 1 BR 21 1.5 31.5 (Chapter 21.44 -Parking) 2 BR 18 2.0 36 3 BR 54 2.0 108 Visitor 93 total units .25 23.25 Total 199 City of Carlsbad Municipal Code 1 BR 21 1.0 21 {Chapter 21.86 -Density Bonus 2 BR 18 2.0 36 Parking Standards) 3 BR 54 2.0 108 Total 165 City of San Diego Affordable 1 BR 21 1 21 Housing Parking Study 2 BR 18 1.3 23.4 "Low/Suburban Rates" 3 BR 54 1.75 94.5 Visitor/Staff 93 total units .2 18.6 Total 158 C & C Development Owned 1 BR 21 .64 13.44 Properties 2 BR 18 1.41 25.38 3 BR 54 1.81 97.74 Total 137 Glen Ridge Parking Survey 1 BR 21 1.59 33.39 2 BR 18 1.59 28.62 3 BR 54 1.59 85.86 Total 148 SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) -PACIFIC WIND April 5, 2017 Pa e 9 Hunter's Pointe Parking Survey 1 BR 21 2 BR 18 3 BR 54 F. lnclusionary Housing Ordinance 1.17 24.57 1.17 21.06 1.17 63.18 Total 109 For residential development of seven or more units, not less than 15 percent of the total units approved shall be constructed and restricted both as to occupancy and affordability to lower-income households. The proposed project will provide 98.9% percent (92 units) of the apartment units as affordable to very low and extremely low income households. The developer will be required to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the city to provide and deed restrict 92 dwelling units as affordable to low- income households for 55 years. This exceeds the intent and purpose of the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance. G. California Subdivision Map Act (Title 7, Division 2) The applicant is proposing to abandon approximately 525 feet of the southerly end of Harding Street where it intersects with Carol Place. The proposed abandonment is being processed under the provisions of Section 664450) of the Government Code ofthe State of California (Subdivision Map Act) w,hich allows for the abandonment to be recorded on the parcel map, forgoing compliance with the Streets and Highway Code. The purpose for originally constructing this segment of Harding Street was to serve the fronting subdivided housing units. Because these units will be demolished, thereby removing the purpose for the street, and because the removal of the street does not create any safety concerns with the Fire Department and Police Department, through access is no longer necessary. Additionally, according to the traffic study prepared by Urban Crossroads (November 29, 2016), the abandonment will have a nominal impact to the traffic expected to be diverted to Jefferson Street. Traffic counts were conducted on Harding Street and Carol Place to determine cut-through vehicular traffic between Magnolia Avenue and Jefferson Street, 24 hours a day, for a week straight (November 1, 2016 -November 7, 2016) when Jefferson Elementary School was in session. It was found that an average of 171 vehicles per day would be rerouted to Jefferson Street, which represents approximately 2.3% of the overall traffic on Jefferson Street. Additionally, the rerouting of the traffic was evaluated in the peak hour intersection analysis and the intersection of Jefferson Street and Magnolia Avenue was found to operate at acceptable levels of service. H. Growth Management The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the city. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table G below. The numbers in the table are based off a net increase of 49 dwelling units for the site. TABLE G -GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE STANDARD IMPACTS COMPLIANCE City Administration 173.31 sq. ft. Yes Library 92.41 sq. ft. Yes Waste Water Treatment 49 EDUs Yes Parks 0.34 acre Yes Drainage 2.1 cfs Yes Circulation 558 ADT (206 ADT net increase) Yes SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058)-PACIFIC WIND April 5, 2017 Page 10 Fire Station No. 1 Open Space O acres Schools Carlsbad (E=12.35/M=3.99/HS = 5.1) Sewer Collection System 10,780 GPD Water 12,500 GPD IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 21159.21 and 21159.23 of the California Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15194 Affordable Housing Exemption. The project meets the criteria set forth in Section 15192 (Threshold Requirements for Exemptions for Agricultural Housing, Affordable Housing, and Residential Infill Projects) and Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption) as follows: the project site is less than five acres in size; the project is located in an incorporated city with a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile; there is no reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment or the residents of the project due to unusual circumstances or due to the related or cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the project; the project site has been previously developed for qualified urban uses; the project consists of the construction, conversion, or use of residential housing consisting of 100 or fewer units that are affordable to low-income households; and the developer of the project is providing sufficient legal commitments to the City of Carlsbad to ensure the continued availability and use of the housing units for lower income households for a period of at least 55 years, at monthly housing costs deemed to be "affordable rent" for very low and extremely low income households, as determined pursuant to Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. Satisfaction of these criteria also satisfies the requirements set forth in CEQA Sections 21159.21 and 21159.23. A Notice of Exemption will be filed by the City Planner upon final project approval. The proposed apartment project is in compliance with the City of Carlsbad's Climate Action Plan (CAP) in that a multi-family housing development with less than 70 dwelling units does not meet the screening threshold to require a greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis. The 93-unit apartment project has a net increase of 49 units, and is therefore not subject to CAP measures. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has published screening thresholds to guide agencies in determining which projects require greenhouse gas analysis and mitigation for significant impacts related to climate changes . With this guidance, the city has determined that new development projects emitting less than 900 MTC02e annual GHG would not contribute considerably to climate change impacts, and therefore do not need to demonstrate consistency with the CAP. A multi-family development of more than 70 dwelling units would exceed the threshold and would be subject to CAP measures. Findings for the proposed exemption are provided in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7233 . ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7233 2. Location Map 3. Disclosure Statement 4. C & C Development Workforce Housing Parking Summary 5. Hunter's Point & Glen Ridge Parking Study 6. City of San Diego Affordable Housing Parking Study Lookup Table 7. Response Letter to John L. Bailey concerns dated February 22, 2017 8. Focused Traffic Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads, November 29, 2016) 9. Reduced Exhibits 10. Exhibits "A" -"RR" dated April 5, 2017 The City of Carlsbad Planning Division A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. 8 P.C. AGENDA OF: April 19, 2017 Application complete date: July 21, 2016 Project Planner: Austin Silva Project Engineer: David Rick SUBJECT: SOP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058)-PACIFIC WIND -Request for approval of a Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit and Minor Subdivision to allow for the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction of a 93-unit apartment (92 affordable units) development, including development a standards modification, and a street abandonment for a portion of Harding Street near the intersection of Carol Place, in the Residential-Density Multiple Zone and within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The City Planner has determined that this project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15194 (Affordable Housing) of the State CEQA Guidelines. This project is not located within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7233 APPROVING Site Development Plan SDP 15-18, Coastal Development Permit CDP 16-04 and Minor Subdivision MS 16-01 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. BACKGROUND At the April 5, 2017 Planning Commission hearing, the project was continued to the Planning Commission hearing date of April 19, 2017 because the meeting was running late into the night. Public testimony on the project was closed after all speakers were heard. The original staff report for the April 5, 2017 meeting is attached. Staff has continued to receive correspondence regarding this project, both before and after the public hearing. Some correspondence was sent the same afternoon of the meeting and staff was unable to forward the comments to the Planning Commission. The correspondence that was not transmitted to the Planning Commission is attached to this staff report. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7233 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 5, 2017 3. Correspondence from the Public concerning Pacific Wind Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2017 ·-EXH!Blf .7 . . . Chairperson Segall closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 3, asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 4. 4. SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 -PACIFIC WIND -Request for approval of a Site Development Plan to allow for the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction of a 93-unit apartment (92 affordable units) development, including development standards modifications, and a street abandonment for a portion of Harding Street near the intersection of Carol Place, in the Residential-Density Multiple Zone and within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The City Planner has determined that this project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15194 (Affordable Housing) of the State CEQA Guidelines. This project is not located within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 4 and stated Associate Planner Austin Silva would make the staff presentation assisted by Associate Engineer David Rick and Housing and Neighborhood Services Director Debbie Fountain. Chairperson Segall asked if any of the Commissioners have ex parte communications to disclose for this item. Commissioner Anderson disclosed that she drove through the property, has also visited four affordable housing projects in the neighborhood and has spoken to employees. Commissioner Black stated that he has driven through the projected property. Commissioner Siekmann stated that she has driven through the property numerous times. Commissioner Rodman disclosed that the project site is on her way home. Commissioner Montgomery disclosed that he has visited the area, and has spent some time in the neighborhood to get a feel of the development in the Barrio. Chairperson Segall disclosed that he has also driven through the property. Mr. Silva gave a presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Montgomery asked about Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) requirements. Ms. Fountain stated that available land at the appropriate zoning would be shown on a map as well as other programs that indicate how affordable housing is produced within the community. Commissioner Rodman asked if there is a tenant selection process for affordable housing developments:· Ms. Fountain stated that residents would have to meet the income requirements and have adequate income to move in to the developments. A recertification processes is held once a year by the property owner requiring them to submit annual reports and city staff will conduct onsite inspections. Commissioner Siekmann asked what would happen to the residents living in the properties if the project is approved. Ms. Fountain stated that the owner of those properties have relocation requirements and have already met with the residents to inform them of their eligibilities giving them the right to move back in to the new complex when it is built. Commissioner Black asked about the difference between inclusionary housing and rental assistance and how they are handled. Ms. Fountain explained that lnclusionary housing is one way of developing new affordable housing within the community and the rental assistance program is a federally funded program that provides the tenant a voucher. Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2017 Page 8 Commissioner Anderson asked if the restrictions for the property are for 30 years. Ms. Fountain clarified that the affordable housing restrictions are for 55 years. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Todd Cottle, Harding Street Neighbors LP, Suite 200, 14211 Yorba Street, Tustin, made a presentation. MOTION A motion was made by Commissioner Siekmann, which was seconded by Commissioner Montgomery, to extend the meeting until 11 :00 p.m. The Commission voted 5-1 (Commissioner Rodman) to extend the meeting. Chairperson Segall opened public testimony on Agenda Item 4. Michael Pruitt, 770 Camellia Place, stated his concerns with the height requirements, high density and traffic. Scott Jawor, 610 Anchor Way, shared his concerns with increased traffic flow on Jefferson Street and Anchor Way, overflow parking on Anchor Way from events held at Jefferson Elementary and building height. Courtney Ross-Tait, representing Carlsbad Alliance for Responsible Development, Suite 1700, 1055 West 7th Street, Los Angeles, submitted a letter to the Commission, stated that she has an obligation to share her concerns in the event of a petition for a mandate regarding the CEQA review, and shared concerns with negative impacts on parking, circulation, traffic, safety, air quality and local resources due to the significant increase in density. Cathy Guddee, 710 Anchor Way, shared her concerns with added traffic, environmental and safety issues, pollution, air and water quality created from vehicle traffic, noise, trash pollution from added pedestrian traffic and an over population of parked cars. Ross Stensrud, 842 Camellia Place, commented sharing concerns with using a San Diego based study where mass transit is more readily available than it is in Carlsbad when determining the parking requirements for the Carlsbad community. Marissa Torres, 880 Magnolia, submitted a photo to the Commission of overflow parking from Glen Ridge Apartments on Jefferson Street and shared her concerns with parking and increased traffic. Carol Johnson, 3800 Jefferson Street, stated her concerns with noise, pollution, traffic, safety and concluded that the project should be delayed until she and her husband are dead and buried. Robert Guddee, 710 Anchor Way, stated his concerns with pedestrian and vehicle traffic, potential crime, noise, pollution and concluded that projects should be integrated to the neighborhood. Julie Ajdour, 3537 Madison Street, stated her concerns with walkability, parking and pedestrian safety. John Baily, 790 Magnolia Avenue, submitted letters to the Commission, stated that the project is isolated from the community and that there is no reason to allow the street to be abandoned and it will prevent pedestrian access. Jane Cassity, 645 Anchor Way, addressed parking issues, onsite parking requirements, congestion and traffic. Dr. Fred M. Johnson, 3784 Jefferson Street, submitted a handout to the Commission and shared his concerns with privacy, the quality of life, lights, noise and pollution. He stated that he is a safety expert and that the project is a fire hazard due to the lack of ladder access on both sides of the buildings. Dr. Johnson concluded stating that the project should be reconfigured as it is unfair to the residents, addressed parking and other safety issues. Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2017 Page 9 Lucinda Vigne, 3880 Hibiscus Circle, shared her concerns with parking, pollution and safety. Elizabeth Kahahawai, 7711 Camellia, shared her concerns with safety, parking and the quality of life. Kris Wright, 4902 Via Arequipa, who ceded her time to Patricia Amador, 3256 Lincoln Street, commented that on January 2013, the city authorized $7.4 million of financial assistance to a developer named Harding Street Neighbors Limited Partnership to acquire duplex units, 27 parcels along Harding Street and Carol Place and inquired about Harding Street Neighbors Limited Partnership as they are known by another name. She asked who decides what parcels are identified as underutilized regarding the Housing Element sites inventory and why standards are lowered for low income housing. Marianne Brenseth, 520 Anchor Way, submitted a letter to the Commission on behalf of Renee Huston, 540 Anchor Way, and shared her concerns with inadequate parking for residents and guests seeking parking spaces on surrounding streets, safety of the residents and the school children . Elizabeth Banks, 418 Chinquapin Avenue, stated that a moratorium is in place and shared her concerns with parking, density and the quality of life. Linda Breen, 2758 Olympia Drive, shared her concerns with the building height and parking. Noel Breen, 2758 Olympia Drive, asked why the project is proposed for approval without a finalized Village and Barrio master plan in terms of parking and traffic. Socorro Anderson, 3420 Don Juan, stated that she supports the project and affordable housing. Emilio Gonzales, 3725 Harding Street, stated his concerns with parking. Mario Monroy, 2955 Ocean Street, shared his concerns with traffic, parking and density. MOTION A motion was made by Commissioner Siekmann, which was seconded by Commissioner Black, to extend the meeting until 11 :25 p.m. The Commission voted 5-1 (Commissioner Rodman) to extend the meeting. Sherry Smith, 3774 Jefferson Street shared her concern with building height. The following speakers are opposed to the project: Susan Schritt, Suite D, 4014 Layang Layang Circle Amanda Mascia, 3625 Amigos Court, Oceanside Colleen Habrecht, 705 Magnolia Avenue Christopher Kevin, 300 Carlsbad Village Drive, supports the project. Chairperson Segall asked if any member of the audience wished to address Agenda Item 4. Seeing none, he closed public testimony. MOTION A motion was made by Commissioner Montgomery, which was seconded by Commissioner Black, to continue Agenda Item 4 to a date certain of April 19, 2017. The Commission voted 6-0-1 to continue Agenda item 4. MOTION A motion was made by Commissioner Montgomery, which was seconded by Commissioner Rodman, to discuss whether the Planning Commission discuss recommending to the City Council consideration of a moratorium for the Village and Barrio areas at the April 19, 2017 meeting. The Commission voted 6-0-1 to discuss the consideration of a moratorium. Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2017 Page 10 COMMISSION COMMENTS None. CITY PLANNER COMMENTS Mr. Neu stated that a revised briefing schedule will be emailed to the Commissioners. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of April 5, 2017 was adjourned at 11 : 13 p.m. DON NEU City Planner Farah Nisan Minutes Clerk Planning Commission Minutes Minutes of: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: CALL TO ORDER April 19, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 p.m. April 19, 2017 COUNCIL CHAMBER Chairperson Segall called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Rodman led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Page 1 Present: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Anderson, Black, Montgomery, Rodman and Siekmann Absent: Commissioner Goyarts STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Ron Kemp, Assistant City Attorney Farah Nisan, Secretary Sarah Cluff, Senior Office Specialist Austin Silva, Associate Planner David Rick, Associate Engineer Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager Craig Williams, Transportation Manager Jennifer Horodyski, Assistant Engineer PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Jan Neff-Sinclair, 922 Wind Drift Drive, submitted a handout to the Commission presenting a screenshot of an online petition requesting support for a distillery on Tyler Street and stated that she is concerned with the zone change application process. Kim Trujillo, 1751 Andrea Avenue, shared her concerns with the online petition requesting support for a distillery on Tyler Street. Dr. Fred M. Johnson, 3784 Jefferson Street, complimented the Commission on the Pacific Wind proceedings. Mr. Neu clarified that the City Council had already scheduled to discuss the topic of a moratorium for the Village and Barrio areas as a follow up to the Council's Goal Setting process at the Tuesday, April 181h City Council workshop. Mr. Neu stated that because the City Council was well aware of the Planning Commission's concern, the item is not on the Agenda for discussion. Mr. Neu reported that the City Council heard public testimony, discussed the issue and did not support pursuing a moratorium. CONTINUED PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 1. SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 -PACIFIC WIND -Request for approval of a Site Development Plan to allow for the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction of a 93-unit apartment (92 affordable units) development, including development standards modifications, and a street abandonment for a portion of Harding Street near the intersection of Carol Place, in the Residential-Density Multiple Zone and within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The City Planner has determined that this project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15194 (Affordable Housing) of the State CEQA Guidelines. This project is not located within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2017 Page 2 Todd Cottle, Harding Street Neighbors LP, Suite 200, 14211 Yorba Street, Tustin, made a presentation addressing the concerns raised during public testimony. Associate Planner Austin Silva and Associate Engineer David Rick addressed the concerns raised during public testimony. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any questions of staff or the applicant. Commissioner Black asked inquired about the maximum occupancy for the development. Mr. Todd Cottle replied a maximum number of 531 individuals. Commissioner Montgomery stated that one of his main concerns is the abandonment of the Harding Street right of way and asked what benefits the citizens. Mr. Rick stated that a street or an easement can be abandoned on a subdivision through a parcel map, which is the direction the applicant has taken. Chairperson Segall asked how guest parking is managed. Mr. Barry Cottle responded with no overnight parking allowed for visitors and stated that a guest staying overnight will have to register at the office assigning an available parking space. Commissioner Siekmann asked why the gating is necessary. Mr. Barry Cottle stated that the gate would control access and parking. Commissioner Siekmann asked if they would consider removing or modifying the gate. Mr. Todd Cottle commented that it would protect younger children playing around the tot lot area. Commissioner Black asked if there is a common ratio for laundry accessibility. Mr. Todd Cottle stated a ratio of ten to one. Commissioner Black asked if the laundry facility, building two, could be relocated to building six so that it is more centralized for all tenants. Mr. Todd Cottle stated that they would consider the relocation to building two and that the goal is to have the laundry facility near a tot lot or some open space. Chairperson Segall inquired about the fire access to the project site. Mr. Rick replied stating that the driveways are 24 feet wide throughout the development and have been reviewed by the fire department and found to meet the requirements. Commissioner Rodman asked if there is a condition in place supporting the household income is true and accurate. Mr. Todd Cottle stated that there is a financial penalty regarding the tax credits used in the project financing to the extent that someone is cheating and is not making the income that they say they are making. DISCUSSION Commissioner Siekmann stated that it appears to her that the applicant has bent over backwards to make a good project for Carlsbad. Commissioner Siekmann stated that she would like to see public access through the development for walking and biking and stated that she can support the project. Commissioner Anderson stated she can support the project. Commissioner Black commends the applicant for all the thought put into the project. Commissioner Black added that relocating the laundry equipment to building number four is not that great of a deal as far as having to reconfigure architecture, utilities and plumbing. Commissioner Montgomery stated that he would prefer to see the project as a redesign. Chairperson Segall stated that he likes the project and what it brings to the community, however; he concurs with Commissioner Montgomery. Chairperson Segall stated that he cannot support the project the way it is and the way it will impact other residents on Jefferson Street and Harding Street. Commissioner Siekmann asked if the applicant would be open to limiting pedestrian gate access afterhours. Mr. Todd Cottle stated that they would prefer to lock the gates after a certain hour in the evening. Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2017 Page 3 MOTION A motion was made by Commissioner Siekmann to limit pedestrian gate access due to the discretion of the property management company. The Commission voted 3-3-1 (Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Montgomery and Rodman) motion failed. MOTION A motion was made by Commissioner Black and seconded by Commissioner Siekmann to relocate the two units located on the southerly end of the third floor of building four to the westerly end of the third floor of building two. The Commission voted 5-1-1 (Commissioner Montgomery). MOTION ACTION : Motion by Commissioner Montgomery and duly seconded by Commissioner Siekmann that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7233 approving Site Development Plan SDP 15-18, Coastal Development Permit CDP 16-04 and Minor Subdivision MS 16-01 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein as amended. VOTE: 4-2-1 AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner Rodman and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: Chairperson Segall and Commissioner Montgomery ABSENT: Commissioner Goyarts ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Segall closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. CITY PLANNER COMMENTS None. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of April 19, 2017 was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. DON NEU City Planner Farah Nisan Minutes Clerk l;XHl8ll9 April 5, 2017 Carlsbad Planning Commission The Pacific Wind Site plan should not be approved before the Village and Bario Plan is completed and approved. It might be financially advantageous for the developer to get their project done prior to the Village/Bario Plan but that may not be in the best interest for the current and future residents who live in these areas. With respect to traffic, the requirements for parking are at the very low end. Without th~ developer providing adequate parking the public streets will be subsidizing overflow. The residents of Anchor Way have seen their share of cut through speeding traffic from morning and evening commuters trying to avoid the snarl at the intersection of Jefferson and Tamarack. Jefferson is a traffic back up in the mornings. Cars waiting to drop their children, waiting for pedestrians to cross, waiting to turn at Anchor Way, Carol Place, out of the school parking lot, out of the Am/Pm. After this project is completed Tamarack wiJI still be a two lane road but all this issues will be compounded with yet more cars. Adding a left turn light will be insignificant in remedying too many cars for this road. I might also add that I did not see any mention in your report as to impacts of increased enrollment at Jefferson school. I appreciate the concept of trains, pedestrian walkways, and bikes and realize young singles may utilize them. But residents living in this area, particularly seniors will have a difficult time walking across the freeway and carrying groceries back from Vons. The 3 bedroom units may house 3-4 children. I don't see a young mother carrying her groceries back either. We need to be realistic about who is going to drive a car and prepare for the worst, not the best. Lets wait until the Bario Plan is done so everything goes together and future traffic problems can be averted. Not the other way around. Renee Huston 540 Anchor Way Carlsbad CA 92008 April 5, 2017 Chair and Carlsbad Planning Commission Members: My name is Marianne Bremseth and I live at 520 Anchor Way, Carlsbad, CA. My family and I have lived in Carlsbad since 1987. I am against the approval of the Pacific Wind Project because of the following reasons: Inadequate parking for residents of the Pacific Winds complex will increase the number of residents and guests seeking parking spaces on surrounding streets. The proposal of 1.fparking space per unit is ludicrous. This is insufficient given planned 21 one BR units, 18 two BR units and 54 three BR units. This is only phase one of a two phase project contemplating additional units. Lack of parking with phase one will only be made worse with additional units. The overflow in finding parking spots for residents and guests will put undue stress onto su rrounding streets. Traffic congestion on surrounding streets that are two lanes only. Traffic jam on Jefferson during school hours of the Jefferson Elementary School already exists. Traffic from the Pacific Winds Project will be diverted to Jefferson and Anchor Way and surrounding streets due to Harding Street will no longer in be available and one only exit to the project on Carol Place. Safety of area residents and school children will be at risk. Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council are accountable for the safety of its residents and this plan if approved as submitted will compromise our safety. Please do not approve the Pacific Winds Project until the Barrio Grand Plan is fully approved. I request the Planning Commission staff do a complete parking study to include the hours of 7 PM-7 AM . Marianne Bremseth 520 Anchor Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 760 434-6287 Planning Commission Members: Honorable Velyn Anderson, Chairman Honorable Marty Montgomery Honorable Arthur Niel Black Honorable Kerry Siekmann Honorable Stephen "Hap" L' Heureux Honorable Jeff Segall Honorable Patrick Goya~ts (Via email only c/o Planning Commission Clerk at planning@carlsbadca.gov ) Re: Project SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 -Pacific Wind Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Please let this correspondence serve as the undersigned's formal request that the Planning Commission deny approval of the Site Plan for the Pacific Wind Project SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01, to allow for the demolition of 4 4 residential uni ts and the construction of a 93-uni t apartment development ( 92 affordable uni ts) without further review. Among other issues, the City's planning staff has wrongfully determined that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") under section 15194 of the California Code of Regulations. As a threshold matter, in order for the Project to avail itself of this particular exemption, the Project must also meet the criteria in section 15192. The undersigned is a resident and/or stakeholder of Carlsbad and takes issue with the approval of the Project because of the procedural and substantive defects and unique impacts of the Project on the public heal th, safety, and welfare. Further, the Project will have substantive impacts on the environment and the quality of life for the surrounding neighbors, schools, and the community at large. The basis of my concerns are as follows: (a) Conflicts with transportation, circulation, economy, noise, and air quality elements and goals of General Plan; (b) The change in use may create patterns of transportation and circulation that conflict with Plan goals for open pedestrian, bicycle and traffic movement through the neighborhood; ( c) Loss of parking spaces and the abandonment of street access may create patterns of transportation that conflict with Plan goals and the needs of the surrounding neighbors and the overall community; (d) The Project may have a negative impact on the local economy and tax revenues; and (e) The change in transportation and circulation patterns may have adverse air quality impacts. Furthermor e, the propose d changed to the Harding Street Assemblage that make up the Project site: (a) does not meet all the criteria set forth in section 15192; (b) does meet the criteria set forth in section 15194; and (c) It is apparent the deve loper is splitting this Harding Street Assemblage to fit into the exemptions of CEQA, in violation of California Code of Regulations, section 15192 (o) and 15194 (d) (1). This letter is intended to initiate further discussion and inv olvement Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California Austin Silva Planning Division Austin. Silva@carlsbadca.gov RE: Project SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 -Pacific Wind Dear Members of the Planning Commission, Please let this correspondence serve as the undersigned's formal request that the Planning Commission deny approval of the Site Plan for the Pacific Wind Project, SDP 15-18/CDP 16- 04/MS 16-01, to allow for the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction of a 93-unit apartment development (92 affordable units) without further review. Among other issues, the City's planning staff has wrongfully determined that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") under section 15194 of the California Code of Regulations. As a threshold matter, in order for the Project to avail itself of this particular exemption, the Project must also meet the criteria in section 15192. The undersigned is a resident and/or stakeholder of Carlsbad and takes issue with the approval of the Project because of the procedural and substantive defects and unique impacts of the project on the public health, safety, and welfare. Further, the Project will have substantive impacts on the environment and the quality of life for the surrounding neighbors, schools, and the community at large. 1 ,Planning Commission Members: Honorable Velyn Anderson, Chairman Honorable Marty Montgomery Honorable Arthur Niel Black Honorable Kerry Siekrnann Honorable Stephen "Hap" L' Heureux Honorable Jeff Segall Honorable Patrick Goyarts (Via email only c/o Planning Commission Clerk at planning@carl sbadca.gov ) Re: Project SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 -Pacific Wine 1 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Please let this correspondence serve as the undersigned'E formal request that the Planning Commission deny approval of thE Site Plan for the Pacific Wind Project SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16- 01, to allow for the demolition of 44 residential units and thE construction of a 93-unit apartment development (92 affordablE uni ts) without °further review. Among other issues, the City' E planning staff has wrongfully determined that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") unde1 section 15194 of the California Code of Regulations. As c threshold matter, in o~der for the Project to avail itself of thiE particular _.exemption, the Project must also meet the criteria ir section 15192. The undersigned is a resident and/or stakeholder oi Carlsbad and takes issue with the approval of the Project becausE of the procedural and substantive defects and unique ,impacts of thE Project on the public ' heal th, safety, and welfare. Further, thE Project will have subs tan ti ve impacts on the environment and thE quality of life for the surrounding neighbors, schools, and thE community at large. The basis of my concerns are as follows: (a) Conflicts witr transportation, circulation, economy, noise, and air qualit1 elements and goals of General Plan; (b) The change in use ma1 create patterns of transportation and circulation that conflict with Plan goals for open pedestrian, bicycle and traffic movement through the neighborhood; (C) Loss of parking spaces and thE abandonment of street access may create patterns of transportatior that conflict with Plan goals and the needs of the surroundinc Austin Silva, Associate Planner (Austin .Silva@carlsbadca .gov) Don Neu, City Planner (Don .Neu@carlsbadca .gov) .j Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California Austin Silva Planning Division Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov RE: Project SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 -Pacific Wind Dear Members of the Planning Commission, Please let this correspondence serve as the undersigned's formal request that the Planning Commission deny approval of the Site Plan for the Pacific Wind Project, SDP 15-18/CDP 16- 04/MS 16-01, to allow for the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction of a 93-unit apartment development (92 affordable units) without further review. Among other issues, the City's planning staff has wrongfully determined that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") under section 15194 of the California Code of Regulations. As a threshold matter, in order for the Project to avail itself of this particular exemption, the Project must also meet the criteria in section 15192. The undersigned is a resident and/or stakeholder of Carlsbad and takes issue with the approval of the Project because of the procedural and substantive defects and unique impacts of the project on the public health, safety, and welfare. Further, the Project will have substantive impacts on the environment and the quality of life for the surrounding neighbors, schools, and the community at large. 1 April 17, 2017 Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners; RE: Carlsbad/Pacific Wind Proj ect (SOP 15-18/CDP 16- 04/MS 16-01) Attachments: City Council Agenda Bill from 1 /29/1 3- PACIFIC WIND CONTRACT and 2017 Carlsbad Housing Element Report I am sorry I won 't be able to attend your next meeting, and I want to be sure you read my recommendations on thE? project and they are added to the public record. Just like each one of You, WE want a Future Carlsbad that is: Walkable, Livable, and Quaint. 1.JPlease would you vote to : Approve a Building Moratorium for the BarrioNillage area until the VILLAGE/BARRIO MASTER plan for the area is complete AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. 2.)Second, conduct an EIR as required by CEQA. that does not allow the piece meal of a property that the two attached city documentations show it will be larger. A. Please look at the City Council Resolution No. 2013- 026: the Environmental Review section, where it states the project will be larger than 100 units. It is clear that the objective by the developer and staff is 1 to first build fewer than 100 units, in order to not have to comply with CEQA. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15194 - Affordable Housing. This proposed project was reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Planner has determined that the proposed project is exempt from additional environmental review per Section 15194 (affordable housing exemption) of CEQA because the project site is 1) no larger than five acres, 2) is in an urbanized area, and 3) the project site has been previously developed for . qualified urban uses (residential). The project also consists of the construction, conversion, or use of residential housing consisting of 100 or fewer units that are affordable to low- income households, and the developer will legally commit to ensure the continued availability and use of the housing units for lower income households for a period of at least 30 years at monthly costs deemed to be affordable rent for lower income households. The future larger (higher density) apartment development will require separate environmental review and approval, if it is determined that the subject project will proceed. The environmental review for the new construction project will be completed at a later date and represent a review of the project at the time it is proposed . ? B. The 2017 Carlsbad Housing Element Study, that is attached , page 2 also states the Pacific Wind Development will include a total of 114-118 units. 3. Do not give away almost $1,7500,000 in public land to the developer for free, that is the value, as you can read in the attached city council document on page 49. 4. Keep Harding Street open for public use, keep the duplexes on one side of the street that back up Jefferson Street, and fix them up: $75,000 each, as required by the contract if the proposed development is not approved. Put any potential units with parking beneath on freeway side of the acquired lot. 5. The Developer has already breached the contract: Secti?n 3 .2 Commencement of Construction of New Larger Development. The Borrower shall cause the commencement of construction of the improvements for a new, larger development or for substantial rehabilitation of the existing units no later than December 31, 2016. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "commencement of consumption" shall mean the date the Borrower commences, or causes the commencement of, physical demolition and new construction or physical rehabilitation work on the Property pursuant to a building permit or other similar permit. 6. If you vote against the proposed plan: there are currently 50 affordable units, we don't lose those! And the developer is required to fix them up. Planning Commission Members: Honorable Velyn Anderson, Chairman Honorable Marty Montgomery Honorable Arthur Niel Black Honorable Kerry Siekmann Honorable Stephen "Hap" L' Heureux Honorable Jeff Segall Honorable Patrick Goyarts (Via email only c/o Planning Commission Clerk at planning@carlsbadca .gov ) Re: Project SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 -Pacific Wind Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Please let this correspondence serve as the undersigned's formal request that the Planning Commission deny approval of the Site Plan for t he Pacific Wind Project SDP 15-18 /CDP 16-04/MS 16-01, to allow for the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction of a 93-unit apartment development (92 affordable units) without further review. Among other issues, the City's planning staff has wrongfully determined that ·the Project -is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") under section 15194 of the California Code of Regulations. As a threshold matter, in order for the Project to avail itself of this particular exemption, the Project must also meet the criteria in section 15192. The undersigned is a resident and/or stakeholder of Carlsbad and takes issue with the approval of the Project because of the procedural and substantive defects and unique impacts of the Project on the public health, safety, and welfare. Further, the Project will have substantive impacts on the environment and the quality of life. for the surrounding neighbors, schools, and the community at large. The basis of my concerns are as follows: (a) Conflicts with transportation, circulation, economy, noise, and air quality elements and goals of General Plan; (b) The change in use may create patterns of transportation and circulation that conflict with Plan goals for open pedestrian, bicycle and traffic movement through the neighborhood; (c) Loss of parking spaces and the abandonment of street access may create patterns of transportation that conflict with Plan goals and the needs of the surrounding neighbors and the overall community; (d) The Project may have a negative impact on the local economy and tax revenues; and (e) The change in transportation and circulation patterns may have adverse air quality impacts. Furthermore, the proposed changed Assemblage that make up the Project s ite: to the Harding Street (a) does not meet a ll the criteria set forth in section 15192; (b) does meet the criteria set forth in section 15194; and (c) It is apparent the developer is splitting this Harding Street Assemblage to fit into the exemptions of CEQA, in violation of California Code of Regulations, section 15192 (o) and 15194 (d) (1). This letter is intended to initiate further discussion and involvement by the community and should not be considered exhaustive. The undersigned respectfully reserves the right to conduct further investigation and include those facts and conclusions that are properly part of a complete review of the Project. Please include the undersigned on future communications and ~~~!~;~ regarding this Projec~ttention to this Signature MtC,H.P,.-6.L M~ N ~\S Je.-ttetso"" s. t-Cb.,; {S(o ctO Ho~e/Mailing Address m, ck.Vl "?t3et-ep Lt Ctk\ o a . coP', Email Address cc: City Council Members: Honorable Matt Hall, Mayor (matt.hall@carlsbadca.gov) Honorable Keith Blackburn (keith.blackburn@carlsbadca.gov) Honorable Mark Packard (mark.packard@carlsbadca.gov) Honorable Cori Schumacher (cori.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov) Honorable Michael Schumacher (michael.schumacher@carlsbadca .gov) Austin Silva, Associate Planner (Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov ) Don Neu, City Planner (Don .Neu@carlsbadca.gov) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO: CITY CLERK DATE OF PUBLIC ~RIN~ 1 : . ___ ,__:_7_/_I/_/_J 1/'--------- SUBJECT: '--f D.r:, 6 H , ls J u-J) LOCATION: ------------------------ DATE NOTICES MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS: ---~....1...+--'/f};"""'· _o....!....c7l ........ /~:J,__ __ _ NUMBER MAILED: _c9=-· ·_w____,__/ __ I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am employed by the City of Carlsbad and the foregoing is true and correct. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE (Date) SENT TO FOR PUBLICATION VIA E-MAIL TO: 0 Union Tribune ? Coast News PUBLICATION DATE: Union Tribune Coast News_-_---~~-{f'---+ _l_2~~--1-/,____,__(-((J~ -_-_ -_ -_ I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the S e of alifornia that I am employed by the City of Carlsbad in the City Clerk's Office d the f regoing is true and ::::ct W f 21/11 Attachments: 1) Mailing Labels ) 2) Notice w/ attachments RESIDENT 930 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT . 3685 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 830 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 9200~ RESIDENT 3700 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 847 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3724 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3738 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3760 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3774 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3737 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 I 1 • liireel~~al,mQ li~f§ 1. } ·: . Fe·ed Paper Bend along lin~>fg~~ors,~P'fJliS::' · : · RESIDENT 3696 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 850 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 840 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3702 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3712 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3726 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3748 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3762 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3784 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3739 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 ~~~~a peler • . Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51~0®/8160Mc J ~t~~~ci~1JU1feis 1 d-{__p} . UseAveryTemplateSl~ : RESIDENT 880 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 860 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 3743 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 845 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3714 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3736 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3750 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3772 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3786 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3725 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 ~M~/gabaritsl: 1-800if~~ritAvery 5160j :as~els "lhfi® Js~~Uplate 5160!S'f811ffl™ RESIDENT 3727 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3701 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3787 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3761 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3751 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3813 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3829 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3824 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3814 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 901 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 I eti~~ a peler :1 Utilic;;ez le aabarit AVERY® 5160®/8160Mc '! RESIDENT 3713 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3703 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3775 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3763 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3801 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3815 HARDI NG ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 844 CAROL PL CARLSBAD' CA 92008 RESIDENT 3826 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3800 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 903 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3715 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3785 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3777 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 37 49 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3803 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3827 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 846 CAROL PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3812 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3802 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3712 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 j VAfft!l!NW(f.1!1J/ gabarits j 1c80~~lritAvery 5160 J. E~,l;bels ® ~fe'i'nplate51~~0™ RESIDENT 3714 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3736 HARDING ST . CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3750 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3772 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT j > 3786 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT . 3802 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3816 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3836 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 810 TAMARACK AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ~~f"'6~ a peler . :1/ Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160®/8160Mc •1 1· d•P !l!PJel® ~it116YM0™ L,' ree ape&nd along line ~~i9Jl,:~~ ~~ jt RESIDENT 3724 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3738 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3760 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3774 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3796 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3804 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3826 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3838 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 I A5M..AVJ2R,V~~~i: ~ UseAveryTemplate5160b - RESIDENT 3726 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 37 48 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3762 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 / RESIDENT 3784 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3798 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3814 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT 3828 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 850 TAMARACK AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 I ~8~/gabarits f 1-SOQ,~¥itAvery 5160 ! E~bels 5lnn® ~~~:mplate 5160wnrl60™ HARDING STREET NEIGHBORS LP UNIT110 19772 MACARTHUR BLVD IRVINE CA 92612 . TRUST B 751 2ND ST ENCINITAS CA92024 CARLSBAD VETERAN HOUSING LP UNIT 160 13520 EVENING CREEK DR N SAN DIEGO CA 92128 ZAMORA CHRISTINE REVOCABLE TRUST 10-02-14 6151 PASEO JAQUITA CARLSBAD CA 92009 SCHERER LEE R & SHERYN A TRUST 03-23-87 10606 FALCON RIM POINT SAN DIEGO CA 92131 CLAY F & CHELEEN K OREY 860 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOHN E & JOYCE R DENNISON UNIT 108A 300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ANTONACCI FAMILY TRUST 10- 28-16 825 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 MALCOLM & BRENDA J MEIKLE 860 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 KATHLEEN NOVAK 822 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 fitiaiu~as a peler . : I m,:i;.,,.., la ,.,,.h,.rit '1\IJ:RV® l'ii1fi0®/i:t160MCI ! ATAYEE FAMILY TRUST 04-30- 06 16126 DEER RIDGE. CT SAN DIEGO CA 92127 ANTONIO & DIONICIA GARCIA 3590 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 KOUMA MARTIN TRUST 10-12-96 3630 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 COLE M & RACHEL T IVANOVICH 3676 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 . TAVARUA SENIOR APARTMENTS LP UNIT JS 151 KALMUS DR COSTA MESA CA 92626 BRIAN P HODGKINSON 840 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 [ --GARY & JESSICA TROUT 795 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 f LARSEN SHIRLEY A TRUST 01- 22-09 3605 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 MADRID ROSANNA LIVING TRUST 05-13-03 3417 SANTA CLARA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92010 GAY ELIZABETH C TRUST 06-,18- 08 2272 SOLEDAD RANCHO RD SAN DIEGO CA 92109 aftitb~IIIY'tein~!· ~ UseAveryTemplate5160j RUSSELL T MARR 434 LA VETA AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 HOLMES PAUL B REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 07-22-11 756 MORSE ST OCEANSIDE CA 92054 LYLE & HEATHER GOURLEY 3640 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 MICHAEL & JEANNE M CUARENTA 930 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 PEARSON JEFF & LAURIE 2013 TRUST 03-21-13 880 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROBERT D ZIMMERMAN 2880 MAVERICK ST LAS VEGAS NV 89108 MATTHEW H FULLER 918 BRASS WAY ENCINITAS CA 92024 AMMON FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 01-24-90 4070 SUNNYHILL DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROSS & LAUREL STENSRUD 842 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 GREGORY C FALL 790 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 .&.u-~---' b ·ts 11 -•-i:at·.,,._ ga ari 11 HlOOG&llVlilRIYtAvery 5160 1 J. ~~abets ® ~~mplate 51~g;60™ 1l A ~I® AicheJ:!ttattiM to I ~ · FeedPapWe~~~etlf~~!JiP-ilfl!~™ J/ .1 ' ; MAGALLANES-LIVING TRUST 09-JEFFREY L & ANGELA C GARDNER 06-05 792 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 DANIEL R & CHRISTINE A RIDINGS 755 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 KAHAHAWAI ELIZABETH A SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST 771 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 ERICA C JIMENEZ 821 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 BRENDAN KOLESAR 843 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 RICHARD S & SHEILA E NORMAN 893 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOHN R & MARTUS CAROLYN HYDE 4276 MANCHESTER AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 UBER FAMILY TRUST 31130 HILLTOP DR VALLEY CENTER CA 92082 CURTIS ALBERT & ELIDA BECKER 808 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 BAILEY JOHN L & JAN E LIVING TRUST 03-08-16 23429 BRISTOL WAY MURRIETA CA 92562 t 772 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 STEVEN J & CYNTHIA L JERROMES PO BOX 1240 VISTA CA 92085 PHILLIP M EKBLAD 813 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 DEO M & MELISSA A CAPPUCCILLI 823 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 STANDERFER FAMILY TRUST 10-26-15 861 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 CLOTILDE A HIGHTOWER 3675 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 TIMOTHY D & LAUREN E SHEEHY 850 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ORTIZ J & ESTHER JESUS 840 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 COBIAN ALBERTO TRUST 12-12- 02 768 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 LIONEL T & SUSANA L JARRARD 788 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 CJQ aA¥1JA1tenmlmes ! ~ UseAveryTemplate5160 ,i MICHAEL N& THERESA L PRUITT 770 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 ALBERTO J & TINA DORANTES 4602 OAKTER OCEANSIDE CA 92056 TILLEY LOUIS E REVOCABLE TRUST 08-01-16 PO BOX514 SUMMERLAND CA 93067 SUSAN M BOGARD 841 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 BERNARDINO & M LOURDES MELLING 863 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 FRANK L & JOSEPHINE RODRIGUEZ 2914 HILL VALLEY DR ESCONDIDO CA 92029 CLAY ANDREW JR REVOeABLE TRUST 05-02-11 860 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 DANIEL P FERRY/CONNIE D NIKOLAI DIS 8812 E 5TH ST TUCSON AZ 85710 GERARDO & ELISA RUIZ 770 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 RUGGLES STEPHEN J 2009 TRUST 10-05-09 3149 FAIRVIEW DR VISTA CA 92084 viJM._,,.raMW/gabarits I 1-80~itAvery5160 1 Ea~li\ubels ® u~"'iJRlplate 516olilMo™ !, : .A !l!!eel® Jiffl!Jli!!§l!Mf@~™ i • J I Feed Paper Bend along linWe~?>fe~~!iVi!~~" J : JASON M & ALANNA L VINCENT 863 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 LANE DONNA E LIVING TRUST 01-12-12 5120 EMERSON AVE ROLLING MOWS IL 60008 MICHAEL M & MARIE T MORELAND 3715 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 STEPHEN J & AMANDA MAZZA 740 ANCHOR WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROBERT H & CATHERINE 0 GUDEE 710 ANCHOR WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 GARY CYR 640 ANCHOR WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 SCOTTS & PATRICIA L JAWOR 610 ANCHOR WAY · CARLSBAD CA 92008 LANDAVAZO RENEE A FAMILY TRUST 03-01-94 PO BOX4426 CARLSBAD CA 92018 LALONDE FAMILY TRUST 02-17- 09 565 ANCHOR WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 ,, I CHRISTOPHER DDECKER .. 861 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 KOYL REAL ESTATE VENTURES LP 7230 BABILONIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 ANTHONY P KINMAN/HAROLD J JR KINMAN 1812 N BRIGHTON ST BURBANK CA 91506 KOYL REAL ESTATE VENTURES LP 752 W LA JOLLA ST PLACENTIA CA 92870 RUDOLF A HEREDIA PO BOX 2210 CARLSBAD CA 92018 MARTINEZ VERA M REVOCABLE 2000 TRUST 08-04-00 39061 BEL AIR DR CATHEDRAL CTY CA 92234 LORRAINE F HARTMANN 630 ANCHOR WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 KARINA RORABACH 560 ANCHOR WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 BRIAN J & DINA MCQUEEN 545 ANCHOR WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 OWEN M & TERRI L BULL 517 HILLCREST DR. LONGVIEW WA 98632 ~OA\VJRM~~~$ I . UseAveryTemplates15': TIMOTHY M & DONNA D DOYLE 1046 HERON DR VISTA CA 92081 TM S HIGHLAND INVESTMENTS LLC UNIT G662 2967 MICHELSON DR IRVINE CA 92612 · SALAZAR LINDA A REVOCABLE TRUST 05-21-09 PO BOX 102 CARLSBAD CA 92018 \ H F L P-DOLPHIN BEACH L L C UNIT 200 1430 LARIMER ST DENVER CO 80202 CRAIG M & AIMEE M CHRISTO 720 ANCHOR WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 SWEETLAND FAMILY TRUST 04- 03-92 UNIT 301 4532 MURIETTA AVE SHERMAN OAKS CA 91423 JONES ANNE FANLING REVOCABLE TRUST 12-27-1 O 620 ANCHORWAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 HELEN J JUNCAL 550 ANCHOR WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 LEONEL RAMIREZ · 555 ANCHOR WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 BRIAN E & GINA M PIERCE 625 ANCHORWAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 i ~@i'fW~/gabarits I 1eoOQ:,~'if£i&itAvery 5160 J1 ~bels ® • ..&. cJ&hel® A~=to I ~~~ I mplate s1i~60™ • l Ji Feed PapE!Jend along linem$asti~lt JFTM Use Avery Template 5160 4 MARTINSON CHARLES S JANE H CASSITY MA HARRY HSIANGPO FAMILY BYPASS TRUST 09-08-03 645 ANCHOR WAY TRUST 04-08-11 PO BOX2555 CARLSBAD CA 92008 1427 HOLLENCREST DR SAN GABRIEL CA 91778 WEST COVINA CA 91791 MAHIN REVOCABLE TRUST 05-TURNER MARK W & LEHDE MATTHEWS PETER F & 17-10 LINDA A LIVING TRUST 11-16-05 PATRICIA J LIVING TRUST 09- 1745 KIRKPL 2916 LAUREL AVE 25-07 CARLSBAD CA 92008 MANHATTAN BCH CA 90266 3032 UNION ST SAN DIEGO CA 92103 ROSARIO V DIAZ RYAN P & BERGER MICHELLE N GOMEZ FAMILY TRUST 735 ANCHOR WAY CUNNINGHAM 4765 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 745 ANCHOR WAY CARLSBAD CA 92010 . CARLSBAD CA 92008 KENNETH P MCNULTY TOMASINO FAMILY TRUST 11-ARA & LAURA DIRTADIAN 2542 RUDDER RD 22-04 3724 JEFFERSON ST OCEANSIDE CA .92054 PO BOX 712633 CARLSBAD CA 92008 SANTEE CA 92072 BALSER MERRILL E & JANE ERNEST ADAMS STEPHEN & ADRIA MOFFETT FAMILY DECEDENTS TRUST B 37 48 JEFFERSON ST 2341 NEWPORT AVE 3419 HOLL YBERRY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARDIFF CA 92007 VISTA CA 92084 CARL M & SHERRIE G SMITH. JOHNSON FAMILY TRUST 06-01-EMILIO & MARTHA C GONZALEZ 3772 JEFFERSON ST 10 3725 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 2308 E AMERIGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 FULLERTON CA 92831 GOSHTASB M & l JOHNSON FAMILY REVOCABLE GERICOS BAGHEGOLESTANI PARIZAD A LIVING TRUST 07-29-93 2858 CARLSBAD BLVD AHAMSAYEH ' 3800 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 4299 KINGSPARK DR I CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN JOSE CA 95136 AC A A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CINNAMON APARTMENT SHAS MANAGEMENT INC 29848 LIVE OAK CANYON RD PARTNERSHIP 3666 PIO PICO DR REDLANDS CA 92373 UNITD CARLSBAD CA 92008 2653 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 MICHAEL J MERCER SAMUEL & SHEILA MCINNIS CHRISTMAN ADRIENNE M 1016 MAGNOLIA AVE 1030 MAGNOLIA AVE TRUST 06-18-15 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 1040 MAGNOLIAAVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 WONG ERIC & GRACE FAMILY RHODES T L & EDITH M 1993 SUSAN L GARCIA TRUST 11-04-06 TRUST B 05-27-93 1050 MAGNOLIA AVE 5318 VALLEY VIEW RD 1840 AVOCADO RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 RANCHO PALOS VERD CA OCEANSIDE CA 92054 90275 I ,attes ~a.,ieeelitn de:1 ~~~ a peter . . : I ~a'8¥flYXB/gabarits i Utilisez le qabarit AVERY® 5160®/8160Mc1_j c chureafi~IIJ~~~c ~ 1-30~itAvery5160 , I II II . A. c!i&el® A~~~ to I Feed PapEffend along line ta~ ,~iltlMB~™ J ·· I MICHAEL A &·ORALIA C ANDERSON 1060 MAGNOLIAAVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 RICHARD STASZEWSKI 1055 MAGNOLIAAVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 CHVRON USA INC PO BOX285 HOUSTON TX 77001 4S ENTERPRISES L L C 3700 PIO PICO DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 HUMBERTO & BEATRIZ GONZALEZ 3912 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 ~; FIERROS ROBERT & OLGA FAMILY TRUST 03-11-14 820 CITRUS PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 TAMARACK RETAIL PARTNERS LP 5852 BOX CANYON RD LA JOLLA CA 92037 FRANCISCO & JOVITA VALDIVIA 3901 LINMAR LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 SANTAYANA F & C FAMILY TRUST 08-13-11 2817 MLJIR TRAIL DR FULLERTON CA 92833 STEVEN D & CHRISTINA REID 3915 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 - I ~~tfifii~ a peler _ : I Utilise, le caabarit AVERY® 5160®/8160MC! f J ADAMS BERT TRUST 08-15-11 PO BOX 1633 CARLSBAD CA 92018 KELLETT CYRIL F & JOANNE D TRUST 09-16-76 2828 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 NEW SONG COMMUNITY CHURCH 3985 MISSION AVE . OCEANSIDE CA 92058 PETER & JANETT VAGENAS 88 N BERKELEY AVE PASADENA CA 91107 MCDONALD FAMILY TRUST 09- 05-12 804 CITRUS PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 MICHOLETTE TAYLOR 819 CITRUS PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 '--- VICTORIANO & ROSA ZAMORA 827 CITRUS PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 HENKINS ANTHONY R LIVING TRUST 02-16-10 1360 RIAL TO LN SANTA BARBARA CA 93105 ~ ANTHONY & CECILIA SCARPELLI 92 KOHi PL KAPOLEI HI 96707 JOHN & EILEEN M MONAREZ - 3919 JEFFERSON ST . CARLSBAD CA 92008 ,, a~lales 1 1 Use Avery Template 5160 J. FRANK EPRIOR· 341 LAURINDAAVE LONG BEACH CA 90803 FOREST F R FISHER UNIT 200 13305 PENN ST WHITTIER CA 90602 ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN DIEGO PO BOX85728 SAN DIEGO CA 92186 RAUL F & LAFFERTY ALICIA M DIAZ 3936 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RONALD E & LINDA L SMITH 812 CITRUS PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 TODD B & TIFFNEY GUSTAFSON 811 CITRUS PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 SCOTT A MCGERVEY 830 CITRUS PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 AUSTIN A & CHELSEA A SORICH 3920 LINMAR LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 HAMMER BONNIE M FAMILY TRUST 08-14-14 765 TAMARACK AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 GONZALEZ FAMILY TRUST 07- 26-06 3925 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 >Mts.allll'QE,ma/gabarits :i 1-800dli&AYilifWrtAvery51601, ~~abels ~mplate s1il®\o™ MASUE LL c· UNIT 100 185 NW SPANISH RIVER BLVD BOCA RA TON FL 33431 -HAMIDKIANIPUR 3 GOLETA POINT DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 3i <{A\ ~ides i ~ · UseAveryTemplate5160J, • I vHtm~/gabarits 1 1-800,G~YritAveiy 5160 J Easy Peel® labels Use Avery® Template 5160® CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92011 SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DISTRICT 710 ENCINITAS BLVD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S VULCAN AV ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF VISTA 200 CIVIC CENTER DR VISTA CA 92084 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 3883 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 SAN DIEGO LAFCO STE 200 9335 HAZARD WAY SAN DIEGO CA 92123 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE STE 250 2177 SALK AV CARLSBAD CA 92011 CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 5934 PRIESTLEY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 Etiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® i I .A I I I l ... Feed Paper ' Bend along tine to 1 expose Pop-up Edge™ l ,lj SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DISTRICT STE 250 255 PICO AV SAN MARCOS CA 92069 LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DISTRICT TIM JOCHEN 1960 LA COST A AV CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT 201 VALLECITOS DE ORO SAN MARCOS CA 92069 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD STE 100 2375 NORTHSIDE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-2700 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 10124 OLD GROVE RD SAN DIEGO CA 92131 CA COASTAL COMMISSION ATTN KANAN! BROWN STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 MICHAEL MCSWEENEY-BIA SD STEUO 9201 SPECTRUM CENTER BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1407 A Sens de chargement Repliez a la hachure afin de I reveler le rebord Pop-upMc l @ AVERY@ s160® : A ENCINITAS SCHOOL DISTRICT 101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 OLIVENHAIN WATER DISTRICT 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 SD COUNTY PLANNING STEllO 5510 OVERLAND AV SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1239 SANDAG STE 800 401 B ST . SAN DIEGO CA 92101 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION SAN DIEGO CO. AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY I I I A, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chamber, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 11, 2017, to consider approving a Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit and Minor Subdivision to allow for the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction of a 93-unit apartment (92 affordable units) development, including development a standards modification, and a street abandonment for a portion of Harding Street near the intersection of Carol Place, in the Residential-Density Multiple Zone and within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as: PARCEL A: LOTS 1 TO 9, INCLUSIVE, 11 TO 13 INCLUSIVE, AND 24 TO 33 INCLUSIVE, OF PALM VISTA IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF NO. 2969, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 16, 1953. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 13 OF PALM VISTA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 2969; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 13, SOUTH 19 17'11" EAST 161.15 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 13, SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 14, SOUTH 61°51'52" WEST 68.06 FEET; THENCE NORTH 08 26'25" WEST 42.85 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14 49'18" WEST 95.30 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25 13'44" WEST 26.19 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 13, SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 61 51'52" WEST 55.14 FEET FROM SAID MOST NORTHERLY CORNER; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE NORTH 61°51'52" EAST 55.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 8, 9, 11 AND 12 AS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED AUGUST 24, 1967 AS FILE NO. 127829 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. APN(s): 204-292-01 (LOT 1); 204-292-02-00 (LOT 2); 204-292-10-00 (LOT 3); 204-292-11-00 (LOT 4); 204-292-12-00 (LOT 5); 204-292-13-00 (LOT 6); 204-292-14-00 (LOT 7); 204-292-17-00 (LOT 8); 204-292-18-00 (LOT 9); 204-292-20-00 (LOT 11); 204-292-21-00 (LOT 12); 204-292-22-00 (LOT 13); 204-291-27-00 (LOT 24); 204-291-26-00 (LOT 25); 204-291-25-00 (LOT 26); 204-291-24-00 (LOT 27); 204-291-23-00 (LOT 28); 204-291-19-00 (LOT 29); 204-291-20-00 (LOT 30); 204-291-21-00 (LOT 31); 204-291-22-00 (LOT 32); 204-291-14-00 (LOT 33) PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF LOT 236 OF THUM LANDS, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1681, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DECEMBER 9, 1915, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE CENTER LINE OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE, DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 61 21' WEST, 446.86 FEET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTER LINE OF ADAMS STREET, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING THE MOST WESTERLYCORNEROFTHELANDCONVEYEDBYTHESOUTHCOASTLANDCOMPANYTO DEAN F. PALMER, BY DEED DATED MAY 5, 1927, AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1335, PAGE 384 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND AS CONVEYED TO SAID PALMER AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID LINE, SOUTH 28 39' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 487.47 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED BY SOUTH COAST LAND COMPANY TO LAURA JONES BY DEED DATED MAY 14, 1929, AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1629, PAGE 431 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID PROLONGATION AND THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND SO CONVEYED TO SAID JONES, SOUTH 61 21' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 536.38 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED BY SOUTH COAST LAND COMPANY TO P.J. WHELDON AND MARY H. WHELDON BY DEED DATED JULY 7, 1926, AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1180, PAGE 463 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND SO CONVEYED TO SAID WHELDON AND ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF, NORTH 28 39' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 487.47 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE CENTER LINE OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTER LINE NORTH 61 21' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 536.38 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 8 OF PALM VISTA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF NO. 2969, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 16, 1953, SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 61 58'46" WEST, 71.99 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE (1) NORTH 22 36'42" WEST, 359.22 FEET; THENCE (2) NORTH 18 34'28" WEST, 131.94 FEET TO A POINT IN THE CENTER LINE OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE, LAST SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 61°54'01" EAST, 162.74 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SAID CENTER LINE AN THE CENTER LINE OF HARDING STREET, FORMERLY 5TH STREET, AS SAID STREET IS SHOWN ON THE RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF ALLES AVOCADO ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF NO. 2027, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 17, 1927. APN(s): 204-292-16-00 PARCEL E: LOT 10 OF PALM VISTA IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 2969, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 16, 1953. EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER GRANT DEED RECORDED MAY 9, 1967, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 64674, OFFICIAL RECORDS APN(s): 204-292-19-0 Whereas, on April 19, 2017 the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted 4-2-1 (Montgomery and Segall; Goyarts absent) to recommend approval of a Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit and Minor Subdivision to allow for the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction of a 93-unit apartment (92 affordable units) development, including development a standards modification, and a street abandonment for a portion of Harding Street near the intersection of Carol Place, in the Residential-Density Multiple Zone and within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The City Planner has determined that this project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15194 (Affordable Housing) of the State CEQA Guidelines. This project is not located within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after Thursday, July 6, 2017. If you have any questions, please contact Austin Silva in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4631 or austin.silva@carlsbadca.gov. If you challenge the Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit and/or the Minor Subdivision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CASE NAME: PUBLISH: SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) PACIFIC WIND JUNE 30, 2017 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SITE MAP • N NOT TO SCALE Pacific Wind SOP 15-18 / CDP 16-04 I MS 16-01 Morgen Fry Subject: FW: Pacific Winds Project From: Patricia Amador Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 12:22 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Pacific Winds Project on behalf of Simon Angel. Patricia Amador 858 205-8557 ----------Forwarded message ---------- From: simon angel Date: Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11 :52 AM· Subject: Pacific Winds Project To: "counci(@lcarlsbadca.gov" <counci(@lcarlsbadca.gov> All Receive • Agenda Item # ~ For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL AC~dCA~cc V Date :mJ.n City Manager L Cc: Kris Wright , Amanda Mascia , Patricia Amador "cori .schumacherral,carls badca. gov" <cori. schumacher(@carls bad ca. gov> My name is Simon angel and I wish to address the action to be taken with regard to the above-named project. In the reading of the appeal to the Planning Commission action approving this project one matter that was not addressed is the issue of demolition of the existing structures. There is every reasonable expectation that the structures presently existing contain an undetermined amount of asbestos and lead used in the construction of homes from the 40s through the 80's. No mention is made by the staff of the potential hazards being released into the environment during demolition. Considering that this project is so close to Jefferson Elementary school and other residences on Jefferson Street, it is inconceivable to me that the staff would suggest that there is no need to apply the CEQA standards to this project. For this reason alone I would insist that the CEQA standards be complied with and that the City Council table this project pending a more in depth study of the environmental and health impact of this project during the demolition phase Simon Angel 1 Morgen Fry Subject: Attachments: FW: Council Agenda Item #13: Pacific Wind Appeal -Responses to the Letters Submitted by CARD Response to CARD Letter Dated July 6, 2017.pdf; Response to CARD Letter Dated July 10, 2017.pdf All Receive-Agenda Item# 13 For the Information of the; CITY COUNCIL / ACM V CA vcc V From: Hori, Susan ] Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:07 AM Date 7fi,/21CityManager V To: Don Neu <Don.Neu@carlsbadca.gov>; Austin Silva <Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Celia Brewer <Celia.Brewer@carlsbadca.gov>; Ronald Kemp <Ronald.Kemp@carlsbadca.gov>; Todd Cottle <Todd@c- cdev.com> Subject: Council Agenda Item #13: Pacific Wind Appeal -Responses to the Letters Submitted by CARD Dear Mr. Neu and Mr. Silva: On behalf of the applicant for the Pacific Wind project, please find attached responses to the letters submitted by CARD addressing the comments regarding project segmentation, the applicability of the affordable housing exemption under CEQA, General Plan consistency, and the traffic analysis. We would greatly appreciate it if you would provide a copy to the Councilmembers for their consideration, and include these documents in the record of proceedings for this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Susan Hori Partner Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Park Tower 695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 D (714) 371-2528 F (714) 371-2571 SHori@manatt.com manatt.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply email and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. 1 RESPONSE TO LETTER SUBMITTED BY CARLSBAD ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT (CARD) Dated July 6, 2017 By letter dated July 6, 2017, signed by Everett Delano ("Letter"), CARD submitted comments on the Pacific Wind project. A copy of the Letter is attached. Section I. of the Letter sets forth CARD's allegations that the City has not complied with CEQA. The allegations are addressed as follows: The Letter states that staffs position that the Pacific Wind project is exempt from CEQA is inconsistent with statements made in a January 29, 2013, staff report which represented that the environmental review of the project would be completed at a later date and would represent a review of the project at the time it is proposed. Staff conducted the review when the application for discretionary approvals for the Pacific Wind project were submitted, and determined at that time that the Pacific Wind project was exempt under CEQA pursuant to the exemption for affordable housing projects. The Letter identifies three points as to why CARD argues that the project is not exempt from CEQA. Point 1 is that it is inconsistent with the General Plan. Point 2 is that it is part of a project to build more than 100 units. Point 3 is that there is a reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment or the residents of the project due to unusual circumstances. Each point is addressed separately below. 1. CARD argues that the project is inconsistent with the General Plan. The City made General Plan consistency findings. CEQA does not require an analysis of every General Plan policy. The Letter asserts that the project is not exempt from CEQA pursuant to the qualified housing statutory exemption (Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 21159.21, 21159.23 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15192 and 15194) because the project is inconsistent with various provisions of the City's General Plan. PRC Section 21159.21(a) provides that a housing project qualifies for an exemption under CEQA if, among other criteria, "The project is consistent with any applicable general plan, specific plan, and local coastal program, including any mitigation measures required by a plan or program, as that plan or program existed on the date that the application was deemed complete .... " First, the Letter provides nothing but generalized references to General Plan policies with which it alleges the project is inconsistent. It does not provide any narrative or evidentiary support as to why the project is inconsistent. In fact, many of the goals and policies it cites are taken out of context and the allegations of inconsistency are unsupported and misleading. Second, CARD's contention implies that a project must be consistent with or in conformity with all policies and/or goals of a general plan to qualify for the exemption. This contention is without merit, would undermine the intent of the exemption, and cannot be 1 reconciled with the plain language of Public Resources Code Section 21159.21 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15192. 1 When approving SB 1925, which codified the qualified housing statutory exemption provisions into CEQA, the California Legislature identified specific criteria/elements that, if satisfied, would make a project statutorily exempt from CEQA. Among those criteria, the Legislature required that, to qualify for the exemption, a proposed project be "consistent with any applicable general plan, specific plan, or local coastal program .... " (PRC Section 21159.21.) Importantly, this is a general conformity requirement, and it does not mandate perfect consistency with all policies and/or goals of a general plan. The plain language supports this interpretation, as well as furthers the underlying intent of the exemption. (See California Bill Analysis, Assembly Floor, 2001-2002 Regular Session, Senate Bill 1925 (July 2, 2002) [recognizing the need to promote housing in California].) Moreover, the Legislature, when approving SB 1925, could have required that a project be individually consistent with each of the applicable policies and standards of a general plan. There are other CEQA exemptions that do expressly mandate consistency with all applicable general plan policies. The In-Fill Development Projects categorical exemption, for example, provides that, for a project to be exempt, it must be "consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies .... " (See CEQA Guidelines§ 15332 [emphasis added].) Here, however, the criteria for the qualified housing exemption do not similarly mandate such conformity. This is consistent with the underlying intent of SB 1925, which is to facilitate the development of certain types of housing. Thus, the Legislature specifically articulated precise standards/criteria that would expedite development of specific types of residential housing in needed areas. The general confornuty requirement of the exemption is consistent with the well- accepted principle that "[ s ]tate law does not require perfect conformity between a proposed project and the applicable general plan .... " (San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1239, 1253 [recognizing that "it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable plan ... [i]t is enough that the proposed project will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the applicable plan"].) Thus, a project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. (Id) Here, Planning Commission Resolution No. 7233, along with the Planning Commission's April 5, 2017 staff report, includes substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the project is consistent with the City's General Plan. First, the Planning Commission made a general finding that the project is consistent with the designation and density limitations of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. (Resolution No. 7233 at 11.) Second, the Planning Commission made the additional finding that the project was "in conformance with the Elements 1 Per the Natural Resource Agency's own rulemaking, it acknowledged that the language of CEQA Guidelines Section 15192 was intended to overlap the legislative language of SB 1925 to provide a "comprehensive, easily understood guide for the use of public agencies, project proponents, and other persons directly affected by CEQA." (Natural Resources Agency 2007 CEQA Rulemaking at 14.) 2 of the City's General Plan" and discussed specific policies/goals with which the project is consistent. (Id. at 4.) In conclusion, the Planning Commission Resolution more than satisfies the requirement to find that the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and nothing more is legally required. Nevertheless, in furtherance of the City's finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan, attached as Exhibit A is a matrix listing the 28 General Plan Goals and Policies identified in the Letter. The matrix states the precise language of the General Plan Goal or Policy cited and in many cases demonstrate how the Letter excerpts language totally out of context of the overall Goal and Policy, or fails to identify the property Goal or Policy number. For each cited Goal or Policy, an analysis demonstrating the project's compliance with the Goal or Policy is provided. 2. CARD argues that the project exceeds 100 units. It does not; it is a 94-unit project. The second point that is asserted in the Letter is that the project does not qualify for an exemption because it exceeds.100 units. This allegation was raised in CARD's appeal letter dated April 28, 2017, filed by Fred M. Johnson, and was addressed in Exhibit 4 to the City's Staff Report (see pages 332-340). The Letter describes the Loan Agreement between the City and Harding Street Neighbors, LP that anticipated approximately 140 units. The project proposes the construction of 93 affordable housing units. As discussed in the Staff Report, the original intent was to construct a high density affordable housing project with an estimated 140 units based on the assumption that more properties could be acquired to ultimately create almost 7 acres/or development. (Staff Report at 264.) Because of staffconcems regarding the density of development and the inability of the developer to acquire more than approximately 4 acres, the number of units was reduced to 93 units and these 93 units constitute the project. As stated on page 2 [City Council Agenda package page 333] of the Response to Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval, attached as Exhibit 4, "There is no second phase and the developer does not have plans to submit a proposal for redeveloping any parcels beyond those which are part of the project." 3. CARD asserts that the project will have significant effects which must be analyzed under CEQA. The Project is exempt from CEQA. The Letter lists several alleged potential environmental impacts but provides no evidence in support of its assertion. More importantly, because this project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15192 and 15194, the City is not required to analyze potential environmental effects. The Guidelines have made a specific determination that projects that meet the criteria of Sections 15192 and 15194 are exempt from the requirements of CEQA to analyze potential environmental impacts. As stated above, the Letter fails to support its assertions with substantial evidence. For example, although a water supply analysis is not required, the assertion regarding water impacts 3 is not supported by any evidence other than the fact that the entire state was subject to a drought in the last several years. The Letter also makes several unsupported statements regarding the greenhouse gas report that was prepared for the Project. Each allegation is addressed as follows: • The report prepared for the Project relies upon the faulty analysis found in the traffic analysis. Response: The commenter does not raise any substantive comments on why the base traffic information used in the GHG report (e.g., trip generation) is flawed. This comment is without merit and the GHG report appropriately is consistent with the established assumptions in the traffic report. • Additionally, the report fails to analyze the impacts of both construction and operational emissions simultaneou~ly. Response: This comment is not correct, amortized constructiOn emissions were added to the total operational GHG emissions. See Tables 3-1 and 3-2 of the GHG report which clearly show that construction emissions were added to operational emissions. • The report also averages construction emissions over the life of the Project.Such emissions should be calculated as they will actually occur, not averaged over a longer period of time. See Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.41 1013, 1049. Response: As stated in Section 3.4 of the GHG report, the Project construction emissions were amortized consistent with SCAQMD methodology. Notwithstanding this, even if construction emissions were not amortized, there would be no change in the anµlysis .findings and conclusions. The Letter also includes as an attachment a letter from RK Engineering Group dated May 31, 2017 (RK Letter), providing comments and recommendations to the City on various street improvements. Of significance, the RK Letter was written without a full understanding of the project. The RK Letter asserts that the project is providing a deficient number of parking spaces, but acknowledges that "it is understood that a reduction may be requested due to the projects' affordable housing designation." (RK Letter at Numbered Paragraph 1, Page 2.) In fact, because the project is an affordable housing project, State law permits the number of parking spaces to be reduced, which the City supports. Moreover, the project developer described at the Planning Commission hearing the means by which parking ·will be monitored, and its experience with other similar affordable housing projects it has developed and continues to manage as evidence that a reduced number of parking spaces will be adequate to handle the parking demands of the proposed 94 units. In fact, the RK Letter recommends at page 3 that the project should implement a parking permit system and inform its residents that they should not park offsite. The project includes a management program that will be overseen by the onsite apartment manager to monitor parking, and ensure residents park only where permitted. 4 Specific responses to each of the comments made in the RK Letter is attached as Exhibit B. 4. CARD Asserts that the Project Does not Comply with the General Plan. The City's Staff Report includes a discussion of the project's consistency with the General Plan and how this project furthers, among other goals, the General Plan goals of providing new affordable housing opportunities in the City. 5 No. GP Goal 1 2-G.2 2 2-G.3 3 2-G.4 EXHIBIT A TO RESPONSE TO LETTER SUBMITTED BY CARD DATED JULY 612017 CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS OF GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES CITED IN CARD LETTER DATED JULY 6, 2017 CARD Letter Response/Consistency Discussion The Project does not support transit systems The Letter fails to quote the entirety of the Goal accurately and misquotes the Goal. Goal 2-G.2 states: Promote a diversity of compatible land uses throughout the city, to enable people to live close to job locations, adequate and convenient commercial services, and public support systems such as transit, parks, schools, and utilities. The Project provides much needed affordable housing in furtherance of the housing goals of the City set forth in its General Plan. It is infill development that is close to commercial services, a school and is served by utilities. It allows low income families to live close to job locations. The Project is consistent with this Goal. The Project does not ensure "compatibility and The City discussed how the project complies and furthers this integration with existing uses" or support "a Goal in Table C of the Planning Commission Staff Report, cohesive development pattern" attached as Exhibit 6 to the City Council Staff Report. The Project does not ensure "a cohesive urban The Letter fails to quote the entirety of the Goal and takes a form with careful regard for compatibility" portion of the Goal out of context. Goal 2-G.4 states: Provide balanced neighborhoods with a variety of housing types and density ranges to meet the diverse demographic, economic and social needs of residents, while ensuring a cohesive urban form with careful regard/or compatibility. 1 No. GP Goal CARD Letter Resoonse/Consistency Discussion The Project provides much needed affordable housing within an existing residential community. The Project helps serve a diverse demographic, economic and social need of the City while ensuring compatibility with surrounding uses. The Project is consistent with this Goal. 4 2-G.5 The Project does not "[p ]rotect the neighborhood The Goal states: Protect the neighborhood atmosphere and atmosphere and identity of existing residential identity of existing residential areas. areas" The Project is a residential development project that is being built in an infill area currently used for residential uses. It will be compatible with the surrounding residences. The City has designated the project site R-30 which allows a density between 23 and 30 dwelling units per acre. The Project is being developed at the lowest density for this land use designation. Although this density may be higher than the surrounding areas, the City determined when it amended the General Plan that it wished to see higher density developed in this area which the Project provides. The Project is consistent with this Goal. 5 2-G.18 The Project does not provide pedestrian and The Letter fails to quote the entirety of the Goal accurately and bikeway amenities misquotes the Goal. Goal 2-G. l 8 states: Ensure that new development fosters a sense of community and is designed with the focus on residents, including children, the disabled and the elderly, by providing: safe, pedestrian-friendly, tree-lined streets; walkways to common destinations such as schools, bikeways, trails, parks and stores; homes that exhibit visual diversity, pedestrian-scale and prominence to the street; central gathering places; and recreation amenities for a variety of age groups. The Project is designed with a focus on residents, including children, and the elderly. The Project provides affordable housing that will provide housing for qualifying individuals and 2 No. GP Goal CARD Letter Response/Consistency Discussion families, including children and the elderly. The Project includes amenities for the residents including resident gathering areas, tot-lots, a basketball court, and a neighborhood plaza in front of the community building. The Project is designed to provide visual diversity and walkability to nearby areas, including the school. The Project encourages walkability and the use of bikes by its residents. The Project is consistent with this Goal. 6 2-G.26 The Project does not maintain the Barrio's Goal 2-G.26 concerns farming operations in the City as follows: "walkable, residential character, and ... enhance Allow farming operations in the area such as the existing [] neighborhood quality and character" strawberry fields and flower growing areas to continue. Based upon the text, the Letter intended to cite Goal 2.G-31 which states: Promote rejuvenation of the Barrio while maintaining its walkable, residential character, and ensuring that new development enhances neighborhood quality and character. The Project provides much needed affordable housing within an existing residential community. It rejuvenates the Barrio area by redeveloping an older area thatis currently occupied by duplex units with an affordable, well-designed apartment project with 93 units. The Project maintains the residential character of the area, and promotes walkability to the nearby schools and surrounding neighborhood. The Project helps serve a diverse demographic, economic and social need of the City while ensuring compatibility with surrounding uses. The Project is consistent with this Goal. 7 2-G.27 The Project does not "[c]elebrate the Barrio's Goal 2-G.27 concerns the protection of environmental resources history and resources, and foster development of in the Cannon Road Open Space which is not relevant to the cohesive streetscapes with strategic proposed project. Based upon the quoted text, the Letter should improvements ... "; rather, it walls off the Project reference Goal 2-G;32 which states: Celebrate the Barrio's from the rest of the community, history and resources, and foster development of cohesive streetscapes with strate;!ic improvements, includinl{ 3 No. GP Goal CARD Letter Response/Consistency Discussion plazas where feasible. The Project includes amenities for the residents including resident gathering areas, tot-lots, a basketball court, and a neighborhood plaza in front of the community building. The Project is designed to provide visual diversity and walkability to nearby areas, including the school. Landscaping is provided along the perimeter of the Project to enhance the existing streetscape. The Project is consistent with this Goal. 8 2-P.39 The Project does not provide "buffering and Policy 2-P.39 states: Prohibit approval of any zone change, transitional methods" between the neighboring general plan amendment or other legislative action that low-rise single-family uses and the Project's authorizes expansion of McClellan-Palomar Airport, unless three-story multifamily uses authorized to do so by a majority vote of the Carlsbad electorate. (Prohibit approval of any zone change, general plan amendment or other legislative action that authorizes expansion of McClellan-Palomar Airport, unless authorized to do so by a majority vote of the Carlsbad electorate. As Policy P.39 concerns the Airport, we believe the correct number of the Policy excerpted by the Letter is 2-P.41. Policy 2-P.41 states: Ensure that the review of future projects places a high priority on the compatibility of adjacent land uses along the interface of different residential density and non-residential intensity categories. Special attention should be given to buffering and transitional methods, especially, when reviewing properties where different residential densities or land uses are involved. The Project provides landscaping around the perimeter of the site to enhance existing streetscapes and provide buffering of the development and the existing residences. In addition, the Project meets and exceeds the required setbacks per the City's zoning standards. The City requires a 20' front yard setback, 4 No. GP Goal CARD Letter Response/Consistency Discussion and the Project provides a 27' front setback. The side yard setback which abuts the existing residences on Jefferson exceeds the City requirements as well. The City's zoning requires a 5' setback, but the Project provides setbacks ranging from 12' to 36' between the Project and existing houses. Both increased setbacks and perimeter landscaping provide the buffering that the Policy intends. The Project is consistent with this Policy. 9 2-P.43 The Project does not "foster harmony with The comment excerpts language from Policy 2-P.45. The landscape and adjacent development," provide entirety of Policy 2-P.45 is as follows: Evaluate each buffers and screening, or "provide safe, easy discretionary application for development of property with pedestrian and bicycle linkages to nearby regard to the following specific criteria: transportation corridors," a. Site design and layout of the proposed buildings in terms of size, height and location, to foster harmony with landscape and adjacent development. b. Site design and landscaping to provide buffers and screening where appropriate, conserve water, and reduce erosion and runoff c. Building design that enhances neighborhood quality, and incorporates considerations of visual quality from key vantage points, such as major transportation corridors and intersections, and scenic vistas. d. Site and/or building design features that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the life of the project, as outlined in the Climate Action Plan. e. Provision of public and/or private usable open space and/or pathways designated in the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element. f Contributions to and extensions of existing systems of streets, foot or bicycle paths, trails, and the greenbelts provided for in the Mobility, and Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation elements of the General Plan. 5 No. GP Goal CARD Letter Response/Consistency Discussion g. Compliance with the performance standards of the Growth Management Plan. h. Development proposals which are designed to provide safe, easy pedestrian and bicycle linkages to nearby transportation corridors. i. Provision of housing affordable to lower and/or moderate income households. j. Policies and programs outlined in Local Coastal Program where applicable. k. Consistency with applicable provisions of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport. The Project's site design and layout has been designed to be compatible with surrounding development. Perimeter landscaping and increased setbacks have been provided to provide buffering and screening from the existing houses. The landscaping is designed to be water-wise and reduce erosion and runoff. The design of the Project will enhance neighborhood quality of design and construction. Private open space in the form of resident gathering areas, tot lots, a basketball court, and a neighborhood plaza will be provided. The Project promotes walkability to the nearby school and provides housing affordable to lower and/or moderate-income households. The Project is consistent with the applicable components of this Policy. 10 2-P.44 The Project does not provide pedestrian and Policy 2-P.44 states: Encourage clustering of development to bicycle linkages to various destinations preserve natural terrain and maximize open space areas around developments. We believe the correct number of the Policy cited in the Letter is Policy 2-P.46 which states: Require new residential development to provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages, when feasible, which connect with nearby shopping centers, community centers, parks, schools, points of interest, 6 No. GP Goal CARD Letter Response/Consistency Discussion major transportation corridors and the Carlsbad Trail System. The Project promotes and encourages walkability and bike usage to the nearby school and other neighborhood amenities to the extent feasible. The Policy does not mandate the provision of linkages in every situation and to all of the various destinations, but recognizes that new linkages can be provided only when feasible. The Project is consistent with this Policy. 11 2-P.73 The Project does not enhance the Barrio's Policy 2-P.73 states: Enhance connections with the Barrio "neighborhood quality, character, and vitality," through streetscape improvements-including street trees, nor is it sensitive to historic and cultural improved sidewalks, lighting and signage-and potentially resources mixed-use development along Roosevelt Street. As this Policy does not include the quoted language, we believe the correct number of the Policy excerpted by the Letter is 2-P.77. Policy 2-P.77 states: Promote new investment by allowing opportunities for medium and high-density infill residential development, strategically located in the neighborhood consistent with the Land Use Map. Ensure that development is designed to enhance neighborhood quality, character, and vitality, and is sensitive to historic and cultural resources. The Project provides new investment in an urban infill area that is designated under the General Plan for high density infill residential development. The Project will also provide affordable housing in furtherance of City General Plan goals to increase housing opportunities for low income individuals and families. The Project has been reviewed by the City for design and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and enhances neighborhood quality and character by providing an integrated apartment community with onsite amenities and state of the art design. There are no known historic or cultural resources on the project site. The Project is consistent with this 7 No. GP Goal CARD Letter Response/Consistency Discussion Policy. 12 2-P.74 The Project does not focus "on renovations and The correct number of the Policy excerpted by the Letter is 2-fa;ade improvements" P.78. Policy 2-P.78 states: Focus revitalization efforts on renovations andfar;ade improvements as well as enhancing the physical infrastructure of the community. In 2013, the City Council made a determination that revitalization of this area should be accomplished through the acquisition of existing duplex units and the redevelopment of the property with a high density affordable housing development. This Policy is inapplicable to the Project. 13 2-P.75 The Project does not "[ c ]reate a cohesive, Policy 2-P.75 states: Address parking demand by finding pedestrian-scale streetscape ... " additional areas to provide parking for the Village and beach areas, and by developing creative parking management strategies, such as shared parking, maximum parking standards, "smart" metering, utilizing on-street parking for re-use of existing buildings, etc. We believe the correct number of the Policy excerpted by the Letter is 2-P.79. Policy 2-P.79 states: Create a cohesive, pedestrian-scale streetscape that includes improved sidewalks, streetscape, signage and way-finding, and which celebrates the Barrio's heritage and provides better connections between the Barrio and Village and across the railroad at Chestnut Avenue. The Project is an infill development that redevelops an area currently occupied by duplex housing. The Project is designed as an integrated residential project that provides walkways, signage and landscaping for the residents. The streetscape improvements that will be installed along Jefferson Street, Carol Place and Harding Street will encourage walkability through the installation of pedestrian sidewalks and pedestrian access points along the street frontage. The Project's location is not 8 No. GP Goal CARD Letter Response/Consistency Discussion proximate to the railroad at Chestnut Avenue. The Project is consistent with the applicable portions of this Policy. 14 2-P.76 The Project does not "[ f]oster development of Policy 2-P.76 states: Support Village revitalization by community gathering spaces and a great public developing and implementing programs, policies and financing realm ... ," mechanisms to spur local investment and foot traffic, and increase private and public revenues in the Village through partnerships with property owners, businesses and other stakeholders (e.g. business organizations, local non-profit organizations, and residents). We believe the correct number of the Policy excerpted by the Letter is 2~P.80. Policy 2-P.80 states: Foster development of community gathering spaces and a great public realm, such as by reclaiming portions of wide streets for sidewalks, curb bulb-outs, and smallplazas in order to create a more pedestrian-friendly experience and encourage interaction among neighbors. The Project is a 93-unit infill development that redevelops an area currently occupied by duplex housing. The Project includes amenities for the residents including resident gathering areas, tot-lots, a basketball court, and a neighborhood plaza in front of the community building. The Project is designed to provide visual diversity and walkability to nearby areas, including the school. The Proiect is consistent with this Policy. 15 2.0-77 The Project does not "enhance neighborhood The Letter cites to Policy 2-0.77. There is no Policy 0.77. quality and character" Policy 2.P-77 states: Promote new investment byallowing opportunities for medium and high-density infill residential development, strategically located in the neighborhood consistent with the Land Use Map. Ensure that development is designed to enhance neighborhood quality, character, and vitality, and is sensitive to historic and cultural resources. The Project is an in.fill development that redevelops·an area 9 No. GP Goal CARD Letter Response/Consistencv Discussion currently occupied by duplex housing and which was designated for high density housing the City's General Plan. The Project is designed as an integrated residential project that provides walkways, signage and landscaping for the residents. The streetscape improvements that will be installed along Jefferson Street, Carol Place and Harding Street will encourage walkability through the installation of pedestrian sidewalks and pedestrian access points along the street frontage. The parking provided by the Project meets City parking requirements. There are no historic or cultural resources affected by the Project. The Proiect is consistent with this Policy. 16 3-G.2 The Project does not improve connectivity Goal 3-G.2 states: Improve connectivity for residents, visitors and businesses. The streetscape improvements that will be installed along Jefferson Street, Carol Place and Harding Street will encourage walkability through the installation of pedestrian sidewalks and pedestrian access points along the street frontage. The Project is consistent with this Goal. 17 3-G.3 The Project does not "[p ]rovide inviting Goal 3-G.3 states: Provide inviting streetscapes that encourage streetscapes that encourage walking and promote walking and promote livable streets. livable streets" The streetscape improvements will include sidewalks, street trees and pedestrian access points that are inviting to pedestrians to encourage walking and to promote livable streets. The Proi ect is consistent with this Goal. 18 3-P.6 The Project does not "[u]tilize transportation The correct number of the Policy excerpted by the Letter is 3-demand management strategies ... " P.8. Policy 3-P.8 states: Utilize transportation demand management strategies, non-automotive enhancements (bicycle, pedestrian, transit, train, trails, and connectivity), and traffic, signal management techniques as long-term transportation solutions and traffic mitiKation measures to carry out the 10 No. GP Goal CARD Letter Response/Consistency Discussion Carlsbad Community Vision. This policy is more directed to the City than to individual developers. Transportation demand management is generally more appropriately recommended for new non-residential development where the commuting trips of employees can be coordinated. The City is the most appropriate entity for traffic signal management, not an individual residential developer. This policy is not applicable to the Project. 19 3-P.12 The Project does not implement "liveable streets Policy 3-P.12 states: Update the Citywide Facilities and strategies" and "minimize traffic volumes and/or Improvements Plan to ensure consistency with the General speed" Plan. This includes updating the circulation LOS standards methodologies to reflect a more balanced/multi-modal approach. As the Letter addresses liveable streets, we believe the correct number of the Policy excerpted by the Letter is 3-P.16. Policy 3-P.16 states: Design new streets, and explore funding opportunities for existing streets, to minimize traffic volumes and/or speed, as appropriate, within residential neighborhoods without compromising connectivity for emergency first responders, bicycles, and pedestrians consistent with the city's Carlsbad Active Transportation Strategies. This should be accomplished through management and implementation of livable streets strategies and such programs like the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Plan. This policy is more directed to the City for implementation than to individual developers. The Project has prepared a traffic and parking study to ensure that adequate parking is available. The Project also encourages walking and biking by residents. The Project has been reviewed by the City fire and police department and no impact to emergency services is anticipated. 11 No. GP Goal CARD Letter Response/Consistency Discussion The management and implementation of a livable streets strategy is more appropriately directed to implementation by the City and not individual developers. This policy is not applicable to the Project. 20 3-P.13 The Project does not utilize "innovate [sic] Policy 3-P.13 states: Use public outreach to educate and design and program solutions to improve ... the encourage alternative modes of travel and inform the transportation system" community about the benefits of participation in new programs, approaches and strategies that support Mobility Element goals and policies. We believe the correct number of the Policy excerpted by the Letter is 3-P.17. Policy 3-P.l 7 states: Consider innovative design and program solutions to improve the mobility, efficiency, connectivity, and safety of the transportation system. Innovative design solutions include, but are not limited to, traffic calming devices, roundabouts, traffic circles, curb extensions, separated bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian scramble intersections, high visibility pedestrian treatments and infrastructure, and traffic signal coordination. Innovative program solutions include, but are not limited to, webpages with travel demand and traffic signal management information, car and bike share programs, active transportation campaigns, and intergenerational programs around schools to enhance safe routes to schools. Other innovative solutions include bicycle friendly business districts, electric and solar power energy transportation systems, intelligent transportation systems, semi-or full autonomous vehicles, trams, and shuttles. This policy is more appropriately directed to the City for implementation rather than to individual developers. This policy is not applicable to the Project. 21 3-P.22 The Project does not "implement necessary Policy 3-P.22 states: Support pedestrian and bicycle facilities pedestrian improvements ... " at all Interstate-5 and State Route 78 interchanges. The correct number of the Policy excerpted by the Letter is 3-12 No. GP Goal CARD Letter Response/Consistency Discussion P.26. Policy 3-P.26 states: Identify and implement necessary pedestrian improvements on streets where pedestrians are to be accommodated per Table 3-1, with special emphasis on providing safer access to schools, parks, community and recreation centers, shopping districts, and other appropriate facilities. The project will provide: 1) pedestrian and bicycle improvements on Jefferson Street, including the replacement of the striped crosswalk of Jefferson at the intersection of Carol Place and Jefferson Street with a raised crosswalk approved by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp); 2) installation of bike route signage of a Class II bikeway route consistent with the City of Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan on Jefferson Street between Anchor Way and Tamarack Avenue; and 3) upgrade as needed, the pedestrian ramps at the northerly end of Harding Street and the westerly end of Carol Place to current American Disability Act (ADA) standards, all subject to approval by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp). The Project is consistent with this Policy. 22 3-P.25 The Project does not incorporate pedestrian and Policy 3-P.25 provides: Implement the projects recommended bicycle infrastructure, despite the fact that in the pedestrian, trails and bicycle master plans through the pedestrians and bicycles are a prioritized mode city's capital improvement program, private development for these streets, 3-P.25; General Plan Table 3-1 conditions and other appropriate mechanisms. As many of the & Figure 3-1 policies cHed in this Letter have not corresponded to text in the General Plan, we note that Policy 3-P.28 provides: Evaluate incorporating pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure within the city as part of any planning or engineering study, private development, or capital project. Addressing both policies, the Project will provide: 1) pedestrian and bicycle improvements on Jefferson Street, 13 No. GP Goal CARD Letter Response/Consistency Discussion including the replacement of the striped crosswalk of Jefferson at the intersection of Carol Place and Jefferson Street with a raised crosswalk approved by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp); 2) installation of bike route signage of a Class II bikeway route consistent with the City of Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan on Jefferson Street between Anchor Way and Tamarack Avenue; and 3) upgrade as needed, the pedestrian ramps at the northerly end of Harding Street and the westerly end of Carol Place to current American Disability Act (ADA) standards, all subject to approval by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp). The Project is consistent with these Policies. 23 3-P.28 The Project does not "improve pedestrian and Policy 3-P.28 states: Improve and enhance parking, bicycle connectivity ... " connectivity, access, and utilization for pedestrians and bicycles to COASTER stations, utility corridors, and open spaces consistent with city planning documents. As the quoted language in the Letter is not in this Policy, we believe the correct number of the Policy excerpted by the Letter is Policy 3-P.33 which states: Work with existing neighborhoods and businesses to improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and safety consistent with the city's pedestrian and bicycle master plans and trails master planning efforts. Addressing both policies, the Project will provide: 1) pedestrian and bicycle improvements on Jefferson Street, including the replacement of the striped crosswalk of Jefferson at the intersection of Carol Place and Jefferson Street with a raised crosswalk approved by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp ); 2) installation of bike route signage of a Class II bikeway route consistent with the City of Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan on Jefferson Street between Anchor Way and Tamarack Avenue; and 3) upgrade as needed, the pedestrian 14 No. GP Goal CARD Letter Response/Consistency Discussion ramps at the northerly end of Harding Street and the westerly end of Carol Place to current American Disability Act (ADA) standards, all subject to approval by a Certified Access Soecialist{CASp). The Project is consistent with these Policies. 24 3-P.34 The Project does not implement "TDM The correct number of the Policy excerpted by the Letter is 3-programs to reduce parking demand" P.38. Policy 3-P.38 states: Develop flexible on-site vehicle parking requirements. Such requirements will include implementation of innovative parking techniques, implementing effective TDM programs to reduce parking demand, and consideration of other means to efficiently manage parking supply and demand The Project has requested a parking reduction available to affordable housing projects, and based upon the management of other similar affordable housing projects, the applicant has determined that a reduced parking ratio will not result in offsite parking impacts. TDM programs are more appropriately implemented by non-residential development where the coordination of employee commutes is more easily controlled and managed. It is not feasible to manage the trips of individual homeowners. The Policy is not aoolicable to the Project. 25 3-P.37 The Project does not implement "TDM Policy 3-P.37 provides: Coordinate with NCTD to improve the programs that minimize the reliance on single-quality of bus stop facilities in the city. occupant automotive travel during peak As the Letter comment does not concern NCTD bus stops, we commute hours" believe the correct number of the Policy excerpted by the Letter is 3-P. 41. Policy 3-P.41 states: Consider supporting new development and existing businesses with various incentives (such as parking standards modifications) for implementing TDM programs that minimize the reliance on single occupant automotive travel during peak commute hours. The Project has requested a parking reduction available to 15 No. GP Goal CARD Letter Response/Consistency Discussion affordable housing projects, and based upon the management of other similar affordable housing projects, the applicant has determined that a reduced parking ratio will not result in offsite parking impacts. TDM programs are more appropriately implemented by non-residential development where the coordination of employee commutes is more easily controlled and managed. It is not feasible to manage the trips of individual homeowners. The Policy is not aoolicable to the Project. 26 4-P.5 The Project does not require compliance with Policy 4-P.5 states: Require compliance with the Growth the Growth Management Program open space Management Plan open space performance standard specified performance standard in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, and maintain appropriate criteria, standards, and classifications. The following open space areas shall not be utilized to meet the open space performance standard: .... The Project's compliance with the Growth Management Plan was addressed in the Planning Commission Staff Report at page 9 of the Staff Report dated April 5, 2017. Table Gin the Staff Report concludes that the project complies with the parks requirement. The April 5, 2017 Planning Commission Staff Report is attached as Exhibit 6 to the City Council Staff Report. 27 5-P.2 The Project does not include the noise analysis Policy 5-P.2 states as follows: Required Noise Analysis. required by the General Plan, including an Require a noise analysis be conducted for all discretionary identification of noise levels with and without development proposals (except for developments of single the Project and a description of adequate and family homes with four units or fewt;r) located where projected appropriate mitigation measures noise exposure would be other than "normally acceptable". The City Staff Report includes a General Plan consistency analysis for this Noise policy at Table C of the Planning Commission Staff Report, attached as Exhibit 6 to the City Council Staff Report 3-1. The Project complies with this Policy. 16 No. GP Goal CARD Letter Response/Consistency Discussion 28 5-P.3 The Project does not require site planning and Policy 5-P.3 states: Noise-Attenuation. For all projects that architecture to incorporate noise attenuating require discretionary review and have noise exposure levels features to meet outdoor and interior noise that exceed the standards in Table 5-1, require site planning standards and architecture to incorporate noise attenuating features. With mitigation, development should meet the allowable outdoor and indoor noise exposure standards in Table 5-2. When a building's openings to the exterior are required to be closed to meet the interior noise standard, then mechanical ventilation shall be provided. A noise analysis was prepared which recommended the use of Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 40 will be needed for the glass window assemblies in buildings two through six. The Project complies with this Policy. 17 July 10, 2017 Mr. Todd Cottle Harding Street Neighbors, L.P. 14211 Yorba Street, Suite 200 Tustin, CA 92780 EXHIBIT B 260 E. Baker St. I Suite 2D0 I Costa Mesa, CA 92626 I (949) 660-1994 SUBJECT: PACIFIC WIND TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Dear Mr. Todd Cottle: Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this Response to Comments for the Pacific Wind ("Project") Traffic Impact Analysis, which is located in the City of Carlsbad. This letter has been prepared in response to the comments on the Traffic Impact Analysis provided by RK Engineering Group. A copy of the comment letter dated May 31, 2017 is provided in Attachment A. RESPONSE TO PRIMARY COMMENT #1 The Project is served by North County Transit District (NCTD} Bus Route 325, with bus service along Tamarack Avenue. Bus Route 325 currently has a peak headway of 60 minutes along Tamarack Avenue during weekdays. Transit service is reviewed and updated by NCTD periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. The hours for the on-street parking survey was based on consultation with the City staff and was primarily focused to determine the effect of removal of Harding Street segment from Magnolia Avenue to Carol Place. It should be noted that a more extensive survey (for seven days) was subsequently conducted to evaluate Harding Street cut-through traffic where each vehicle was tracked as they drove through the segment of Harding Street and Carol Place to see if they went into a driveway, parked on the street, or drove all the way through to Magnolia Avenue or Jefferson Street. RESPONSE TO PRIMARY COMMENT #2 It should be noted that the net increase in trips from the proposed Project is anticipated to be 17 trips during AM peak hour and 14 trips during PM peak hour. In general, addition of less than 50 peak hour trips to a roadway is considered less than significant. Nevertheless, the Project is proposing to provide raised crosswalk on Jefferson Street for traffic calming. In addition, the Project is also proposing to provide signage on Jefferson Street for a Class Ill bikeway or a bike route and contribute Project's fair share towards signal modification and improvements at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Tamarack Avenue to provide protected left turn phasing on Jefferson Street. 09839-13 Response Mr. Todd Cottle Harding Street Neighbors, LP. July 10, 2017 Page 2 of 3 TRAFFIC STUDY COMMENTS RESPONSE#2 The Project is served by North County Transit District (NCTD) Bus Route 325, with bus service along Tamarack Avenue. Bus Route 325 currently has a peak headway of 60 minutes along Tamarack Avenue during weekdays. Transit service is reviewed and updated by NCTD periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. RESPONSE#S Access to the Project site will be provided via Harding Street on Magnolia Avenue and Carol Place on Jefferson Street. The peak inbound volume at either of the two access points is anticipated to be less than 20 trips per hour (on average 1 vehicle every 3 minutes} and it is unlikely for vehicles to queue at the driveways. RESPONSE#6 The hours for the on-street parking survey was based on consultation with the City staff and was primarily focused to determine the effect of removal of Harding Street segment from Magnolia Avenue to Carol Place. It should be noted that a more extensive survey (for seven days) was subsequently conducted to evaluate Harding Street cut-through traffic where each vehicle was tracked as they drove through the segment of Harding Street and Carol Place to see if they went into a driveway, parked on the street, or drove all the way through to Magnolia Avenue or Jefferson Street. RESPONSE #8, #12 AND #15 The Class Ill Bikeway signage will be provided on Jefferson Street consistent with City of Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan in consultation with City Traffic Engineer. RESPONSE #9, #10 AND #11 The raised crosswalk has been proposed on Jefferson Street as a traffic calming measure based on consultation with City staff. It should be noted that a crossing guard is present during school drop=off and pick up at this location. All-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal. This condition is not met for the intersection of Jefferson Street at Carol Place. Provision of all-way stop would increase the delay for traffic on Jefferson Street (major street) and would require the vehicles on Jefferson Street to stop even during non-peak times, which may not be preferable. 09839-13 Response Mr. Todd Cottle Harding Street Neighbors, L.P. July 10, 2017 Page 3 of 3 RESPONSE #13 As the study area intersections are located in the vicinity of Jefferson Elementary School, the school peak hours were observed to represent the worst-case scenario. This was also discussed and approved by the City staff during the TIA scoping process. RESPONSE #14 The Project will contribute fair share towards the signal modification and improvements at the intersection of Jefferson Street/ Tamarack Avenue to provide 8-phase traffic signal with protected left turns in northbound and southbound directions on Jefferson Street. This improvement is not recommended to mitigate direct Project impact but rather for Project's cumulative contribution to an existing requirement. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CRbSSROADS, INC. vtr Pranesh Tarikere, PE Senior Engineer 09839-13 Response ATTACHMENT A RK ENGINEERING LETTER, MAY 31, 2017 09839-13 Response r:Tn enu1ne~r1nu ~ group, inc. May 31, 2017 Mr Everett Delano DELANO & DELANO 220 W. Grand Avenue Escondido, CA 92025 traffic engineering • transportation planning acoustical engineering • parking studies air quality & greenhouse gas analysis Subject: Pacific Wind Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Review, City of Carlsbad Dear Mr. Delano: Introduction RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) has reviewed the Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis; City of Carlsbad prepared by Urban Crossroads dated November 29'\ 2016 (Revised). The proposed project is located within the Village and Barrio Master Plan currently being studied by the City. The proposed project would consist of 93 multi-famity rental residential units (3-story) on an existing site which consist of 44 duplex residential units (1-story). Access to the project will be provided via gated entries at Harding Street and Carol Place. According to the traffic study, the proposed project \11/0uld have a net increase of 206 trips per day, with approximately 17 additional trips during the AM peak hour and 14 additional trips during the PM peak hour. After reviewing the traffic impact study, City of Carlsbad General Plan and "A Report To The Planning Commission" Dated April 5, 2017 RK has identified two (2) primary areas of concern related to the proposed development: 1. Per the City of Carlsbad Municipal Parking Code, the project is providing a deficient number of parking spaces. There is a very limited amount of pedestrian and public transit options near the site. The proposed parking demand for the project has not been adequately evaluated due to the limited public transit options in the area. Also, the observed parking demand analysis found in the Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis is incomplete due to the limited days and hours of the parking analysis. As a result, the potential for overflow parking to the adjacent residential, school and retail uses is increased. 2. Jefferson Street is identified as a "School Street" in Chapter 3 Table 3-1 (Livable Streets Guide) of the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The existing roadway conditions are not consistent with the General Plan. Due to the increase of traffic generated by the proposed project, additional traffic control and roadway improvements (i.e. all- 4000 westerly place, suite 280 newport beach, california 92660 tel 949.474.0809 fax 949.474.0902 www.rkengineer.com way stop, traffic calming, bike lanes, pedestrian access, high visibility crosswalk, signage, etc.) along Jefferson Street from Tamarack Avenue to Magnolia Avenue should be considered as necessary mitigation measures for the project. Traffic Study Comments 1. Page 2; Site Plan: The proposed project would only provide 165 parking spaces of the required 199; parking spaces for the 93 units. According to the City's parking code, one bedroom units would require 1.5 spaces per unit (one of which must be covered) and the two bedroom or more units would require 2 spaces per unit (one of which must be covered). Additionally, projects of 11 or more units would require an additional 0.25 spaces per unit for guest spaces. The proposed project does not meet these requirements, however, it is understood that a reduction may be requested due to the projects' affordable housing designation. 2. It should be noted that public transit in proximity to the proposed development is scarce. Based on review of the North County Transit District Map, the nearest transit bus stop is not accessible via pedestrian travel and is well over a mile away from the project site. There is a "Limited Service (selected trips)" Bus Route 325 that traverses from Tamarack Avenue and heads north along Pio Pico Drive towards Chestnut Avenue. Many affordable housing projects are conveniently located near public transit services. This reduces parking demand and vehicle trips. In fact, C&C Development provides a parking table (Attachment 4) "A Report To The Planning Commission" Dated April 5, 2017 that provides reduced parking rates for four (4) existing affordable housing projects (Citrus Circle, Citrus Grove, Parkview and Serrano Woods). All of these locations have public transit options that are conveniently located within walking distance to the residential units. As a result, peak parking demand is lower due to the project's proximity to public transit options. The proposed Pacific Wind affordable housing project is NOT located near any public transit options. Therefore, comparing the parking demand from sites with convenient public transit options with the proposed Pacific Wind development is not accurate and provides an unrealistic comparison for determining parking demand. RK recommends expanding the existing public transit options to be located within walking distance to the proposed development. This would be beneficial in reducing vehicle trips and the potential for overflow parking to the surrounding community. Chapter 3 (Livable Streets Guide) of the City of Carlsbad General Plan specifically support improved public transit access throughout Carlsbad and neighboring cities. RK :dt/RK12304. doc JN:2390-2017-01 2 3. In order to ensure that overflow parking from the project onto the adjacent residential, school and retail uses does not occur, the project should implement a parking permit system for its residents. Residents shall be encouraged to park onsite and be informed that parking offsite is prohibited. 4. The site plan does not include a turning template for emergency vehicles at the two (2) project driveways. 5. The site plan identifies a "swing gate" at each access point. Describe how vehicle and pedestrian ingress and egress are provided to the property. Is there a potential for vehicle queuing at the driveways? 6. Page 6; Parking Survey: A parking survey was conducted in the study area from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on Wednesday May 18, 2016. In many cases in residential areas, peak parking demand does not occur until later in the evening. The study should be expanded to include 7 PM to midnight to capture the full parking demand. Also, a weekend (Saturday and Sunday) observed parking demand should also be conducted in order to capture the peak parking demand. 7. Page 7; Table 1-2: This table should include the available parking supply along each of these roadway segments. This is needed to determine the occupancy occurring at each location. This should include all roadway segments analyzed in the parking evaluation and a determination should be made whether there is any existing capacity available on the existing public roadways. 8. Page 11: The Class Ill Bikeway signage and striping needs to be provided along Jefferson Street from Carol Avenue to Magnolia Avenue per the General Plan. 9. Page 14: The proposed raised crosswalk on Jefferson Street at the entrance of the Jefferson Elementary School may not be sufficient to control traffic and pedestrians at this crossing. The traffic study needs to evaluate the need for an all-way stop at this location given the amount of pedestrian and vehicle traffic at this intersection. Also, the Class Ill Bike Route needs include signage north of Anchor Way on Jefferson Street to Magnolia Avenue. 10. Page 14: The intersection of Jefferson Street at Carrol Place should be evaluated for an all-way stop control given the potential pedestrian and vehicle traffic from Jefferson Elementary School at this intersection. Also, a potential choker needs to be placed at the crosswalk to decrease vehicle speeds and reduce walking distance for pedestrians at the intersection, in addition to the traffic control and raised crosswalk. Chapter 3 (Livable Streets Guide) of the City of Carlsbad General Plan specifically support improved pedestrian access along Jefferson Street. RK:dt!RK12304.doc JN:2390-2017-01 3 11. Page 27: As noted in the traffic study, there is significant pedestrian activity in the area of Jefferson Street and the existing school. This further indicates the need for a potential all-way stop evaluation at the intersection of Jefferson Street at Carol Place. 12. Page 31; Exhibit 3-4: As shown on this exhibit, a Class Iii Bike Route needs to be provided along Jefferson Street from Tamarack Avenue to Magnolia Avenue. 13. Page 33: Peak hour traffic counts were obtained from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM and from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM for the traffic study. While it is appropriate to conduct the 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM traffic counts, as a result of the Jefferson Street Elementary School, the traffic study needs to evaluate traffic conditions during the normal PM peak hour from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM due to citywide traffic. This may indicate potential deficiencies within the study area. 14. Page 53: Will the proposed project be providing the northbound and southbound left turn phasing and eight phase traffic signal at this location? Project contributions on page 13 (Table 1-5) indicates that it would be about 4% of the new traffic by 2040. Due the safety concern and high pedestrian volumes, these roadway improvements should be implemented by the time the project is occupied. 15. Page 64; Table 8-5: It is assumed that the bicycle MM LOS Analysis with improvements for Jefferson Way to Carol Place (east side and west side) is previously noted. Bike route signs should also be provided on Jefferson Street from Anchor Way to Magnolia Avenue. Conclusions RK's comments on the traffic study and the proposed development are noted above. The observed parking analysis needs to be expanded in order to capture the existing parking demand. Furthermore, the proposed parking demand for the project has not been adequately evaluated due to the limited public transit options in the area. RK has made recommendations with regards to reducing the likelihood of offsite parking, increasing public transit options and providing roadway improvements for enhanced vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity within the study area. RK:dt!RK12304.doc JN:2390-2017-01 4 RK appreciates this opportunity to review the Pacific Wind Apartments traffic study. If you have any questions regarding this review, please call me at (949) 474-0809. Sincerely, RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. Robert Kahn, P.E. Principal Registered Civil Engineer 20285 Registered Traffic Engineer 0555 RK:dt/RK12304.doc JN:2390-2017-01 5 Regier Goedecke President ~' X l!Jf,:s\ DELANO & DELANO VIA E-MAIL Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad. CA 92008 July 6, 2017 Re: Pacific Wind Project: SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: This letter is submitted on behalf of Carlsbad Alliance for Responsible Development ("CARD'') in connection with the proposed Pacific Wind project ("Project") and CARD's appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Project (" Appeal"). I. Non-Compliance with CEOA The April 5, 2017 staff report to the Planning Commission claimed the Project is exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Sections 21159.21 and 21159.23, as well as CEQA Guidelines Sections 15192 and 15194. These claims are unsupported. "Because the exemptions operate as exceptions to CEQA, they are narrowly construed." San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Vallc!y Un[fied School Dis/. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, I 382; see also Cas1aic Lake Water Agent.:v v. City,?{ Santa Clarita (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1268 (rejecting "attempt to use limited exemptions contained in CEQA as a means to subvert rules regulating the projection of the environment"). "Exemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language." Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish and Game Comm. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125 (citation omitted). Indeed, staff's position is inconsistent with the statements made in a January 29, 2013 staff report to the City Council regarding the loan documents, which represented that the "'environmental review for the new construction project will be completed at a later date and represent a review of the project at the time it is proposed." Regardless, the Project is not exempt from CEQA for several reasons, including: (a) it is inconsistent with the General Plan, Pub. Res. Code§ 21159.2l(a) & CEQA Guidelines§ 15 I 92(a)(l); ~~ gg ._,._, V, V, ..... -0 0 I I --V, V, 0\ 0\ V, Iv City of Carlsbad July 6, 2017 Page 2 of 6 (b) it is part of a project to build more than I 00 units, Pub. Res. Code § 21 l59.23(a) & CEQA Guidelines§ 15192(0); (c) "there is a reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment or the residents of the project due to unusual circumstances," Pub. Res. Code§ 21159.23(c). A. Inconsistcncv \vith General Plan The Project is inconsistent with several General Plan goals and policies, including: l. The Project does not support transit systems, 2-G.2; 2. The Project does not ensure "compatibility and integration with existing uses" or support ''a cohesive development pattern,'' 2-G.3; 3. The Project does not ensure "a cohesive urban form with careful regard for compatibility," 2-G .4; 4. The Project does not "[p]rotect the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas," 2-G.5; 5. The Project does not provide pedestrian and bikeway amenities, 2-0.18; 6. The Project does not maintain the Barrio's "walkable, residential character, and ... enhance[] neighborhood quality and character," 2-G.26; 7. The Project does not "[c]elebrate the Barrio's history and resources, and foster development of cohesive streetscapes with strategic improvements ... "; rather, it walls off the Project from the rest of the community, 2-G.27; 8. The Project does not provide "buffering and transitional methods" between the neighboring low-rise single-family uses and the Project's three-story multi-family uses, 2-P.39; 9. The Project does not "foster hannony with landscape and adjacent development," provide buffers and screening, or "provide safe, easy pedestrian and bicycle linkages to nearby transportation corridors," 2-P.43; 10. The Project does not provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages to various destinations, 2-P .44; 11. The Project does not enhance the Barrio's "neighborhood quality, character, and vitality," nor is it sensitive to historic and cultural resources, 2-P.73; 12. The Project does not focus "on renovations and fayade improvements," 2- P.74; 13. The Project does not"( c ]reate a cohesive, pedestrian-scale streetscape ... ," 2-P.75; 14. The Project does not "[fJoster development of community gathering spaces and a great public realm ... ," 2-P.76; 15. The Project does not "enhance neighborhood quality and character," 2-0.77; 16. The Project does not improve connectivity, 3-G.2; 17. The Project does not "[p ]rovide inviting streetscapes that encourage walking and promote liveable streets," 3-G.3; City of Carlsbad July 6, 2017 Page 3 of 6 18. The Project does not "[ u ]tilize transportation demand management strategies .... " 3-P.6; 19. The Project does not implement "liveable streets strategies" and '"minimize tratlic volumes and/or speed," 3-P .12; 20. The Project does not utilize "innovate design and program solutions to improve ... the transportation system." 3-P. l 3: 2 l. The Project does not "implement necessary pedestrian improvements .... "' 3- P.22: 22. The Project does not incorporate pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, despite the fact that pedestrians and bicycles are a prioritized mode for these streets, 3-P.25; General Plan Table 3-1 & Figure 3-1; 23. The Project does not "improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity ... ;' 3- P.28; 24. The Project does not implement ·'TOM programs to reduce parking demand." 3-P.34; 25. The Project does not implement "TDM programs that minimize the reliance on single-occupant automotive travel during peak commute hours," 3-P .3 7; 26. The Project does not require compliance with the Growth Management Program open space performance standard, 4-P.5; 27. The Project does not include the noise analysis required by the General Plan, including an identification of noise levels with and without the Project and a description of adequate and appropriate mitigation measures, 5-P .2; and 28. The Project does not "require site planning and architecture to incorporate noise-attenuating features" to meet outdoor and interior noise standards, 5- P.3. B. Total Number of Units The Loan Agreement between the City and Harding Street Neighbors, LP anticipates approximately 140 units. And the City and applicant have repeatedly indicated an intention to construct additional units beyond the initial 93. In fact, in an August 25, 2016 emai I to ~taff. the applicant indicated "Phase 2" would include at a minimum 21 to 25 additional units and possibly more. CEQA requires consideration of"[ a ]11 phases of project planning, implementation, and operation." CEQA Guidelines§ 15063(a)(l). It defines a project to be "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment. or a reasonahly forcseeabh: indirect physical change in the environment." CEQA Guidelines§ I 5378(a) (emphasis added). "The term "project' refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term 'project' does not mean each separate governmental approval." Riverlfatch v. Oliven/win Municipal Water Dist. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1186. 1203 (quoting CEQA Guidelines§ I 5387(c)). City of Carlsbad July 6, 2017 Page 4 of 6 C. Significant Effocts The Project will lead to significant impacts, including traffic and parking impacts, community character impacts. impacts associated with shading and shadow, lire and human safety impacts. and cumulative impacts. An analysis from a landscape architect demonstrates significant impacts associated with shade and shadow. as well as significant impacts to community character and aesthetics. See Commi1tee to 5-,'ave !he Hol!ywoodlcmd Spec(lk Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168. 1187 (construction of a fence v.,as not exempt because it could affect a portion of an historic wall and could affect ·'aesthetic appeal from the neighboring streets''). The attached comments from a traffic expert identify significant parking and traffic impacts. The Project will lead to significant impacts to water supply, particularly in light of substantial drought conditions over the last several years. The Project will lead to significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. • The report prepared for the Project relies upon the faulty analysis found in the traffic analysis. • Additionally, the report fails to analyze the impacts of both construction and operational emissions simultaneously. • The report also averages construction emissions over the life of the Project. Such emissions should be calculated as they will actually occur, not averaged over a longer period of time. See Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1013, l 049. The Project will lead to noise impacts, particularly during construction. • The temporary nature of a noise impact does not make it insignificant. See Berkeley Keep .Jets Over the Bl{}' Comm. v. Board t!f Porl Commis.,·ioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, l 380 -81. It would he no more appropriatcto use the lack of a City standard as a basis to ignore significant effects than it would be to apply "a threshold of significance or regulatory standard 'in a way that forecloses the consideration of any other substantial evidence showing there may~ a significant effect. . ., Mejia v. Cily <fLos Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322. 342 (quoting Comm11ni1iesfor a Beller Environment v. Caf!fornia Resources Agell(V (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114). In fact, the Project's noise analysis fails to analyze these impacts. • The Project's noise mitigation is vague and insufficient. See Citizens.for Re.~ponsible and Open Government v. Cily o_(Grand Terrace (2008) 160 City of Carlsbad July 6, 2017 Page 5 of 6 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1341 ("there is no evidence of any measures to be taken that would ensure that the noise standards would be effectively monitored and vigorously enforced"). · II. Non-Compliance with lhe General Plan If the Project "v.:ill frustrate the General Plan's goals and policies, it is inconsistent with the [City'sl General Plan unless it also includes definite affirmative commitments to mitigate the mherse effect or e1lccts." Napa ( 'ifizensjiw Honest Government v. Napa County Hoard ofSuperri.rnrs (200 I) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 3 79. As noted above, the Project is inconsistent with numerous General Plan goals and policies. lll. Waste of Public Funds "A taxpayer" s suit states a cause of action when ... it fairly discloses waste of public funds or property or n manifest use of such funds or property chiefly for long-term commercial use with substantial benefit to a lessee accompanied by diminution of active present use of the property for a municipal purpose. The city council's action in such a case is ultra vires." Rathburn v. City <?lSa/inas (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 199,203. "[C]ourts have voided contracts purportedly made with cities when the city officials who executed the contracts were not authorized to do so." People v. Rizzo (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 921, 941. In 2013, the City approved a loan for the purchase and development of21 duplex rental units and a vacant lot. Section 3.l(b) of the Loan Agreement requires the "construction of a new larger, higher density project (approximately 140 units)" or immediate "work to substantially rehabilitate the existing forty-two (42) dwelling units on the property with an investment of at least seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) per unit .... " And Section 3.2 requires the commencement of "construction of the improvements for a new, larger development or for substantial rehabilitation of the existing units no later than December 31. 2016."' There has been no compliance with these terms. Instead, the Project has _not met its deadlines. nor is it providing anywhere near the number of units anticipated by the Loan Agreement.1 While the Project applicant stands to gain, there is no showing that the lesser amount of units is worth the amount approved by the City or of appropriate value for a municipal purpose. And the vacation of public streets constitutes an additional waste of public funds. 1 The January 2013 staff report stated: "If any of the [] conditions are not met and the City docs not agree to extend the deadlines for satisfaction of the conditions, the City may declare a breach of contract or a default on the loan agreement resulting in a requirement for the development partnership to immediately repay the full amount of the loan with interest to the City of Carlsbad:· City of Carlsbad July 6, 2017 Page 6 of 6 IV. Conclusion CARD requests you grant the appeal and reject the Project. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. cc: Austin Silva, Planning Division Enclosure: Letter from RK Engineering r:T?1 englne!'rinu ~ groun, 1nc. May 31, 2017 Mr. Everett Delano DELANO & DELANO 220 W. Grand Avenue Escondido, CA 92025 traffic engineering • transportation planning acoustical engineering • parking studies air quality & greenhouse gas analysis Subject: Pacific Wind Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Review, City of Carlsbad Dear Mr. Delano: Introduction RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) has reviewed the Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis; City of Carlsbad prepared by Urban Crossroads dated November 29th, 2016 (Revised). The proposed project is located within the Village and Barrio Master Plan currently being studied by the City. The proposed project would consist of 93 multi-family rental residential units (3-story) on an existing site which consist of 44 duplex residential units (1-story). Access to the project will be provided via gated entries at Harding Street and Carol Place. According to the traffic study, the proposed project would have a net increase of 206 trips per day, with approximately 17 additional trips during the AM peak hour and 14 additional trips during the PM peak hour. After reviewing the traffic impact study, City of Carlsbad General Plan and "A Report To The Planning Commission" Dated April 5, 2017 RK has identified two (2) primary areas of concern related to the proposed development: 1. Per the City of Carlsbad Municipal Parking Code, the project is providing a deficient number of parking spaces. There is a very limited amount of pedestrian and public transit options near the site. The proposed parking demand for the project has not been adequately evaluated due to the limited public transit options in the area. Atso, the observed parking demand analysis found in the Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis is incomplete due to the limited days and hours of the parking analysis. As a result, the potential for overflow parking to the adjacent residential, school and retail uses is increased. 2. Jefferson Street is identified as a "School Street" in Chapter 3 Table 3-1 (Livable Streets Guide) of the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The existing roadway conditions _are not consistent with the General Plan. Due to the increase of traffic generated by the proposed project, additional traffic control and roadway improvements (i.e. all- 4000 westerly place, suite 280 newport beach, california 92660 tel 949.474.0809 fax 949.474.0902 www.rkengineer.com way stop, traffic calming, bike lanes, pedestrian access, high visibility crosswalk, signage, etc.) along Jefferson Street from Tamarack Avenue to Magnolia Avenue should be considered as necessary mitigation measures for the project. Traffic Study Comments 1. Page 2; Site Plan: The proposed project would only provide 165 parking spaces of the required 199 parking spaces for the 93 units. According to the City's parking code, one bedroom units would require 1.5 spaces per unit (one of which must be covered) and the two bedroom or more units would require 2 spaces per unit (one of which must be covered). Additionally, projects of 11 or more units would require an additional 0.25 spaces per unit for guest spaces. The proposed project does not meet these requirements, however, it is understood that a reduction may be requested due to the projects' affordable housing designation. 2. It should be noted that public transit in proximity to the proposed development is scarce. Based on review of the North County Transit District Map, the nearest transit bus stop is not accessible via pedestrian travel and is well over a mile away from the project site. There is a "Limited Service (selected trips)" Bus Route 325 that traverses from Tamarack Avenue and heads north along Pio Pico Drive towards Chestnut Avenue. Many affordable housing projects are conveniently located near public transit services. This reduces parking demand and vehicle trips. In fact, C&C Development provides a parking table (Attachment 4) "A Report To The Planning Commission" Dated April 5, 2017 that provides reduced parking rates for four (4) existing affordable housing projects (Citrus Circle, Citrus Grove, Parkview and Serrano Woods). All of these locations have public transit options that are conveniently located within walking distance to the residential units. As a result, peak parking demand is lower due to the project's proximity to public transit options. The proposed Pacific Wind affordable housing project is NOT located near any public transit options. Therefore, comparing the parking demand from sites with convenient public transit options with the proposed Pacific Wind development is not accurate and provides an unrealistic comparison for determining parking demand. RK recommends expanding the existing public transit options to be located within walking distance to the proposed development. This would be beneficial in reducing vehicle trips and the potential for overflow parking to the surrounding community. Chapter 3 {Livable Streets Guide) of the City of Carlsbad General Plan specifically support improved public transit access throughout Carlsbad and neighboring cities. RK:dt!RK12304.doc JN:2390-2017-01 2 3. In order to ensure that overflow parking from the project onto the adjacent residential, school and retail uses does not occur, the project should implement a parking permit system for its residents. Residents shall be encouraged to park onsite and be informed that parking offsite is prohibited. 4. The site plan does not include a turning template for emergency vehicles at the two (2} project driveways. 5. The site plan identifies a "swing gate" at each access point. Describe how vehicle and pedestrian ingress and egress are provided to the property. Is there a potential for vehicle queuing at the driveways? 6. Page 6; Parking Survey: A parking survey was conducted in the study area from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on Wednesday May 18, 2016. In many cases in residential areas, peak parking demand does not occur until later in the evening. The study should be expanded to include 7 PM to midnight to capture the full parking demand. Also, a weekend (Saturday and Sunday) observed parking demand should also be conducted in order to capture the peak parking demand. 7. Page 7; Table 1-2: This table should include the available parking supply along each of these roadway segments. This is needed to determine the occupancy occurring at each location. This should include all roadway segments analyzed in the parking evaluation and a determination should be made whether there is any existing capacity available on the existing public roadways. 8. Page 11: The Class Ill Bikeway signage and striping needs to be provided along Jefferson Street from Carol Avenue to Magnolia Avenue per the General Plan. 9. Page 14: The proposed raised crosswalk on Jefferson Street at the entrance of the Jefferson Elementary School may not be sufficient to control traffic and pedestrians at this crossing. The traffic study needs to evaluate the need for an all-way stop at this location given the amount of pedestrian and vehicle traffic at this intersection. Also, the Class Ill Bike Route needs include signage north of Anchor Way on Jefferson Street to Magnolia Avenue. 10. Page 14: The intersection of Jefferson Street at Carrol Place should be evaluated for an all-way stop control given the potential pedestrian and vehicle traffic from Jefferson Elementary School at this intersection. Also, a potential choker needs to be placed at the crosswalk to decrease vehicle speeds and reduce walking distance for pedestrians at the intersection, in addition to the traffic control and raised crosswalk. Chapter 3 (Livable Streets Guide) of the City of Carlsbad General Plan specifically support improved pedestrian access along Jefferson Street. ~ RK:dt/RK.12304.doc JN:2390-2017-01 3 11. Page 27: As noted in the traffic study, there is significant pedestrian activity in the area of Jefferson Street and the existing school. This further indicates the need for a potential all-way stop evaluation at the intersection of Jefferson Street at Carol Place. 12. Page 31; Exhibit 3-4: As shown on this exhibit, a Class Ill Bike Route needs to be provided along Jefferson Street from Tamarack Avenue to Magnolia Avenue. 13. Page 33: Peak hour traffic counts were obtained from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM and from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM for the traffic study. While it is appropriate to conduct the 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM traffic counts, as a result of the Jefferson Street Elementary School, the traffic study needs to evaluate traffic conditions during the normal PM peak hour from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM due to citywide traffic. This may indicate potential deficiencies within the study area. 14. Page 53: Will the proposed project be providing the northbound and southbound left turn phasing and eight phase traffic signal at this location? Project contributions on page 13 (Table 1-5) indicates that it would be about 4% of the new traffic by 2040. Due the safety concern and high pedestrian volumes, these roadway improvements should be implemented by the time the project is occupied. 15. Page 64; Table 8-5: It is assumed that the bicycle MMLOS Analysis with improvements for Jefferson Way to Carol Place (east side and west side) is previously noted. Bike route signs should also be provided on Jefferson Street from Anchor Way to Magnolia Avenue. Conclusions RK's comments on the traffic study and the proposed development are noted above. The observed parking analysis needs to be expanded in order to capture the existing parking demand. Furthermore, the proposed parking demand for the project has not been adequately evaluated due to the limited public transit options in the area. RK has made recommendations with regards to reducing the likelihood of offsite parking, increasing public transit options and providing roadway improvements for enhanced vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity within the study area. RK:dt!RK12304.doc JN:2390-2017-01 4 RK appreciates this opportunity to review the Pacific Wind Apartments traffic study. If you have any questions regarding this review. please call me at (949) 474-0809. Sincerely, RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. [\..\_\~ Robert Kahn, P.E. Principal Registered Civil Engineer 20285 Registered Traffic Engineer 0555 RK:dt/RK12304.doc JN:2390-2017-01 5 Rogier Goedecke President RESPONSE TO LETTER SUBMITTED BY CARLSBAD ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT (CARD) Dated July 10, 2017 This response addresses the comments regarding the proposed project that were presented in a letter dated July 10, 2017 from Everett Delano on behalf of Carlsbad Alliance for Responsible Development (CARD) (July 10 Letter), a copy of which is attached. Page 1, Paragraph 1: This paragraph states that it is being submitted on behalf of CARD and its appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Pacific Wind project. Page 1, Paragraph 2: The July 10 Letter questions why its letter dated July 6, 2017, was not included in the agenda item. The City staff will respond to this. Nevertheless, the July 6, 2017 letter will be provided to Council for its consideration. Page 1, Paragraph 3 and Page 2, Paragraph 1: The July 10 Letter challenges the statement in the staff report that the Project will not be expanded and cites in support an email from the applicant. The project consists of the development of 93 affordable dwelling units in a multi-family residential development. There is no larger project beyond 93 units proposed. The July 10 Letter attaches an email communication from August 2016 between the City staff and project applicant. The applicant was unable to obtain property to support a larger project, and thus designed a 93 unit project. The application that was submitted is for a 93 unit project. There is no later phase that should be considered as a "cumulative project." Page 2, Paragraph 2: The July 10 Letter references views and aesthetic impacts. The project is a residential development within a residential area. The project complies with the 35' height limit for the area, and provides greater front and side yard setbacks -which includes the setbacks between the project and existing houses fronting Jefferson Street-than what is required pursuant to the City's zoning requirements. While the City's zoning would only require a 5' setback, the project proposes setbacks ranging from 12' to 36' from the existing houses. Page 2, Paragraph 3: The July 10 Letter describes the findings of the City's staff report that the Project would not have significant impacts on traffic or parking. The number of parking spaces provided by the project complies with the City's parking requirements, and the project proponent has stated that based upon its experience in managing other similar affordable housing projects, the number of parking spaces is sufficient to accommodate the parking needs of future residents. The July 10 Letter references comments from a traffic consultant that CARD retained that notes other projects are located adjacent to transit opportunities. The project site is located near a bus stop as stated in the City's Staff Report. Page 2, Paragraph 4: The July 10 Letter references 28 goals and policies from the City's General Plan that were listed in CARD's July 6, 2017, letter. A response to the July 6, 2017, letter is included in the administrative record of proceedings for this project, and each of 1 the 28 goals and policies is addressed and the project's consistency with those goals and policies discussed. Page 3, Paragraphs 1 and 2: CARD restates its objections to the project. These comments will be provided to the City Council for its consideration. 2 -,, . ,, . ),' r DELANO DELANO VL4 E-AfAIL Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 July 10. 2017 Re: Pacific Wind Proiect: SDP 15-18iCDP 16-04!\.IS 16-01 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: This letter is submitted on behalf of Carlsbad Alliance for Responsible Development ("CARD") in corinectinn with the proposed Pacific Wind project ("Project") and CARD's appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Project ('"Appeal"). In a July 6, 2017 letter. I identified several problems with the Project, including its inconsistency with several General Plan goals and objectives, the failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and the waste of public funds. Municipal Code Section l.20.080(c) provides: "Correspondence concerning a matter on an agenda for consideration by the council, which is received prior to twelve noon on Thursday preceding the meeting, shall be made a part of the agenda item." My letter and a letter from a traffic expert were submitted to the City Coum.:il. City Clerk, and City staff prior to noon on the 6th, yet neither letter is included in the agenda packet available on the City's website. Furthermore, the staff report contains several inaccuracies. For example. the staff report rejects the notion that the Project will be expanded to include additional units in the future. As the California Supreme Court noted, environmental analysis must include a discussion of the impacts of"past, present. and re-.Ls;om1hh antkipatcd future projects." Laurel Heights Improvement Ass 'n. v. Regents ofihe University of California ( 1988) 47 Cal.3d 376. 394 (quoting CEQA Guidelines§ l5130(b)( l)(A)) (emphasis in Laurel Hc(~hts) ... Em ironmt'ntal considerations do 1\l1t become submcrgcJ b:-, chorping a large proj~ct intn many littk nncs --which cumubtiYd} may han~ disastrous ctinscqucnccs ... Bo::ung v. LAH ·o. 13 C11.3d .26). 283 -8--l ( ! 1)7:-L Despite the staff n.:1wrt' s representation to the contrary, the attached email rrnm th..: .1pplicanl ckarly inJicatcs an intention to develop further units. i,:]N i,, N n o g ~ c.. . o.: a 0 ., . "" () ::I >-C. >-,.o < N<l> 0 ::I N C: 'Jt (l> ~~ -..J -..J ss er, 'Jl 00 I City of Carlsbad July 10, 2017 Page 2 of 3 The staff repon alsn rejects th..: nntion that cumulative impacts will be significant. .. Pmper-:umula1i,..: impact anal: si:-is\ ital ·because the full environmental impact of a proposed prnj1:1.:t can,mt b..: gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important lessons that has been kamcd is that en, irnnmenlal dam;ig~ ,llkn nL'cllrs incrementally from a vark·ty of small sources. These sources appear insignifo:ant \\hen cnnsiJcrcd inJividually. hut assume threatening dimensions when con;,;iJered 1:1,lkl:thcl~ with other soun.:cs \\ ilh \\ hich thcy interact.··· Baker.~fii.:ld ( 'iti:ensfor local Control v. City of Bakersfield (200-1-112.J. Cal.i\pp..J.th 118.J.. 121-! (qmning Communities.for a Better Environment v. Cali/im1ia l<c.'sow'i.·c:.,·. lgl'lln 12002) I OJ Cal.App.4th 98, 114 ). Here, whether the later phase( s) are ennsitkred pan or th1: Projed itself or not, their impacts will be cwnulatively considerable. The staff report rejects considerations of views and aesthetic impacts. Yet views of the coast from public rights nf way arc aYailable ncross the Project sit1:. and they will be negativd:, allcdcd. And as the analysis suhmitted tn the City Council and Cit~ Clerk on Friday shows, the Project will create impa1.:ts lo shading and community character. particularly in light of its close proximity to homes on Jefferson Str~el. The staff report claims the Project will not have a significant impact on traffic and parking. reasoning that studies of other affordahk housing projects reveal a lower level of vehicle usage. But as the comm.ents frnm a traffic expi.:rt noted. in each of those other situations. the projects were located adjacent to suhstantial transit opportunities. The staff report claims the Site is near a hus stop. but thi:s i:-misleading. As the attached schedule for the Route 325 hus sbtms. the route runs only occasionally in the neighborhood (approximatdy once per hour).1 In the 1..llhcr projects mmlyzt:d, substantial transit opportuniti1.:s are :.nailabk in the immediJh.: vicinity. For cxampk. as the attached map shows, the --Parkview'' project in San Marcos is located along the SPRrNTER line. The staff report claims the Project is consistent with certain General Plan pnlides. Whik this might be snmi:wh,11 accurate, my July 61h lt:ller idcntitkd 28 goals ,1nJ polici,.::-. thc Prn_ico.:t \ i,ilat.:s. Tb1:.·se include goals and policies that arc sp1:.·cifically JcsigneJ lo imprmc transit bk.:-1:lt: unJ pcJcslrian facilities. yet tbc Pro.kct fails tn implcmclll ,m:y 1)!' thcsl· requirements. ----~---·-·--------- 1 Public Resoun;es Code Section 21099 defines "Transit Priority Area .. to mean: "an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned. if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planmng horizon in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to·· certain federal regulations. Section 11064.3 defines .. Major transit stop·· to mean --a site containing an existing rail transit station. a ferry ten11inal served hy either a bus l)f rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes 'hith a frequency of service interval of 15 minuks or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods." The Site docs not meet definition of a Transit Priority Area and the only bus slop in the area is far from meeting the definition of a Major transit stop. City of Carlsbad July 10, 2017 Page 3 of 3 And for all the reasons previously discussed, the requested permits are inappropriate and should not be issued. The Project is not properly related to the site, surroundings and the environment. The Pw.ii.:cl will be detrimental lo existing. development and uses. The Project will adn:rsdy impm:t the: surrounding area and environment. The Site is inadequate to support the Project. The existing street and transportation systems are inadequate to handle the Project's impacts. Accordingly, CARD requests you grant the appeal and reject the Project. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. Sincerely, ~~ Everett DeLano Encs. cc: Austin Silva, Planning Division M. Dare Delano ··-..c,m: Austin Silva Ant To: Thursday, August 25, 2016 1:19 PM Scott Donnell Subject FW: Possible Phase 2 FYI, see below. From: Todd Cottle {rnai/to:toddl@c-cdev.com] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 12:41 PM To: Austin Silva subject: RE: Possible Phase 2 Yes. We'll be rehabbing the units that remain in place, For the remaining parcel, we'd likely be developing at 25-30 du to the acre with the same or very similar product to what we have now. This is based upon parking of 1:1 for a lbd and 2:1 for 2 and 3 bd units. Including the street, there would be approximately .85 acres left to develop. This should yield around 21-25 addlt\onai units. This yield could go up if the parking requirements go down in the future. Thanks Todd Cottle --. & C Development Co .. LLC .4211 Yorba St, Ste. 200 Tustin, CA 92780 714-288-7600 x250 todd@c--cdev.com From: Austin Sil-la [mallto:Austfn.Sitva,ftca;lsbadca.aov) Sant: Thursday, August 25, 2016 11:06 AM To: Todd Cottle Subject: Possible Phase 2 Todd, If you were to acquire the remaining parcel on Harding, do you have an idea of how many additional units you seek to build on the undeveloped properties? Also, are you going to be rehabbing the units that aren't going to be left in place? I believe I spoke to you before and you said were. Thanks, Austin Silva, AlCP Associate Planner P: 760-602-4631 City of Carlsbad .~lanning Division 1 3 2 5 I Carlsbad Village to College Blvd. SPRINTER Station M-F • SA Deslinations/Destinos • North County Coastal Career • MiraCosto College • Target • Walmort • Tri-City Medical Center • P'lazo Camino Real LEGEND/·"', ' 1 \ Me~, 1·;l1 • •• -Roure/Ru•c Street;Colie •,.,. fommock trips/'l1u;e1 Jt·" '.Jmura,t Q Time Point/P,11110 -.1~ 11,,n pu • landmarl:/Sc1\oi a lrnnsfer/l<U'i<iJOrd,J + Sl'RINTER Smtion/ E,to(1cne~ ~ei ·;PR!~·1TER See Route 302 for Sundcy/l¼!iday service. Para se.~ •. r · 1 ,:;;n dios fe!)tivos ver :I hor~r10 de lo Rutu 302 Center • Carl~bocl High School • Valley Middle School • Corlsbocl State Beach Na11h County _ Cu11stal Career (enier / 0 - Oceanside Blvd. ·-- :c College BIYd. SPRINTER Station • John Landes Park -· 0."' V :c.:::: o:g ~: e u..,. 0 c:u ::;>:-•'-'-' iargel • : 4 /:\!~ -~ .~jfF Jvi · ·· Valley Middle School ~ ~;sM;ni r~,,er I o to CJihbud ! ~~--~··-·· l rn 3 "' \li!aCJ,ia Co/leg, 'Ai-rli<o! iO \PRll/ffR 0 a: 3 2 5 I Carlsbad Village to College Blvd. SPRINTER Station Bold denotes P.M. times/Hororios en negritas son en lo ,torde Monday -Friday Eastbound to College Blvd. SPRINTER Station ~--·· ~.- Chestnut Ave. i & Carlsbad ! Monroe St. Village Stotion ! (Carlsbad HS) Plaza Camino Real Trnnsit (enter Vista Woy i & Via Esmorrn Miro(osto College Thunder Dr. & Vista Way Oceanside 81 & Avenida Del Oro 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5:22 I 5:_52 J 6: 12 -6:52 - 7:12 7:52 8: 12 8:52 9: 12 --9:52 i -~- 6:25 --- 7:29 8:27 9:27 5:34 --- 6 :04 6:32 ---,< 7:05 7:37 8:05 8:34 9:06 9:34 10:06 5:39 6:09 6:37 7:10 7:42 8:10 8:39 9: 11 9:39 10: 11 5:49 6: 19 6:47 7:20 7:52 8:20 - 8:49 ···-·--9:21 10:12 i 10:27 10:34 10:39 9:48 10:20 10:48 i,--1 0: 5 2 --L _____ ,_, _ _!_!_: 07 __ _!_]_: 12 __ 1 l : 2 ] l l : l 2 i 1 1: 27 j 11 :52 i---12:12 12:29 12:52 1 :12 l :29 1:52 -2:12 2:30 2:52 3:18 3:52 ---4:12 4:52 -5:27 5:54 6:16 3:34 4:28 6:32 11 :34 12:07 12:36 ~------ 1:07 . __ " ____ 1:36 -- 2:08 2:39 3:08 3:41 -- 4:08 4:35 5:08 5:43 6:09 6:39 11:39 11:48 --------12:12 12:21 12:42 12:51 ------- 1: 13 1:22 -··- 1 :42 1 :51 2:23 2:54 --- 3:23 -- 3:56 4:23 4:50 5:23 - 5:58 ---- 6:24 6:54 5:56 ' 6:06a 6:26 6:36 6:54 7:28 8:00 8:28 8:57 9:29 9:55 10:27 ~ ----~ 10:55 11 :28 ~ 7:04 7:38 --- 8:10 8:39 9:08 9:40 10:06 l 0:38 11 :06 11 :39 ,,_,. _______ --- j i 11 :55 12:28 12:58 1:29 1:58 2:32 ~., 3:03 ------- 3:33 4:05 4:32 4:59 5:32 6:07 - 6:33 7:03 12:06p 12:39 1:08 ----- 1:39 2:08 2:42 '"" 3:13 ----3:46 ---------~------ 2:14 2:45 3:1.4 3:47 4:14 4:41 5:14 5:49 6:15 6:45 7:10 7:44 8:39 --~------- 4:18 4:45 5:12 5:45 6:20 6:46 7:16 7:38 8:12 6:52 7:26 8:22 7:05 7:39 8:34 Route 325 does not operate on Sundays or holidays. 7:18 7:52 8:47 La Ruta 325 no ofrece servicio domingos o dias fe!>tivos ~ . -" - 7:26 8:00 ----, 8:55 9:07 : VAUDA 5defebrerode20l7 ;,.;:·;;,,,; _c_;:_r;,1 -,,_.\~-i'i1 c:_1:,~1,:·, '"·" _;,,"'' , -;,,~:,·,;-; . ,,. 157 3 2 5 I Carlsbad Village to College Blvd. SPRINTER Station Bold denotes P.M. times/Horarios en negritas son en la tarde Monday • Friday Westbound to Carlsbad Village ··--·-·v ____ , --------··----- Vista Woy Plaza Camino Chestnut Ave. & & Real Transit Monroe St. Carlsbad , .. 5:53 6:00 6:24 6:31 6:54 7:01 7:24 7:31 Center (Cadsbod HS) , Village Slntion I 5:560 i 6:07 6:13 6:20 l ·6:26 ---.... j 6:39 1 ·-·-· 6:38 6:44 7:08 7:14 6:51 7:21 .. 7:38 7:44 7:51 ~~-t 6:58 i ... 7:33 7:46 -----·------~--~----c----· .~;~!. --1 7:54 8:02 8:11 8:18 8:25 ., 8:24 8:32 8:41 8:48 8:55 9:02 9: 11 9:18 8:54 9:24 ... 9:57 10:24 10:54 9:32 I 9:41 10:05 10:14 10:32 . 10:41 9:48 10:21 9:25 9:55 10:28 --~------.-- 10:48 10:55 11 :02 l l : l 1 ll:19 11:27 11:24 11:32 11:41 11 :49 11 :57 -----~~ ---~ .... __ .,. 11 :54 12:02 12:11 12:19 ; . 12:28 --.....L...---- 12:24 12:54 12:32 1:02 1:32 2:02 2:32 2:54 3:32 4:02 4:32 5:02 5:31 6:01 12:41 12:49 12:58 . ··----1 :24 1:54-r 2:24 2:46 3:24 3:54 4:24 4:54 5:24 5:54 1:11 1:19 ----· 1:41 1:49 ~---~ ---- 2:11 2:19 -----· 2:41 2:49 ' 3:03 3:11 3:41 3:49 4:11 4:19 4:42 4:50 5:12 5:20 5:40 5:48 6:10 6:18 .. 6:24 6:31 6:39 6:46 --. . -.... -·-L -· 6:54 7:01 7:09 7:16 .---~---~-· -~ --~-· 7:24 7:31 7:39 7:46 , 8:24 8:31 8:39 8:46 ----- 1:28 2:57 3:19 3:57 .. 4:27 4:58 5:28 . 5:56 6:26 6:54 7:24 7:54 8:54 Route 325 does not operate on Sundays or holidays. La Ruta 325 no ofrece servicio domingos o dies festivos. 8:31 9:31 10:34 11 :32 ·-· 12:33 1:33 2:33 -. 3:26 4:34 6:02 9:03 9:44 10:03 10:47 ~· 1:07 1:45 ... 2:07 2:45 3:06 3:39 .4:06 4:47 5:06 .. 5:36 6:13 6:34 .. 7:02 7:32 .. -----·--· i 8:01 9:01 # Board westbound route 325 buses on south side of Oceanside Blvd. by Panda Express. Abonfo cutobu51?5 de lo n.11c1 :,25 hu,l(t cl (.'l ,i,., n -·11 ,c1,, ·, de ·iJ , :11.,J, Blvd cerco de Pando E ,pt.,.,,. 3 2 5 l Carlsbad Village to __ . ·--_l~!lege Blvd. SPRINTER Station Bold denotes P.M. times/Hororios en negrilas son en la tarde Saturday Eastbound to College Blvd. SPRINTER Station -- (hestnu! 1\ve. 8. Carlsbad Monroe St. Village Station I {Carlsbad HS) , Plaza Camino Real Transit Center Vis!o Woy & Via Esmarrn Mirc(osto College Thunder Dr. & Vista Way Oceanside 81. & Avenida Del Oro 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7:22 I 8:22 ----- 9: l 2 9:29 10:22 l l :22 12:12 1:22 2:22 3:12 .. 12:30 - 3:31 7:35 ·-· 8:36 9:37 10:36 11 :37 ------- 12:37 1:38 2:38 3:39 4:22 4:38 5:22 5:37 6:22 1· 6:37 7:42 ---- 8:43 ·-. 9:44 10:44 l l :45 12:45 ·---., 1:45 2:45 -· 3:46 4:45 5:44 6:44 7:51 8:52 9:53 10:53 l l :54 12:54 1:54 2:54 .. 3:55 4:54 - 5:53 6:53 1 7:56 8:57 9:58 ... 11 :00 ---- 12:01 1:01 2:00 3:00 4:01 . .. 5:00 ~------- 5:59 6:59 8:080 ---- 9:09 ·------· ··- 10:10 1112 12:13p 1: 13 2:10 3:10 4:11 5:10 6:09 7:09 ----,~~--...l----~---·----····-·-----· ---------~------~-----·--·-·-----·- Route 325 does not opemte on Sunday$ or holidays. La Ruta 3 25 no ofrece servicio dorningos o dios festivo" VALIDA 5 de Febrero de 20 i 7 159 , 3 2 5 I Carlsbad Village to College Blvd. SPRINTER Station Bold denotes P.M. times/Horarios en negritas son en la tarde Saturday Westbound to Carlsbad Village Chestnut Ave. Vista Woy Plaza Camino & & Real Transit , Monroe St. Corisbod Center , ( Carlsbad HS) i Village S totion 8:22 8:30 8:39 8:46 8:55 ·--- 9:22 . 9:30 9:39 9:46 9:55 l 0:20 i 10:28 .. , -10~37 l 0:44 10:53 -·· 11:00 11: 12 ·--------------"' 11 :31 11:40 11:47 11:58 12:40 -1-2:47 •.·. 12:58 11 :22 12:22 12:31 __ .12:08p_ 1:08 1 :1!_ , __ .!_:is-· -· 1:37 1:44 1:55 ----··----·--------..- 2:00 2:12 2:23 2:31 2:40 2:47 2:58 . 3:08 3:23 3:31 3:41 .. ·.. 3:47 , 3:57 ' ---1------- 4:06 - 4:23 4:31 4:41 5:41 6:41 4:47 4:57 . 5:03 5:15 6:06 7:06 ···-~ --------5:23 5:31 5:47 ~· -5:57 .. . ·- -~-----·--· --· -6:23 6:31 6:47 6:57 Route 32S does not operate on Sundays or holidays. La Ruta 325 no ofrece servicio domingos o dios festivos. # Board westbound route 325 buses on south side of Oceanside Blvd. by Panda Express. ;.:J.i-,cn/( ,,_t/f<h/,/,,:J~ 1•1/'•j', ,:.__; ""J:1.]t~i(J!_,!,,•r;• f:_.1l1J_,,,L, r;,':lr,\_,''!.,,-ir F,' ·L Ct·< co ,j,, Pc,"ri:, E ,p,-c-, . ~!ORTH (OUrffY TRANSIT DIST.~ICT R,ds, 's \~~ide I GoNCTD com EFFEC11VE February 5, 2017 , glr:· Maps ','-1'·'·. ) ,1 j• ,,o 40 W San Marcos Blvd -Google Maps 40 W San Marcos Blvd 0 0 0 '·,,.!,:r 1,,.,., , ,,. 'Cl ... ,, .h !,~ .,.,.,,,,, 0 l:,t •', tl ·•,,.,. I. .... ~· .1 / 0 ,,,.1.J,, ,,1;1A'...i.'Ml<' IIJ..&11,'-~J,t..,,, .. ,,hUtl 0 Go gle ;:; CJ i Map data IIP2017 Google 200 ft,__, __ __, httnc· llwww nnoolA com/maos/olaoo/40+W+San+Marcoa+Blvd, +Son+Marcos, +CA+92069/@33.1418153,-117.166273, 17z/dala::zt4m513m411s0x80db6aaf848e5dd7:0x131 c253f1855e6c16m2!3d33.1411 . 1/1 Date Carlsbad City Council Matt Hall Cori Schumacher Keith Blackburn Mark Packard Michael Schumacher RECEIVED JUL l O 2017 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RE: Pacific Wind High Density Housing Project All Receive -Agenda Item # -12 For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL ACM VGA v' CC i,/ Date ~City Manager v" I attended the Planning Commission Meetings where this project was discussed & I was disappointed & insulted that the commissioners did not give any mention or consideration for the existing neighborhood or existing neighborhood residents. I am hoping that you will take into account that Carlsbad citizens' quality of life is the primary focus here. Pacific Wind will be located on a tiny residential street near a very busy intersection of Jefferson & Tamarack, where there is an elementary school, a large apartment complex and a busy gas station. The layout of the complex is mean, thoughtless & heartless, with 3 story bldgs. only 20 feet from the existing residents back doors. The builder intends to use the loophole to avoid CEQA therefore no EIRs, no standard CA building & safety regulations, which is quite shocking seeing that it is such a huge project that is intended to be residences. The plan offers inadequate parking therefore putting the burden on the neighborhood to be its parking lot There are many more issues that, no doubt, you will hear about at your meeting, but I want to mention that the only positive public comments you will hear about this project are from the developer & his supporters that do not live here. Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion, many other long time residents feel the same. I hope you do not allow this project design to be built PLEASE ATTEND NEXT WEEK'S CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUES JULY 11, 6 PM CARLSBAD·CITY HALL 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR The Council will decide whether to uphold the Planning Commission decision to approve Pacific Wind, the High Density/ Inadequate Parking project on Harding. Hopefully all that attended the PC meeting will attend & again make public comments that this project is not good for our neighborhood. Also writing letters to the council will be helpful. A sample letter is on the other side of this flyer. If you write a letter the best practice is to deliver a hard copy to the city & get it stamped received by the city clerk. There are many reasons to oppose this poorly designed project. I hope you will attend & I hope you will encourage others to attend also. July 6, 2017 Honorable Mayor and Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad CA 92008 Re: Pacific Wind SDP 15-18 / CDP 16-04 / MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058} Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: All Receive -Agenda Item # l3 For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL AC~~ CA \I" CC v" Date 2!!Jr1City Manager V I am writing to you in regard to the proposed Pacific Wind affordable housing project. I request that you do not approve the project in its current configuration. The Planning Commission voted on April 19, 2017 to recommend approval of this project. The dissenting commissioners based their disapprovals in part on two factors: the abandonment of a portion of Harding Street and the placement of the three-story project next to the property lines of single-story houses. I urge you to consider both of these factors in your decision. Despite the need for affordable housing, the project does not warrant the abandonment of a street. With regard to the placement of the project within the neighborhood, it appears it would be unique among the city's affordable housing complexes. Existing multiunit projects are situated on street corners, next to other multiunit structures, and/or with parking areas and landscape features providing distance from other housing. At the Planning Commission meetings, the commissioners and the public seemed satisfied with the developer's knowledge and competence in managing affordable housing units. This is not the issue. Neither the good qualities of the developer nor the need for affordable housing should be taken out of context of the project's location. This project is too large for its proposed site, resulting in loss of a street and negative impact to neighboring properties. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, d:::~4 Carlsbad, CA 90008 RECEIVED JUL 1 0 2017 ~-----· lttt:r. (1:,~\s~-~-~·~. 4:" ~' , ,+f cLERK' ~ifr~¥d'r -----·. C-orL s(~_;~¼-VV'I o____GWr-~-e.,_1_-r-l:I-. ~~-~C~---~---- -----.t\cu::l( __ r~~.cb~a.s.b"':!"'.'\-·-· ________c ______ ·------,------------------·------·----------·-··-------------------·--· -------------· ---------------------------. --------- ·---... J\"\h_.illt e,~~-~&p.0.\.L~ ~ l~~~- ~ llYl..;:.'.b.:SJ' l'J h.. _.'~:n/ev's;t ~,c ."':1~~6.,~ ---'-----~\2~6-f~-g_gJ ____ ~~~i~J ~:t-k f~_;:b'_c,, \JJ.~~t~~~l,i.,tU.~.W.a.s..JLh..iG~ ~---~_A~ T\..,e, L~~ n,Di= . ·-(\ r .\ \t\ .. .....L--J, +.·l L _____ 0,_~_'C\. \ e,0 • ~~meY\L..'L~~-~ <L5 ~ r c__s_~--~--Ur--- -'----------'4-_\.-t e. ·. Ce s, de.~ ~~ -t t ~~s c ~ · L-- _j na pac:±· l)~ .:;f~cv-~; 3-a_~"'--+---"'8~ . ___ . 6C~LLL~~-~Yl:, ~e--°'=v:\--~_f:2_-~D_o_'L\-·-- ~---· ·.':lh.e.-.do.m"'j. 8.s,,. ¼.-~:=3 ~...Cfu"&..L~ _____ : ~~'-\.-C'-=,e.;~"_.__e,.,J'r--5 O-C .e..s s -t cJ tJc.w-~ _.d,1.u,,t ~ ~ -----·-b_,_,,~5"'1-'b'-4,-----'-r__,__,_~=~__:;c. s; +u. ce\=:-o ~s ... ------T_.____.h~er~C8J£.e, · .:.. g_r--e-4 .5 ~ 1\_ ~_b~ • t,, --~ ~ °'-~ D~_\i'.Ql.!.'3.t,,.ct .M,.,q,;::b1r.It h__ --~-t-':'o @~aJ;--:;z_~ cJo.:,r ~L~~9-p-b__ctd~- -----_'xJ_y ~ (\_i) ~':__ . :S_l_16._,dk-s±e) c:1n--~t~- ----l-"'~-f-~8_,&..__· ·_ _ __ Q c_~J'5~~J-i n±cz cr ;i ~l~;-ti;r; _____ leu·eJ_ .. CLf?f!~'½-~¥\.,+'5,, Iht~ _ _l_Y\.,c~~~-wr-i,1 -----~-~atJe-r 'j_J.aS. ?-~~re. -ra -tAe n-e.\t5~b_c)_c_:: ----~ _b&~--~~-°--~ __ j-h£<_(1_{LJ1l\_JJ~r--... t!J~ t}~,-/\--LU'.2~-- ---~ekC . \J' G \'\,I"\', t.h-.2 , .5 0 '1 e,, t5 l2___7a _ __j he.r"' ~:::s.., _____ ._\~'B Tue.. o~c. CL,~~. 0 (;LL1J.J.R. Li±p + w=~ ----~__l:11~-~~~~~--- -~-------... -----·---------------'-------.. --,~-----·--------------· --·---~-----------· -~-----·-··-·· ---- ~ (0 1 0-'DI] Carlsbad City Council Matt Hall Cori Schumacher Keith Blackburn Mark Packard Michael Schumacher RE: Pacific Wind High Density Housing Project RECEIVED JUL 1 0 2017 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I attended the Planning Commission Meetings where this project was discussed & I was disappointed & insulted that the commissioners did not give any mention or consideration for the existing neighborhood or existing neighborhood residents. I am hoping that you will take into account that Carlsbad citizens' quality of life is the primary focus here. Pacific Wind will be located on a tiny residential street near a very busy intersection ofJefferson & Tamarack, where there is an elementary school, a large apartment complex and a busy gas station. The layout of the complex is mean, thoughtless & heartless, with 3 story bldgs. only 20 feet from the existing residents back doors. The builder intends to use the loophole to avoid CEQA therefore no EIRs, no standard CA building & safety regulations, which is quite shocking seeing that it is such a huge project that is intended to be residences. The plan offers inadequate parking therefore putting the burden on the neighborhood to be its parking lot. There are many more issues that, no doubt, you will hear about at your meeting, but I want to mention that the only positive public comments you will hear about this project are from the developer & his supporters that do not live here. Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion, many other long time residents feel the same. I hope you do not allow this project design to be built. All Receive -Agenda Item # _0 For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL AC~,_>L CAL CC / Date ~City Manager L July 7, 2017 To: From: Subject: CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CITY ATTORNEY PACIFIC WIND APPEAL · {city of Carlsbad Everett Delano, the attorney for the appellant, Carlsbad Alliance for Responsible Development (CARD), has submitted the attached letter for the Council's consideration with the Pacific Wind project appeal. It was sent via email on July 6, too late to be included in the published staff report. Very truly yours ~~Jr CITY ATTORNEY cc: City Manager City Attorney 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2891 I 760-434-8367 fax I www.carlsbadca.gov v1A E-A,/AJL Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 July 6, 2017 Re: Pacific Wind Project: SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: Titls letter is submitted on behalf of Carlsbad Alliance for Responsible Development ("'CARD") in connection vvith the proposed Pacific Wind project ("Project") and CARD's appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Project ("Appeal"). I. Non-Compliance with CEOA The April 5, 2017 staff report to the Planning Commission claimed the Project is exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("'CEQA'°) Sections 21159.21 and 21159.23, as well as CEQA Guidelines Sections 15192 and 15194. These claims are unsupported. "Because the exemptions operate as exceptions to CEQA, they are narrowly construed." San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1382; see also Castaic Lake Water Agency v. City of Santa Clarita (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1268 (rejecting "attempt to use limited exemptions contained in CEQA as a means to subvert rules regulating the projection of the environment"). "'Exemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language." Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish and Game Comm. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125 (citation omitted). Indeed, staffs position is inconsistent with the statements made in a January 29, 2013 staff report to the City Council regarding the loan documents, which represented that the "environmental review for the new construction project ,,vill be completed at a later date and represent a review of the project at the time it is proposed." Regardless, the Project is not exempt from CEQA for several reasons, including: (a) it is inconsistent with the General Plan, Pub. Res. Code§ 21159.2l(a) & CEQA Guidelines§ 15192(a)(l); 00 I l City of Carlsbad July 6, 2017 Page 2 of 6 (b) it is part of a project to build more than 100 units, Pub. Res. Code § 21159.23(a) & CEQA Guidelines§ 15192(0); (c) '·there is a reasonable possibility that the project \Vould have a significant effect on the environment or the residents of the project due to unusual circumstances/' Pub. Res. Code§ 21159.23(c). A. Inconsistencv with General Plan The Project is inconsistent with several General Plan goals and policies, including: 1. The Project does not support transit systems, 2-G.2; 2. The Project does not ensure "compatibility and integration with existing uses'' or support ""a cohesive development pattern;' 2-G.3; 3. The Project does not ensure "'a cohesive urban form with careful regard for compatibility,'' 2-G.4; 4. The Project does not ·'[p ]rotect the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas." 2-G.5; 5. The Project does not provide pedestrian and bike\vay amenities, 2-G.18; 6. The Project does not maintain the Barrio's ·'walkable, residential character, and ... enhance[) neighborhood quality and character:' 2-G.26; 7. The Project does not "[c]elebrate the Barrio's history and resources, and foster development of cohesive streetscapes with strategic improvements ... "; rather, it walls off the Project from the rest of the community, 2-G.27; 8. The Project does not provide "buffering and transitional methods" between the neighboring lo\v-rise single-family uses and the Project's three-story multi-family uses, 2-P.39; 9. The Project does not ··foster harmony with landscape and adjacent development:' provide buffers and screening. or "provide safe, easy pedestrian and bicycle linkages to nearby transportation corridors," 2-P.43: 10. The Project does not provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages to various destinations. 2-P .44; 11. The Project does not enhance the Barrio's "neighborhood quality, character, and vitality." nor is it sensitive to historic and cultural resources. 2-P.73: 12. The Project does not focus ··on renovations and fa9ade improvements," 2- P. 74; 13. The Project does not .. [c]reate a cohesive, pedestrian-scale streetscape ... :· 2-P.75: I 4. The Project does not ··[f]oster development of commw1ity gathering spaces and a great public realm ... :' 2-P.76; 15. The Project does not "enhance neighborhood quality and character," 2-0.77; 16. The Project does not improve connectivity, 3-G.2; 17. The Project does not "(p ]rovide inviting streetscapes that encourage walking and promote liveable streets," 3-G.3; City of Carlsbad July 6, 2017 Page 3 of6 18. The Project does not "[u]tilize transportation demand management strategies ... ," 3-P.6; 19. The Project does not implement ··liveable streets strategies" and ··minimize traffic volumes and/or speed.'' 3-P.12; 20. The Project does not utilize "·innovate design and program solutions to improve ... the transportation system," 3-P.13; 21. The Project does not "implement necessary pedestrian improvements ... ," 3- P.22; 22. "foe Project does not incorporate pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, despite the fact that pedestrians and bicycles are a prioritized mode for these streets. 3-P.25; General Plan Table 3-1 & Figure 3-1: 23. The Project does not "improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity .... " 3- P.28; 24. The Project does not implement "TDM programs to reduce parking demand,'' 3-P.34; 25. The Project does not implement "TDM programs that minimize the reliance on single-occupant automotive travel during peak commute hours;· 3-P.37: 26. The Project does not require compliance with the Grmvth Management Program open space performance standard, 4-P.5; 27. The Project does not include the noise analysis required by the General Plan. including an identification of noise levels ,'iith and ,vithout the Project and a description of adequate and appropriate mitigation measures, 5-P.2; and 28. The Project does not ·'require site planning and architecture to incorporate noise-attenuating features'· to meet outdoor and interior noise standards. 5- P.3. B. Total Number of Units The Loan Agreement between the City and Harding Street Neighbors, LP anticipates approximately 140 units. And the City and applicant have repeatedly indicated an intention to construct additional units beyond the initial 93. ln fact, in an August 25, 2016 email to staff. the applicant indicated "Phase 2" would include at a minimum 21 to 25 additional units and possibly more. CEQA requires consideration of "[a]ll phases of project planning, implementation. and operation." CEQA Guidelines§ 15063(a)(1 ). It defines a project to be "the whole of an action. ,vhich has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment. or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.'· CEQA Guidelines§ 15378(a) (emphasis added). ··Toe term 'project' refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term ·project' does not mean each separate governmental approval.'' RiverH'atch v. Oliven/win Afunicipal Water Dist. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1203 (quoting CEQA Guidelines§ 15387(c)). City of Carlsbad July 6, 2017 Page 4 of6 C. Significant Effects The Project will lead to significant impacts, including traffic and parking impacts, community character impacts, impacts associated ,vith shading and shadow, fire and human safety impacts, and cumulative impacts. An analysis from a landscape architect demonstrates significant impacts associated with shade and shadow, as well as significant impacts to community character and aesthetics. See Commiuee to Save rhe Holly-woodland Specific Plan v. City l?f Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1187 (construction of a fence was not exempt because it could affect a portion of an historic wall and could affect "aesthetic appeal from the neighboring streets"). The attached comments from a traffic expert identify significant parking and traffic impacts. The Project will lead to significant impacts to water supply, particularly in light of substantial drought conditions over the last several years. The Project will lead to significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. • The report prepared for the Project relies upon the faulty analysis fuund in the traffic analysis. • Additionally, the report fails to analyze the impacts of both construction and operational emissions simultaneously. • The report also averages construction emissions over the life of the Project. Such emissions should be calculated as they will actually occur. not averaged over a longer period of time. See Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unffied School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.41h 1013. 1049. The Pri:zject will lead to noise impacts, particularly during construction. • The temporary nature of a noise impact does not make it insignificant. See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1380-81. It would be no more appropriate to use the lack of a City standard as a basis to ignore significant effects than it would be to apply "a threshold of significance or regulatory standard "in a way that forecloses the consideration of any other substantial evidence shO\ving there may be a significant effect."' Afejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 342 ( quoting Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal(fornia Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114). In fact, the Project's noise analysis fails to analyze these impacts. • The Project's noise mitigation is vague and insufficient. See Citizens for Responsible and Open Government v. Cizv of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 City of Carlsbad July 6, 2017 Page 5 of 6 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1341 ("there is no evidence of any measures to be taken that would ensure that the noise standards would be effectively monitored and vigorously enforced''). · Il. Non-Compliance with the General Plan If the Project "will frustrate the General Plan ·s goals and policies, it is inconsistent with the [City's] General Plan unless it also includes definite affirmative commitments to mitigate the adverse effect or effects." Napa Citizensfi>r Honest Government v. Napa Cozmly Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 379. As noted above, the Project is inconsistent \Vith numerous General Plan goals and policies. III. Waste of Public Funds "A taxpayer's suit states a cause of action when ... it fairly discloses waste of public funds or property or a manifest use of such funds or property chiefly for long-term commercial use with substantial benefit to a lessee accompanied by diminution of active present use of the property for a municipal purpose. The city council's action in such a case is ultra vires." Rathburn v. Ciry of Salinas (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 199. 203. "[C]ourts have voided contracts purportedly made with cities when the city officials who executed the contracts were not authorized to do so." People v. Rizzo (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 921. 941. In 2013, the City approved a loan for the purchase and development of21 duplex rental units and a vacant lot. Section 3.l(b) of the Loan Agreement requires the ••construction of a new larger, higher density project (approximately 140 units)" or immediate "·work to substantially rehabilitate the existing forty-rnro (42) dwelling units on the property with an investment of at least seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) per unit .... " And Section 3.2 requires the commencement of "construction of the improvements for a new. larger development or for substantial rehabilitation of the existing units no later than December 31. 2016:· There has been no compliance with these terms. Instead, the Project has not met its deadlines. nor is it providing anywhere near the number of units anticipated by the Loan Agreement. 1 While the Project applicant stands to gain, there is no showing that the lesser amount of units is worth the amount approved by the City or of appropriate value for a municipal purpose. And the vacation of public streets constitutes an additional waste of public funds. 1 The January 2013 staff report stated: ·'lf any of the [] conditions are not met and the City does not agree to extend the deadlines for satisfaction of the conditions, the City may declare a breach of contract or a default on the loan agreement resulting in a requirement for the development partnership to immediately repay the full an1ount of the loan with interest to the City of Carlsbad." City of Carlsbad July 6, 2017 Page 6 of6 IV. Conclusion CARD requests you grant the appeal and reject the Project. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. cc: Austin Silva, Planning Division Enclosure: Letter from RK Engineering r:ff'2 engineering ~ group, Inc. May 31, 2017 Mr. Everett Delano DELANO & DELANO 220 W. Grand Avenue Escondido, CA 92025 traffic engineering • transportation planning acoustical engineering • parking studies air quality & greenhouse gas analysis Subject: Pacific Wind Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Review, City of Carlsbad Dear Mr. Delano: Introduction RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) has reviewed the Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis; City of Carlsbad prepared by Urban Crossroads dated November 29:\ 2016 (Revised). The proposed project is located within the Village and Barrio Master Plan currently being studied by the City. The proposed project would consist of 93 multi-family rental residential units (3-story) on an existing site which consist of 44 duplex residential units (1-story}. Access to the project will be provided via gated entries at Harding Street and Carol Place. According to the traffic study, the proposed project would have a net increase of 206 trips per day, with approximately 17 additional trips during the AM peak hour and 14 additional trips during the PM peak hour. After reviewing the traffic impact study, City of Carlsbad General Plan and "A Report To The Planning Commission" Dated April 5, 2017 RK has identified two (2) primary areas of concern related to the proposed development: 1. Per the City of Carlsbad Municipal Parking Code, the project is providing a deficient number of parking spaces. There is a very limited amount of pedestrian and public transit options near the site. The proposed parking demand for the project has not been adequately evaluated due to the limited public transit options in the area. Also, the observed parking demand analysis found in the Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis is incomplete due to the limited days and hours of the parking analysis. As a result, the potential for overflow parking to the adjacent residential, school and retail uses is increased. 2. Jefferson Street is identified as a "School Street" in Chapter 3 Table 3-1 (Livable Streets Guide) of the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The existing roadway conditions are not consistent with the General Plan. Due to the increase of traffic generated by the proposed project, additional traffic control and roadway improvements (i.e. all- 4000 westerly place, suite 280 newport beach, california 92660 tel 949.474.0809 fax 949.474.0902 www.rkengineer.com way stop, traffic calming, bike lanes, pedestrian access, high visibility crosswalk, signage, etc.) along Jefferson Street from Tamarack Avenue to Magnolia Avenue should be considered as necessary mitigation measures for the project. Traffic Study Comments 1. Page 2; Site Plan: The proposed project would only provide 165 parking spaces of the required 199 parking spaces for the 93 units. According to the City's parking code, one bedroom units would require 1.5 spaces per unit (one of which must be covered) and the two bedroom or more units would require 2 spaces per unit (one of which must be covered). Additionally, projects of 11 or more units would require an additional 0.25 spaces per unit for guest spaces. The proposed project does not meet these requirements, however, it is understood that a reduction may be requested due to the projects' affordable housing designation. 2. It should be noted that public transit in proximity to the proposed development is scarce. Based on review of the North County Transit District Map, the nearest transit bus stop is not accessible via pedestrian travel and is well over a mile away from the project site. There is a "Limited Service (selected trips)" Bus Route 325 that traverses from Tamarack Avenue and heads north along Pio Pico Drive towards Chestnut Avenue. Many affordable housing projects are conveniently located near public transit services. This reduces parking demand and vehicle trips. In fact, C&C Development provides a parking table (Attachment 4) "A Report To The Planning Commission" Dated April 5, 2017 that provides reduced parking rates for four (4) existing affordable housing projects (Citrus Circle, Citrus Grove, Parkview and Serrano Woods). All of these locations have public transit options that are conveniently located within walking distance to the residential units. As a result, peak parking demand is lower due to the project's proximity to public transit options. The proposed Pacific Wind affordable housing project is NOT located near any public transit options. Therefore, comparing the parking demand from sites with convenient public transit options with the proposed Pacific Wind development is not accurate and provides an unrealistic comparison for determining parking demand. RK recommends expanding the existing public transit options to be located within walking distance to the proposed development. This would be beneficial in reducing vehicle trips and the potential for overflow parking to the surrounding community. Chapter 3 (Livable Streets Guide) of the City of Carlsbad General Plan specifically support improved public transit access throughout Carlsbad and neighboring cities. RK:dt!RK12304.doc JN:2390-2017-01 2 3. In order to ensure that overflow parking from the project onto the adjacent residential, school and retail uses does not occur, the project should implement a parking permit system for its residents. Residents shall be encouraged to park onsite and be informed that parking offsite is prohibited. 4. The site plan does not include a turning template for emergency vehicles at the two (2) project driveways. 5. The site plan identifies a "swing gate" at each access point. Describe how vehicle and pedestrian ingress and egress are provided to the property. Is there a potential for vehicle queuing at the driveways? 6. Page 6; Parking Survey: A parking survey was conducted in the study area from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on Wednesday May 18, 2016. In many cases in residential areas, peak parking demand does not occur until later in the evening. The study should be expanded to include 7 PM to midnight to capture the full parking demand. Also, a weekend (Saturday and Sunday) observed parking demand should also be conducted in order to capture the peak parking demand. 7. Page 7; Table 1-2: This table should include the available parking supply along each of these roadway segments. This is needed to determine the occupancy occurring at each location. This should include all roadway segments analyzed in the parking evaluation and a determination should be made whether there is any existing capacity available on the existing public roadways. 8. Page 11: The Oass Ill Bikeway signage and striping needs to be provided along Jefferson Street from Carol Avenue to Magnolia Avenue per the General Plan. 9. Page 14: The proposed raised crosswalk on Jefferson Street at the entrance of the Jefferson Elementary School may not be sufficient to control traffic and pedestrians at this crossing. The traffic study needs to evaluate the need for an all-way stop at this location given the amount of pedestrian and vehicle traffic at this intersection. Also, the Class Ill Bike Route needs include signage north of Anchor Way on Jefferson Street to Magnolia Avenue. 10. Page 14: The intersection of Jefferson Street at Carrol Place should be evaluated for an all-way stop control given the potential pedestrian and vehicle traffic from Jefferson Elementary School at this intersection. Also, a potential choker needs to be placed at the crosswalk to decrease vehicle speeds and reduce walking distance for pedestrians at the intersection, in addition to the traffic control and raised crosswalk. Chapter 3 (Livable Streets Guide) of the City of Carlsbad General Plan specifically support improved pedestrian access along Jefferson Street. RK:dt/RK12304.doc JN:2390-2017-01 3 11. Page 27: As noted in the traffic study, there is significant pedestrian activity in the area of Jefferson Street and the existing school. This further indicates the need for a potential all-way stop evaluation at the intersection of Jefferson Street at Carol Place. 12. Page 31; Exhibit 3-4: As shown on this exhibit, a Class Ill Bike Route needs to be provided along Jefferson Street from Tamarack Avenue to Magnolia Avenue. 13. Page 33: Peak hour traffic counts were obtained from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM and from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM for the traffic study. While it is appropriate to conduct the 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM traffic counts, as a result of the Jefferson Street Elementary School, the traffic study needs to evaluate traffic conditions during the normal PM peak hour from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM due to citywide traffic. This may indicate potential deficiencies within the study area. 14. Page 53: Will the proposed project be providing the northbound and southbound left turn phasing and eight phase traffic signal at this location? Project contributions on page 13 (Table 1-5) indicates that it would be about 4% of the new traffic by 2040. Due the safety concern and high pedestrian volumes, these roadway improvements should be implemented by the time the project is occupied. 15. Page 64; Table 8-5: It is assumed that the bicycle MMLOS Analysis with improvements for Jefferson Way to Carol Place (east side and west side) is previously noted. Bike route signs should also be provided on Jefferson Street from Anchor Way to Magnolia Avenue. Conclusions RK's comments on the traffic study and the proposed development are noted above. The observed parking analysis needs to be expanded in order to capture the existing parking demand. Furthermore, the proposed parking demand for the project has not been adequately evaluated due to the limited public transit options in the area. RK has made recommendations with regards to reducing the likelihood of offsite parking, increasing public transit options and providing roadway improvements for enhanced vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity within the study area. RK:dt/RK12304.doc JN:2390-2017-01 4 RK appreciates this opportunity to review the Pacific Wind Apartments traffic study. If you have any questions regarding this review, please call me at (949) 474-0809. Sincerely, RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. ti\,..\_\~ Robert Kahn, P.E. Principal Registered Civil Engineer 20285 Registered Traffic Engineer 0555 RK:dtlRK12304.doc JN:2390-2017-01 5 Rogier Goedecke President Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Morgen, Council Internet Email Monday, July 10, 2017 10:18 AM Morgen Fry City Clerk; Austin Silva FW: Pacific Wind Project and appeal Pacific Winds Visual Analysis 7-7-17.ppt Please distribute the attached item to Council regarding this agenda item. Andi From: Everett Delano [mailto:everett@delanoanddelano.com] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 4:42 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> All Receive -Agenda Item # 1.3 For the Information of the: Gil)' COUNCIL ACM V CA v'cc / Date ,/,oJqGity Manager v Cc: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov>; Austin Silva <Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: RE: Pacific Wind Project and appeal Attached is a visual analysis regarding the proposed project. Everett Delano Delano & Delano 220 W. Grand Ave. Escondido, CA 92025 (760) 510-1562 www.delanoanddelano.com From: Everett Delano [mailto:everett@delanoanddelano.com] Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 11:11 AM To: 'council@carlsbadca.gov' <council@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: 'clerk@carlsbadca.gov' <clerk@carlsbadca.gov>; 'Austin Silva' <Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Pacific Wind Project and appeal Please see attached comments regarding the Pacific Wind project. Thank you, Everett Delano Delano & Delano 220 W. Grand Ave. Escondido, CA 92025 (760) 510-1562 www.delanoanddelano.com 1 ....I <( LU 0.. 0.. <( u 1---4 u.. 1---4 u 'it Site Summary: .. 0 " .. .. J: Gentr-1.lf'l-mU/'ld Uu·Des.~:f\.)O ZOf"lint ~bQ,.,: W,M Ni:.. Off EdRJnC ~1: +f Sitt: Iva '. t. ,t.o+ Acffl Oe:tuiq ~ ± ll.O Hor-r.e11'Auie T,o,-ll Honwt tl 1.B-NtUniu: 11 (22...1-'4) 2.-!!.ed UN-a: It.I (l'f.4',~ J.-~ Uniu; .5,4 (38.0,.) PROJECT LOCATION I ...... ·:1 .. : .. --:. ~-:-. . a: .. ' • ·~ • -~-...... It•~·,-.~~.-., •. , :,zP, »¼*"'"' «"?\,Tn.V!Erido-J.-e ' ' ... _ l ..... ·1···J .... :'~-r~··, .. , .. ~,r• ..... -... ,. ii: ::tE: ,w1' -:;J ... ·:-l--·i·-r-Rl10.POSE0:3;crSTOB:¥·:-FF r~r f:fiF'-',.::r '1··· r. ' ._ =:Bl *~ ... _ .•. J ,·:.· \ : .. M; 1, -... -• • ......... r--, · ,·~'<.~~!1-~:·:r ,:i-'-i!-~~r~~~~-J~1~i::L·J .. ~~ _-. ~-:~·----, ,.ar;tu,J;fteq1;1l'"ed: 1:1 "Sp,Kt:!~1-&edUniu ;ll • J = 11 2.:1 !l;pxe-:1/2!.l-&ed'.Vriu ·TI:,o:2~ I+' Total Sp>ce, Re:quire-d : JU P¥klrJPttrrid~ -Ci~ Sf,.a<tt J'ro-ffded 7) IJncD'ff.rcd ~P!<-et n Total 5-pacl!'ll PrO'l'lcrd · 1,s ' I -~ r" • • • ' ./ . µ -_,_ B' ~ "t'-11'-_} • .., __ ,_ .. ' ::~·, ,._r .... •'. ( j'J···-,"l, ... ·_! I .,. ··-~·-T ' -~ •• J ' .... , ..• t _;., ' • • I ··-·-I • ~-• '· ~ · · ----_ .. L!!:!.d.:.:·.r---l-·I · 1 , r.J, ' "'I•• • fBT _,. ~---" r--.. ;--------.. ,.__ ,--__ , .. ,, ,1H ... ·-1 • :•. L f :i • '-' J r , • I 171" • :. -• r,," , I ... L ,_, ·-;-L.:_ ij ·-1., ; r, r-·Fr-·1 --'':t -: " .. r~,; ' ' , \. ! __, .LJ' _, ... 1~r .1,c-1,, -..... .... . ll ·-·-·-·--· .. ., ·-. ·-I I I ' ' I ' t:-~ -. . ... , . ·-, 1 •· , , , I' : . . I I • i __ ,.' L -11 .... • ·-.. ' ) -~ • ' c:::;:a J -,1.J ml ( fl,, j-,, , f, ,-, _ f I .. ,J : '. ~==• ..':\,~ :jl:, , i'!H', ,_ . ..., ' '}~c:' :_: '-,!:ii:.: : -~ m I --_ 1 -1 , I···,.·.: :.-~-=-, _ .. : -:.·····:, .as. ' \. '\. l. Q>~--}, ''1 \ ,., '\'• ' ·>,\\ \ '\ ' \ \. VICINITY MAP • \ '\. 1 >-0 ::::> I--en w _J <( (.) en oes ~ _J ::::> en Exiting onto Harding Street Existing View on Harding Proposed Image r. \ -:~ .. ~ .. ,¢-· ·::::-....~-. .· ·" OJIIJl!'IU ,~-::::::: " ·.. . .•..• -· .• .•.. ~ . "' ·.''. ..... ""~ ........ _...... ~· ... ·· -~~ ~-. .·~;;,;;:::~-...... ~_,. ,~,~· 4 ..-f{lll. I ... ...... ... ~,;' H ~. 1 ·~·.. ~ / i : ,<~i;l •.;I I I • Jefferson Street neighborhpo~ is I · , ~· ,"" \ I low scale well kept single/anfiily 1 '-.: '· \ \ homes 1 1 • The addition of a 3 stor/ buif ding will create many issuer ) . F~\ VICINITY MAP • l Within the Neighborhood 1. Jefferson St Looking North • Jefferson Street neighborhood is a quite and safe area. • The scale of the neighborhood is single . story homes , 2. At Magnolia & Harding ~",, "".,,,_,.I"~ "'""~··-l ...... [)' i ;'. ;_,, .. ,.. Skyline 1.Jefferson & Carol Place • The skyline of the neighborhood will be effected. J • The transition is poor frpm single story to 3 story / buildings l '1--·' t1 ~-11;::;;·:;,~:;:;.,-,1::.-::::::.:'.;..... ... ,' , ... u-.,,,J•flll'\1 ,-~ ,i !.:::::· ~::;:i ·l 7 Proposed Project / Property Line Transitions Existing Image I • The bulk & scale of the / proposed building looms / , . , over the adjacent properyY. ! . '---'"'' • Sh9d~ws ~reated by the;new1 bu1ld1ng will create solav' . , ,. power issues for some fJf the existing homes. / /~'\.' Proposed Image i Fr,• ••1 :,' .J•('-•f•!--,,Htut !J:~-' , -~·- Views into rear yards 1. View from Patios into Existing Rear Yards 2. Privacy and sun shine are gone • A 3 story Building allows views into adjacent properties. • Property va I ues may/ change ···~-... I~~-,,. .. ,. ~-.:ft;;:.;.-:..:,·o,.."1 1,1,z-;::~~;:n,1:::~, ::::· :;)~::::...~. =-~rn-.+-1 t1 '-:--_.:;::,,.~;~ll'J ~~~~ 1-M-· ltt"~ l-WO-...•l'JllftJ 1 i 147 ·~ Solar Access is Limited 1. Looking North West • Solar access to existing homes will be limited in the morning. • Some home may never have solar access. 2. Looking West -·--"-~ I~ IA•V..~ u·o ,,_.,,,.-,._ 11-1• 11 -::,{ri:::;=-. r-c-:: !:'l:.r.:...~:-: "·':::: ... -•• ~:,<,.., .. ~ C-, ~ II~,. ...... ~,, c:..y..-_.,,,....;r........., ti 1--Tl ~______ll ---.,, ~-=~ :~:~;!:: , ..... , ... , .. ,.._, ,o l,...,v-.., ,..,Mer>! Poor Transitions 1. Existing Residential to Multi Family • The existing neighborhood will be overwhelmed by the bulk & scale of the project • 3 story building to 1 story building creates a poor transition 2. Transition from Jefferson I I \ !meSu•11,m1z: ~ Vo G,..,,.-•,)'$ I, .,_.,,,.s,~u,.,,. • t1, I• II r ... ,i:.-.y,•-·•!>-1'1 i,;p,c,~.-1.m, n,t•11• lh<ft,i.s,,-41 ,_~....,._N ,,,1 ::;· ::1~=..N>, ~~ , U ,...,,_, ,1 \.':!!;=...."tlt!!l--___!l ;:::~ ~:~;::: ,....,_,._, ,u 1-MlJ,,a J-l•M~, ,,~:12 ~ "JJ\"·ft ·-/ J-fr t, •.,-I 1 ~:. ~~· ----, Alternative Transition Alternative Site Plan • A welcomed alternative would be the move the 3 story buildings along the / East Property Line near / the Freeway and place the 1 story car ports i along the West properfy line. / .. , 1. New Bulk & Scale Alternative Transition Bulk of Building Oriented to the Freeway 1. New Transition to Single Family Homes • A redesign of the site plan will accommodate the need for housing while respecting the existing 1 story homes~/ Q&A • Be good neighbors ~>"::::X;1:~·~~;~Zt\',r·· • Respect the existing h!f?mE! value~, ;1\ • Respect solar access t the existii•s homes \ ,. J 1 :; . \ \ • :~~~~c9t ~~~:~iai~t r·ssi~fdf~f 'l3 sto~ \ / ! / -I / Sheila Cobian Subject: Attachments: FW: Pacific Wind Project and appeal CCF07062017.pdf From: Everett Delano [mailto:everett@delanoanddelano.com1 Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 11:11 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov>; Austin Silva <Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Pacific Wind Project and appeal Please see attached comments regarding the Pacific Wind project. Thank you, Everett Delano Delano & Delano 220 W. Grand Ave. Escondido, CA 92025 (760) 510-1562 www.delanoanddelano.com 1 ELANO & DELANO f'JA E-MAIL Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Viilage Drive Carlsbad. CA 92008 July 6, 2017 Re: r•µcifk \Vind Project SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-0l Dear I lonorablc ~1ayor and City Council: This letter is submitted on behalf of Carlsbad Alliance for Responsible Development ("CARD"') in connection with the proposed Pacific Wind project ("'Project") and Ci\RIYs appeal of the Planning Co1nmission·s approval of the Project ( .. Appeal"). L Non-Compliance\\ ith CEQl'. The April 5. 2017 staff report to the Planning Commission claimed the Project is ewmpt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act c·CEQA ") Sections 2115Q.21 and 2 l l 59.23. as well as CEQA Guidelines Sections 151 ()2 and 15194. These claims are unsupported. "Because the exemptions operate as exceptions to CEQA. they are narrmv!y construed.,. ,San Loren::o I "alley ( 'ommuni(v Admcalesfor Re.,1wnsible Education r. San Loren:::o f'alley l ln!fied School Di:,;f. (2006) 139 CaLAppAth I 356. 1382: see also ( ·astaic Luke if'ater AgenL}' r. ( 'itJ' of Santa ( 'lariw ( 1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 1257. 1268 (rc:jecting .. attempt to use limited exemptions contained in CEQA as a means to subvert rules regulating the projection of the environment"). "Exemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language." Mountain Lion Foundation r. Fish and Game ( ·ormn ( l 997) 16 Cal.4th 105. 125 (citation omitted). Indeed. staffs position is inconsistent vdth the statements made in a January 29. 2013 staff report to the City Council regarding the loan documents. which represented that the "environmental review for the new construction project ,..,·m be completed at a !ater dme and represent a review of the project at the time it is proposed." Regardless. the Project is nnt es.empt from CEQA for several reasons. including: (al it is inconsis;;tent \Vith the General Plan. Pub. Res. Code~ J 1159.21 (a) & CEQA Guidelines ~ l 5192( a)( 1 ); :r: C> ~ SR ,,,, r; City of Carlsbad July 6. 2017 Page 2 of 6 (b) it is part uf a project to build more than 100 units. Pub. Res. Code § 21159.23(a) & CEQA Guidelines § 15192( o ): ( c) ··there is a reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment or the residents of the project due to unusual circumstances." Pub. Res. Code§ 2 l l 59.23(c). A. lnconsistcncv vvith General Plan The Project is inconsistent vvith several General Pian goals and policies. including: 1. The Project does not support transit systems, 2-G.2: 2. The Project does not ensure "compatibility and integration ,vith existing uses·· or support '"a cohesive development pattern;· 2-G.3; 3. The Project does not ensure "a cohesive urban form with careful regard for compatibility." 2-G.4: 4. The Project does not '"[pjroteet the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas." 2-G.5: 5. The Project does not provide pedcstr1an and bikeway amenities. 1-G.18: 6. The Project does not maintain the Barrio's ''walkable. residential character. and ... enhance[] neighborhood quality and character." 2-G·.26: 7. The Project does not "lc]elebrate the Barrio's history and resoun.:i:s. and foster development of cohesive streetscapes with strategic improvements ... ":rather.it \.\alls off the Project from the rest of the community. 2-G.27: 8. The Project does not provide .. butlering and transitional methods·· between the neighboring lmv-rise single-family uses and the Project" s three-story multi-family uses, 2-P.39: 9. The Project docs not ··foster harmony with landscape and adjacent development:· provide buffers and screening. or "provide safe. easy pedestrian and bicycle linkages to nearby transportation corridors." 2-P.43: 10. The Project does not provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages to various destinations. ::!-P .44; l l. The Project does not enhance the Barrio's "neighborhood quality. character. and vitality." nor is it sensitive to historic and cultural resources. 2-P.73: 12. The Project does not focus "on renovations and fai;ade improvements." 2- P. 74: 13. The Project do..:s not ··[c lreate a cohesive, pedestrian-scale streetscapc .... " 2-P.75: 14. The Project does not "[f1oster development of community gathering spaces and a great public realm ... ;· 2-P.76; 15. The Project docs not --enhance neighborhood quality and character:· 2-0.77: 16. The Project does not irnprove connectivity. 3-G.2: 17. The Project does not "[p]rovide inviting streetscapes that encourage walking and promote liveable streets." 3-GJ: City of Carlsbad July 6, 2017 Page 3 of 6 18. The Project does not ··\u]tilize transportation demand management stratcgks ... :· 3-P.6: 19. The Project docs not implement "liveable streets strategies" and .. rninimize traffic volumes and/or speed:· 3-P.12: 20. The Project does not utilize '·innovate design and program solutions to improve ... the transportation system.·· 3-P .13: 2 l . The Project does not "implement necessary pedestrian improvcrncnts ... , " 3- P.22; 22. The Project does not incorporate pedestrian and hkyde infrastructure. despite the fact that pedestrians and bicyeks are a prioritized mode for these streets. 3-P.25; General Pian Table J-l & Figure 3-1: 23. The Project doe:-. not .. improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity ... :· 3- P.28: 24. The Project does not imphtment "TDM programs to reduce parking: demand." 3-P.34: 25. The Project does not implement "'TDfv1 programs that minimize the relianci: on single-occupant automotive travel during peak commute hours:· 3-P.37: 26. The Project does not require compliance with the Grov,th Management Program open space performance standard. 4-P.5: 27. The Project does not include the noise analysis required by the General Plan. including an identification of noise levels with and v,ithout the Project and a description of adequate and appropriate mitigation measures. 5-P.2: and 28. The Project does not --require site planning and architecture to incorporate noise-attenuating features'" to meet outdoor and interior noise standards. 5- P.3. B. Total Number of Units The Loan Agreement between the City and Harding Street Neighbors. LP anticipates approximately 140 units. And the City and applicant have repeatedly indicated an intention to construct additional units beyond the initial 93. ln fact in an August 25. 2016 email to staff the applicant indicated .. Phase 2 .. would include at a minimum 21 to 25 additional units and possibly more. CEQA requires consideration of"{ a ]II phases nf project planning. implernentation. and operation:· CEQA Guidelines§ 15063(a)( 1 ). It defines a project to be .. the whole of an action, \Vhich has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment:' CFQA Guidelines§ l 5378{a) (ernphasis added). --The term ·project' refers to the acfrvity \vhich is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals hy governmental agencies. The term ·project' does not mean each separate governmental approval:· River1"Va1ch r. Olirenhuin Municipal Jfa1er Dist. (2009) l 70 Cal.App.4th l l 86, 1203 (quoting CEQA Guidelines~ l 5387(c)). City of Carlsbad July 6, 2017 Page 4 of 6 C. Significant Effects The Project will kad to significant impm::ts, including traffic and parking impacts. community character impacts. impacts associated \Vith shading and shadmv. fire and human safety impacts. and cumulative impacts. An analysis from a landscape architect demonstrates significant impacts associated vvith shade and shadow. as well as significant impacts to community character and aesthetics. See ( 'ummittei: 10 Sare !he f!olZvwoodland ,\"peci,Jic Plan i·. City of Los Angeles (2008) l 61 Cal.App.4th 1168, i l 87 (construction of a fence was not exempt because it could affect a portion of an historic \\all and could affect .. aesthetic appeal from the neighboring streets"). The auached comrnents frmn a traffic expert identify significant parking and traffic impacts. The Project will lead to significant impacts to water supply, particularly in light of substantial drought conditions over the last several years. rhe Projcct will lead to significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. • The report prepared for the Project relies upon the faulty analysis found in the traflic analysis. • Additionally. the report fails to analyze the impacts of both construction and operational emissions simultaneously. • The report also averages construction emissions over the life of the Pn:~ject Such emissions should be calculated as they \vill actually occur. not averaged over a longer period of time. See Taxpayers for Au:ountahle School Boml Spendin14 r. San DieJ:o lJn(lied s;chool Disr (2013) 2 l 5 CaLApp.4111 1013. 1049. The Project wili lead to noise impacts. pnrticularly during com;tmction. • The tcmpnrary nature of a noise impact does not make it insignificant. Sel.' Berkdey Keep Jets Over the Bay ( ·omm. v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344. 1380 · 81. lt would be no more appropriate to use the lack of a City standard as n basis to ignore significant effects than it would he to apply .. a threshold of significance or regulatory standard 'in a v.ay that forecloses the consideration of any other substantial evidence sho\ving there may be a significant effect. ... .lfejiu i· ( 'ity of Los Angeles (2005) 130 CaLApp.4111 322. 342 (quoting CommunitiesjiJr a Be11er Environment r. ( 'alijrJrnia Resources Agenq (2002) 103 Ca!.App.41h 98. l l 4 ). In fact the Project's noise analysis fails to analyzt: these impacts. • The Project's noise mitigation is vague and insu11icicnt. See Cilbmsfhr Responsible and Open Gorernment v. City o/Grand Terrace (2008) 160 City of Carlsbad July 6. 2017 Page 5 of 6 ll. CaLApp.41h ! 323. 1341 ("'there is no evidence of any measures to be taken that would ensure that the noise standards would be effectively monitored and vigorously enforced .. ). Non-Compliance "'ith the General Plan If the Project .. ,, ill frustrate the Gem:ral Pl,m · s goals and policies. it is inconsistent \Vith the [City's] General Plan unless it also includes definite affirmative commitments to mitigate the adverse effect or effects." Napa Citi::.ensfhr Honest Government v .. Vapa Coun(r Board o/Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 379. As noted above. the Project is inconsistent with numerous General Plan goals and policies. HL Waste of Public Funds .. A taxpayer's suit states a cause of action when ... it fairly discloses v,astc of public funds or property or a manifrst use of such funds or property chiefly for long-term commercial use with substantial benefit to a lessee accompanied by diminution of active present use of the property for a municipal purpose. The city council's action in such a case is ultra vires." Ra1hhurn r. Cit.1,· of.\'ulinas (1973) 30 CaLApp.3d 199, 203. "[C]ourts have \Oidcd contracts purportedly made \\•ith cities when the city officials who executed the contracts were not authorized to do so." People r. Rizzo (2013) 214 Ca!.AppA-th 921. 941. In 2013, the City appronc:d a loan for the purchase and development of 21 duplex rental units and a vacant lot. Section 3. l {b) of the Loan Agreement requires the "construction of a new larger, higher density project (approximately 140 units)"' or immediate "work to substantially rehabilitate the existing forty-two (42) dv.elling units on the property with an investment of at least seventy-five thousand dollars ($75.000) per unit .... " And Section 3.2 requires the cornmencement of .. construction of the improvements frir a new. larger development or for substantial rehabilitation of the existing units no later than December 31. 2016.'' There has been no compliance \\Ith these tem1s. Instead. the Project has not met its deadlines, nor is it providing anywhere near the number of units anticipated by the Loan Agreement. 1 While the Project applicant stands to gain. there is no showing that the lesser amount of units is worth the amount approved by the City or of appropriate value for a municipal purpose. And the vacation of public streets constitutes an additional waste of public funds. 1 The January 2013 staff report stated: "If any of the [] conditions are not met and the City docs not agree to extend the deadlines for satisfaction of the conditions, the City may declare a breach of contract or a default on the loan agreement resulting in a requirement for the development partnership to imrnediately repay the full amount of the loan \vith interest to the City of Carlsbad." City of Carlsbad July 6. 2017 Page 6 of 6 l V. Condusion CARD requests you gram the appeal and reject the Project. Thank you for your consideration of concerns. cc: Austin Silva. Planning Division Enclosure: Letter from RK Engineering May 31, 2017 Mr. Everett Delano DELANO & DELANO 220 W. Grand Avenue Escondido, CA 92025 traffic engineering • tran:.portation planning arnustical engineering • parking studies air quality & greer.house gAs analysis Subject: Pacific Wind Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Review, City of Carlsbad Dear Mr. OeLano: Introduction RK ENGINEE.RING GROUP, lNC (RK) has reviewed the Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis; City of Carlsbad prepared by Urban Crossroads dated November 291", 2016 (Revised). The proposed project is located within the Village and Barrio Master Plan currently being studied by the City. The proposed project would consist of 93 multi-family rental residential units (3-story} on an existing site which consist of 44 duplex residential units (1-story). Access to the proJect will be provided via gated entries at Harding Street and Carol Place. According to the traffic study, the proposed pr01ect would have a net increase of 206 trips per day, w1th approximately 17 additional trips during the AM peak hour and 14 additional trips during the PM peak hour After reviewing the traffic impact study, City of Carlsbad General Plan and "A Report To The Planning Comn:ission" Dated April 5, 2017 RK has identified two (2) primary areas of concern related to the proposed development 1. Per the City of Carlsbad Municipal Parking Code, the proJect is providing a defioent number of parking spaces. There is a very limited amount of pedestrian and public transit options near the site. The proposed parking demand for the project has not been adequately evaluated due to the limited public transit options in the area. Also, the observed parking demand analysis found in the Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis is incomplete due to the limited days and hours of the parking analysis. As a result, the potemial for overflow parking to the adJacent residential, school and retail uses is increased. 2. Jefferson Street is identified as a "School Street" in Chapter 3 Table 3-1 (Lrvable Streets Guide) of the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The existing roadway conditions are not conststent with the General Plan. Due to the increase of traffic generated by the proposed project, additional traffic control and roadway improvements (i.e all· 4000 westerly p!Me, suite 280 newport beach, ca!ifom1a 92660 tei 949.474.0809 fox 949.4 74 0902 www.rkengineer.com way stop, traffic calming, bike lanes, pedestrian access, high visibility crosswalk, signage, etc.) along Jefferson Street from Tamarack Avenue to Magnolia Avenue should be considered as necessary mitigation measures for the project. Traffic Study Comments 1 Page 2; Site Plan: The proposed project would only provide 165 parking spaces of the required 199 parking spaces for the 93 units. According to the City's parking code, one bedroom units would require 1.5 spaces per unit (one of which must be covered) and the two bedroom or more units would require 2 spaces per unit (one of which must be covered). Additionally, projects of 11 or more units would require an additional 0.25 spaces per unit for guest spaces. The proposed project does not meet these requirements, however, it is understood that a reduction may be requested due to the projects' affordable housing designation. 2. It should be noted that public transit in proximity to the proposed development is scarce. Based on review of the North County Transit District Map, the nearest transit bus stop is not accessible via pedestrian travel and rs well over a mile away from the project site. There is a "Limited Service (selected trips)" Bus Route 325 that traverses from Tamarack Avenue and heads north along Pio Pico Drive towards Chestnut Avenue. Many affordable housing projects are conveniently located near public transit services. This reduces parking demand and vehicle trips. In fact, C&C Development provides a parking table (Attachment 4) "A Report To The Planning Commission" Dated April 5, 2017 that provides reduced parking rates for four (4) existing affordable housing projects (Citrus Circle, Citrus Grove, Parkview and Serrano Woods). All of these locations have public transit options that are conveniently located within walking distance to the residential units. As a result, peak parking demand is lower due to the project's proximity to public transit options. The proposed Pacific Wind affordable housing project is NOT located near any public transit options. Therefore, comparing the parking demand from sites with convenient public transit options with the proposed Pacific Wind development is not accurate and provides an unrealistic comparison for determining parking demand. RK recommends expanding the existing public transit options to be located within walking distance to the proposed development. This would be beneficial in reducing vehicle trips and the potential for overflow parking to the surrounding community. Chapter 3 (Livable Streets Guide) of the City of Carlsbad General Plan specifically support improved public transit access throughout Carlsbad and neighboring cities. RK:dtiRK12304 doc JN:2390-2017-01 2 3, In order to ensure that overflow parking from the project onto the adjacent residential, school and retail uses does not occur, the project should implement a parking permit system for its residents, Residents shall be encouraged to park onsite and be informed that parking offsite is prohibited, 4. The site plan does not include a tu ming template for emergency vehicles at the two (2) project driveways, 5, The site plan identifies a "swing gate" at each access point Describe how vehicle and pedestrian ingress and egress are provided to the property. Is there a potential for vehicle queuing at the driveways? 6. Page 6; Parking Survey: A parking survey was conducted in the study area from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on Wednesday May 18, 2016. In many cases in residential areas, peak parking demand does not occur until later in the evening. The study should be expanded to include 7 PM to midnight to capture the full parking demand. Also, a weekend (Saturday and Sunday) observed parking demand should also be conducted in order to capture the peak parking demand. 7. Page 7; Table 1-2: This table should include the available parking supply along each of these roadway segments. This is needed to determine the occupancy occurring at each location. This should include all roadway segments analyzed in the parking evaluation and a determination should be made whether there is any existing capacity available on the existing public roadways, 8. Page 11: The Class Ill Bikeway signage and striping needs to be provided along Jefferson Street from Carol Avenue to Magnolia Avenue per the General Plan. 9. Page 14: The proposed raised crosswalk on Jefferson Street at the entrance of the Jefferson Elementary School may not be sufficient to control traffic and pedestrians at this crossing. The traffic study needs to eva!uate the need for an all-way stop at this location given the amount of pedestrian and vehicle traffic at this intersection, Also, the Class Ill Bike Route needs indude signage north of Anchor Way on Jefferson Street to Magnolia Avenue. 10. Page 14: The intersection of Jefferson Street at Carrol Place should be evaluated for an all-way stop control given the potential pedestrian and vehicle traffic from Jefferson Elementary School at this intersection. Also, a potential choker needs to be placed at the crosswalk to decrease vehicle speeds and reduce walking distance for pedestrians at the intersection, in addition to the traffic control and raised crosswalk. Chapter 3 {Livable Streets Guide) of the City of Carlsbad General Plan specifically support improved pedestrian access along Jefferson Street. RK dt/RK12304.doc JN:2390-2017-01 3 11. Page 27: As noted in the traffic study, there is significant pedestrian activity in the area of Jefferson Street and the existing school. This further indicates the need for a potential all-way stop evaluation at the intersection of Jefferson Street at Carol Place. 12. Page 31; Exhibit 3-4: As shown on this exhibit, a Class m Bike Route needs to be provided along Jefferson Street from Tamarack Avenue to Magnolia Avenue. 13. Page 33: Peak hour traffic counts were obtained from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM and from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM for the traffic study. While it is appropriate to conduct the 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM traffic counts, as a result of the Jefferson Street Elementary School, the traffic study needs to evaluate traffic conditions during the normal PM peak hour from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM due to citywide traffic. This may indicate potential deficiencies within the study area. 14. Page 53: Will the proposed project be providing the northbound and southbound left tum phasing and eight phase traffic signal at this location? Project contributions on page 13 (Table 1-5) indicates that it would be about 4% of the new traffic by 2040. Due the safety concern and high pedestrian volumes, these roadway improvements should be implemented by the time the project is occupied, 15. Page 64; Table 8-5: It is assumed that the bicycle MMLOS Analysis with improvements for Jefferson Way to Carol Place (east side and west side) is previously noted. Bike route signs should also be provided on Jefferson Street from Anchor Way to Magnolia Avenue. Conclusions RK's comments on the traffic study and the proposed development are noted above. The observed parking analysis needs to be expanded in order to capture the existing parking demand. Furthermore, the proposed parking demand for the project has not been adequately evaluated due to the limited public transit options in the area, RK has made recommendations with regards to reducing the likelihood of offsite parking, increasing public transit options and providing roadway improvements for enhanced vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity within the study area. RK.dt!RK12304.doc JN 2390-201 7-01 4 RK appreciates this opportunity to review the Pacific Wind Apartments traffic study. If you have any questions regarding this review, please call me at (949) 474-0809. Sincerely, RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC Robert Kahn, P.E. Principal Registered Civil Engineer 20285 Registered Traffic Engineer 0555 RK. dt!RK i 2304. doc JN:2390-2017-01 5 Rogier Goedecke President Ronald Kemp From: Sent: To: Subject: Good Afternoon Mr. Delano, Ronald Kemp Monday, July 10, 2017 2:26 PM 'everett@delanoanddelano.com' Pacific Wind Project and Appeal All.Receive,. Agendli~Jf- For the Information of the: Cl1Y COUNCIL. . .. ACM v CA ~J-.1 ~1 Date 7./jQ/jj City Manager The city is in receipt of July 10 letter to the city council regarding the above. It is being distributed to the city council. The power point presentation you sent earlier today has already been distributed this morning. Your letter of July 6 was distributed to the city council with the staff report on Friday July 7. Unfortunately it was received too late to be part of the published staff report, but will be available to the public at the meeting. Ronald Kemp Assistant City Attorney i) ,:JT',' ,::,; CARLSBAD Office of the City Attorney CONFIDENTIALllY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipients(s) and may contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or other applicable privileges or confidentiality laws or regulations. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message or any of the information contained in this message to anyone. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. 1 ¼' i' ~ DELANO & DELANO VIA E-MAIL Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 · July 10, 2017 Re: Pacific Wind Project: SOP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: This letter is submitted on behalf of Carlsbad Alliam;:e for Responsible Development e'CARD") in connection with the proposed Pacific Wind project ("Project") and CARD's appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Project (" Appeal"). In a July 6, 2017 letter, I identified several problems with the Project, including its inconsistency with several General Plan goals and objectives, the failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (""CEQA"), and the waste of public funds. Municipal Code Section l.20.080(c) provides: "'Correspondence concerning a matter on an agenda for consideration by the council, which is received prior to twelve noon on Thursday preceding the meeting, shall be made a part of the agenda item." My letter and a letter from a traffic expert were submitted to the City Council, City Clerk, and City staff prior to noon on the 6th, yet neither letter is included in the agenda packet available on the City's website. Furthermore, the staff report contains several inaccuracies. For example, the staff report rejects the notion that the Project will be expanded to include additional units in the future. As the California Supreme Court noted, environmental analysis must include a discussion of the impacts of"past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects." Laurel Heights Improvement Ass 'n. v. Regents of the University of California ( 1988) 4 7 Cal.3d 376,394 (quotingCEQA Guidelines§ 15130(b){l)(A)) (emphasis in Laurel Heights). ''Environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones -which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences." Bozungv. LAFCO, 13 Cal.3d 263,283 -84 (1975). Despite the staffreporfs representation to the contrary, the attached email from the applicant clearly indicates an intention to develop further units. City of Carlsbad July 10, 2017 Page 2 of3 The staff report also rejects the notion that cumulative impacts will be significant "Proper cumulative impact analysis is vital <because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.'" Bakersfield Citizens for Local Conh·ol v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (quoting Communities for a Better Environment v. Caltfornia Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114). Here, whether the later phase(s) are considered part of the Project itself or not, their impacts will be cumulatively considerable. The staff report reje-ets considerations of views and aesthetic impacts. Yet views of the coast from public rights of way are available across the Project site, and they "will be negatively affected. And as the analysis submitted to the City Council and City Clerk on Friday shows, the Project will create impacts to shading and community character, particularly in light of its close proximity to homes on Jefferson Street. The staff report claims the Project will not have a significant impact on traffic and parking, reasorung that studies of other affordable housing projects reveal a lower level of vehicle usage. But as the comments from a traffic expert noted, in each of those other situations, the projects were located adjacent to substantial transit opportunities. The staff report claims the Site is near a bus stop, but this is misleading. As the attached schedule for the Route 325 bus shows, the route runs only occasionally in the neighborhood (approximately once per hour).1 In the other projects analyzed, substantial transit opportunities are available in the immediate vicinity. For example, as the attached map shows, the "Parkview" project in San Marcos is locat~d along the SPRINTER line. The staff report claims the Project is consistent with certain General Plan policies. \\lhile this might be somewhat accurate, my July 6th letter identified 28 goals and policies the Project violates. These include goals and policies that are specifically designed to improve transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, yet the Project fails to implement any of these requirements. 1 Public Resources Code Section 21099 defines "Transit Priority Area" to mean: "an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to" certain federal regulations. Section 21064.3 defines "Major transit stop" to mean "a site containing an ex1sting rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes w"ith a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods." The Site does not meet definition of a Transit Priority Area and the only bus stop in the area is far from meeting the definition of a Major transit stop. City of Carlsbad July 10, 2017 Page 3 of3 And for all the reasons previously discussed, the requested permits are inappropriate and should not be issued. The Project is not properly related to the site, surroundings and the environment. The Project will be detrimental to existing development and uses. The Project will adversely impact the surrounding area and environment. The Site is inadequate to support the Project. The existing street and transportation systems are inadequate to handle the Project's impacts. Ac-eordingly, CARD requests you grant the appeal and reject the Project. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. Everett DeLano Encs. cc: Austin Silva, Planning Division M. Dare Delano Austin Silva ·~m: ....ent: To: Thursday, August 25, 2016 1:19 PM Scott Donnell Subject FW: Possible Phase 2 FYI, see below. From: Todd Cottle lmailto:todd@c~cdev.com] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 201612.:41 PM To: Austin Silva SUbject: RE: Possible Phase 2 Yes. We'il be rehabbing the units that remain in place. For the remaining parcel, we'd likely be developing at 25-30 du to the acre with the same or very similar product to what we have now. This is based upon parking of 1:1 for a lbd and 2:1 for 2 and 3 bd units. Including the street, there would be approximately .85 acres left to develop. This should yield around 21-25 additional units. This yield could go up if the parking requirements go down in the future.· Thanks Todd Cottle ~. & C Development Co., LLC .4211 Yorba St, Ste. 200 Tustin, CA 92780 714-2~7600 X250 todd@c-cdev.com From: Austin Silva [mailto:Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 11:06 AM To: Todd Cottle subject: Possible Phase 2 Todd, if you were to acquire the remaining parcel on Hardtng, do you have an idea of how many additional units you seek to build on the undeveloped properties? Also, are you going to be rehabbing the units that aren't going to be left in place? I believe I spoke to you before and you said were. Thanks, Austin Silva, A1CP Associate Planner P: 760-602'."4631 Qty of Carlsbad ~lanning Division l 3 2 5 I Carlsbad Village to College Blvd. SPRINTER Station M-F • SA Deslin~/Destinos· • MiraCosta College • Target • Walmart • T ri-Cily Medical Center • Plaza Camino Real UGEND/levenda Mop no! lo ;(0l2.,·'-:_ : , ·1 J _·, J -Roure/Ru1n Street/Calle • • • 1omomck trlpsj\/iojes por fomnmck Q frrne Point/Pun!o de Ttempo • LondmmkjSefull D Tronsfer/f rnn,bordo + Sl'Rl!ffiR S!TJ1ion/ Esmciones del SPRINiER See Roule 302 for Sunday/Holiday >ervice. Poro :;e,-vicio en dio; fes!ivos, ver el hororio de lo Ruto 302. • North County Coost~l Career Center • Carl~bad High School • Valley Middle. School • Carlsbad Slate· Beath Nonb umnty / (oosial Ct1teer (enter i . : Oceanside Blvd. •John Landes Park Rady Ou1dren's Hospital m 3 "' a Boord by Sllldent [enlar to go to Corisborl \ le \ a: TOSPR/NJfR ) 156 NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DlSTRICT Rider'~ Guide I GoNCTD.com EFFECJ1VE Fehn,,:iry 5, 2017 3 2 5 I Carlsbad Village to College Blvd. SPRINTER Station Bold denotes P.M. times/Horarios en negritas son en la tarde Monckly -Fridcay Eastbound to Cotlege Blvd. SPRINTER Station Chestnut Ave. Oceanside Bl. & Plaza Camino Vista Woy Thunder Dr. & Corlsbod Monroe St Real Transit & A'liroCosto & Avenido Village S tofion ( Carlsbad HS l Center Via Esmnrco Collage Vista Wfrf Del Oro 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5:22 -5:34 5:39 5:49 5:56 6:06a 5:52 -6:04 6:09 6:19 6:26 6:36 6:12 6:25 6:32 6:37 6:47 6:54 7:04 6:52 -7:05 7:10 7:20 7:28 7:38 7:12 7:29 7:37 7:42 7:52 8:00 8:10 7:52 -8:05 8:10 . 8:20 8:28 8:39 8:12 8:27 8:34 8:39 8:49 8:57 9:08 8:52 -9:06 9: 11 9:21 9:29 9:40 9:12 9:27 9:34 9:39 9:48 9:55 10:06 9:52 -10:06 10: 11 10:20 10:27 10:38 10:12 10:27 10:34 10:39 10:48 10:55 11 :06 10:52 -11 :07 11: 12 11 :21 11 :28 11 :39 11: 12 11 :27 11 :34 11 :39 11 :48 11:55 12;06p 11 :52 -12:07 12:12 12:21 12:28 12:39 12:12 12:29 12:36 12:42 12:51 12:58 1:08 12:52 -1:07 1:13 1:22 1:29 1:39 1:12 1:29 1:36 1:42 1:51 1:58 2:08 1:52 -2:08 2:14 2:23 2:32 2:42 2:12 2:30 2:39 2:45 2:54 3:03 3:13 2:52 -3:08 3:14 3:23 3:33 3:46 3:18 3:34 3:41 3:47 3:56 4:05 4:18 3:52 -4:08 4:14 4:23 4:32 4:45 4:12 4:28 4:35 4:41 4:50 4:59 5:12 4:52 -5:08 5:14 5:23 5:32 5:45 5:27 -5:43 5:49 5:58 6:07 6:20 5:54 -6:09 6:15 6:24 6:33 6:46 6:16 6:32 6:39 6:45 6:54 7:03 7:16 6:52 -7:05 7:10 7:18 7:26 7:38 i 7:26 -7:39 7:44 7:52 8:00 8:12 I 8:22 -8:34 8:39 8:47 8:55 9:07 Route 325 does not operate on Sundays or holidays. la Ruta 325 no ofrece servicio domingos o dfas festivos. VALIDA 5 de febrero de 2017 NORTrl COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT Rider's Guide I GoNCTD.com 157 3 2 5 I Carlsbad Village to College Blvd. SPRINTER Station Bold denotes P.M. times/Horarios en negritos son en la tarde Monday • Friday Westbound to Carlsbad Village Chestnut Ave. & Monroe St. Cnrlsbod (Carlsbad HS) Village Stntion 5:23 5:30 5:37 5:43 5:50 5,56a 5:53 6:00 6:07 6:13 6:20 6:26 6:39 6:24 6:31 6:38 6:44 6:51 6:58 6:54 7:01 7:08 7:14 7:21 7:33 7:46 7:24 7:31 7:38 7:44 7:51 7:58 7:54 8:02 8: 11 8:18 8:25 8:31 8:44 8:24 8:32 8:41 8:48 8:55 9:03 8:54 9:02 9: 11 9:18 9:25 9:31 9:44 9:24 9:32 9:41 9:48 9:55 10:03 9:57 10:05 l 0:14 10:21 10:28 10:34 10:47 10:24 10:32 10:41 10:48 10:55 11 :03 10:54 11:02 1 1 : 1 l 11: 19 11 :27 11 :32 11 :45 11 :24 11 :32 11 :41 11 :49 11 :57 12:06p 11 :54 12:02 12:11 12:19 12:28 12:33 12:45 12:24 12:32 12:41 12:49 12:58 1:07 12:54 1:02 1:11 1:19 1:28 1:33 1:45 1:24 1:32 1:41 1:49 1:58 2:07 1:54 2:02 2:11 2:19 2:28 2:33 2:45 2:24 2:32 2:41 2:49 2:57 3:06 2:46 2:54 3:03 3:11 3:19 3:26 3:39 3:24 3:32 3:41 3:49 3:57 4:06 3:54 4:02 4:11 4:19 4:27 4:34 4:47 4:24 4:32 4:42 4:50 4:58 5:06 4:54 5:02 5:12 5:20 5;28 5:36 5:24 5:31 5:40 5:48 5:56 6:02 6:13 5:54 6:01 6:10 6:18 6:26 6:34 6:24 6:31 6:39 6:46 6:54 7:02 6:54 7:01 7:09 7:16 7:24 7:32 7:24 7:31 7:39 7:46 7:54 8:01 8:24 8:31 8:39 8:46 8:54 9:01 Route 325 does not operate on Sundays or holidays. La Ruta 325 no ofrece servicio domingos o dios festivos. # Boord westbound route 325 buses on south side of Oceanside Blvd. by Pando Express. Aborde autobuses de la ruta 325 hacio el oeste en el !ado sur de Oceanside Blvd. cerca de Panda Express. 158 NORTH COU~-fiY TRANSIT DISTRICT Rider's Guide I GoNCTD.corn EFFEC11VE February 5, 2017 3 2 5 I Carlsbad Village to College Blvd. SPRINTER Station Bold denotes P.M. times/Horarios en negritas son en la tarde Saturday Eastbound to College Bl"d, SPRINTER Station Chestnut Ave. Oceanside Bl. & Plaza Camino V'istu Woy Thunder Dr. & Carlsbad Monroe St. Real Transit & Miro(osta & Avenido Village Station (Carlsbad HS) Center Via Esmorco College Vistn Way . Dal Oro 1 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 t 7:22 -7:35 7:42 7:51 7:56 8:08a 8:22 -8:36 8:43 8:52 8:57 9:09 9:12 9:29 9:37 9:44 9:53 9:58 10:10 10:22 -10:36 10:44 10:53 11:00 11: 12 11 :22 -11 :37 11 :45 11 :54 12:01 12:13p 12:12 12:30 12:37 12:45 12:54 1:01 1 :13 1:22 -1:38 1:45 1:54 2:00 2:10 2:22 -2:38 2:45 2:54 3:00 3:10 3:12 3:31 3:39 3:46 3:55 4:01 4:11 4:22 -4:38 4:45 4:54 5:00 5:10 l 5:22 -5:37 5:44 5:53 5:59 6:09 6:22 -6:37 6:44 6:53 6:59 7:09 Route 325 does not operate on Sundays or holidays. La Ruta 325 no ofrece servido domingos o dias festivos. VALIDA 5 de febrero de 2017 NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT Rider's Guide I GoNCTD.com 159 3 2 5 I Carlsbad Village to College Blvd. SPRINTER Station Bold denotes P.M. times/Horarios en negritos son en la tarde Saturday Westbound to Carlsbad Village Chestnut Ave. & Mooroe St. Corlsbod ( Carlsbad HS) Village Station 7:22 7:30 7:39 7:46 7:55 8:03a 8:22 8:30 8:39 8:46 8:55 9:05 9:22 9:30 9:39 9:46 9:55 10:05 10:20 10:28 10:37 10:44 10:53 11:00 11:12 11 :22 11 :31 11 :40 11 :47 11 :58 12:0Sp 12:22 12:31 12:40 12:47 12:58 1:08 1:19 1:28 1:37 1:44 1:55 2:00 2:12 2:23 2:31 2:40 2:47 2:58 3:08 3:23 3:31 3:41 3:47 3:57 4:06 4:23 4:31 4:41 4:47 4:57 5:03 5:15 5:23 5:31 5:41 5:47 5:57 6:06 6:23 6:31 6:41 6:47 6:57 7:06 Route 325 does not operate on Sundays or holidays. la Ruta 325 no ofrece servicio domingos o dfas festivos. # Board westbound route 325 buses on south side of Oceanside Blvd. by Pando Express. Aborde autobuses de lo ru!a 325 hacio el oeste en el !ado _sur de Oceanside Bfvd. cerca de Panda Express. 160 NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT Rider's Guide I GoNCTD.com EFFECI1VE February 5, 2017 7/10/2017 40 W San Marcos Blvd ~ Google Maps Go gle Maps 40 W San Marcos Blvd ir-;i.J I:] fr1!.111lfJ~alJ, r.r,,11 W11,dr.(u filnrwr 0 ."\parlnmnlu i.~ J/ '1i'. ~ Q NAPA /\u10 Pl!l l'i · Auto 11orlo rm, \LD·3"15) 0 ~y ~ . "'f!f)l-.;-t11,111t, ~1r11,cu1t:;1Ub hl.1.111rn:h .... h,;_1 ,, ,.,. A11arltnei1I~ G: ·" E ~ {;) tJ .. -:::. -.11.t',,r0:1rl\Urill($ .B ll•,1-1 . .., O .,~ i;,r ·Q ~· ,. ,E R'i~/1n1,J.r •h•11 ~ · f11r-:1t11iar)\1,'4, f/Q%,1,,,, ;!• 0 AllertOrothL·lt. Mottu,uy JJ· ,., ~ 01? & £? ,, '" _Jg ~~ ,, Iii li1Jflm1n ~1~ l l,:j/(_111,,,,1 . . , . . . f~A. r,,,.lfd'¼1;.):~~t1cm flf.} m /",\t\11n1n·ot Au,;,i11i1t.1t ::;§ .7! ,1' .,. !/ 5 -N r11,111J Doi 0.,, t;' j _ ... o ~ ~ ,t @ii .. i~ . "' 'i/ ,'i' 5 , In}~~, ~l,,t,:,0111/;J _ .r " E . ' , •• ,.,, •• : • .... ,<I . lfal ' ,'.j ' • '"• R.,,r,,1,, . n-M,,,tlon n,1 Cl -i "· IJ'tr:-fm1,rr11~'r• 1!:: • "'""'" bi nuur,, .. r··~-. . []@ . ' •·lf ~. ,,+:·', <' ~ lr1,;kflr1 . ... ,11,r,~,,i,J'1J,, \, 1/.11,1.·l'ri.iij-Jl ~; 12'\ US Pont Ollice C) .fi'lclmwrA ... ,, a, ,, "" : ... :l-t .w.1v,,t:i1<>n Ua ;:f 0 l~up,~ Jr)tufri hu11 @rJ O J-[l~'oit!II (/) 't> ~ ,g :~· ijj I'll 1? 8 Ml:rntun V/e1.v ApWIIH(!!II!! 0 · 0 \lrf:.'·1'111,,}·,\ 0 ' · _ .?, f >\l~~~'(nn 1ra. , .... ! "'",•,.,,., .. et ... , J 1a~ 'fl,,~~ t,1l\',\j',j\\.'5·1· $. _.,, lfayIJ n. Gldo JJ Club Sml Mmrnt. ''.-, 0 !i t1 y 'i\ ~li!J~1:HII} Ll1i011!~ G\i OIIW1 Twc MIinor Son Mmc,)tl Unlflo~ rid,ool Ololllr:1 ,;_;" ., •• w .. ta.. Mvetio• lloulav•rd l!l --. r~~ ~ '.!~7.~~~~1':-:;~;,~~~tm. ,.,,. . ·~!, on :td lE4J ~v . ' {-,!i~~PrihHI. 1~~1-, h110.utl'l1.11l lrd,\, Sn,~ ri11rco1J 01011d1 UUraty (!) . , .. 1.0 ~~ ,,,,,,.•1,,11,'··'''''v.v"1 'i· r· ~ O' lllil :z -; 0 ;\'>,\'4t:, !i sun ~l1~\1•0 • ,f,\C:j t~\ C\'IV;(,t:, 0 F1/•11d• al 11011 M•rt~s \~)\\! \VJ(l ?..._., \:11.,,11 7fJ <•· () 'lh-o f-1/JfllC' o,.,pol fit\l[.~)ti-(\\'~r\ 1['1'?.J;},1\' I !J.i ~K ., ·5 B -rr: ,( Q f~iu'i1 NO\'/'.I. •. GL ~1'-'·'~,,,:t~ 1,,:.\.h\~/_.,\o \r~llflr \I!! . -0~,1\'l<I '!ill~·,~\'\ ,f,OtC " 0 Srm Mnn.:oi.r 11orior Alia1urn1111~ "' •., ~ . .:;; lAfllno••O ,o.;,";>-i'~;-1~s-1\td'• Gull101 nlu .AU S1nr fJJ\Mtieudit~r, (jJ "' ,, \~ ,..,cr.:1.11111ld',; [;lwwon O "' ;:1 ,.,f\\'lfl wll l.:1111·.:lr r.a r'I, Cjfj;''.Jl] ,~., r,t1J1l1,JLitr.. J\,''l('.;011 _A, •Ni_;,:(l(1t ~~ '11 f~o,,Jltj P,1, ... r1ona1,, ,.~·,,,fl"' C11t11fllntJ Wt11ld A ~;.!:. t.'ll San M~!CO'.l · Pml~·-,.., ~~ 1-11Jam,_ 1111.,,. ro~IW'" ,,.11.:i'\'\)}.'\\t• 0 Vllh,n::;:;~~!~~~: 0 Q Dtnd1m1·1t~ Apri1Un<.wt11 Q Orhll Solt ~;10,ar.11.1 Go gle rw1ri'011h -V•//ey 7:l o. z .. , ~--s f'I r, a: ,_ "' il a' .,, fflt1·0M '\ti',,;1l.J!J,li1:1l1 f-,H.ltllf . Wei, 1iooor1, 0 Cmpornl~ i.11flco 0 (;J)l'TlfYfUI Lutl1rniu1.Ch1.1 Cl Ca\Uornl• i'.:ollooo Q .SnniJlll-gr:i •)•, r,~,,l!Jori. n, non.r.,ni,;:rot\\Jt m ~1,,o_\\C~'\'ut_f;f. \,) 11003\,l'f (~J ~~\:,•\ 1:1!1 r:c,.,ir«"';;,\ 1,. Map data ©2017 Google 200 ft '----J LU---,, ........ ---"1---~'"'M"'"'"""'An+w+~An+M::ircos+Blvd.+San+Marcos,+CA+92069!@33, 1418153,~ 117.166273, 17z/(lata=!4m5!3m41'1s0xB0db8aaf848o5dd7:0x131c253f1855s6cl8m213d33.1411... 1/1 ~ CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mayor Matt Hall 5934 Priestly Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 931-8400 T (760) 931-9153 F www.carlsbad.org Members of the Carlsbad City Council July 11, 2017 Dear Mayor Hall: 5934 Priestly Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 931-8400 T (760) 931-9153 F www.carlsbad.org I am writing to endorse the Pacific Wind housing development before you for approval tonight. The Chamber of Commerce is supportive of affordable housing as a benefit that allows companies to grow in our city by affording housing for their employees. Pacific Wind's location on the West side of Interstate 5 will provide much needed housing for families in the Barrio and within close distance to shopping and working in the village. The project will provide new housing with rents restricted to 30-60% of the Area Median Income which fits more appropriately in the budget of employees who service the Carlsbad Village. Rental pricing will range from $560 to 1,350 which allows participating renters with additional discretionary income to spend locally. The Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce recommends enthusiastically the Pacific Wind project. Ted Owen President & CEO Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce towen@carlsbad.org (760) 931-8400 ext. 206 1-))-17 Pacific Wind SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 Grounds for Appeal (CMC Section 21.54.150) •Burden of proof is on the appellant to establish,by substantial evidence,that grounds for the Planning Commission decision exists. •City Council is limited to whether there was an error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission in that the decision was not supported by the facts presented to the Planning Commission prior to the decision being appealed. Subject Property Subject Property Subject Property Background •The City Council authorized financial assistance ($7.4 million) to Harding Street Neighbors to acquire duplex units in the Barrio. •The intent was to consolidate the parcels and construct a high density affordable housing development. Background Continued •The initial development proposal was 120 units on 4.8 acres with an abandonment for a larger portion of Harding Street and all of Carol Place. •The development was scaled back to 93 units over 4.04 acres. Project Description •Demolition of 44 residential units •Construct 93 apartment units (92 affordable) •Five, three-story residential buildings and a community recreation building •Street abandonment for a portion of Harding Street Parking Modification •Less restrictive development standards are allowed for affordable housing developments if they are in conformity with the General Plan and adopted policies and goals of the city, and it would have no detrimental effect on public health, safety and welfare (C.M.C 21.53.120(B)) Parking Modification Continued Unit Type/Number of Units Parking Ratio Spaces Required Spaces Provided Comply 1 bedroom (21)1.5 spaces/unit 31.5 21 No (Standards Modification is requested) 2 plus bedrooms (72)2 space unit 144 144 Guest parking .25 space/unit 23.25 0 Total = 199 165 Project Consistency •R-30 General Plan land use designation •Residential-Multiple (RD-M) zoning designation •Coastal Development Regulations •Site Development Plan Ordinance •Inclusionary Housing Ordinance •State of California Subdivision Map Act •Growth Management Ordinance Jefferson Street Perspective Harding Street Perspective Typical Building Elevation CEQA Determination Appellant •CEQA Determination relies on Section 15194 (Affordable Housing) without offering support. •The project does not qualify for Section 15194 because it’s more than 100 units. Staff Response •The project was more than 100 units when originally envisioned •The project was scaled back because of the inability to acquire a parcel on Harding St. •There is no second phase proposed. Compatibility & Coastal Views Appellant •The apartment buildings are not compatible with the surrounding development because of height and proximity to property lines. •The project would block views of the coastline from public lands or public rights-of-way. Staff Response •The project exceeds the setback requirements and the project was conditioned to lower the height of a portion of Building 4. •The project is not located near any public lands or rights-of - way with views of the coastline. Parking Appellant •There is not enough parking for the current residents and guests. •“It is ridiculous to contend that an increase in density would necessitate a decrease in parking.” •The project site is not close to transit. Staff Response •Multiple studies support a decrease in parking requirements for affordable housing. •The proposed parking is consistent with density bonus parking standards. •The last three affordable housing projects approved had parking reductions. •The project site is within close proximity to transit, goods and services. Recently Approved Affordable Apartment Projects Project Name Total Parking Required Total Parking Provided Percentage Decrease Oak Veteran’s Housing 43 23 46.5% Harding Veteran’s Housing 49 24 51% Quarry Creek 138 117 15.2% Impacts to Quality of Life Appellant •The neighbors will suffer a decrease in the quality of life due to noise, odors, lights, open windows, blockage of sunlight, loss of privacy and reduction in air quality. Staff Response •Residential noise is associated with devices or activities that are intermittent. The area already experiences these noise since it’s developed with residential units. •Residential uses are not known generators of unpleasant odors. •There are no lights proposed that would be directed at existing residences. Impacts to Quality of Life Continued Appellant •The neighbors will suffer a decrease in the quality of life due to noise, odors, lights, open windows, blockage of sunlight, loss of privacy and reduction in air quality. Staff Response •The proposed buildings exceed setback requirements and the a portion of Building 4 was reduced to 2 stories. •Additional trees were added for landscape screening. •The project is in compliance with the city’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). Gates Appellant •Abandoning Harding Street and gating the development prevents the community from accessing Harding St. from Jefferson St. •The site should remain “open” so the public can have access to Harding St. for ingress, egress, and parking. Staff Response •Harding can still be accessed via Jefferson St. rather than Carol Pl. Street parking on Harding St. is primarily for the residents along that portion of the street. •The applicant has offered to keep pedestrian gates open during the day for access through the site from Carol Pl. to Harding St. Traffic Impact Traffic Impact •The city provides zero analysis that there are no “unusual circumstances or cumulative impacts that would result in significant impacts.” •The project destroys circulation by vacating Harding St. •The traffic study does not take into account developments currently or soon-to-be underway in the Barrio. Staff Response •There is no evidence from the appellant that there would be a significant traffic impact. •Traffic study required for projects generating a net increase of more than 500 Average Daily Trips (ADT). •The traffic study found an average of 171 vehicles per day would be rerouted to Jefferson Street. •Traffic study took into account “developments currently or soon-to- be underway” and also a “Horizon” analysis that determines long-range (20+ years) traffic conditions. Abandonment of a Portion of Harding Street Appellant •The abandonment does not meet the requirements of the Streets and Highways Code. •Harding St. would be gifted to the developer without just compensation. Staff Response •The abandonment is being processed in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. •The property underlying the street is owned by the developer and compensation is unwarranted. Abandonment of a Portion of Harding Street Continued Appellant •There will be no access into or out of the southern part of the Barrio if an incident occurred that blocks Jefferson St. between Magnolia Ave. and Anchor Wy. •The closing of Harding St. will impact emergency personnel during school pick-up and drop- off hours. Staff Response •Motorists south of a potential incident could exit the area by accessing Jefferson St. or Anchor Wy. Motorists north of the incident could travel north via Magnolia Ave. to Harding S., Madison St. or Roosevelt St. •The Fire and Police Departments reviewed the development plans and have no concerns regarding access. Abandonment of Carol Place Appellant •In the appeal, the appellant correctly explained that staff objected to the abandonment of Carol Place without making specific findings. Staff Response •No findings were made because the abandonment of Carol Place was removed from the project. Recommendation That the City Council ADOPT a City Council Resolution DENYING the appeal and UPHOLDING the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Site Development Plan SDP 15-18/Coastal Development Permit CDP 16-04/Minor Subdivision MS 16-01 based on the findings contained therein. Parking Table Source Units Parking Rate Spaces Required City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (Chapter 21.44 –Parking) 1 BR 21 1.5 31.5 2 BR 18 2.0 36 3 BR 54 2.0 108 Visitor 93 total units .25 23.25 Total 199 City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (Chapter 21.86 –Density Bonus Parking Standards) 1 BR 21 1.0 21 2 BR 18 2.0 36 3 BR 54 2.0 108 Total 165 City of San Diego Affordable Housing Parking Study “Low/Suburban Rates” 1 BR 21 1 21 2 BR 18 1.3 23.4 3 BR 54 1.75 94.5 Visitor/Staff 93 total units .2 18.6 Total 158 Parking Table Continued Source Units Parking Rate Spaces Required C & C Development Owned Properties 1 BR 21 .64 13.44 2 BR 18 1.41 25.38 3 BR 54 1.81 97.74 Total 137 Glen Ridge Parking Survey 1 BR 21 33.39 2 BR 18 28.62 3 BR 54 85.86 Total 1.59 Total 148 Hunter’s Pointe Parking Survey 1 BR 21 1.17 24.57 2 BR 18 1.17 21.06 3 BR 54 1.17 63.18 Total 1.59 Total 109 May weekday 1 PM May weekend 9 AM July weekday 7 PM July weekend 7 PM 93 Unit New Affordable Community July 11, 2017 City Council Meeting PACIFIC WIND APARTMENTS ABOUT THE DEVELOPER •C&C and IHO are full service real estate development companieswith over 40 years of trusted experience. This experience has taught us to approach every project with the long-term in mind. •Through quality of design and construction, we are not only developing projects to be successful today, we’re developing projects that will remain successful 10, 20, and 30 years into the future. •C&C and IHO take a hands-on approach to all aspects of the real estate development process: acquisition, entitlement, financing, construction, management, and ownership. •Committed to providing high-quality developments with responsive management services to create and preserve successful housing. •We have a proven track record of successfully self managing and operating projects on a long-term basis. •We focus on the long-term stability of every project. C&C and IHO have never sold an affordable community that we have developed. HOW DO WE MANAGE OUR PROPERTIES? •Advanced Property Services, LLC (APS), is a wholly owned subsidiary of C&C, and was formed in 1974 to manage C&C’s affordable communities. •APS is a full-service property management company that manages multifamily communities, including both workforce family and senior communities. •Creating and maintaining long-term, quality, work force housing. APS takes responsibility very seriously and works to provide the best housing for its residents. •APS maintains a commitment to all of its residents and the surrounding community, managing properties to the highest standards possible and providing a safe place to live. The goal is to have residents feeling good about where they live, and APS accomplishes this by being open and responsive to any concerns. THANK YOU INFORMATIONAL SITE PLANCOMMUNITY BLDG. - FLOOR PLANSCOMMUNITY BLDG. - COLORED FRONT ELEVATIONCOMMUNITY BLDG. - FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONSCOMMUNITY BLDG. - LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONS, ROOF PLANBUILDING 2 - GROUND FLOOR PLANBUILDING 2 - SECOND FLOOR PLANBUILDING 2 - THIRD FLOOR PLANBUILDING 2 - COLORED FRONT ELEVATIONBUILDING 2 - FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONSBUILDING 2 - LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONS, ROOF PLANBUILDING 3 & 6 - GROUND FLOOR PLANBUILDING 3 & 6 - SECOND FLOOR PLANBUILDING 3 & 6 - THIRD FLOOR PLANBUILDING 3 & 6 - COLORED FRONT ELEVATIONBUILDING 3 & 6 - FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONSBUILDING 3 & 6 - LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONS, ROOF PLANBUILDING 4 - GROUND FLOOR PLANBUILDING 4 - SECOND FLOOR PLANBUILDING 4 - THIRD FLOOR PLANBUILDING 4 - COLORED FRONT ELEVATIONBUILDING 4 - FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONSBUILDING 4 - LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONS, ROOF PLANBUILDING 5 - GROUND FLOOR PLANBUILDING 5 - SECOND FLOOR PLANBUILDING 5 - THIRD FLOOR PLANBUILDING 5 - COLORED FRONT ELEVATIONBUILDING 5 - FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONSBUILDING 5 - LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONS, ROOF PLANTRASH ENCLOSUREMAINTENANCE BUILDINGCARPORTSCONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANLANDSCAPE NOTES, LEGEND & OPEN SPACE DETAILSEXISTING TREE SURVEY AND DETAILSCONCEPTUAL WATER CONSERVATION PLANCONCEPTUAL MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITYCONCEPTUAL REMOVAL PLANCONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT PLANMINOR SUBDIVISION HARDING STREET PARCELPROPOSED PROJECT OVERLAY PLANCONCEPTUAL FIRE MASTER PLANSHEET INDEXOWNER/DEVELOPER:HARDING STREET NEIGHBORS, LPCONTACT: TODD COTTLE 14211 YORBA ST., SUITE 200BUSINESS: (714) 288-7600TUSTIN, CA 92780OWNER/DEVELOPER:INNOVATIVE HOUSING OPPORTUNITESCONTACT: ROCHELLE MILLS 19772 MACARTHUR BLVD., SUITE 110BUSINESS: (949) 863-9740IRVINE, CA 92612ARCHITECT / PLANNER:BASSENIAN / LAGONICONTACT: TERESSA OEHRLEIN 2031 ORCHARD DRIVEBUSINESS: (949) 553-9100NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660CIVIL ENGINEER:SO CAL CIVIL SOLUTIONS, INC.CONTACT: JOHN DEYKES 26131 VIA OCEANOBUSINESS: (949) 322-3657MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:M. ZAKI DESIGN, INC..CONTACT: MOHAMED ZAKI 4670 SARATOGA AVE. #3BUSINESS: (619) 255-1802SAN DIEGO, CA 92107OUR TEAMSP - 1A - 1.1A - 1.2A - 1.3A - 1.4A - 2.1A - 2.2A - 2.3A - 2.4A - 2.5A - 2.6A - 3.1A - 3.2A - 3.3A - 3.4A - 3.5A - 3.6A - 4.1A - 4.2A - 4.3A - 4.4A - 4.5A - 4.6A - 5.1A - 5.2A - 5.3A - 5.4A - 5.5A - 5.6A - 6.1A - 7.1A - 8.1LP - 1LP - 2LP - 3LP - 4LP - 5C - 1C - 2C - 3C - 4C - 5ARCHITECTURALLANDSCAPECIVILC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\DESIGN\4263COVER SHEET.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 3J:\GROUP13\69514263\DESIGN\4263COVER SHEET.DWGC O V E R S H E E TSDP 15-18 /CDP 16-04 /MS 16- 01 15.0'16.0'19.1'60.0'60.0' 20.4' 21.1' 20.5'22.2'10.8'18.0 '17.5'24.0' 24.0'28.0'28.0'14.7'10.0'21.0'23.7'tel. +1 949 553 9100fax +1 949 553 05482031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100Newport Beach, CA USA 926602031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100tel. +1 949 553 9100fax +1 949 553 0548Newport Beach, CA USA 92660N o r t hScale : 1"= 30'J e f f e r s o n S t r e e tGated EntryM a g n o l i a A v e n u e 5 Freeway10' Rear SetbackRecreationBuildingSite Summary:General Plan LandUse Designation : R-30Zoning Designation : RD-MNo. of Existing Homes : 44Site Area : ± 4.04 AcresDensity : ± 23.0 Homes/AcreTotal Homes : 93 1-Bed Units : 21 (22.6%) 2-Bed Units : 18 (19.4%) 3-Bed Units : 54 (58.0%)H2-BedE.V.A.22-Bed3-Bed3-Bed2-Bed2-Bed3-Bed3-Bed1-Bed3-Bed30'x15'MaintenanceBuildingHC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6Copyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 1 7 5I N F O R M A T I O N A L S I T E P L A N0 30 6015SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"SP-13-Bed1-Bed3-Bed1-Bed3-Bed1-Bed1-BedC a r o l P l a c e H a r d i n g S t r e e tH3456Parking Required : 1:1 Spaces/1-Bed Units : 21 x 1 = 21 2:1 Spaces/2&3-Bed Units : 72 x 2 = 144 Total Spaces Required = 165Parking Provided :Carport Spaces Provided : 93Uncovered Spaces : 72 Total Spaces Provided : 1651Tot-Lot(2-5 yr.)1-Bed3-Bed3-Bed3-Bed2-Bed3-Bed3-Bed3-Bed2-Bed3-Bed3-Bed3-Bed3-BedLaundry Room onFirst Floor1-Bed. onSecond Floor1-Bed. onFirst Floor1-Bed. onSecond FloorTot-Lot(5-12 yr.)123456789101112131415242322212019252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566697071726867161718123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233505152535455565758No parkingallowed in thecul-de-sac bulbTrash EnclosureCarportsTrash Enclosure596061626364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485868788899091929334353637383940414243444546474849HHHalf Basketball CourtMS 16-01Fire TruckFire TruckFire Truck Fire Truck Swing GatesSliding Gate 50'-0"57'-6"PAN.OPERABLEACCORDIAN WALLCHILDREN'SLEARNING159142XOFFICE 2132110XOFFICE 1132110XLOBBY16482XTEACHINGKITCHEN196238XCOMMUNITYROOM196258XSTOR.D.W.D.W.D.O.REF.ELEVATORSTOR.MEN'SSLOPINGCEILINGNOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONPORCH279 SQ. FT.TOTAL3,344 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR753 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR2,591 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEADULTLEARNING /READING203370XDN22 ROPEN TOBELOWELEVATORC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 1.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 2 48J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 1.DWGF l o o r P l a n sS E C O N D F L O O RF I R S T F L O O RA-1.1C O M M U N I T Y B U I L D I N G (B L D G. 1)WINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW. FRONT12'-1"9'-1"± 33'-0" REARC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 2 . 0 6 . 1 7J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 1 ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 2 48J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 1 ELEV.DWGE l e v a t i o n sA-1.3C O M M U N I T Y B U I L D I N G (B L D G. 1)OA. FLAT CONCRETE TILEB. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOORC. SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOD. HORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGE. COMPOSITE SHINGLESF. COMPOSITE SHUTTERG. DECORATIVE GABLE END DETAILH. SIMULATED WOOD, SHAPED FOAMCORBELI. WOOD RAFTERJ. STONE VENEERK. BRICK TRIML. FOAM TRIMM. DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTUREN. HARDI PANELO. WOOD POSTP. METAL RAILINGQ. DECORATIVE CHIMNEY CAPR. WOOD FASCIAS. VINYL WINDOWSANEHDJKRLS LEFT12'-1"9'-1"± 33'-0"RIGHTROOF PLANPITCH: 7.5:12RAKE: 12"EAVE: 18"ROOF MATERIAL: FLAT CONCRETE TILE3.5:12 3.5:12C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 1 ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 2 48J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 1 ELEV.DWGC O M M U N I T Y B U I L D I N G (B L D G. 1)E l e v a t i o n sA-1.4 KIT.REF.D.W.MASTER BED110140XMASTER BED116143XREF.KIT.PATIOWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.LIVING /DINING215119XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110140XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XPATIOPATIOWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATH156'-8"81'-6"6'-10"28'-10"28'-10"6'-10"4'-3 1/2"24'-5"37'-9"8'-7"2'-3 1/2"UP16 R UP16 R UP16 RLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING120230XMASTER BED110140XSTORAGESTORAGESTORAGEACACACACACACUP16 R UTILITY CLOSET UTILITY CLOSETW/HW/HF/R5'-0"5'-0"8'-7"1 - BED722 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.LIVING /DINING120230XPATIOSTORAGEWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.D.W.LIVING /DINING215119XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110140XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBED 3106104XPATIOPATIOWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.LIVING /DINING215119XMASTER BED110140XSTORAGESTORAGEBED 3106104XM.E.P.CHASEM.E.P.CHASEACUP16 R ACM.E.P.CHASEM.E.P.CHASEMAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE UP16 R D.W.MASTER BED116143XREF.KIT.PATIOWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.MASTERBATHLIVING /DINING120230XSTORAGE1 - BED722 SQ. FT.37'-9"8'-7"24'-5"C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 2A-2.1G r o u n d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW. OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWUP16 R UP16 R UP16 R ACDN16 R DN16 R DN16 R UP16 R DN16 R1 - BED722 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.ACACACACACKIT.REF.D.W.MASTER BED110140XMASTER BED116143XREF.KIT.PATIOWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.LIVING /DINING215119XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XPATIOPATIOWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING120230XMASTER BED110143XSTORAGESTORAGESTORAGELIVING /DINING120230XPATIOSTORAGEWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.D.W.LIVING /DINING215119XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBED 3106104XPATIOPATIOWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.LIVING /DINING215119XMASTER BED110143XSTORAGESTORAGEBED 3106104XM.E.P.CHASEM.E.P.CHASE1 - BED722 SQ. FT.PATIOSTORAGEACD.W.MASTER BED116143XREF.KIT.PATIOWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.MASTERBATHLIVING /DINING120230XSTORAGELIVING /DINING120230XMASTER BED116143XMASTERBATHWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.KIT.D.W.REF.DN16 RDN16 R OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWACC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 2A-2.2S e c o n d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW. DN16 R DN16 R DN16 R DN16 R OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOW3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.1 - BED722 SQ. FT.OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWACACACACACACKIT.REF.D.W.MASTER BED110140XMASTER BED116143XREF.KIT.PATIOWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.LIVING /DINING215119XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XPATIOPATIOWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING120230XMASTER BED110143XSTORAGESTORAGESTORAGELIVING /DINING120230XPATIOSTORAGEWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.D.W.LIVING /DINING215119XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBED 3106104XPATIOPATIOWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.LIVING /DINING215119XMASTER BED110143XSTORAGESTORAGEBED 3106104XM.E.P.CHASEM.E.P.CHASEC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 2A-2.3T h i r d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW. FRONT8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"34'-11"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.REAR8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"34'-11"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 2 . 0 6 . 1 7J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP ELEV.DWGA-2.5E l e v a t i o n sB U I L D I N G 2A.FLAT CONCRETE TILEB. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOORC. SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOD. HORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGE. COMPOSITE SHINGLESF. SIMULATED WOOD, SHAPED FOAMBRACKETG. DECORATIVE GABLE END DETAILH. SIMULATED WOOD, SHAPED FOAMCORBELI. WOOD RAFTERJ. STONE VENEERK. BRICK TRIML. FOAM TRIMM. DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTUREN. HARDI PANELO. WOOD POSTP. METAL RAILINGQ. DECORATIVE CHIMNEY CAPR. WOOD FASCIAS. VINYL WINDOWSLFDHCAENNNHPOKJLS LEFT34'-11"8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.RIGHT34'-11"8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.ROOF PLAN2PITCH: 7.5:12 U.N.O.RAKE: 12"EAVE: 18"ROOF MATERIAL: FLAT TILE3:123:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:123:123:12 3:12C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP ELEV.DWGA-2.6E l e v a t i o n sB U I L D I N G 2 LIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.PATIOPATIO81'-6"77'-4"2'-3 1/2"37'-9"23'-11"4'-3 1/2"6'-10"33'-10"33'-10"6'-10"9'-1"UP16 R UP16 RAC ACLIVING /DINING120230XD.W.REF.KIT.MASTERBATHMASTER BED116144XWALK-INCLOSET11 L.F.PATIOSTORAGEUTILITY CLOSETUTILITY CLOSET STORAGESTORAGEW/HW/HF/RACACLIVING /DINING120230XD.W.REF.KIT.MASTERBATHMASTER BED116144XWALK-INCLOSET11 L.F.PATIOSTORAGE1 - BED722 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 3 & 6A-3.1G r o u n d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW. LIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.DECKDECKOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWUP16 R UP16 R DN16 RDN16 R ACLIVING /DINING120230XD.W.REF.KIT.MASTERBATHMASTER BED116144XWALK-INCLOSET11 L.F.DECKSTORAGEACLIVING /DINING120230XD.W.REF.KIT.MASTERBATHMASTER BED116144XWALK-INCLOSET11 L.F.DECKSTORAGEACAC1 - BED722 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.BED 3106104XBED 3106104XSTORAGESTORAGEC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP.DWGA-3.2S e c o n d F l o o rB U I L D I N G 3 & 6WINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW. LIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.DECKDECKOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWDN16 R DN16 R OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWLIVING /DINING120230XD.W.REF.KIT.MASTERBATHMASTER BED116144XWALK-INCLOSET11 L.F.DECKSTORAGELIVING /DINING120230XD.W.REF.KIT.MASTERBATHMASTER BED116144XWALK-INCLOSET11 L.F.DECKSTORAGEACACACAC1 - BED722 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.BED 3106104XBED 3106104XSTORAGESTORAGEC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP.DWGA-3.3T h i r d F l o o rB U I L D I N G 3 & 6WINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW. FRONT8'-1"8'-1"8'-1" 34'-11" 7'-0" Hdr. Ht. 7'-0" Hdr. Ht. 7'-0" Hdr. Ht. 35'-0" Max. Ht.REAR8'-1"8'-1"8'-1" 34'-11" 7'-0" Hdr. Ht. 7'-0" Hdr. Ht. 7'-0" Hdr. Ht. 35'-0" Max. Ht.C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 2 . 0 6 . 1 7J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP ELEV.DWGB U I L D I N G 3 & 6A-3.5E l e v a t i o n sA.FLAT CONCRETE TILEB. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOORC. SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOD. HORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGE. COMPOSITE SHINGLESF. SIMULATED WOOD, SHAPED FOAMBRACKETG. DECORATIVE GABLE END DETAILH. SIMULATED WOOD, SHAPED FOAMCORBELI. WOOD RAFTERJ. STONE VENEERK. BRICK TRIML. FOAM TRIMM. DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTUREN. HARDI PANELO. WOOD POSTP. METAL RAILINGQ. DECORATIVE CHIMNEY CAPR. WOOD FASCIAS. VINYL WINDOWSLFDHCANNNHPOJ LEFT34'-11"8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.RIGHT34'-11"8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.ROOF PLAN3 & 6PITCH: 7.5:12 U.N.O.RAKE: 12"EAVE: 18"ROOF MATERIAL: FLAT TILE3:123:123:12 3:12 3:12 3:12C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP ELEV.DWGB U I L D I N G 3 & 6A-3.6E l e v a t i o n s LIVING /DINING215125XKIT.REF.D.W.PAN.LINENBED 2106104XMASTER BED110140XBA.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.BED 2106104XBA.MASTER BED110140XPAN.LINENREF.KIT.D.W.LIVING /DINING215125XPATIOWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.LIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.PATIOPATIOPATIOMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHPATIOPATIOBED 2110100XBED 2110100XLIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XBA. 2BA. 2BED 3106104XBED 3106104XPAN.PAN.KIT.KIT.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.MASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHPATIOPATIOBED 2110100XBED 2110100XLIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XBA. 2BA. 2BED 3106104XBED 3106104XPAN.PAN.KIT.KIT.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.167'-5"4'-3 1/2"29'-9"37'-9"37'-9"37'-9"2'-3 1/2"81'-6"6'-10"33'-10"6'-10"33'-10"9'-1"8'-7"UP16 R UP16 R UP16 R UP16 R STORAGE STORAGESTORAGE STORAGEACACACACACACACACUTILITY CLOSET UTILITY CLOSETW/HW/HF/RSTORAGESTORAGE2 - BED909 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 4A-4.1G r o u n d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW. LIVING /DINING215125XKIT.REF.D.W.PAN.LINENBED 2106104XMASTER BED110140XBA.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.BED 2106104XBA.MASTER BED110140XPAN.LINENREF.KIT.D.W.LIVING /DINING215125XDECKWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.LIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.DECKDECKDECKMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHDECKDECKBED 2110100XBED 2110100XLIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XBA. 2BA. 2PAN.PAN.KIT.KIT.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.MASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHDECKDECKBED 2110100XBED 2110100XLIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XBA. 2BA. 2PAN.PAN.KIT.KIT.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWUP16 R UP16 R UP16 R UP16 R STORAGE STORAGESTORAGE STORAGESTORAGESTORAGEACACACACACACACACDN16 R DN16 R DN16 R DN16 R2 - BED909 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.BED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 4A-4.2S e c o n d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW. LIVING /DINING215125XKIT.REF.D.W.PAN.LINENBED 2106104XMASTER BED110140XBA.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.BED 2106104XBA.MASTER BED110140XPAN.LINENREF.KIT.D.W.LIVING /DINING215125XDECKWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.LIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.DECKDECKDECKMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHDECKDECKBED 2110100XBED 2110100XLIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XBA. 2BA. 2PAN.PAN.KIT.KIT.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.MASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHDECKDECKBED 2110100XBED 2110100XLIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XBA. 2BA. 2PAN.PAN.KIT.KIT.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWDN16 R DN16 R DN16 R OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWSTORAGE STORAGESTORAGE STORAGESTORAGESTORAGEACACACACACACACACDN16 R2 - BED909 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.BED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 4A-4.3T h i r d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW. FRONT8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"34'-11"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.REAR8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"34'-11"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 2 . 0 6 . 1 7J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP ELEV.DWGB U I L D I N G 4A-4.5E l e v a t i o n sA.FLAT CONCRETE TILEB. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOORC. SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOD. HORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGE. COMPOSITE SHINGLESF. SIMULATED WOOD, SHAPED FOAMBRACKETG. DECORATIVE GABLE END DETAILH. SIMULATED WOOD, SHAPED FOAMCORBELI. WOOD RAFTERJ. STONE VENEERK. BRICK TRIML. FOAM TRIMM. DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTUREN. HARDI PANELO. WOOD POSTP. METAL RAILINGQ. DECORATIVE CHIMNEY CAPR. WOOD FASCIAS. VINYL WINDOWSOFHNCAELPJLNNDKS LEFT34'-11"8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.RIGHT34'-11"8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.3:12ROOF PLAN4PITCH: 7.5:12 U.N.O.RAKE: 12"EAVE: 18"ROOF MATERIAL: FLAT TILE3:123:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP ELEV.DWGB U I L D I N G 4A-4.6E l e v a t i o n s KIT.REF.D.W.PAN.LINENBED 2102104XMASTER BED110140XBA.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.BED 2102104XBA.MASTER BED110140XPAN.LINENREF.KIT.D.W.PATIOWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.LIVING /DINING215119XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110140XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.PATIOPATIOPATIOMASTER BED110140XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHPATIOPATIOBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBA. 2BA. 2BED 3106104XBED 3106104XPAN.PAN.KIT.KIT.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.PATIOPATIOMASTER BED110140XMASTER BED110140XBA.BA.BED 2102104XBED 2102104XKIT.KIT.REF.REF.D.W.D.W.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.PAN.PAN.LINENLINEN159'-11"81'-6"6'-10"33'-10"33'-10"6'-10"4'-3 1/2"29'-9"37'-9"37'-9"29'-9"2'-3 1/2"9'-1"9'-1"UP16 R UP16 R UP16 R LIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XMASTER BED110140XMASTER BED110140XSTORAGE STORAGESTORAGE STORAGEACACACACACACACACUP16 R UTILITY CLOSET UTILITY CLOSETW/HW/HF/R2 - BED909 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.2 - BED909 SQ. FT.C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 5A-5.1G r o u n d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW. KIT.REF.D.W.PAN.LINENBED 2106104XMASTER BED110140XBA.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.BED 2106104XBA.MASTER BED110140XPAN.LINENREF.KIT.D.W.DECKWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.DECKDECKDECKMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHDECKDECKBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBA. 2BA. 2PAN.PAN.KIT.KIT.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.DECKDECKMASTER BED110140XMASTER BED110140XBA.BA.BED 2106104XBED 2106104XKIT.KIT.REF.REF.D.W.D.W.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.PAN.PAN.LINENLINENOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWUP16 R UP16 R UP16 R LIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XSTORAGE STORAGESTORAGE STORAGEACACACACACACACACDN16 R DN16 R DN16 R UP16 R DN16 R2 - BED909 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.2 - BED909 SQ. FT.BED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 5A-5.2S e c o n d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW. KIT.REF.D.W.PAN.LINENBED 2106104XMASTER BED110140XBA.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.BED 2106104XBA.MASTER BED110140XPAN.LINENREF.KIT.D.W.DECKWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.DECKDECKDECKMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.DECKDECKBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBA. 2BA. 2PAN.PAN.KIT.KIT.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.DECKDECKMASTER BED110140XMASTER BED110140XBA.BA.BED 2106104XBED 2106104XKIT.KIT.REF.REF.D.W.D.W.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.PAN.PAN.LINENLINENOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWDN16 R DN16 R DN16 R DN16 R OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWMASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTERBATHLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XSTORAGE STORAGESTORAGE STORAGEACACACACACACACACLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119X2 - BED909 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.2 - BED909 SQ. FT.BED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 5A-5.3T h i r d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW. FRONT8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"34'-11"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.REAR8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"34'-11"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 2 . 0 6 . 1 7J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP ELEV.DWGB U I L D I N G 5A-5.5E l e v a t i o n sA.FLAT CONCRETE TILEB. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOORC. SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOD. HORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGE. COMPOSITE SHINGLESF. SIMULATED WOOD, SHAPED FOAMBRACKETG. DECORATIVE GABLE END DETAILH. SIMULATED WOOD, SHAPED FOAMCORBELI. WOOD RAFTERJ. STONE VENEERK. BRICK TRIML. FOAM TRIMM. DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTUREN. HARDI PANELO. WOOD POSTP. METAL RAILINGQ. DECORATIVE CHIMNEY CAPR. WOOD FASCIAS. VINYL WINDOWSORHNDCEALPJLNHHNKSF LEFT34'-11"8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.RIGHT34'-11"8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.ROOF PLAN2 & 5PITCH: 7.5:12 U.N.O.RAKE: 12"EAVE: 18"ROOF MATERIAL: FLAT TILE3:123:123:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP ELEV.DWGB U I L D I N G 5A-5.6E l e v a t i o n s 4 BIN TRASH ENCLOSURE4 YD. BIN(GARBAGE)12" WHEEL STOP17'-0"17'-0"4 YD. BIN(GARBAGE)4 YD. BIN(GARBAGE)4 YD. BIN(GARBAGE)STUCCOPAINTEDCORRUGATEDMETAL GATEW/3 - HINGES8'-1" 6'-8"CONCRETE FLATTILE ROOF5'-4"STUCCO8'-1" 6'-8"STUCCO8'-1"RIGHTSTUCCO8'-1" 6'-8"CONCRETE FLATTILE ROOFC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263 TRASH.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 2 48J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263 TRASH.DWGLEFT ELEVATIONFLOOR PLANFRONT ELEVATIONT R A S H E N C L O S U R EA-6.1RIGHT ELEVATIONSREAR ELEVATION MAINTENANCE BUILDING30'-0"15'-0"STUCCO9'-1"CONCRETE FLATTILE ROOFSTUCCO9'-1"STUCCO9'-1"RIGHTSTUCCO9'-1"CONCRETE FLATTILE ROOFC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263 MAINTENANCE BUILDING.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 2 48J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263 MAINTENANCE BUILDING.DWGLEFT ELEVATIONFLOOR PLANFRONT ELEVATIONM A I N T E N A N C E B U I L D I N GA-7.1RIGHT ELEVATIONREAR ELEVATION 18'-0"9'-0"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-0"2'-0" 20'-0"WOOD POST9'-1"CONCRETE FLATTILE ROOF12'-11"WOOD POST9'-1"12'-11"RIGHT9'-1"WOOD POST12'-11" 9'-1"C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263 CARPORT.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 2 48J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263 CARPORT.DWGLEFT ELEVATION6 STALL CARPORT PLANREAR ELEVATIONC A R P O R TA-8.1RIGHT ELEVATIONFRONT ELEVATION