Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-16; Planning Commission; ; Third Errata Sheet - GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue  Carlsbad, CA 92008  760-602-4600  760-602-8560 fax THIRD ERRATA SHEET FOR AGENDA ITEM #1 Memorandum May 16, 2018 To: Planning Commission From: Scott Donnell, Senior Planner Via Don Neu, City Planner Re: Third Errata Sheet for Agenda Item #1 – GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) – VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission include the following revisions to the Village and Barrio Master Plan (January 2018 Public Review Draft) to incorporate decisions made by the Planning Commission at the May 2, 2018 meeting. These revisions are in addition to those presented in the first and second errata. In some cases, changes from the earlier errata are also shown in the table below because they would be changed by this third errata or because they provide context and the complete record of all errata changes recommended for a particular section. To differentiate the changes proposed by the three errata, please use the following key: • Changes proposed by the first and second errata: o Strikethrough indicates text proposed to be deleted o Underline indicates text proposed to be added • Changes proposed by the third errata: o Double-strikethrough indicates text proposed to be deleted o Double underline indicates text proposed to be added o Bold indicates text to be emphasized o Underline and strikethrough indicates text proposed by the second errata but recommended for deletion by the third errata Third Errata Sheet for Agenda Item #1 May 16, 2018 Page 2 Page # Section, Figure or Table Recommended change CHAPTER 2 – LAND USE 2-6 Table 2-1, Permitted Uses Under the “Lodging” category, revise “Timeshare Project” as follows: Time Share Project (prohibited in combination with residential uses in the same building or on the same lot) 2-8 Table 2-1, Permitted Uses Revise footnote two of Table 2-1 as follows: 2Not permitted on the ground floor street frontage as identified in Figure 2-2. 2-9 Figure 2-2, Use Restrictions Map Revise Figure 2-2 as shown in attached Exhibit 1 by amending the use restrictions legend regarding ground floor uses as follows: Boundary of area in which certain uses are not permitted on the ground floor street frontage. Note: This change amends the first errata Exhibit 2. 2-37 Section 2.7.1 E., Village Center District Open Space Amend 2.7.1 E.1. a. as follows: 1. Public Space a. A plaza, a minimum 500 square foot feet or 7.5 percent of lot area, whichever is less minimum plaza (exclusive of right of way), with street furnishing, landscaping, accent trees, and lighting, shall be provided at each corner located at the following intersections: Carlsbad Village Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad Village Drive and State Street, State Street and Grand Avenue, and Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street. No vehicle access aisles or parking is permitted in this area. This area shall also remain unobstructed to the sky except for limited protrusions that contribute to building architecture or street vibrancy, such as awnings, architectural features, upper floor balconies, and other non-habitable space. Not more than 50 square feet of such protrusions shall project over the required plaza area. Third Errata Sheet for Agenda Item #1 May 16, 2018 Page 3 2-39 Section 2.7.1 G., Village Center District Building Height Amend 2.7.1 G. as follows: G. BUILDING HEIGHT 1. Maximum 45 feet and 4 stories 2. Ground floor plate height: 14 feet. This height shall be measured from the finished floor to the top plate of the ground floor or, where there is no “plate”, to the bottom of the floor structure of the second floor. This standard shall apply only to ground floor street frontage uses permitted within the boundaries of the use restriction area identified on Figure 2-2. 3. If a 4-story building is proposed: a. A maximum of 30 percent of the fourth story street facing façade can have a 0-foot setback (as measured from property line). The remaining 70 percent shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet (as measured from property line). b. The total square footage of enclosed occupiable fourth floor space shall not exceed 80 percent of the third-floor footprint. 2-39 2-52 and 2-57 Section 2.7.1 G., Village Center District Building Height Section 2.7.3 G., Hospitality District Building Height Section 2.7.4 G., Freeway Commercial District Building Height Modify graphic to more proportionally depict the maximum fourth floor area standard relative to the third floor. Third Errata Sheet for Agenda Item #1 May 16, 2018 Page 4 2-40 Section 2.7.1, Village Center Supplemental District Standards 1. Add new Section 2.7.1 I., Ground Floor Uses, as follows: I. GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTAGE USES 1. New ground floor street frontage uses permitted within the boundaries of the use restriction area identified on Figure 2-2 shall occupy more than one- half of the habitable space developed on the ground floor and shall span at least 80 percent of the building frontage. 2. Up to 20 percent of a building frontage may be used for a lobby or entryway to uses above or behind ground floor street frontage uses. 2. Renumber existing Section 2.7.1 I., Good Neighbor, to 2.7.1 J.; and existing Section 2.7.1 J., Railroad Corridor, to 2.7.1 K. 2-52 Section 2.7.3, Hospitality District Supplemental District Standards 1. Add new Section 2.7.3 I., Ground Floor Uses, as follows: I. GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTAGE USES 1. New ground floor street frontage uses permitted within the boundaries of the use restriction area identified on Figure 2-2 shall occupy more than one- half of the habitable space developed on the ground floor and shall span at least 80 percent of the building frontage. 2. Up to 20 percent of a building frontage may be used for a lobby or entryway to uses above or behind ground floor street frontage uses. 2. Renumber existing Section 2.7.3 I., Master Site Plan, to 2.7.3 J. 2-71 Section 2.8, Area-Wide Design Guidelines Revise the second paragraph of Section 2.8.1, Intent, to read as follows: All development should align with the spirit and intent of the design guidelines presented in this chapter. Designers and developers should consider at a minimum be aware that these guidelines are a minimum starting point for quality development, and do not comprise every possible strategy for achieving high quality design. Therefore, it is prudent that designers use their own techniques for achieving authentic, high quality design. The following guidelines apply to all new and remodeled development within the entire Master Plan Area unless exempt as determined by Section 6.3.2 5.3.1. Third Errata Sheet for Agenda Item #1 May 16, 2018 Page 5 CHAPTER 4 – MOBILITY AND BEAUTIFICATION 4-21 Section 4.3.11 A., Grand Avenue: The Grand Promenade – Street Cross Section 1 Amend the section by adding a new paragraph before the final paragraph as follows: Additionally, alternatives could be considered to maximize the promenade’s width. For example, the cycle tracks in figures 4- 4 and 4-5, depicted below the level of the sidewalk, could also be raised flush with it, creating a single, level surface from the store fronts to the landscaped median. In this configuration, the cycle track could remain distinct from the sidewalk through the use of unique pavers, brick banding, or other differentiating means. Much like festival or shared space streets discussed in the previous section, the greater width enabled by a single level promenade would benefit special events while still retaining the separate functions of a cycle track and sidewalk at all other times. 4-23 Figure 4-4, Grand Avenue Proposed Conditions A Do not amend the figure to show sharrows in both travel lanes, as recommended in the second errata. 4-24 Figure 4-5, Grand Avenue Proposed Conditions B Do not amend the figure to show sharrows in the travel lane, as recommended in the second errata. 4-30 Figure 4-11, Carlsbad Village Drive: Proposed Conditions, and accompanying text Revise the figure to delete the sharrows shown. Revise the paragraph accompanying and above the figure by deleting the following sentence: Bicycle lanes would be replaced by sharrow markings to facilitate pedestrian enhancements. 4-33 Figure 4-14, Oak Avenue: Proposed Conditions B Do not amend the figure to show sharrows in both travel lanes, as recommended in the second errata. 4-45 Figure 4-25, Harding Street: Proposed Conditions A (along Pine Avenue Park) Do not amend the figure to show sharrows in both travel lanes, as recommended in the second errata. 4-46 Figure 4-26, Harding Street: Proposed Conditions B (North of Pine Avenue) Do not amend the figure to show sharrows in both travel lanes, as recommended in the second errata. Third Errata Sheet for Agenda Item #1 May 16, 2018 Page 6 4-57 Section 4.4.3, Class III routes Revise the title and text of this section as follows: 4.4.3 Class III Routes and Sharrows Class III bikeways, or bike routes, designate a preferred route for bicyclists on streets shared with motor traffic not served by dedicated bikeways to provide continuity to the bikeway network. Bike routes are generally not appropriate for roadways with higher motor traffic speeds or volumes. Bike routes are established by placing bike route signs and optional shared roadway markings (sharrows) along roadways. Shared lane markings, or “sharrows,” are road markings used to indicate a shared lane environment for bicycles and automobiles. Sharrows are found on Carlsbad Village Drive adjacent to Interstate 5 and on Laguna Drive. Sharrows are also depicted on many plans and sections in Section 4.3.11, including figures 4-11, 4-16, and 4-17. Among other benefits, these shared lane markings reinforce the legitimacy of bicycle traffic on the street, recommend proper bicyclist positioning, and may be configured to offer directional and wayfinding guidance. Sharrows are recommended, for example, on streets proposed for cycle tracks (Grand Avenue, Oak Avenue, and Harding Street) to clarify that despite the presence of the cycle tracks, bicyclists may continue to ride in the streets. A liberal application of sharrows throughout the Village and Barrio neighborhoods is recommended will be applied in order to emphasize the notion that these neighborhoods are bicycle friendly. On some busier routes, sharrows can receive a green or black ‘backing’ to make them stand out on the road more. Sharrows can also be painted in a larger size so that they take up more of the road to make them stand out more. For example, if sharrows are installed on Carlsbad Village Drive after cycle tracks are installed on Grand Avenue and Oak Avenue, these should include a green treatment in order to make them stand out more. Shared routes may be used more by confident riders who prefer not to ride on cycle tracks that tend to cater to more timid and slower riders. Third Errata Sheet for Agenda Item #1 May 16, 2018 Page 7 4-58 Section 4.4.5, Cycle Track Revise the text discussion, as originally recommended by the second errata, to delete the last paragraph as shown: A Class IV separated bikeway, often referred to as a cycle track or protected bike lane, is for the exclusive use of bicycles, physically separated from motor traffic with a vertical feature. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on-street parking. Separated bikeways can provide for one-way or two- way travel. By providing physical separation from motor traffic, Class IV bikeways can reduce the level of stress, improve comfort for more types of bicyclists, and contribute to an increase in bicycle volumes and mode share. [new paragraph] Cycle tracks have been built throughout the United States and much guidance is available for their proper design. One local example of a two-way Class IV separated bikeway path in North County would be the strip of the Coastal Rail Trail that extends between Carlsbad and Oceanside along the Coast Highway. Both one-way and two- way cycle tracks can be installed as appropriate in order to create more accessible bikeways. Specifically, as shown in figures 4-4, 4-14, 4-25, and 4-26, cycle tracks should be implemented on Harding Street, Oak Avenue, and Grand Avenue in order to provide safe and accessible places for interested but concerned bicyclists to ride. Cycle tracks will need to be clearly marked, clearly visible, and signalized (with bicycle-signals) where appropriate to ensure that both cyclists and motorists are aware of each other. Dashed cycle track markings across alleyways and driveways, for example, as shown in figures 4-4 and 4-26 for Grand Avenue and Harding Street, respectively, are a recommended method to increase awareness at potential conflict points. Additionally, as facilities physically separated from the roadways, protected bike lanes are intended for casual bicyclists and are not likely to be used by seasoned bicyclists. Therefore, it is important to add sharrows to roadways adjacent to cycle tracks to clarify bicyclists may continue to use the street. Cycle track implementation should be accompanied by an education campaign as well to alert both bicyclists and motorists that continued use of the street by bicyclists is acceptable. TAMARACK AV LAGUNA DR CHINQUAPIN AV MAGNOLIAAV GRAND AV HARDING STBASSWOOD AV CYPRESSAV STATE STOAK AV CHRISTIANSEN WY PINE AV BEECH AV PALM AV HIGHLAND DRHIBISCUSCR CYNTHIA LN KNOWLES AVBUENAVISTACRPACIFIC AV CHESTNUT AV WALNUT AVWASHINGTON STADAMS STDAVISAVHOME AV PIOPICODRTYLER STROOSEVELT STLINCOLN STMAPLE AV MADISON STGARFIELD STACACIA AV ELMWOOD STJUNIPER AV HEMLOCK AV REDWOOD AV STRATFORDLN LINMAR LNEUREKAPLNAUTICAL DROCEAN STJEFFERSON STANCHORWYVILLAGEDR BUENA PL CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRMOU N T AIN VIE W DR GARFIELD STCARLSBAD BLCARLSBAD BLCARLSBAD VIL LAGE DR!"^ BP VG HOSP HOSP VC FC PT BC VBO VBO VBO VBO DISTRICTSVillage Center (VC)Village General (VG)Hospitality (HOSP)Freeway Commercial (FC)Pine-Tyler Mixed-use (PT)Barrio Perimeter (BP)Barrio Center (BC)Village-Barrio Other (VBO)Village and Barrio Master Plan AreaCoastal Zone BoundaryRailroad Path: \\FDSTORE01\Gis-App\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0011557_18\ThirdErrata_Exhibit1.mxd0 500 1,000250Feet FThird Errata, Exhibit 1Figure 2-2, MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 2-9 Use Restrictions Map LAND USECHAPTER 2USE RESTRICTIONS (See Table 2-1)Boundary of area in which certain usesare not permitted on the ground floorstreet frontage.Boundary of area in which automobileservice and light industrial uses areconditionally permitted. INPUT TO THE PC 4.0 - MAY 2018 Vision of a future Village-Barrio - We believe the commission’s recommended modifications to the MP should come from your Vision of this neighborhood’s future. The MP’s goals & objectives are then set to move us toward that future. Standards/guidelines should achieve the goals. We hope that all of us are viewing the Village of the future, as best we can, not the Village of today. Another term for Vision is “ seeing the big picture” few property owners and even fewer developers consider “the big picture” in what they build. Having a clear Vision should mean making every attempt to build in balance and flexibility at the same time as we hold on to the areas heritage and character. We the community, would greatly appreciate hearing each of the commissioners state the Vision that guides their review of the MP. We hope that we all have the common belief that the Village is our community’s only opportunity to create a stronger “Town Center” that it is our focal point strengthening our sense of place and collective sense of identity, a place to all come together. We believe the two primary goals that should set standards and guidelines are; 1- Insure this neighborhood is self sufficient as a place to live getting all your daily needs met without a car, i.e. primary of these are groceries & pharmacy etc ; 2 - That it redevelops to become a top destination for the full community and our guest doing this by using its current attributes as a beach side location and its core area’s network of “Main Street” commercial environment. There is a current and relatable village redevelopment project with a marketing pitch that comes from a (master) developer with a clearer view of “The big picture” “Be nostalgic for the future” a pitch for the redevelopment of a large chunk of the “commercial Main Streets at Pacific Palisades village by Mr. Rick Caruso. Rick “Come on down” to our Village! Regional Context - We believe all of us should consider that a tighter, denser small V-B neighborhood built around transit is appropriate. If we take into consideration that it sits adjacent to a major counterpoint to that tighter density. The Village sits at the edge of the largest area of open space on the planet! Where a short stroll has you immediately immersed in the magic qualities of this expansive and dynamic environment. Unfortunately the MP still does not do enough to tie the V-B to it and to celebrate this all important & dynamic edge. ITEM 1 Rcvd 5/9/2018 Building heights - In response to the sensitivities to architectural features over 45 feet, we ask that the commission consider limiting roof decks to the third story or allowing them on forth level only if the elevator that serves that deck can be located in area where its additional height can not be viewed from some set dimension on adjacent streets. Retail commercial - Although we understand there are uncertainties as we go through a period of major change for the business of retail commerce we should also understand the people are naturally social and on a regular basis will leave our individual dwellings and gather together in comfortable venues. Due to that, retail environments are becoming much more “Experiential”. This fact is exactly why the Village has so much potential to take on today’s changes and become the prime new retail destination for Carlsbad. It has most of the base ingredients to create a highly desirable environment. How many shops in the Mall would jump to come to the Village if there were; 1 - A well run Main Street program. 2 - An assortment of sized spaces to meet their business needs. 3 - The view that there is ample parking. A condition where we could pick and choice which shops fit the retail environment desired in our downtown “Village” neighborhood. Additionally we believe to equate or compare the Village core with all its real potential to the “Bluewater” development at the south station is an apples to oranges kinda thing no were near an equal comparison for retail viability. Balance & Flexibility - If we all agree with the positions expressed above we should also agree that the MP standards and guidelines promote and in fact require balance and flexibility in all developments in the core. If we simple let the building industry do whatever they want many will just capitalize on the hot coastal housing market for the quickest return on investment. Left on its own to maximize residential uses redevelopment will not achieve either of the two primary objectives stated in this paper. Because there are uncertainties on what, the needs of future retail are going to be we should build in flexibility and balance instead of repeated limitations. You have heard that if we want first class retail space it will take a minimum of a 14 foot plate height, a minimum! Also we should want standards that will produce the greatest mix of commercial uses on our core Main streets. To achieve this we need to produce a thorough mix of spaces whose size from depth will accommodate different uses. We should want MP standards to achieve a mix of store sizes produced by their depth to frame our streets, not a high percentage of shallow spaces that require a shop to stretch along the street edge like you find at Village by the Sea mixed use development on the east side of Carlsbad Blvd. Please consider asking for standards that requires larger size properties produce a larger average depths for ground floor spaces. Conversely, smaller properties should be compelled either set residential parking in a sub level as we have seen of late or limit their residential uses that require on site parking. Parking that takes up a high percentage of street level space can produce blank walls facing the street or rows of shallow retail spaces. The non residential uses should purchase the majority of required parking off site via the “Parking in Lieu” program. A prime example of the poor model we have allowed in the Village core over the last year is going up as we speak. Another corner project, this one at Grand & Madison, with shallow street level retail spaces, no 14 foot plate (it has 10ft), where they have maxed-out the residential use and feed those units with ground level parking. Not to mention that the building is devoid of any kind of character desirable for our Village. Also, please remember that to produce a self contained neighborhood, there are a few critical larger footprint uses that need to be part of the new development i.e. groceries, pharmacy etc . It is best that these critical uses be centrally located for equal access from lagoon to lagoon and not freeway oriented. The MP should acknowledge these uses and that they will require a larger foot print space with large truck access from the rear and adequate parking near by for those over 40. Remember that one of the reasons Whole Foods failed in downtown Encinitas was it was too small / tight of a space. “The Grand” aka “Grand Promenade” needs to be wide, wider than the 32 feet now shown in the MP. Up to 50 feet (one half of the street’s 100 ft r.o.w.) with 40-45 feet width as the absolute minimum. To study moving the farmers market into a two block demonstration area of “The Grand” we used a width of 44 feet to make the market work. Adjustments to what is currently shown in the MP on figure 4-5 on page 4-24 should be easy to made achieving this critical dimension. We at Imagine Carlsbad greatly appreciate that the MP now includes “The Grand”. We also appreciate the commissions discussion on it and pedestrian life in the Village. We believe a great village atmosphere can be produced if we achieve the following objectives; A wide 40-45 foot ramble from Carlsbad Blvd and Harding Street for pedestrians. A well conceived network of cycling routes safe for all ages. A complete calming of all auto movement held to or under posted speed limits. This last objective is why we proposed circle type intersections as part of our preliminary design of the GP. We see it as “slow not stop” calm rather than hurry to get that next green light. We request that the Commission ask staff about why they have pitched circular intersections to slow autos in the Barrio area of the MP but have not pitched them anywhere in the Village. Please ask how they propose to slow today’s auto movement on Grand Avenue as well as CVD. Calming the current average rate over the limit is as important as anything else we do here so the atmosphere we create is without intimidation of pedestrians and cyclist by motorist. This is important, because retaining the auto is part of the street life atmosphere in our Vision for the Village. Authenticity in our slice of Americana = “Be nostalgic for the future” A Main Street atmosphere is what we should want to build on and strengthen in the core area. We submit that we should not shut down any street here to autos. Autos are a part of its authenticity, what we should want is calmed movement in all travel lanes where streets have ample sidewalk widths (10-15 feet min). To be successful the Village’s retail core will need to compete with the other retail centers in the area. We should not attempt to make our experience more like what you can find at these other retail centers. To compete the Village will need to provide something the others can not. Not the Mall, not the Company Stores, and not the Forum. That is an authentic Village environment and its “by the sea”! The core area grid should be seen as a slice of America’s downtown “Main Street” . Add to that our fortune that someone oversized one of the streets in the grid to the point that we can now re-imagine it into the pedestrian spine pulsing with pedestrian life and social activity. Yet we can still keep it open for all forms of mobility. If we do this and do it well and then get the chance to cover a block of the train trench and make that a town square/green we will have the best Village in all of SoCal. That is how we see the future Village and hope you are there with us. Parking - If we have the common Vision for the Village core as Carlsbad’s “Town Center” we should require the master plan to wrap its arms around this “special” area by taking the steps needed to ensure its success as just that a “Town Center” a focal point for the full community. To that end most of those who come to visit the Village from other Carlsbad neighborhoods will come by car, to promote these visits the MP should take steps to insure the perception of parking is that it is easily available. We do not want visitors to circle and circle the streets in search of some phantom parking space in front of their favorite business. Alternatively they should be able to go to one of a few key locations for a grouped parking facility. A smart facility that shows how many spaces are open and where these are in the facility. We have been pitching the model of a private / public partnership to get this type of facility built. We ask that this type partnership arrangement be discussed at the next hearing. We hope the commission will make a strong recommendation to Council promoting private / public partnerships to get grouped parking facilities. Talking with others in the community it seems that some believe the outcome of the parking study was pre-determined from the start. That the consultant was directed to find facts to support this pre-determined position on parking. Mobility - Again, this is an aspect of our lives that is going through rapid change. To move throughout Carlsbad most of us will surly continue to use a car type vehicle, however who or what will control its movement may be changing. Within our neighborhoods we may use other options to move around. The Village-Barrio is where these options will be most attractive as an easy and fun way to move around. The MP has responded to this fact well. Walking/strolling, cycling, some with electric assist, and just around the corner may be shared use electric scooters that could come to this neighborhood further changing today’s mobility in our downtown neighborhood. The use of these options can be viewed as a generational thing with those of us over 40 staying with what we know what we feel comfortable in. But many of those under 40 may well gravitate to simple, easy and fun options. We hope the commissioners will ask themselves who (what generation) we should be planning a future Village for ? Planning Commission comments Vision for the future- This new VB master plan is rebuilding our original, oldest and most attractive neighborhood for the future. Our under utilitized transit center, soon to be expanded Civic Center, beaches and a few older historic buildings have to be considered 20 years plus in the future. Big Bear gave way to Albertsons which gave way to Smart and Final and Denault’s hardware in less time than that. Residential land value has surpassed commercial land value and therefore mixed use zoning will result in all residential zoning unless commercial land is preserved in the VB master plan codes. As we welcome new residents into the VB area they see a market and hardware store, the beach and many restaurants within walking distance and that’s what makes the VB area attractive. Within 10 years, I can see redevelopment of Smart and Final Center (recently sold ) into 4 stories of residential units with a minimal strip of commercial along CVD to satisify our planners who will have their hands tied as that is how it is zoned. Within 20 years I forsee Campfire, Vigiluccis, 83 degrees, Succulent café, Shorehouse kitchen, Koko Beach, Knockout, Lola’s, Café Topes and most other newer and existing restaurants demolished as their interiors age and leases are up to make way for 3 and 4 story residential units, as the zoning allows in this plan. These restaurants will be unable to ITEM 1 Received 5/9/2018 relocate further from the core as 2,3 and 4 story residential buildings will be build or be planned. This is going to happen. It can be mitigated by development of the core area with some first floor commercial space that can accommodate the movement of these assets into nearby space in the core area. Grocery store, drug store, hardware store, and 50 restaurants can be accommodated by preserving 50 foot depth and 14 foot plate height into the core area of the VB plan. This area should not become 3 floors of residential over first floor parking with 8-10 foot ceilings as the current economic conditions are pushing all VB properties. Commuters heading home from the Coaster and Amtrack can stop at the commercial space occupied by the replacement for Smart and Final, Denault’s that reopen in the reserved commercial spaces 5,000-8,000 square feet with 14 foot plate height reserved by your thoughtfulness in the core area. Strips 30 foot deep like Village By the Sea townhomes on Carlsbad Boulevard while new and attractive, won’t accommodate these uses. After attracting residents to live in the VB area to use the smart growth planning throughout the world we could require them to drive to El Camino Real for any neighborhood services which would be almost a crime. Reservation of a small part of the vb for commercial first floor, as most other neighborhoods in Carlsbad have done is what we I believe we all want. This small are would have wider sidewalks, more pedestrial lighting, permits for cabaret music, etc. to provide an experience for locals, VB residents and tourists. Lets plan it in this document. Development will occur in an spurts depending on economic conditions but in an orderly manner with residents first, near the core area, commercial later as the residential chases the aging commercial. All following the plan we craft here. Once we redevelop our Civic Center at 1200 CVD demand for office space will increase and developers will want to build office space in the VB center core area, near transit, Civic Center, restaurants, housing, beach. This is not that far out to consider proper planning. Let’s not continue planning project by project with the economic winds. Please walk down State Street and Carlsbad Boulevard between CVD and Grand, the area with the most pedestrians at any time, and notice that all the commercial businesses are 50 feet deep and usually narrow. More stores per lineal front foot promotes the most activity and depth is necessary. Let’s act as if there was one owner of the VB area, and make our master plan with that in mind. That plan would be approved but developed over 20+ years with the residential component first in the approved areas and then commercial and office as the demand calls for it. Now let’s move on the parking. Anyone walking the village at night can see that the Bank of America lot, suggested for lease in the parking consultants plan is already used, without permission by restaurant patrons. When that building is redeveloped, that parking will be gone forever. NCTD has had plans for years for their parking lots and right of way to be developed as income producing apartments with their own secured parking. All other older downtowns have parking structures and we need several also, perhaps even a bike parking garage. Shared development of several parking garages must be included in this plan to encourage discussions with developers, several of which have suggested a need and willingness to use the parking in lieu fee for privately built municipal parking within their own future development plans. We should specifically offer $25,000 per space for additional parking designated as municipal within a private project with a minimum of 50. This should be in the parking chapter to encourage developers and staff to give it consideration with each larger project. Why bother with a new VB Master Plan if it’s the same as the old Village Master Plan? Ten years ago Imagine Carlsbad was reviewing the Village Master Plan and noticed that there were similar requirements for mixed uses throughout the different areas, restricting residential growth in some areas by and discouraging commercial growth in others. The community most of us live in has services nearby but not next door. You want other homes next door, similar density detached or attached units next door, commercial services and businesses adjacent to each other but not far from us. Together with city consultant Urban Place we pushed for a new Master Plan that encouraged a core commercial area in the center of the village with parking garages nearby to encourage walking, and this new plan is lacking regulations that preserve room for future development of that commercial core. We proposed temporary changes with curb cafes and no parking fees for change of uses to restaurant. The new master plan was to preserve the commercial core and discuss parking solutions. All of us locals realize parking is an issue, most avoid the village in the summer. ITEM 1 Received 5/9/2018 Allowing the use of the ground floor for residential parking and allowing shallow commercial will probably kill the very cute commercial village atmosphere that Carlsbad Village is known for over time. Without preserving a commercial core area and no mention of a parking garage at all why bother to do a new master plan at all! Gary Nessim 1 Jeanette Brown Subject:FW: Budget considerations     From: simon angel  Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 11:12 AM  To: Council Internet Email    Cc: City Clerk; Planning; Communications   Subject: Budget considerations    It continues to be the hope of Barrio Carlsbad residents that the city will implement capital budget traffic and  safety improvements that were previously approved and allocated in the amount of approximately 1.5 million  dollars without further procrastination and delays.  We would request that this capital expense item be  assigned a higher priority than newer proposed items.  Barrio Carlsbad residents have been waiting for years  through various administrations ever since the Barrio streets were paved. It is time for the city to address its  prior commitments to Barrio residents. Thank you  We request that this communication be incorporated into the record.    Simon Angel  1 Subject:FW: Budget considerations     From: simon angel  Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 11:12 AM  To: Council Internet Email    Cc: City Clerk; Planning; Communications   Subject: Budget considerations    It continues to be the hope of Barrio Carlsbad residents that the city will implement capital budget traffic and  safety improvements that were previously approved and allocated in the amount of approximately 1.5 million  dollars without further procrastination and delays.  We would request that this capital expense item be  assigned a higher priority than newer proposed items.  Barrio Carlsbad residents have been waiting for years  through various administrations ever since the Barrio streets were paved. It is time for the city to address its  prior commitments to Barrio residents. Thank you  We request that this communication be incorporated into the record.    Simon Angel  Village and Barrio Master Plan(continued)GPA 16‐01/ZCA 16‐01/ZC 16‐01/MP 14‐01/LCPA 14‐01/MCA 16‐01 S H E R ID A N P L J E F F ER SO N S T MAGNOLIA AVKNOWLES AVCARLSBAD VILLAGE DRLAGUNA DRCHINQUAPIN AVCHESTNUTAVGRAND AVV A L L E Y S T H A R D IN G S T NA U T IC A L D R A D A M S S T CYNTHIA LNO C E A N S T TAMARACK AVBASSWOOD AVS T A T E S T CHRISTIANSEN WYPINE AVBEECH AVC A R L S B A D B L PALM AVH IG H L A N D D R H IB ISCU S C R BUENAVISTACRPACIFIC AVG A R F IE L D S T WALNUT AVW A S H IN G T O N S TDAVISAVHOME AVELMWOOD STP I O P I C O D ROAK AVJ A M E S D R T Y L E R S T R O O S E V E L T S T L IN C O L N S T M A D IS O N S T ACACIA AVJUNIPER AVHEMLOCK AVW O O D L A N D W Y REDWOOD AVL IN M A R L N LAYANGLAYANGCRANCHOR WYEUREKAPL0 1,000 2,000500FeetIGPA 16-01 / ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01 / MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01 / MCA 16-01Village and BarrioMaster PlanBUENA VISTALAGOON!"^PACIFICOCEAN Public Hearing RecapApril 18•Project presentation•Public testimony opened and closed •Discussion Public Hearing Recap•May 2–Continued discussion •May 16–Continued discussion Errata•April 18, 2018 errata•May 2, 2018 errata•May 16, 2018 errata May 16 ErrataStandardsLodgingBed and Breakfast InnHotelMotelTimeshare (prohibited in combination with residential uses in the same building or on the same lot) Ground Floor CommercialRequirement•Applies to VC (portion) and HOSP districts•Street frontage vs. entire ground floor•Preserves a commercial core•Keeps streets inviting and active Ground Floor Commercial RequirementStreet •More than one‐half ground floor habitable space•At least 80% of building frontageUp to 20% of frontage for entrywayOther uses permitted behind and above Parking  May 16 ErrataIntent of Area‐wide Design Guidelines:All development should align with the spirit and intent of the design guidelines presented in this chapter. Designers and developers should consider at a minimum be awarethat these guidelines are a minimumstarting point for quality development, and do not comprise every possible strategy for achieving high quality design... May 16 ErrataBike Plan•Maximizing the promenade’s width•Removing certain sharrows RecommendationThat the Planning Commission:(1)ADOPTPlanning Commission Resolution No.7293RECOMMENDING ADOPTIONof a MitigatedNegative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoringand Reporting Program; and RecommendationThat the Planning Commission:(2)ADOPTPlanning Commission Resolution No.7294RECOMMENDING APPROVALof a GeneralPlan Amendment (GPA 16‐01), Zone CodeAmendment (ZCA 16‐01), Zone Change (ZC 16‐01),Master Plan (MP 14‐01), and Local Coastal ProgramAmendment (LCPA 14‐01), based on the findingsand subject to the conditions contained therein;and RecommendationThat the Planning Commission:(3)RECOMMEND APPROVALof errata dated April18, 2018, May 2, 2018, and May 16, 2018.