The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-12-16; Planning Commission; ; CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS Item No. Application complete date: September 30, 2019 P.C. AGENDA OF: December 16, 2020 Project Planner: Chris Garcia Project Engineer: Allison McLaughlin SUBJECT: CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS – Request for 1) certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 2018-0001), including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 2) approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Habitat Management Plan Permit to demolish an agricultural packaging warehouse and construct 329 apartments (81 affordable units and 1 manager’s unit), including development standards modifications, on an existing parcel that is bisected by Aviara Parkway, north of Laurel Tree Lane, currently addressed as 1205 Aviara Parkway, within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and within Local Facilities Management Zone 5. This project is located within the appeal area of the California Coastal Commission. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission 1) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7398 CERTIFYING Environmental Impact Report EIR 2018-0001, including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and 2) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7399 APPROVING Tentative Tract Map CT 2018-0002, Site Development Plan SDP 2018-0002, Coastal Development Permit CDP 2018-0005, Hillside Development Permit HDP 2018-0001 and Habitat Management Plan Permit HMP 2018-0001 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The project proposes to develop a multi-family apartment community on a 9.2-acre lot that is currently bisected by Aviara Parkway. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing lot into five lots with three open space lots and a “West Parcel” and “East Parcel” containing 329 apartments of various sizes. The West Parcel currently supports an active flower and produce packaging and wholesale operation, which includes a 38,000-square-foot warehouse. All existing structures would be demolished. The West Parcel is bordered on the east, south, and west sides by existing slopes. Elevations on the West Parcel range from approximately 82 feet to 144 feet above mean sea level. Development would include an approximately 477,000-square-foot residential structure with 259 dwelling units, including an incorporated parking structure. The four-story structure is a maximum of 60 feet in height above final grade and would be built in a “wrap” configuration that shields the parking from view of public roads. The West Parcel would contain 247 market-rate and 12 affordable rental units. The proposed project includes 184 one-bedroom and 75 two-bedroom units on the West Parcel. Twelve of the one-bedroom units will be set aside for residents with incomes that do not exceed 90 % of the area median income (AMI) which 2 CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS December 16, 2020 Page 2 is moderate-income affordable housing. The one-bedroom units range from 711 to 785 square feet with the two-bedroom units at 1,009 to 1,135 square feet. Access to the West Parcel is provided at a driveway at the existing signalized intersection of Aviara Parkway and Laurel Tree Lane. A proposed “right-in” only driveway would also provide access to the site further north on Aviara Parkway. Grading on the West Parcel includes 736 cubic yards (c.y.) of cut, 42,178 c.y. of fill, with 44,312 c.y. of import. A grading permit will be required for this portion of the development. The East Parcel is currently undeveloped vacant land with existing native and non-native vegetation, but the site has previously been graded. Elevations on the East Parcel range between 94 and 111 feet above mean sea level and the site slopes to the northwest at a gentle gradient. The East Parcel would contain 69 affordable rental units, plus one manager’s unit, in an approximately 83,123-square-foot structure. Parking on the East Parcel would be provided at ground level in individual garages and a surface lot. The four-story building on the East Parcel is a maximum of 57 feet in height above final grade. The proposed project includes 14 studios, 23 one-bedroom, 26 two-bedroom and seven three-bedroom units on the East Parcel. Seven units of the 70 units would be set aside as “extremely low-income” units for residents with incomes that do not exceed 30 % of the AMI, 62 units would be reserved as “low-income” units for residents with incomes that do not exceed 60 % of the AMI, and one unit would be the manager’s unit that is not designated as an affordable unit. Studio units are approximately 450 square feet with one- bedroom units approximately 600 square feet. Two-bedroom units range from 702 to 860 square feet. Three-bedroom units range from 986 to 1,048 square feet. Access to the East Parcel would be provided by a driveway from Laurel Tree Lane. An emergency access driveway is located off Aviara Parkway. Grading on the East Parcel includes 856 cubic yards (c.y.) of cut, 7,767 c.y. of fill, with 110,357 c.y. of import. A grading permit will be required for this portion of the development. The proposed project provides 37,570 sf of resident amenities. Indoor amenities at the West Parcel would include a multi-purpose/club room, a fitness facility, and a Wi-Fi café. Common open space features on the West Parcel would include an outdoor recreation area and pool courtyard, an outdoor lounge area, two passive courtyards, an arrival yard, entry plaza, and the West Yard. The West Parcel would also include an onsite leasing office. Indoor amenities at the East Parcel would include a multi-purpose/club room. Common open space features on the East Parcel would include an outdoor recreation area, arrival yard and entry plaza. Surrounding land uses primarily consist of commercial and residential uses and designated open space. To the north of the project site is a 50-foot riparian buffer designated as open space and Encinas Creek, which maintains a Hardline Preserve designation under the city’s Habitat Management Plan. Beyond the open space to the north are commercial developments and associated parking adjacent to Palomar Airport Road. To the east of the project site is an existing gym and an undeveloped hillside. To the south of the West Parcel is an undeveloped hillside and residential uses located on the top of the hillside. To the south of the East Parcel is Laurel Tree Lane and multi-family residential developments. To the west of the project site are undeveloped hillsides designated as open space with single-family residences on top of the undeveloped hillside. The architecture of the West Parcel development is inspired by the Spanish Colonial Revival style, which is prominent in Carlsbad and also popular among other coastal California neighborhoods having a Mediterranean climate and setting. The architecture features hip roofs with concrete ‘S’ tiles, punctuated with tower elements to emphasize a sense of arrival, exposed rafter tails along the projecting eave overhangs, stucco walls with deep recesses, arches adorned with hand-painted ceramic tiles, trellis structures shading top floor balconies, wrought iron railings, and decorative corbels. The primarily cream- CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS December 16, 2020 Page 3 colored palette lends emphasis and contrast to the darker decorative features. Residents will descend from the higher Aviara Parkway to arrive at an entry court surrounded by landscaped gardens and amenity spaces. The 259 dwelling units are carefully arranged in four stories to create inviting courtyards and outdoor spaces while concealing all parking within a five-level structure. Solar arrays are oriented on the roof to capture the sun and shade the upper level parking. The East Parcel development is a contemporary Spanish-style rental community inspired by California’s early heritage of adobe structures, as well as the modern movement brought on by Irving Gill and his predecessors. The architecture features a combination of sloped roofs with tight rakes and flat roofs with parapets, bay windows and metal canopies to highlight the main building entrance, stucco walls accented with siding, a chiseled limestone veneer at the base, concrete ‘S’ tile roofing, trellis structures over top floor balconies, metal railings, decorative corbels, and a color palette of neutral shades of tan and brown. The combination of cascading roofs provides a platform for sustainable features, such as solar sun shading. The development on the East Parcel embraces Carlsbad’s climate by incorporating an open-air atrium and courtyard, which welcome daylighting and breezes to filter through. The proposed four-story, v-shaped compact structure upholds the human scale of a lower-density development, which is most apparent at the intersection of Aviara Parkway and Laurel Tree Lane where the building sits an entire story below the adjacent street grades. Table “A” below includes the General Plan designations, zoning and current land uses of the project site and surrounding properties. TABLE A – SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USES Location General Plan Designation Zoning Current Land Use Site R-30 Residential: 23-30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 25 du/ac. Residential Density – Multiple (RD-M) Zone Agricultural warehouse (west side) / vacant (east side) North Office (O) / Open Space (OS) Office (O) / Open Space (OS) Office building / vacant South R-4 Residential (0-4 du/ac) / R-23 Residential (15-23 du/ac) One-Family Residential (R-1-10,000 – Q) / RD- M-Q One- and two-family residential / multi-family affordable apartments East OS OS Open Space West OS / R-8 Residential (4-8 du/ac) OS / R-1-Q Open Space / single-family residential III. ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following regulations: A. R-30 Residential General Plan Land Use designation; B. Residential Density – Multiple (RD-M) Zone (CMC Chapter 21.24) and Site Development Plan (CMC Sections 21.06.030 and 21.53.120); C. Coastal Development Regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (CMC Chapter 21.201) and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203); D. Parking Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.44); CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS December 16, 2020 Page 4 E. Hillside Development Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.95); F. Habitat Management Plan (CMC Chapter 21.210); G. Subdivision Ordinance (CMC Title 20); H. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.85); I. McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP); and J. Growth Management Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.90) and Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan. 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. R-30 Residential General Plan Land Use Designation The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is R-30 Residential, which allows residential development at a density range of 23-30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 25 du/ac. The project site has a net developable acreage of 8.2 acres. At the GMCP, 205 dwelling units would be permitted on this 8.2-net-developable-acre property. With the city’s last General Plan update, 224 dwelling units were allocated to the project site. Therefore, the proposed 329-unit apartment project will be withdrawing 105 units from the city’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank because it exceeds the number of dwelling units allocated to the site. Additional information on density and compliance with Growth Management is provided in Section “J” below. The 329-unit project results in a density of 40 du/ac which exceeds the maximum 30 du/ac of the R-30 Residential General Plan Land Use Designation. However, Program 2.2 of the Housing Element states, “Flexibility in Development Standards of the General Plan describes how the Planning Division may recommend waiving or modifying certain development standards to encourage the development of low- income housing.” The city offers offsets to assist in the development of affordable housing which may include density increases and standards modifications. Since the project is providing affordable housing above and beyond the city’s requirements, a density increase and standards modifications are supported for this project by the city’s Housing Policy Team. Further compliance with the General Plan is outlined in Table “B” below. TABLE B – GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT GOAL/POLICY PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY 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 General Plan identifies the project site as an "underutilized" site where redevelopment with multi-family uses can help the city meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the residentially designated site with apartments. The project is an appropriate location as it is compatible with existing residential uses to the south and buffered from commercial uses to the north by open space areas. The location of the project site Yes CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS December 16, 2020 Page 5 ELEMENT GOAL/POLICY PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY is located near employment opportunities and public transit. Mobility Policy 3-P.5 Require developers to construct or pay their fair share toward improvements for all travel modes consistent with the Mobility Element, the Growth Management Plan, and specific impacts associated with their development. Goal 3-G.3 Provide inviting streetscapes that encourage walking and promote livable streets. The proposed project has been designed to meet applicable circulation requirements, which include driveway access points from Aviara Parkway and Laurel Tree Lane. In addition, the applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees prior to issuance of a building permit that will go towards future road improvements. The proposed project will maintain existing sidewalks along Aviara Parkway and will construct a new sidewalk along the project frontage on Laurel Tree Lane. Pedestrian access will be provided to and from the project. Yes Public Safety Goal 6-G.1 Minimize injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from fire, flood, hazardous material release, or seismic disasters. Policy 6-P.6 Enforce the requirements of Titles 18, 20, and 21 pertaining to drainage and flood control when reviewing applications for building permits and subdivisions. Policy 6-P.34 Enforce the Uniform Building and Fire codes, adopted by the city, to provide fire protection standards for all existing and proposed structures. Policy 6-P.39 Ensure all new development complies with all applicable regulations regarding the provision of public utilities and facilities. The proposed structural improvements are required to be designed in conformance with all seismic design standards. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with all the applicable fire safety requirements. Further, the project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of “best management practices” for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities. Yes CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS December 16, 2020 Page 6 ELEMENT GOAL/POLICY PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY 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. 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.” The project consists of 329 apartments located in two buildings. A noise study by Charles M. Salter Associates Inc., dated March 21, 2019, was provided. The windows of each residential unit will need to be closed to meet a 45 dB(a) CNEL interior noise level. Therefore, mechanical ventilation is required. In addition, the project is conditioned to comply with the construction requirements of the aforementioned noise study which includes a minimum STC rating ranging from 28-36 for all exterior windows and doors as shown on Figure 2 and Figure 3 of the study (see Appendix I.1 of the EIR). Yes 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. Policy 10-P.19 Adhere to City Council Policy Statement 43 when considering allocation of “excess dwelling units” for the purpose of allowing development to exceed the Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) density, as discussed in Section 10.3 (Resources Available). With limited exception, the allocation of excess dwelling units will require provision of housing affordable to lower income households. The proposed project will provide 81 affordable housing units with income restrictions at extremely low-, low-, and moderate-income levels. Therefore, the proposed project helps achieve the city’s affordable housing goals as set forth in the Housing Element of the General Plan including progress toward meeting the city’s RHNA. The 329-unit project will provide 25% of the housing units available to extremely low-, low- and moderate-income households in addition to market-rate units. Furthermore, the project site is located in an area that is in close proximity to public transit and employment opportunities. Existing North County Transit District (NCTD) bus stops serving NCTD routes 444 and 445 are located on Palomar Airport Road approximately 0.25 miles from the project site. Yes CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS December 16, 2020 Page 7 B. Residential-Density Multiple Zone (CMC Chapter 21.24) and Site Development Plan (CMC Sections 21.06.020 and 21.53.120) The proposed project is required to comply with all applicable land use and development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) including the Residential Density-Multiple Zone (CMC Chapter 21.24) and Site Development Plan (CMC Section 21.53.120). The 329-unit residential apartment project meets or exceeds the requirements of the RD-M Zone, except building height on both parcels and carport setbacks on the East Parcel, as outlined in Table “C” below. TABLE C – RD-M COMPLIANCE RD-M Standards Required Proposed Compliance Setbacks Front: 15’ (when landscaped without front facing garages) Interior Sides: 5’ Street Sides: 5’ (when landscaped) Rear: 10’ West Front: 92’ Interior Side (north): 46' Interior Side (south): 53’ Rear: 44’ East Front: 18’ Interior Side (north): 3.5' carport / 44’ main building Street Side (south): 8’-4” carport / 48’ main building Rear: 145’ Yes, with the exception of a standards modification requested for reduced setbacks for the carports on the north side of the East Parcel. Lot Coverage 60% max West 47% East 41% Yes Building Height 35’ West 50’ w/4:12 roof pitch. Projections to 60’ East 50’ w/4:12 roof pitch. Projections to 57’ No (standards modification requested) As part of the proposed Site Development Plan (SDP), the project applicant is requesting the application of modified development standards, or standards modifications, for multi-family affordable housing projects pursuant to allowances in CMC Section 21.53.120. Per Planning Commission Resolution No. 7114, the project site has an allocation of 224 units from the city’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank and would be required to provide a minimum of 20% of all units as affordable units, which exceeds the standard 15% requirement of CMC Chapter 21.85. The proposed project would provide 25% affordable units. CMC Section 21.53.120 allows for a density increase and development standards modifications for affordable housing projects that provide affordable housing in excess of the requirements of CMC Chapter 21.85 with the approval of a SDP, subject to certain findings. The proposed project would construct 329 units, which is 105 units beyond the maximum density and the city’s General Plan allocation for the project site. As such, the project applicant’s requested density increase would require an allocation of 105 “excess” CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS December 16, 2020 Page 8 dwelling units from the city’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.53.120(B)(1) and the applicant's request for a SDP approval, the proposed project seeks less restrictive development standards than would otherwise be applicable within the RD-M zone and within the R-30 General Plan land use designation. Specifically, per Section 21.24.030 of the CMC, the maximum building height within the RD-M zone is 35 feet, and the maximum allowable density at the project site per the city’s General Plan R-30 designation is 23 to 30 dwelling units per acre. To accommodate the additional proposed dwelling units, the density of the proposed project would increase to 40 dwelling units per acre and the building heights would increase to approximately 50 feet, with some architectural features reaching approximately 60 feet. Additional modifications to the standard development regulations are also requested to accommodate the proposed residential density as described below (as permitted by the SDP process contained in CMC Section 21.53.120(B)(1)): • Increase residential density from 23–30 dwelling units per acre as permitted in the R-30 General Plan land use designation to 40 dwelling units per acre. • Increase residential building heights from the 35-foot height maximum as required per the RD-M zoning designation to a 50-foot height maximum with architectural protrusions up to approximately 60 feet. • Reduce side yard setback requirements contained in CMC Section 21.24 from 5 feet to 3.5 feet to the carports on the East Parcel’s north side. • Reduce the parking requirements found in CMC Section 21.44.020 from 631 spaces required to 533 spaces. • Request a 3.63-foot reduction in parking lot perimeter landscape border width from 8 feet minimum contained in the city’s Landscape Manual to the proposed 4.37 feet minimum on the south side of the East Parcel. • Request a 5.5-foot reduction in parking lot perimeter landscape border width from 8 feet minimum contained in the city’s Landscape Manual to the proposed 2.5 feet minimum on the north side of the East Parcel. • Request a standards modification from CMC Section 21.46.130 to allow walls and fences to exceed the 6-foot maximum height within the required side and rear yard setback areas. CMC Section 21.53.120 allows for approval of the standards modifications provided findings can be made that the project is in conformity with the general plan and adopted policies and goals of the city, it would have no detrimental effect on public health, safety and welfare, and for projects in the Coastal Zone, it is consistent with local coastal program provisions, except for density. The project meets all of the required findings as detailed in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7399. With approval of the requested standards modifications, the project complies with the requirements of the RD-M Zone and the Site Development Plan regulations. CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS December 16, 2020 Page 9 C. Coastal Development Regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (CMC 21.201) and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC 21.203) 1. Mello II Segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies The proposed site is in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and is within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. The project site has an LCP Land Use designation of R-30 Residential and Zoning of RD-M, which are consistent with the city’s General Plan and Zoning. The project’s consistency with the R-30 General Plan Land Use designation is analyzed in Section A, Table “B” above. The project consists of the demolition of an agriculture warehouse and the construction of 329 apartments located in two buildings. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding development of residential and non-residential structures. The four-story structures 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. The property is not subject to the agricultural mitigation program. No agricultural uses currently exist on the previously graded site, nor will the project impact any sensitive resources located on-site. The proposed project is 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. 2. Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone The development is subject to the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203). The Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone identifies areas of protection: a) preservation of steep slopes and vegetation; b) drainage, erosion, sedimentation, habitat; c) seismic hazards, landslides and slope instability; and d) floodplain development. The project’s compliance with each of these areas of concern is discussed below: a. Preservation of Steep Slopes and Vegetation. Slopes greater than 25% and possessing endangered plant/animal species and/or coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communities are considered “dual criteria” slopes and are protected in the Coastal Zone. The project does not propose development of any “dual criteria” slopes. b. Drainage, Erosion, Sedimentation, Habitat. Topographic and vegetation mapping and analysis were prepared as part of the project. Riparian boundaries were identified, and a 50-foot buffer area has been provided between the riparian area and the edge of development to buffer sensitive habitat areas from intrusion. Impacts to habitat are minor compared to the proposed preservation and restoration, and will be fully mitigated as described in Section F below. A habitat restoration plan and a preserve management plan are proposed with this project and the project is consistent with the city’s adopted Habitat Management Plan. 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 run-off, pollutants and soil erosion. CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS December 16, 2020 Page 10 c. Seismic Hazards, Landslides and Slope Instability. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (GeoSoils, Inc, July 7, 2016), identifies that ground surface rupture as a result of an earthquake or seismic event is not likely to occur at the site. Geomorphic expressions indicative of past significant mass wasting events (i.e., scarps and hummocky terrain) were not observed during field studies. Further, no adverse geologic structures were encountered during subsurface exploration nor during the review of regional geologic maps. The report concludes, from a geologic and soils engineering point of view, that the site is suitable for the proposed development. By following the recommendations contained within the referenced report, the site is suitable for the proposed project, and will not expose people or structures to geotechnical-related hazards. d. Flood Plain Development. No structures or fill are being proposed within a one-hundred-year floodplain area as identified by the FEMA Flood Map Service Center. D. Parking (CMC Chapter 21.44) The parking requirements for the proposed 329-unit apartment project are shown in Table “D” below. Through the Site Development Plan process, the applicant is requesting a modified development standard for the proposed apartment project to reduce the amount of required parking from 631 spaces to 533 spaces. The proposed standard modification allows for the applicant to maximize the percentage and quantity of affordable housing units provided on-site. Although a density bonus is not being requested, the parking ratios for housing developments identified in CMC Section 21.86.090, Table E of the Density Bonus ordinance require less parking (437 spaces) than the developer is proposing for this apartment project. The density bonus parking requirements are shown in Table “E” below. The project would qualify for a density bonus if it were to be requested by the developer. Table “F” summarizes the parking proposed for the project. A standards modification for reduced parking is supported by the city’s Housing Policy Team and findings are included in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7399. TABLE D – PARKING REQUIRED PER CMC CHAPTER 21.44 Unit Type/Number of Unit Parking Ratio Spaces Required Spaces Provided Comply East Parcel No. Project is deficient by 98 parking spaces. A standards modification is requested. Studio (14) 1.5 spaces/unit 21 - 1 Bedroom (23) 1.5 spaces/unit 35 - 2 Bedroom (26) 2 spaces/unit 52 - 3 Bedroom (7) 2 spaces/unit 14 - Guest Parking 0.25 space/unit 18 - Total East Parcel 140 105 West Parcel 1 Bedroom (184) 1.5 spaces/unit 276 - 2 Bedroom (75) 2 spaces/unit 150 - Guest Parking 0.25 space/unit 65 - Total West Parcel 491 428 Total Project 631 533 CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS December 16, 2020 Page 11 TABLE E – PARKING REQUIRED PER DENSITY BONUS CMC CHAPTER 21.86 Unit Type/Number of Unit Parking Ratio Spaces Required Spaces Provided Comply East Parcel Yes. Project has a surplus of 96 parking spaces. However, applicant has not requested a state density bonus. Table used for comparison purposes to show compliance with state density bonus law if invoked. Studio (14) 1 space/unit 14 - 1 Bedroom (23) 1 space/unit 23 - 2 Bedroom (26) 2 spaces/unit 52 - 3 Bedroom (7) 2 spaces/unit 14 - Guest Parking N/A 0 - Total East Parcel 103 105 West Parcel 1 Bedroom (184) 1 space/unit 184 - 2 Bedroom (75) 2 spaces/unit 150 - Guest Parking N/A 0 - Total West Parcel 334 428 Total Project 437 533 TABLE F – PARKING PROPOSED Unit Type/Number of Unit Parking Ratio Spaces Required Spaces Provided Comply East Parcel 1.5 spaces/unit N/A 105 No.* West Parcel 1.8 spaces/unit N/A 428 Total Project 1.6 spaces/unit N/A 533 * Project is deficient based on the city’s Parking Ordinance requirements but would have a surplus based on the state density bonus parking requirements. Since the applicant is not requesting a state density bonus, a standards modification is requested and supported by staff. E. Hillside Development Regulations (CMC Chapter 21.95) The overall project site exhibits a change in grade elevation greater than 15 feet and slopes greater than 15%, and therefore requires a Hillside Development Permit. In addition, development on natural slopes of 25% or greater within the Coastal Zone needs to meet additional requirements. Hillside conditions of the project have been properly identified on the constraints map, which shows existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages. The project complies with the various hillside development standards as discussed below. Development of Natural Slopes of 25% Gradient in the Coastal Zone (CMC Section 21.95.140(A)) Slopes of 25% grade and over shall be preserved in their natural state, unless the application of this policy would preclude any reasonable use of the property, in which case an encroachment not to exceed 10% of the steep slope area over 25% grade may be permitted. A portion of the project site has slopes over 25% at the southwest corner. Although no building is proposed on these slopes, a retaining wall under six feet in height is proposed at the base of this slope to allow for access around the building. Additional landscaping has been provided in this area to minimize visual impacts and to incorporate fuel modification zones. The project has been designed to accommodate the required riparian buffer from Encinas Creek CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS December 16, 2020 Page 12 which requires the encroachment into the slope of less than 10%. Therefore, the project is permitted to develop this slope as proposed. Development of Natural Slopes of 40 % Gradient (CMC Section 21.95.140(B)) Development shall not occur on natural slopes which exhibit all of the following characteristics: • A gradient of greater than 40%; and • An elevation differential of greater than 15 feet; and • A minimum area of 10,000 square feet; and • The slope comprises a prominent land form feature. No development is proposed on a slope that has a minimum of 10,000 square feet in area, over 40% gradient and has an elevation differential of greater than 15 feet. Some areas of 40% slope on-site are either smaller than 10,000 square feet or have an elevation differential of less than 15 feet. Therefore, the 40% slopes are permitted to be developed. Therefore, the slopes may be developed as proposed. Grading Volume (CMC Section 21.95.140(D) The intent of the hillside grading volume standards is to minimize the volume of earth moved for cut and fill on a site. The amount of grading proposed is necessary to remove undocumented fill material and potentially compressible soils that are unsuitable for supporting the project. Additionally, the pads are being raised so that building foundations and underground utilities are less susceptible to expansive soils. This also avoid conflicts with perched groundwater conditions and improves sewage flow rates by increasing the fall of the sewer lines. The proposed grading volume of 5,601 cubic yards per acre (cy/ac) falls within the acceptable level because it is less than 8,000 cy/ac. Furthermore, the project minimizes development into the existing slopes and existing disturbed areas will be planted with native species consistent with the Habitat Management Plan. Therefore, the project is compliant with the grading volumes allowed by the Hillside Development Regulations. F. Habitat Management Plan (CMC 21.210) The Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is a comprehensive, citywide program to identify how the City, in cooperation with the federal and state wildlife agencies, can preserve the diversity of habitat and protect sensitive biological resources while allowing for additional development consistent with the General Plan and the Growth Management Plan. In doing so, the HMP is intended to lead to citywide permits and authorization for the incidental take of sensitive species in conjunction with private development projects, public projects, and other activities, which are consistent with the HMP. In addition, Chapter 21.210 of the city’s Zoning Ordinance (Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements) implements the HMP, as well as the goals and objectives of the city’s Open Space Element of the General Plan. As discussed in the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 7399, the project does not conflict with any provisions of the HMP or Zoning Ordinance. In the context of the adopted HMP, the project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 5, with existing HMP Hardline Preserve designations overlaying the Encinas Creek Corridor off-site to the immediate north, and slope areas off-site to the immediate west. The project site is located outside of the HMP Focus Planning Area (i.e., Cores, Linkages, and Special Resource Areas), and is therefore not within a Proposed Hardline or Standards Area. Due to the project site’s location outside of a Standards CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS December 16, 2020 Page 13 Area, the project would not be subject to the Local Facilities Management Zone Standards contained in the HMP. The site is also located within the coastal zone, as identified in the certified Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP). The proposed project maintains conformance with HMP standards including limits on residential development, provisions for habitat connectivity and wildlife movement through the area, avoidance of impacts to wetlands, and implementation of minimum buffer widths. Additionally, the proposed project also incorporates required mitigation from the HMP for significant impacts to sensitive biological resources identified in the preceding sections (on-site habitat conservation, habitat restoration, long-term management, and compliance monitoring and bird breeding season restrictions during construction). A Biological Resources Letter Report, Preserve Management Plan, and Restoration Plan were prepared for the mitigation by Helix Environmental Planning. Implementation of the proposed project results in the following impacts: Habitat Group D: Unoccupied Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, 0.1 acres Habitat Group E: Non-native Grassland, 0.3 acres Habitat Group F: Non-native Vegetation, 0.8 acres Disturbed Habitat, 3.2 acres Total: 4.0 acres Impacts to Habitat Group E, 0.15 acres of Non-native Grassland, will be mitigated at a 0.5:1 ratio through the payment of an in-lieu fee. Impacts to Habitat Group F, totaling 0.42 acres, will also be mitigated through the payment of an in-lieu fee at a ratio of 0.1:1. The project design has avoided and minimized impacts to wildlife habitat and species of concern to the maximum extent practicable. Specifically, only 0.1 acres of HMP Habitat Groups A-D will be impacted by the development. Furthermore, approximately 1.6 acres of the site will be designated as an open space preserve. Additionally, all 0.24 acres of Southern Willow Scrub (Habitat Group A) located on-site will be protected and approximately 1.1 acres of unoccupied Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (DCSS, Habitat Group D) will be created or restored in areas that are disturbed and characterized by non-native habitat types in the pre-restoration condition. The created habitat will adjoin neighboring stands of existing DCSS that are either off site and/or already located within HMP Hardline. The HMP findings for the proposed project can be found within Planning Commission Resolution No. 7399. As discussed within the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 2018-0001), with the incorporation of mitigation measures and compliance with the HMP, the Habitat Management Plan Permit can be approved. G. Subdivision Ordinance (CMC Title 20) CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS December 16, 2020 Page 14 The Land Development Engineering Division has reviewed the proposed Tentative Tract Map and has found that the subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the city’s Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20) for Major Subdivisions. The subdivision is considered major because it involves the division of land into five or more lots (five lots proposed). The project has been conditioned to install all infrastructure-related improvements and the necessary easements for these improvements concurrent with the development. H. Inclusionary Housing (CMC 21.85) Planning Commission Resolution No. 7114 requires that development on this site provide a minimum of 20 % of all units as affordable units, which exceeds the standard 15% requirement of CMC Chapter 21.85. On the West Parcel, twelve of the one-bedroom units would be set aside for residents with incomes that do not exceed 90 % of the area median income (AMI), which is moderate-income housing. On the East Parcel. seven units would be set aside as “extremely low-income” units for residents with incomes that do not exceed 30 % of the AMI, and 62 units would be reserved as “low-income” units for residents with incomes that do not exceed 60 % of the AMI. One additional unit would be the manager’s unit and would not be designated as affordable. The proposed project provides 25% of the total units or 81 units as affordable units which exceeds the 20 % minimum required by Planning Commission Resolution 7114. Further, because 10 or more affordable units are required, at least 10% of the lower income units shall have three (3) or more bedrooms. The project satisfies this requirement with the inclusion of seven, three-bedroom inclusionary units. The city’s Housing Policy Team has reviewed the proposed project and recommends approval of the proposal. The project has been conditioned to require the approval of an Affordable Housing Agreement prior to recordation of the final map. I. McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) The project site is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) Review Area 1 of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), requiring the project to be consistent with four criteria contained in ALUCP Section 2.4.1. Each criterion involves specific standards to avoid potentially harmful development within the AIA. Each of the four criteria are addressed separately for the construction and operation of an apartment project in the Residential Density – Multiple (RD-M) zone. The project is consistent with the criteria of the ALUCP, as discussed below: 1. Noise: Exposure to aircraft noise. The airport noise contours are established for the purpose of evaluating the noise compatibility of land use actions in the AIA. Section 3.3.3.(a) of the ALUCP states “the threshold for evaluation is the projected 60dB CNEL contour. This contour defines the noise impact area of the airport. As depicted in Exhibit III-1 of the ALUCP, the proposed project site is located within the 60dB CNEL noise exposure range. Multi-family residential is compatible within the 60dB noise contour if interior noise can be mitigated to 45 dB or less. The project has been conditioned to meet a 45 dB interior noise level by implementing the measures described in the noise study by Charles M. Salter Associates Inc., dated March 21, 2019. Therefore, the project is consistent with the airport noise restrictions of the ALUCP. 2. Safety: Land use that affects safety both for people on the ground and in aircraft. As described in Section 3.4 of the ALUCP, the purpose of the safety compatibility policies is to minimize risks to people and property in the event of an aircraft accident by setting limits on the proposed land CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS December 16, 2020 Page 15 uses. The safety zones depicted in Exhibit III-2 of the ALUCP divide the airport vicinity into six safety zones, each representing relative risks associated with an aircraft accident. As shown in Exhibit III-2, the proposed project site is located within Safety Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone). Per ALUCP Policy 3.4.4.(e) and Table III-2, new residential development in Safety Zone 6 is determined to be a compatible land use. Therefore, no safety restrictions apply to the proposed project. 3. Airspace protection: Protection of airport airspace. Per Policy 2.4.2(C) of the ALUCP, the purpose of airspace protection compatibility policies is to ensure that structures and other uses do not cause hazards to aircraft in flight within the airport vicinity. Hazards to flight include but are not limited to: physical obstructions to the navigable airspace, wildlife hazards such as bird strikes, and land use characteristics that create visual or electronic interference with aircraft navigation or communication. Exhibit III-3 of the ALUCP reflects the airspace surfaces for McClellan-Palomar Airport as established by the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Safe Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace. FAR Part 77 establishes standards and notification requirements for objects affecting navigable airspace. The ALUCP airspace policies are intended to help implement regulations between the FAA and the state of California (ALUCP Policy 3.5.2). ALUCP Policy 3.5.4(a) indicates that with limited exceptions, no object shall have a height that would result in the penetration of the airspace protections surfaces for McClellan-Palomar Airport. As depicted in Exhibit III-3, the proposed project site underlies the horizontal surface which is a flat surface established 150 feet above the established airport elevation. Based on the airport’s elevation of 331 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), the horizontal surface height is 481 feet AMSL. The approximate elevations of the project site range from 82-144 feet AMSL. The building pad for the West Parcel is 89.0 feet AMSL. The tallest elevation of the structures on the West Parcel is 60 feet tall, bringing the project to an elevation of approximately 149 feet AMSL, a difference of about 332 feet and well below the 481-foot horizontal surface. The building pad for the East Parcel is 98.1 feet AMSL. The tallest elevation of the project’s structures is 57 feet tall, bringing the project to an elevation of approximately 155.1 feet AMSL, a difference of about 325.9 feet and well below the 481-foot horizontal surface. Therefore, the proposed project would not penetrate the airspace protection surface for the airport, and is in compliance with the Airspace Protection criteria. Furthermore, to thoroughly analyze the project, a FAA Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration was submitted and the FAA determined the project posed no hazard to airspace navigation. 4. Overflight – Annoyance and other general concerns related to aircraft overflight. As previously discussed, the project site is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) per Exhibit IIII-5. According to ALUCP Policy 3.6.3, recordation of an overflight notification is mandated for new residential land use development. The project is conditioned to record an overflight notification document on the property. CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS December 16, 2020 Page 16 J. Growth Management (CMC 21.90) The Growth Management Chapter of the city’s Zoning Ordinance is intended to ensure that development is consistent with the General Plan and that adequate public facilities are provided concurrent with growth within the city. Pursuant to the city’s Growth Management Program (GMP) and Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the city is organized into 25 zones; the project is located in Zone 5. The city’s GMP requires the preparation of Local Facilities Management Plans (LFMPs) for each of the 25 management zones. The LFMPs implement the provisions of the city’s GMP by phasing all development and public facility needs in accordance with the GMP performance standards. A Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) has been previously prepared for Zone 5 pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Ordinance, Chapter 21.90 of the Municipal Code. The project will be in compliance with the required performance standards by satisfying the conditions listed in the LFMP, so no other revisions to the LFMP for Zone 5 are required. The facility demands of the build out of Local Facilities Management Zone 5 were based on a projection of future development within the zone. Table “G” below summarizes the anticipated development within Zone 5 compared to the proposed project. TABLE G – EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAND USE DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTION BUIDOUT PROJECTION PROPOSED PROJECT NET CHANGE FROM DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPION Industrial 20,870,878 sq. ft. 7,529,997 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Commercial 1,325,421 sq. ft. 2,498,020 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Residential 0 dwelling units (du) 467 du 329 du + 329 du The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table “H” below. TABLE H – GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE STANDARD IMPACTS COMPLIANCE City Administration 1,164 square feet Yes Library 621 square feet Yes Waste Water Treatment 329 EDUs (Equivalent Dwelling Units) Yes Parks 2.33 acres Yes Drainage West Parcel: 30.48 CFS, Basin C East Parcel: 1.53 CFS Yes Circulation 1,974 ADT Yes Fire Station 4 Yes Open Space NA N/A Schools Carlsbad Elementary: 38.49 students Carlsbad Middle: 20.33 students Carlsbad High: 25.96 students Yes Sewer Collection System 329 EDU / 72,380 GPD Yes Water 82,250 GPD Yes CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS December 16, 2020 Page 17 The project proposes 329 dwelling units. At the GMCP, 205 dwelling units would be permitted on this 8.2- net-developable-acre property. With the city’s last General Plan update, 224 dwelling units were allocated to the project site per Planning Commission Resolution 7114. Therefore, the proposed 329-unit apartment project will be withdrawing 105 units from the city’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank because it exceeds the number of dwelling units allocated to the site. As stated in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7399, per the city’s Quadrant Dwelling Unit Report dated November 30, 2020, the Southwest Quadrant has an additional 1,232-unit capacity to accommodate the 105 additional dwelling units not already allocated to the site by the General Plan. Additionally, less any recent allocations, the report identifies 288 dwelling units in the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank available to be allocated to the project. Therefore, the citywide and quadrant dwelling unit limits will not be exceeded as a result of the proposed project. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Aviara Apartments project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) of the CMC. The EIR addresses the environmental impacts associated with all discretionary applications for the proposed project, including development of the project. City staff issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on January 17, 2019. The NOP was distributed to all Responsible and Trustee Agencies, as well as other agencies. Staff scheduled a public scoping meeting in order to increase opportunities for public input. The NOP with notice of the scoping meeting was sent to all property owners within a 600-foot radius of the project boundaries and was published in the San Diego Union Tribune. The public scoping meeting took place on January 28, 2019, at the Faraday Center. At the scoping session, the public was invited to comment on the scope and content of the EIR. Written comments received in response to the NOP were taken into consideration prior to developing the detailed scope of the content for the EIR and are summarized in and appended to the EIR. The Aviara Apartments project EIR analyzed the following areas of potential environmental impact: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources • Energy • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise and Vibration • Population and Housing • Public Services • Transportation • Utilities and Service Systems • Wildfire CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS December 16, 2020 Page 18 Following consideration of the public and agency comments submitted on the NOP and received during the scoping meeting, it was determined that the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Mineral Resources or Recreation. Additionally, the EIR includes other sections required by CEQA including an Executive Summary, Project Description, Cumulative Effects, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, Growth Inducing Effects and Alternatives. Three alternatives are considered in the EIR. The alternatives include the "No Project/No Development" alternative, a "No Project, General Plan Allocation" alternative, and a "Density Bonus” alternative. On June 17, 2020, a Draft EIR was released and the city published a Notice of Completion (NOC) and mailed the NOC to interested Responsible and Trustee Agencies and other interested agencies, surrounding owners and occupants, and the interested parties list that staff had developed based on requests from the public during the processing of the project. The NOC commenced a 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR expiring on July 31, 2020. The NOC advised that in accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order No. N-54-20 in effect during the COVID-19 public health emergency, the requirement to provide general public access to physical copies of CEQA notices and public review documents had been suspended. Therefore, the Draft EIR was published on the City's website (http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/planning/agendas.asp). Complete hardbound and CD copies were also available with the appendices through the Planning Division. In response to the NOC, six comment letters and emails were submitted prior to the close of the public review period for the Draft EIR. Responses to all of the comment letters are contained in the Final EIR, and were sent to each commenting individual, organization or agency. The response transmittal letter also provided notice of availability of the Final EIR. The Final EIR includes a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP is also attached to Planning Commission Resolution No.7398 for the EIR. The analysis contained in the EIR concluded that all significant impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7398 (EIR) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7399 (CT et al) 3. Location Map 4. Disclosure Statement 5. Reduced Exhibits 6. Final EIR for Aviara Apartments dated November 2, 2020 (distributed previously to Commissioners; available at the Planning Division and http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/planning/agendas.asp) 7. Full Size Exhibits “A” – “BBBB” dated December 16, 2020 CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – AVIARA APARTMENTS December 16, 2020 Page 19 ATTACHMENTS: 1.Planning Commission Resolution No. 7398 (EIR) 2.Planning Commission Resolution No. 7399 (CT et al) 3.Location Map 4.Disclosure Statement 5.Reduced Exhibits 6.Final EIR for Aviara Apartments dated November 2, 2020 (distributed previously to Commissioners; available at the Planning Division and http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/planning/agendas.asp) 7. Full Size Exhibits “A” – “BBBB” dated December 16, 2020 AVIARA PY PALOMAR AIRP O R T R D HIDDENVALLEYRDPRIVATE DY TOPMASTDR TURNSTONE RD COLLEGEBLGOLDENEYEVW SAPPHIREDR MER L I NDRTHE CROSS INGS DRWI LLOWP LMARIPOSARD RUBYWYCOBB L ES T ONERD L A U R ELTREELNEBB TIDE STFLAME TREE LN PR IVATEDY P R I V A TEDY CT 2018-0002 / SDP 2018-0002 / CDP 2018-0005 / HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) Aviara Apartments SITE MAP J SITE E L C AMINO R E A LLA COSTA AV A L G A R DCARLSBAD BL ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4 AVIARA APARTMENTSCARLSBAD, CACT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001CONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREL1.1LANDSCAPE PLAN - EAST PARCELL1.2LANDSCAPE PLAN - EAST PARCEL ENLARGEMENTL2.1LANDSCAPE PLAN - WEST PARCELL2.2LANDSCAPE PLAN - WEST PARCEL ENLARGEMENTL2.3 LANDSCAPE PLAN - WEST PARCEL ENLARGEMENTL3.1 RECYCLED WATER USE EXHIBIT - EAST PARCELL3.2 RECYCLED WATER USE EXHIBIT - WEST PARCELL4.1WATER CONSERVATION EXHIBIT - EAST PARCELL4.2WATER CONSERVAITON EXHIBIT - WEST PARCELL4.3 LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONSL5.1 MAINTENANCE EXHIBIT - EAST PARCELL5.1 MAINTENANCE EXHIBIT - WEST PARCELSHEET INDEXSITE INFORMATIONSP.1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONSSP.2 PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONSSP.3 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANSP.4 CONSTRAINTS MAPSP.5 SITE PROFILES - SLOPE EXHIBITSP.6 WALL AND FENCE PLANARCHITECTURE - EAST PARCELA1.0 CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESA1.1CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESA1.2CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESA1.3 CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESA1.4CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESA2.0NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATIONSA2.1EAST, WEST, AND COURTYARD ELEVATIONSA2.2ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ELEVATIONSA3.0 GROUND FLOOR PLAN / SITE PLANA3.1 FLOOR PLAN - UPPER LEVELSA3.2 FLOOR PLAN - ROOF LEVELA4.0 UNIT PLANSA4.1UNIT PLANS619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comArchitecture + Planning12555 West Jefferson Blvd.Suite 100Los Angeles, CA 90066310.394.2623ktgy.comARCHITECTURE - WEST PARCELA5.0ARCHITECTURAL INSPIRATIONA5.1CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVEA5.2CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVEA5.3CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVEA5.4CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVEA5.5CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVEA5.6CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESA6.1NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATIONSA6.2WEST & EAST ELEVATIONSA6.3NORTH COURTYARD ELEVATIONA6.4SOUTH COURTYARD ELEVATIONA6.5EAST COURTYARD ELEVATIONA6.6TRELLIS ELEVATION AND PLANA7.0SECTIONSA8.0CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANA8.1GROUND FLOOR PLANA8.2SECOND FLOOR PLANA8.3THIRD FLOOR PLANA8.4FOURTH FLOOR PLANA8.5ROOF PLANA8.6SOLAR SHADE DETAILSA9.1UNIT PLANS 1A, 1A-ALT, 1BA9.2UNIT PLANS 1C, 2A, 2AL-ALTA9.3UNIT PLANS 2B, 2B-ALTATTACHMENT 5 A V I A R A P KW Y AVIARA PKWYCARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001SP.1EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PALOMAR AIRPORT RDAVIARA PKWY SP.2PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001 1A1A2BS1A1A1A2BS1A15'-0"FRONTSETBACK23'- 0 " TO W A L L A B O V E 25'- 1 1 " C L E A R A T GR O U N D L E V E L2'-11"24'-0"25'-2" CLEAR ATGROUND LEVEL22'-3" CLEARTO WALL ABOVE18'-0"SETBACK(ACTUAL)20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"17' - 6 " 2'- 6 " 24' - 0 "9'-0"21'- 1 0 " CL E A R T O S K Y AT N O R T H S I D E 3RD / 4 T H F L O O R BA L C O N I E S21'-1" CLEARTO SKY AT2ND/3RD/4THFLR.BALCONYGGG14%RAMP UP5%RAMP UP 1212121212121212121212121A1A1A1A1A2A1A1A1A1A1A2A1A2A2A 2A1C1C1C1C1C 1C1CTRASH18' X 12'MECHBIKES - 144 SPACES, 2-TIERSTORAGE - 14 @ 75CFELEC.1C1CELEC ELEC ELEC1C 2A2ATRASH18' X 12'2A1A1C1A1C1C2A 2A 2B1A-alt1A-alt1A-alt1A-alt1CPASSAGE1B1B1B1BCLUBROOM1800 SF1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1A2A2A2ALEVEL 2 ABOVELEVEL 3 ABOVELEVEL 2 ABOVEFITNESS1450 SFLOBBY/LEASING1800 SFOUTDOOR RECAREA / POOLCOURTYARD8,000 SFOUTDOORLOUNGE AREA5,500 SFPASSIVECOURTYARD4,000 SFWESTYARD2,500 SFARRIVALYARD3,000 SF1BRESTROOMSGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGRIDE-SHAREGGGGGGDAYTIME LOADING/EVENING GUEST (48' X 7')DAYTIME LOADING/EVENING GUEST (48' X 7')BUSINESSCENTER10'26'6'6'-7" 26' R20'R20'R20'R 1 0 ' 2 0 ' 24 '20'67'-10"72'45'-5"BIOFILTRATIONBASIN(Wall Heights perTM Sheet 10)AVIAR A P A R K W A Y 26' PRIVATE DRIVE26' PRIVATE DRIVELAUREL TREE LANE50' RIPARIAN BUFFEREXISTIN G A C C E S S R O A D 50' RIPARIAN BUFFER12' ONE-WAY INGRESS7 PARKING SPACES @ 7' X 24'11 PARKING SPACES @ 7' X 24'5 PARKINGSPACES @9' X 20'406 PARKING SPACES@ 8.5' X 20'OUTDOORREC AREA /COURTYARD4,400 SFATRIUM775 SFRETAINING WALLHEIGHT 5.7'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 2.6'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 5.0'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 0.9'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 0.5'EXISTINGRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLHEIGHT 5.1' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 1.5' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 3.8' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 3.6' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 8' + 3.5' FENCEPLAZA450 SFRETAINING WALLHEIGHT 7.7' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 6.3' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 11.5' + 3.5' FENCE17' - 6 "(78) TOTAL GROUND FLOOR SPACES;(23) TOTAL GROUND UNCOVERED SPACES44'SE T B A C K 20'92'SETBACK99'8'-6"8' TRAIL20' 14' 24' 7' 15'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 1.7' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 3.5'+ 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 2.5' +3.5' FENCE18'S.B.4-STORY WRAPAPARTMENTSPARKINGSTRUCTURE4-STORYTUCK-UNDERAPARTMENTSUTILITY EASEMENTSCARPORT78FF98.1'FF89'TRL O A D I N G EVAFF89'FF89'FF89'FF89'3'- 6 " CA R P O R T S. B .145'-7"SETBACKLOT 1LOT 2LOT 3LOT 4LOT 548'-3"45'-7"SETBACK47'-3"3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 5.6'5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 5.6' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 4' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 6.8' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 7.5'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 6.5' +3.5' FENCE3.5' FENCE15' 15'15'11'15'6'53' SETBACK 26'7'10' 13'10'-9"20'150'20'24'24'24'24' 13'15'-11"49'-9"45'-9"66'-3"74'-3"24'7'115'11'101'141'45'-7"73'94'4'5'24'6'6'6'20'8'-6"17'24'4'5'5'5'6'6' 6'6'8'-6"17'-6" 46'SETBACK46'10' 24' AISLE 8'-4" CARPORT S.B. 48'-3" SETBACK RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 1.3'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 2.0'0.5' RET. WALL3.5' GATERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 6.6' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 11.4' + 3.5' FENCEBIO-FILTRATIONBASIN(Wall Heights perTM Sheet 10)BIO-FILTRATIONBASIN5' FENCE3.5' FENCE3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 4.6'1.8' RET. WALL + 3.5' FENCETRANSF.TRANSF.TRANSF.TRANSF.0408020CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001SP.3CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANAND PROJECT INFORMATION LAUREL TREE LANEAVIARA P A R K W A Y 50' RIPARIAN BUFFER50' RIPARIAN BUFFERUTILITY EASEMENTSEXISTIN G A C C E S S R O A D EXISTING ACCESS ROAD5' SETBACK10' SETBACK5' SETBACK20' SETB A C K 20' SETB A C K 10' SETBACK10' SETBACK100-YR FLOODPLAIN100-YR FLOODPLAIN0408020CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001SP.4CONSTRAINTS MAP 010020050SP.5SITE PROFILES - SLOPE EXHIBIT CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001 1A1A2BS1A1A1A2BS1A15'-0"FRONTSETBACK23'- 0 " TO W A L L A B O V E 25'- 1 1 " C L E A R A T GR O U N D L E V E L2'-11"24'-0"25'-2" CLEAR ATGROUND LEVEL22'-3" CLEARTO WALL ABOVE18'-0"SETBACK(ACTUAL)20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"17' - 6 " 2'- 6 " 24' - 0 "9'-0"21'- 1 0 " CL E A R T O S K Y AT N O R T H S I D E 3RD / 4 T H F L O O R BA L C O N I E S21'-1" CLEARTO SKY AT2ND/3RD/4THFLR.BALCONYGGG14%RAMP UP5%RAMP UP 1212121212121212121212121A1A1A1A1A2A1A1A1A1A1A2A1A2A2A 2A1C1C1C1C1C 1C1CTRASH18' X 12'MECHBIKES - 144 SPACES, 2-TIERSTORAGE - 14 @ 75CFELEC.1C1CELEC ELEC ELEC1C 2A2ATRASH18' X 12'2A1A1C1A1C1C2A 2A 2B1A-alt1A-alt1A-alt1A-alt1CPASSAGE1B1B1B1BCLUBROOM1800 SF1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1A2A2A2ALEVEL 2 ABOVELEVEL 3 ABOVELEVEL 2 ABOVEFITNESS1450 SFLOBBY/LEASING1800 SFOUTDOOR RECAREA / POOLCOURTYARD8,000 SFOUTDOORLOUNGE AREA5,500 SFPASSIVECOURTYARD4,000 SFWESTYARD2,500 SFARRIVALYARD3,000 SF1BRESTROOMSGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGRIDE-SHAREGGGGGGDAYTIME LOADING/EVENING GUEST (48' X 7')DAYTIME LOADING/EVENING GUEST (48' X 7')BUSINESSCENTER10'26'6'6'-7" 26' R20'R20'R20'R 1 0 ' 2 0 ' 24 '20'67'-10"72'45'-5"BIOFILTRATIONBASIN(Wall Heights perTM Sheet 10)AVIAR A P A R K W A Y 26' PRIVATE DRIVE26' PRIVATE DRIVELAUREL TREE LANE50' RIPARIAN BUFFEREXISTIN G A C C E S S R O A D 50' RIPARIAN BUFFER12' ONE-WAY INGRESS7 PARKING SPACES @ 7' X 24'11 PARKING SPACES @ 7' X 24'5 PARKINGSPACES @9' X 20'406 PARKING SPACES@ 8.5' X 20'OUTDOORREC AREA /COURTYARD4,400 SFATRIUM775 SFRETAINING WALLHEIGHT 5.7'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 2.6'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 5.0'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 0.9'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 0.5'EXISTINGRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLHEIGHT 5.1' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 1.5' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 3.8' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 3.6' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 8' + 3.5' FENCEPLAZA450 SFRETAINING WALLHEIGHT 7.7' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 6.3' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 11.5' + 3.5' FENCE17' - 6 "(78) TOTAL GROUND FLOOR SPACES;(23) TOTAL GROUND UNCOVERED SPACES44'SE T B A C K 20'92'SETBACK99'8'-6"8' TRAIL20' 14' 24' 7' 15'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 1.7' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 3.5'+ 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 2.5' +3.5' FENCE18'S.B.4-STORY WRAPAPARTMENTSPARKINGSTRUCTURE4-STORYTUCK-UNDERAPARTMENTSUTILITY EASEMENTSCARPORT78FF98.1'FF89'TRL O A D I N G EVAFF89'FF89'FF89'FF89'3'- 6 " CA R P O R T S. B .145'-7"SETBACKLOT 1LOT 2LOT 3LOT 4LOT 548'-3"45'-7"SETBACK47'-3"3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 5.6'5' FENCETW 87.54'FS 81.24' (N)FS 86.69' (S)TW 87.17'FS 81.53' (N)FS 86.61' (S)RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 5.6' + 3.5' FENCETW 88.7'FS 81.89' (N)FS 77.20' (S)TW 98.0'FS 92.9' (N)FS 97.93' (S)TW 97.0'FS 95.5' (N)FS 97.3' (S)TW 101.0'FS 97.4' (N)FS 101.94' (S)TW 105.25'FS 98.72' (N)FS 105.09' (S)TW 88.78'FS 88.33' (N)FS 88.65' (S)TW 89.44'FS 88.50' (N)FS 89.41' (S)TW 94.07FS 88.40' (E)FS 93.96' (W)TW 89.8'FS 87.2' (E)FS 89.67' (W)TW 89.1'FS 84.8' (W)FS 88.38' (E)TW 88.53'FS 81.0' (W)FS 87.44' (E)TW 88.13'FS 80.45' (N)FS 87.58' (S)TW 97.6'FS 93.8' (N)FS 97.50' (S)TW 106.6'FS 98.6' (N)FS 106.28' (S)RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 4' + 3.5' FENCETW 84.34'FS 80.3' (N)FS 84.14' (S)RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 6.8' + 3.5' FENCETW 84.0'FS 81.2' (N)FS 77.2' (S)RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 7.5'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 6.5' +3.5' FENCETW 100.5'FS 98.0' (N)3.5' FENCE15' 15'15'11'15'6'53' SETBACK 26'7'10' 13'10'-9"20'150'20'24'24'24'24' 13'15'-11"49'-9"45'-9"66'-3"74'-3"24'7'115'11'101'141'45'-7"73'94'4'5'24'6'6'6'20'8'-6"17'24'4'5'5'5'6'6' 6'6'8'-6"17'-6" 46'SETBACK46'10' 24' AISLE 8'-4" CARPORT S.B. 48'-3" SETBACK TW 78.7'FS 77.4' (W)RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 1.3'TW 89.2'FS 87.2' (E)RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 2.0'0.5' RET. WALL3.5' GATERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 6.6' + 3.5' FENCETW 83.8'FS 83.8' (N)FS 77.2' (S)RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 11.4' + 3.5' FENCETW 88.6'FS 88.3' (S)FS 77.2' (N)BIO-FILTRATIONBASIN(Wall Heights perTM Sheet 10)BIO-FILTRATIONBASIN5' FENCE3.5' FENCE3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 4.6'TW 98.1'FS 93.5' (S)1.8' RET. WALL + 3.5' FENCETW 97.8'FS 96.0' (N)TW 94.4'FS 88.8' (N)TRANSF.TRANSF.TRANSF.TRANSF.0408020CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001SP.6WALL AND FENCE PLAN LEGENDRETAINING WALLSPLIT FACE BLOCK, WALL HEIGHTS AS SHOWN* (SEE TTM FOR DETAILS)RETAINING WALL WITH 42" HIGH FENCE ABOVESPLIT FACE BLOCK WITH TUBULAR STEEL FENCE, WALL HEIGHTS AS SHOWN* + 42" FENCE (SEE TTM FOR DETAILS)42" HIGH FENCETUBULAR STEEL60" HIGH FENCETUBULAR STEEL* RETAINING WALL HEIGHTS MEASURED FROM TOP OF WALL (TW) TO LOWEST ADJACENT FINISHED SURFACE (FS) A1.0CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESEAST PARCELCARLSBAD, CA #160809Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001 A1.1CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESEAST PARCELCARLSBAD, CA #160809Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001 A1.2CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESEAST PARCELCARLSBAD, CA #160809Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001 A1.3CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESEAST PARCELCARLSBAD, CA #160809Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001 A1.4CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESEAST PARCELCARLSBAD, CA #160809Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001 2.SOUTH ELEVATIONT.O.PLATE+/-37'-8" 10'-3"10'-3"T.O.PLATE(POINT 4)(POINT 6)+/-48'-7" +/-50'-11" +/-55'-5"FIN. GRADE+/- 97.1'T.O. ROOF (56'-5" ABOVE LOWEST F.G.)T.O. PARAPET (POINT 2: 49'-7" ABOVE LOWEST F.G.)GRADE ATLAUREL TREE LN.T.O.PLATE+/-37'-8" 10'-3"10'-3"T.O.PLATE1.NORTH ELEVATIONT.O. PARAPET(POINT 3)(POINT 1)+/-48'-7" +/-50'-11"T.O. PARAPET (POINT 2: 49'-7" ABOVE LOWEST F.G.)T.O.PARAPET+/-55'-5"412FIN. GRADE+/- 97.1'T.O. ROOF (56'-5" ABOVE LOWEST F.G.)+/-42'-6"T.O. ROOF (AT BLDG. ENDS FACING AVIARA)A2.0NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATIONSEAST PARCELCARLSBAD, CA #160809Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-000112346789101114508 16 24Material Legend1. Concrete S-Tile Roofing2. Stucco3. Garage Doors4. Masonry Veneer5. Siding6. Wood Trellis7. Metal Railing with Mesh Infill8. Single Hung Vinyl Windows9. Stucco Trim10. Wood Corbel11. Metal Surround Bay Window12. --13. Metal Decorative Element14. Flat Metal Canopy15. Solar Panels215 6.NORTH COURTYARD ELEVATIONT.O.PLATE+/-45'-4" 10'-3"10'-3"T.O.PLATE(POINT 9)+/-35'-10"(POINT 8)T.O. PARAPET+/-48'-7"FIN. GRADE+/- 97.1'T.O. PARAPET (POINT 10: 49'-7" ABOVE LOWEST F.G.)3.EAST ELEVATIONT.O.PLATE10'-3"10'-3"T.O.PLATE+/-50'-11"(POINT 3 & 4)T.O.PARAPET5. WEST ELEVATION (NORTH WING)T.O.PLATE+/-37'-8"10'-3"10'-3"T.O.PLATET.O. PARAPET(POINT 1)+/-35'-10"(POINT 13)GRADE ATAVIARA PKWY4. WEST ELEVATION (SOUTH WING)T.O.PLATE+/-37'-8" 10'-3"10'-3"T.O.PLATET.O. PARAPET(POINT 6)+/-35'-10"(POINT 8)412GRADE ATAVIARA PKWY.7.SOUTH COURTYARD ELEVATIONT.O.PLATE+/-45'-4" 10'-3"10'-3"T.O.PLATE(POINT 12)+/-35'-10"(POINT 13)T.O. PARAPET(POINT 11)T.O. PARAPET+/-48'-7" +/-55'-5"FIN. GRADE+/- 97.1'T.O. ROOF (56'-5" ABOVE LOWEST F.G.)A2.1EAST, WEST, & COURTYARD ELEVATIONSEAST PARCELCARLSBAD, CA #160809Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-00011Material Legend1. Concrete S-Tile Roofing2. Stucco3. Garage Doors4. Masonry Veneer5. Siding6. Wood Trellis7. Metal Railing with Mesh Infill8. Single Hung Vinyl Windows9. Stucco Trim10. Wood Corbel11. Metal Surround Bay Window12. --13. Metal Decorative Element14. Flat Metal Canopy15. Solar Panels9257891011141510987125678721554408 16 242215 TRASH ENCLOSURE - SIDE ELEVATION±7'-0"TRASH ENCLOSURE - FRONT ELEVATIONT.O. ROOF±9'-0"CARPORT - FRONT ELEVATIONT.O. ROOF±9'-0"CARPORT - FRONT ELEVATIONT.O. ROOF±12'-0"±12'-0"T.O.PLATET.O.PLATE312TRASH ENCLOSURE - PLAN(MODIFIED PER STANDARD GS-16 TYPE B,TRASH BINS ARE 4 C.Y. WITH 6' length, 4'-2" width, 4' height)T.O. WALL±11'-0"6'-0"MIN.19'-8"TRASHBIN3'-1"3'-1"3121'-3"14'-2"15'-5"4. C.Y.TRASHBIN4. C.Y.TRASHBIN4. C.Y.TRASHBIN4. C.Y.±7'-0"T.O. ROOFT.O. WALL±11'-0"A2.2CARPORT AND TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAILSEAST PARCELCARLSBAD, CA #160809Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-00011NTS212Material Legend1. Concrete S-Tile Roofing2. Stucco3. Garage Doors4. Masonry Veneer5. Siding6. Wood Trellis7. Metal Railing with Mesh Infill8. Single Hung Vinyl Windows9. Stucco Trim10. Wood Corbel11. Metal Surround Bay Window12. --13. Metal Decorative Element14. Flat Metal Canopy15. Solar Panels ATRIUMLEASING OFFICE /RESIDENTSERVICESMULTI-PURPOSEROOMCOURTYARDRETAINING WALL WITHSAFETY BARRIER ABOVERETAINING WALLWITH SAFETYBARRIER ABOVESTAIR RISERELEV.METERSMETERS(10) CARPORTS(8) CARPORTS(5) CARPORTS12'x28'LOADINGZONESITE ACCESSIBLEPEDESTRIAN PATH15'-0"FRONTSETBACK(9) CARPORTSPLAZANotes:1. Refer to Civil Engineer'sPlans for Grading andDrainage Information.2. Refer to LandscapeArchitect's Plans for OutdoorRecreation and SidewalkInformation.3. Refer to Fire PreventionPlans for more information.RETAINING WALLREFER TO GRADINGPLAN FOR MOREINFORMATION.VEHICLE GATEMAILSTOR.KIT.M.F.S.STOR.23'- 0 " TO W A L L A B O V E 25' - 1 1 " C L E A R A T GR O U N D L E V E LFLOORABOVE2'-11"AVIARA PARKWAY FIRE HYDRANTFIRE HYDRANT24'-0" 25'-2" CLEAR ATGROUND LEVEL22'-3" CLEARTO WALL ABOVE 1295 SF1372 SFGUESTGUEST18'-0"SETBACK(ACTUAL)20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"17 ' - 6 " 2'- 6 " 24 ' - 0 "(105) TOTAL GROUND FLOOR SPACES:(2) ACCESSIBLE SPACES 9' x 18'(103) STANDARD SPACES 8'-6" x 20'-0" WITH (11*) TOTAL EV CAPABLE SPACES = EV CHARGERS9'-0"GUEST44' S E T B A C K 48'-3" SETBACK 8'-4" S.B. 21'- 1 0 " CL E A R T O S K Y AT N O R T H S I D E 3R D / 4 T H F L O O R BA L C O N I E S 21'-1" CLEARTO SKY AT2ND/3RD/4THFLR.BALCONY TRASHSTAIRACCESS(FIRE)30'-3 1/2" TYP.20'-1 1/2" TYP.EQ.EQ.EQ.EQ.EQ.20'- 3 " T Y P . 20'- 3 " T Y P .EV CAPABLE*EV CAPABLE*EV CAPABLE**EVSE INSTALLED*EV CAPABLE*ACCESSIBLEEV CAPABLE*EVSE INSTALLED*EVSE INSTALLED*EVSE INSTALLED*EVSE INSTALLED*EVSE INSTALLEDPROPOSEDTRANSFORMERRIDESHARESPACEBIKEA3.0 GROUND FLOOR PLAN / SITE PLAN4-STORY WOOD FRAMED SLAB ON GRADE - EAST PARCELCARLSBAD, CA #160809Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-00010 8 1632 2C1B3A2A1B2A1A1A2BS1AL.S1BS1A2B1A1A2A3A1B2CE.2A1B392 SQ. FT.STOR.231 SQ. FT.S1BDASHED LINE INDICATES FLUSH BALCONY ATSECOND FLOOR (NORTH SIDE ONLY)22 UNITS @ 2ND FLOOR22 UNITS @3RD FLOOR15'-0"FRONTSETBACK(BIKESTORAGEAT R3)2C1B3A2A1B1A2BS1AL.S1BS1A2B3B2A3A1B2CE.1B392 SQ. FT.STOR.231 SQ. FT.S1B18 UNITS @4TH FLOOR15'-0"FRONTSETBACKUNITSBELOWUNITSBELOWA3.1FLOOR PLAN - UPPER LEVELS 4-STORY WOOD FRAMED SLAB ON GRADE - EAST PARCELCARLSBAD, CA #160809Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001R4 LEVELR2 & R3 LEVELS0 8 1632 TRASHENCLOSUREROOF3:12 PITCHEDCARPORT ROOFSOLAR PVPANELS3:12 PITCHEDCARPORT ROOF4:12 PITCHEDROOFFLATROOFFLATROOF4:12 PITCHEDROOFTRELLIS4:12 PITCHEDROOFFLATROOFFLATROOF4:12 PITCHEDROOFNOTE:ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENTSHALL COMPLY WITH BUILDINGDEPARTMENT POLICY 80-6.OPENTO BELOWOPENTO BELOWPITCHEDROOFMECHANICAL (TYP.)SOLAR PVPANELSSOLARCOLLECTORS(213 TOTAL) 385WSOLAR PV MODULE(21 TOTAL) SUN EARTH TRB-404'X10' SOLAR COLLECTORS W/(1) 1450 GALLON SOLAR TANK(60"DX130"L)~15,000 LBA WATER WEIGHTA3.2FLOOR PLAN - ROOF LEVEL 4-STORY WOOD FRAMED SLAB ON GRADE - EAST PARCELCARLSBAD, CA #160809Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001ROOF LEVEL0 8 1632 26'-5 1/2"24'-11 1/2"24'-11"28'-4" 30'-11"23'-7 1/2"23'-11"36'-2"23'-11"30'-0 1/2"LIVING /KITCHEN13'-9"x16'-5"225 SFSTUDIOBEDROOM12'-0"x9'-3"111 SF BATH9'-8"x6'-9"61 SFUNIT S1A : STUDIO450 SQ. FT. NET RENTABLEUNIT S1B : STUDIO445 SQ. FT. NET RENTABLEUNIT 1A : 1 BEDROOM625 SQ. FT. NET RENTABLEUNIT 1B : 1 BEDROOM606 SQ. FT. NET RENTABLEUNIT 2A : 2 BEDROOM747 SQ. FT. NET RENTABLESTUDIOBEDROOM10'-0"x9'-5"95 SFKITCHEN10'-5"x11'-3"117 SFLIVING13'-11"x12'-5"130 SFDECK10'-7"x5'-0"53 SFDECK11'-10"x6'-11"59 SFDECK9'-1"x4'-3"39 SFBEDROOM11'-0"x11'-0"121 SFLIVING /DINING11'-6"x15'-11"184 SFKITCHEN10'-10"x10'-0"109 SF BATH9'-8"x6'-11"62 SF BATH9'-5"x7'-0"63 SF W.I.C.C.P.P.P.LIVING12'-6"x10'-4"129 SFKITCHEN16'-3"x10'-4"167 SFBEDROOM11'-0"x11'-5"126 SF BATH10'-0"x7'-0"64 SFDECK11'-4"x5'-0"57 SFC.DECK9'-9"x5'-6"53 SFBEDROOM12'-10"x10'-6"122 SFBEDROOM10'-6"x13'-3"139 SFKITCHEN10'-0"x8'-10"88 SFLIVING /DINING12'-6"x10'-4"129 SF BATH10'-6"x6'-9"67 SFC.C.C.P.P.A4.0UNIT PLANS4-STORY WOOD FRAMED SLAB ON GRADE - EAST PARCELCARLSBAD, CA #160809Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001 30'-0 1/2"33'-11 1/2"23'-11"39'-7 1/2"23'-11"48'-0 1/2"UNIT 3A : 3 BEDROOM986 SQ. FT. NET RENTABLEUNIT 2B : 2 BEDROOM860 SQ. FT. NET RENTABLEUNIT 2C : 2 BEDROOM702 SQ. FT. NET RENTABLEP.C. W.I.C.LIVING /DINING11'-6"x20'-9"218 SFKITCHEN11'-0"x9'-4"100 SF BATH11'-11"x7'-2"82 SFBEDROOM10'-6"x13'-9"144 SFBEDROOM 210'-6"x13'-9"145 SFDECK9'-8"x5'-11"57 SF BATH9'-5"x6'-6"57 SFBEDROOM 212'-7"x10'-1"114 SFM. BEDROOM11'-1"x13'-11"154 SF W.I.C.KITCHEN15'-5"x8'-5"129 SFLIVING /DINING12'-6"x10'-4"129 SFDECK10'-6"x4'-0"42 SFBEDROOM 213'-9"x10'-6"132 SFBEDROOM 310'-6"x12'-4"112 SFLIVING /DINING12'-6"x10'-4"129 SFM. BEDROOM12'-6"x10'-7"117 SF BATH10'-7"x5'-3"56 SFKITCHEN10'-10"x8'-0"87 SF BATH9'-6"x6'-9"60 SFDECK8'-7"x4'-6"39 SFC.C.P.30'-11"45'-5 1/2"UNIT 3B : 3 BEDROOM1048 SQ. FT. NET RENTABLEBEDROOM 211'-9"x10'-11"128 SFBEDROOM 311'-1"x10'-11"121 SFM. BEDROOM12'-1"x16'-6"172 SF BATH9'-5"x5'-2"48 SFKITCHEN13'-2"x10'-0"126 SF BATH9'-5"x7'-0"63 SFDECK9'-1"x4'-0"36 SFLIVING ROOM/DINING ROOM11'-6"x19'-3"221 SFA4.1UNIT PLANS4-STORY WOOD FRAMED SLAB ON GRADE - EAST PARCELCARLSBAD, CA #160809Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001 CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001A5.0ARCHITECTURAL INSPIRATIONWEST PARCEL A5.1CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVEWEST PARCELVIEW FROM PRIMARY ENTRANCE AT AVIARA PARKWAYCARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001 A5.2CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVEWEST PARCELVIEW FROM AVIARA PARKWAYCARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001 A5.3CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVEWEST PARCELVIEW FROM SECONDARY ENTRANCE AT AVIARA PARKWAYCARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001 A5.4CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVEWEST PARCELVIEW FROM ENTRY COURTYARDCARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001 A5.5CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVEWEST PARCELVIEW FROM ENTRY COURTYARDCARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001 CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001A5.6CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESWEST PARCELOPEN SPACES AND LANDSCAPING 2. SOUTH ELEVATION1. NORTH ELEVATION G1 - GROUND FLOORL2 - SECOND FLOORL3 - THIRD FLOOR9'-11" L4 - FOURTH FLOOR9'-11"11'-7" 50'-0" TYPICAL HEIGHT TOP PARKING DECK11'-6"LOWEST F.G. 88'AT BUILDING FOOTPRINT F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. G1 - GROUND FLOORL2 - SECOND FLOORL3 - THIRD FLOOR9'-11" L4 - FOURTH FLOOR9'-11"11'-7" 50'-0" TYPICAL HEIGHT TOP PARKING DECK11'-6"LOWEST F.G. 88'AT BUILDING FOOTPRINT F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F.54'-0" ABOVELOWEST FG60'-0" ABOVELOWEST FG54'-0"ABOVELOWEST FG60'-0" ABOVELOWEST FG53'-6" ABOVELOWEST FG53'-6" ABOVELOWEST FG11234567891011121315161718202345678910111213131516171820± 57'-11" TOP OF CARPORT± 57'-11" TOP OF CARPORT202021CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001A6.1NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATIONSWEST PARCEL0 8 1632MATERIAL LEGEND139541281415STUCCO SAND FINISH: COLOR 2RAFTER TAILWOOD POST AND BEAMFIBER CEMENT BOARD & TRIM EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTUREDECORATIVE TILE CAP 162713RECESSED STUCCO DETAILCORBEL6FASCIA BOARD1110DECORATIVE STUCCO TRIMWOOD TRELLIS OVER DECK1817VINYL WINDOW SYSTEMMETAL RAILINGSTUCCO SAND FINISH: COLOR 119DECORATIVE TILE WITH STUCCOFINISH TRIM SURROUND20DECORATIVE METAL AWINGSTUCCO SAND FINISH: COLOR 3CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOFING FIBER CEMENT TRIM STUCCO FINISH CORBEL 20SOLAR SHADE OVER PARKING21PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS21KEY N.T.S. 2. EAST ELEVATION1. WEST ELEVATION G1 - GROUND FLOORL2 - SECOND FLOORL3 - THIRD FLOOR9'-11" L4 - FOURTH FLOOR9'-11"11'-7" 50'-0" TYPICAL HEIGHT TOP PARKING DECK11'-6"LOWEST F.G. 88'AT BUILDING FOOTPRINT F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. G1 - GROUND FLOORL2 - SECOND FLOORL3 - THIRD FLOOR9'-11" L4 - FOURTH FLOOR9'-11"11'-7" 50'-0" TYPICAL HEIGHT TOP PARKING DECK11'-6"LOWEST F.G. 88'AT BUILDING FOOTPRINT F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F.GRADE AT AVIARA PKWY6'-0" F.F.60'-0" ABOVELOWEST FG54'-0" ABOVELOWEST FG60'-0" ABOVELOWEST FG54'-0" ABOVELOWEST FG13245678910111213151617181920132456789101112131516171820± 57'-11" TOP OF CARPORT± 57'-11" TOP OF CARPORT202021CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001A6.2WEST & EAST ELEVATIONSWEST PARCEL0 8 1632MATERIAL LEGEND139541281415STUCCO SAND FINISH: COLOR 2RAFTER TAILWOOD POST AND BEAMFIBER CEMENT BOARD & TRIM EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTUREDECORATIVE TILE CAP 162713RECESSED STUCCO DETAILCORBEL6FASCIA BOARD1110DECORATIVE STUCCO TRIMWOOD TRELLIS OVER DECK1817VINYL WINDOW SYSTEMMETAL RAILINGSTUCCO SAND FINISH: COLOR 119DECORATIVE TILE WITH STUCCOFINISH TRIM SURROUND20DECORATIVE METAL AWINGSTUCCO SAND FINISH: COLOR 3CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOFING FIBER CEMENT TRIM STUCCO FINISH CORBEL 20SOLAR SHADE OVER PARKING21PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS12KEY N.T.S. 2. NORTH COURTYARD NORTH ELEVATION1. NORTH COURTYARD SOUTH ELEVATION G1 - GROUND FLOORL2 - SECOND FLOORL3 - THIRD FLOOR9'-11" L4 - FOURTH FLOOR9'-11"11'-7" 50'-0" TYPICAL HEIGHT TOP PARKING DECK11'-6"LOWEST F.G. 88'AT BUILDING FOOTPRINT F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. G1 - GROUND FLOORL2 - SECOND FLOORL3 - THIRD FLOOR9'-11" L4 - FOURTH FLOOR9'-11"11'-7" 50'-0" TYPICAL HEIGHT TOP PARKING DECK11'-6"LOWEST F.G. 88'AT BUILDING FOOTPRINT F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F.4. NORTH COURTYARD EAST ELEVATION3. NORTH COURTYARD WEST ELEVATION G1 - GROUND FLOORL2 - SECOND FLOORL3 - THIRD FLOOR9'-11" L4 - FOURTH FLOOR9'-11"11'-7" 50'-0" TYPICAL HEIGHT TOP PARKING DECK11'-6"LOWEST F.G. 88'AT BUILDING FOOTPRINT F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. G1 - GROUND FLOORL2 - SECOND FLOORL3 - THIRD FLOOR9'-11" L4 - FOURTH FLOOR9'-11"11'-7" 50'-0" TYPICAL HEIGHT TOP PARKING DECK11'-6"LOWEST F.G. 88'AT BUILDING FOOTPRINT F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F.CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001A6.3NORTH COURTYARD ELEVATIONWEST PARCEL0 8 16322134KEY N.T.S. 3. SOUTH COURTYARD NORTH ELEVATION2. SOUTH COURTYARD EAST ELEVATION G1 - GROUND FLOORL2 - SECOND FLOORL3 - THIRD FLOOR9'-11" L4 - FOURTH FLOOR9'-11"11'-7" 50'-0" TYPICAL HEIGHT TOP PARKING DECK11'-6"LOWEST F.G. 88'AT BUILDING FOOTPRINT F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. G1 - GROUND FLOORL2 - SECOND FLOORL3 - THIRD FLOOR9'-11" L4 - FOURTH FLOOR9'-11"11'-7" 50'-0" TYPICAL HEIGHT TOP PARKING DECK11'-6"LOWEST F.G. 88'AT BUILDING FOOTPRINT F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F.1. SOUTH COURTYARD SOUTH ELEVATION G1 - GROUND FLOORL2 - SECOND FLOORL3 - THIRD FLOOR9'-11" L4 - FOURTH FLOOR9'-11"11'-7" 50'-0" TYPICAL HEIGHT TOP PARKING DECK11'-6"LOWEST F.G. 88'AT BUILDING FOOTPRINT F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F.CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001A6.4SOUTH COURTYARD ELEVATIONWEST PARCEL0 8 1632312KEY N.T.S. . EAST COURTYARD SOUTH ELEVATION G1 - GROUND FLOORL2 - SECOND FLOORL3 - THIRD FLOOR9'-11" L4 - FOURTH FLOOR9'-11"11'-7" 50'-0" TYPICAL HEIGHT TOP PARKING DECK11'-6"LOWEST F.G. 88'AT BUILDING FOOTPRINT F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F.. EAST COURTYARD NORTH ELEVATION G1 - GROUND FLOORL2 - SECOND FLOORL3 - THIRD FLOOR9'-11" L4 - FOURTH FLOOR9'-11"11'-7" 50'-0" TYPICAL HEIGHT TOP PARKING DECK11'-6"LOWEST F.G. 88'AT BUILDING FOOTPRINT F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F.CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001A6.5EAST COURTYARD ELEVATIONWEST PARCEL0 8 163221KEY N.T.S. 10'-0"CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001A6.6TRELLIS ELEVATION AND PLANWEST PARCEL1KEY N.T.S.0 2 48TRELLIS PLAN1. TRELLIS EAST ELEVATIONTRELLIS PERSPECTIVE N.T.S. 11'-1"FIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORFOURTH FLOORPARKING DECKT.O. PLATE5'-0"9'-11" T.O. PLYWOOD TO T.O. PLYWOOD 9'-11" T.O. PLYWOOD TO T.O. PLYWOOD 11'-6" T.O. CONCRETE TO T.O. PLYWOOD 14'-0" MIN. REQ'D HEIGHT FOR HOISTWAY 60'-0" 2'-0"6"F.G. 88'F.F. 89'T.O. ROOF PARAPET10'-6"11'-7"FIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORFOURTH FLOORPARKING DECK9'-11"T.O. PLYWOOD TO T.O. PLYWOOD9'-11"T.O. PLYWOOD TO T.O. PLYWOOD11'-6"T.O. CONCRETE TO T.O. PLYWOOD 54'-5" 2'-0"6" 8'-1"F.G. 88'F.F. 89'CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001A7.0SECTIONSWEST PARCEL0 2 482. PARKING STRUCTURE STAIR1. ELEVATOR TOWER21KEY N.T.S. SETBACK(ACTUAL)14%RAMP UP5%RAMP UP 1212121212121212121212121A1A1A1A1A2A1A1A1A1A1A2A1A2A2A 2A1C1C1C1C1C 1C1CTRASH18' X 12'MECHBIKES - 144 SPACES, 2-TIERSTORAGE - 14 @ 75CFELEC.1C1CELEC ELEC ELEC 1C2A2ATRASH18' X 12'2A1A1C1A1C1C2A 2A 2B1A-alt1A-alt1A-alt1A-alt1CPASSAGE1B1B1B1BCLUBROOM1800 SF1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1A2A2A2ALEVEL 2 ABOVELEVEL 3 ABOVELEVEL 2 ABOVEFITNESS1450 SFLOBBY/LEASING1800 SFOUTDOOR RECAREA / POOLCOURTYARD8,000 SFOUTDOORLOUNGE AREA5,500 SFPASSIVECOURTYARD4,000 SFWESTYARD2,500 SFARRIVALYARD3,000 SF1BRESTROOMSGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGRIDE-SHAREGGGGGGDAYTIME LOADING/EVENING GUEST (48' X 7')DAYTIME LOADING/EVENING GUEST (48' X 7')BUSINESSCENTER10'26'6'6'-7" 26' R20'R20'R20'R 1 0 ' 2 0 'BIOFILTRATIONBASIN(Wall Heights perTM Sheet 10)AVIAR A P A R K W A Y 26' PRIVATE DRIVE26' PRIVATE DRIVE50' RIPARIAN BUFFEREXISTIN G A C C E S S R O A D 12' ONE-WAY INGRESS7 PARKING SPACES @ 7' X 24'11 PARKING SPACES @ 7' X 24'5 PARKINGSPACES @9' X 20'406 PARKING SPACES @ 8.5' X 20'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 5.7'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 2.6'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 5.0'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 0.9'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 0.5'EXISTINGRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLHEIGHT 7.7' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 6.3' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 11.5' + 3.5' FENCE(78) TOTAL GROUND FLOOR SPACES;(23) TOTAL GROUND UNCOVERED SPACES92'SETBACK99'8' TRAIL20'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 1.7' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 3.5'+ 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 2.5' +3.5' FENCE4-STORY WRAPAPARTMENTSPARKINGSTRUCTURE78FF89'FF89'FF89'FF89'FF89'LOT 1LOT 2LOT 348'-3"45'-7"SETBACK47'-3"RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 5.6'5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 5.6' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 4' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 6.8' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 7.5'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 6.5' +3.5' FENCE3.5' FENCE15' 15'15' 11'15'6'53' SETBACK 26'7'10' 13'10'-9"20'150'20'24'24'24'24' 13'15'-11"49'-9"45'-9"66'-3"74'-3"24'7'115'11'101'141'45'-7"73'94'4'5'24'6'6'6'20'8'-6"17'24'4'5'5'5'6'6' 6'6'46' SETBACK46'10'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 1.3'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT 2.0'0.5' RET. WALLRETAINING WALLHEIGHT 6.6' + 3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 11.4' + 3.5' FENCEBIO-FILTRATIONBASIN(Wall Heights perTM Sheet 10)BIO-FILTRATIONBASIN5' FENCE3.5' FENCE3.5' FENCERETAINING WALLHEIGHT 4.6'1.8' RET. WALL + 3.5' FENCETRANSF.TRANSF.TRANSF.0306015CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001A8.0CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANWEST PARCEL 1A14%RAMP UP5%RAMP UP1A1A1A1A 2A1AFITNESS1450 SF1A1A1A1A1C1C1C1C1C1C1CTR.MECHBIKES - 96 to1441212121212121212STORAGE - 14 @ 75CF12121212ELEC.1CELEC ELEC ELEC 1CTR.2ALOBBY/LEASING1800 SF1A1C1A1C1C2A2A2B1A-ALT1A-ALT1A-ALT1A-altPASSAGE1B1B1B1BCLUBROOM1800 SF1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1A2A2A2ALEVEL 2 ABOVELEVEL 3 ABOVELEVEL 2 ABOVE2A2A2A2A1A1C1C2A2A1BREST-ROOMS400 SF40G41G42G44G464850525456586062646668707274767843454749515355575961636567697173757735G33G31G29G27G25G23G22G20G18G16G14G12G10G8G6G4G2G34G32G28G26G2117G15G11G9G5G3G7G13G19G24G30G36G37G38G1G39G*****VAN ACCESSIBLE EV CAPABLEEVSE INSTALLEDEVSE INSTALLED* *(78) TOTAL GROUND FLOOR SPACES:(2) ACCESSIBLE SPACES 9'-0" x 18'-0"; (76) STANDARD SPACES 8'-6" x 20'-0";WITH (11*) TOTAL EV CAPABLE SPACES= EV CHARGERSEV CAPABLE*EV CAPABLE**EV CAPABLE*EV CAPABLEEVSE INSTALLEDEVSE INSTALLEDEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEBUSINESSCENTER332'-1" 332'-1"503'-0"503'-0"10'-6" 15'-2"9'-0"8'-0"8'-6"20'-0"9'-0"5'-0"24'-0"24'-0" 14'-8"24'-0"20'-0"24'-0"20'-0"20'-0" 10'-6"CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001A8.1GROUND FLOOR PLANWEST PARCEL0204010 LOBBYBELOWFITNESSBELOW14%RAMP UP5% RAMP UP MECHMECHTR.TR.STORAGE - 21 @ 75CF1A1A1A1A1A2A1A1A1A1A1A1C1C1C1C1C1C1CMECHELEC.1C1C2A1A1C1A1C1C2A2A2B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1A2A2A2ALEVEL 3 ABOVE2A2A2A2A1A1C1C2A2A1B2A2A2A2A2A1AWIFICAFE750 SF1A484950525456586051535557593634323028262423211917151311975335332927221816121064814202531373839214041 42434445 4647(86) TOTAL SECOND FLOOR SPACES:(2) ACCESSIBLE SPACES 9'-0" x 18'-0"; (84) STANDARD SPACES 8'-6" x 20'-0"WITH (12*) TOTAL EV CAPABLE SPACES= EV CHARGERS****EVSE INSTALLEDEVSE INSTALLEDACCESSIBLEEV CAPABLE*EV CAPABLE*62616364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485861B1B**EV CAPABLEEV CAPABLE**EV CAPABLEEV CAPABLE**EVSE INSTALLEDEVSE INSTALLEDEVSE INSTALLEDEVSE INSTALLED332'-1" 332'-1"503'-0"503'-0"9'-0"20'-0" 8'-6"20'-0"20'-0"9'-0"5'-0"24'-0"20'-0"20'-0"24'-0"20'-0"24'-0" 10'-6"10'-0" 10'-6"10'-6"5'-0"24'-0"20'-0"20'-0"0204010CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001A8.2SECOND FLOOR PLANWEST PARCEL 14%RAMP UP5% RAMP UP MECHMECHTR.STORAGE - 21 @ 75CFTR.2A2A1A2A2A1A1A1A1A1A2A1A1A1A1A1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1A1C2A1C2A1B2A1A2A1C1A1C1C2A2A2B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1A1B1B1B1B1B1B2A1B1B1A1A2A2A2A2A2A1A2A1C1C2A2A484950525456586051535557593634323028262423211917151311975335332927221816121064814202531373839214041 42434445 46476162636465666768697071727374757677787980818283848586(86) TOTAL THIRD FLOOR SPACES:(2) ACCESSIBLE SPACES 9'-0" x 18'-0"; (84) STANDARD SPACES 8'-6" x 20'-0"WITH (10*) TOTAL EV CAPABLE SPACES= EV CHARGERS****EVSE INSTALLEDEVSE INSTALLED**EV CAPABLEEV CAPABLE**EVSE INSTALLEDEVSE INSTALLEDEVSE INSTALLEDEVSE INSTALLED**EV CAPABLEEV CAPABLE332'-1" 332'-1"503'-0"503'-0"9'-0"20'-0"5'-0" 20'-0"20'-0"24'-0"20'-0"20'-0"24'-0"20'-0"24'-0" 10'-6"10'-0" 10'-6"10'-6"24'-0"5'-0"9'-0"20'-0"CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-00010204010A8.3THIRD FLOOR PLANWEST PARCEL 14%RAMP UP5% RAMP UP MECHMECHTR.STORAGE - 21 @ 75CFTR.2A-ALT1A2A-ALT1A1C2A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1A1C1A2A-ALT1C2B-ALT2A-ALT1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1A1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1A1B1A2A-ALT1A2A-ALT2A2A2A-ALT2A-ALT2A-ALT2A-ALT2A-ALT2A-ALT2A-ALT2A-ALT2A-ALT2A-ALT2A-ALT(86) TOTAL FOURTH FLOOR SPACES:(2) ACCESSIBLE SPACES 9'-0" x 18'-0"; (84) STANDARD SPACES 8'-6" x 20'-0"WITH (10*) TOTAL EV CAPABLE SPACES= EV CHARGERS484950525456586051535557593634323028262423211917151311975335332927221816121064814202531373839214041 42434445 46476162636465666768697071727374757677787980818283848586****EVSE INSTALLEDEVSE INSTALLED**EVSE INSTALLEDEVSE INSTALLEDEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLE**EV CAPABLEEV CAPABLE**EV CAPABLEEV CAPABLE332'-1" 332'-1"503'-0"503'-0"9'-0"5'-0" 20'-0"9'-0"20'-0"20'-0"24'-0"20'-0"20'-0"24'-0"20'-0"24'-0" 10'-6"10'-0" 10'-6"10'-6"24'-0"5'-0"20'-0"CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-000102040100204010A8.4FOURTH FLOOR PLANWEST PARCEL 14%RAMP DN5% RAMP DN BACK-UP25232119171513119753221816121064814202464748(69) TOTAL ROOF SPACES:(0) ACCESSIBLE SPACES 9'-0" x 18'-0"; (69) STANDARD SPACES 8'-6" x 20'-0"144424036343028323843262441393735333129274549 50 51 52 53 54 555657586062646668616567696359332'-1" 332'-1"503'-0"503'-0"RRRRRRRRRRR R R R RRRRRRRRRR R R R R R R R R R4:12 ROOF PITCH TYP. U.N.O.ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SHALL COMPLYWITH BUILDING DEPARTMENT POLICY 80-6ROOF/EQUIP WELLROOF/EQUIP WELLRROOF/EQUIP WELLROOF/EQUIP WELL R22'-10"20'-0"24'-0"20'-0"20'-0"24'-0"20'-0"24'-0" 10'-0"13'-8"14'-0"24'-0" 11'-8"10'-0"22'-0" 13'-6"RRRRR FFFFFFFF01A 8.6SOLAR SHADEOVER PARKING(SEE SHEET A8.6FOR DETAILS)CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-00010204010A8.5ROOF PLANWEST PARCELLEGENDPHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS302 kW MINIMUMSOLAR ORIENTATIONSOLAR ROOF ZONE SHALL BE ORIENTED BETWEEN 110° TO 270° OF TRUE NORTHSOUTHWESTEASTWEST FACING SLOPED ROOFSOUTH FACING SLOPED ROOFN270°110°NORTHSOLAR HOT WATER COLLECTORS40 SF / EACHAIR CONDITIONER CONDENSERSFFLAT ROOFSOLAR HOT WATER TANK 1,225 GALLONS G1 - GROUND FLOORL2 - SECOND FLOORL3 - THIRD FLOOR9'-11" L4 - FOURTH FLOOR9'-11"11'-7" 50'-0" TYPICAL HEIGHT TOP PARKING DECK11'-6"LOWEST F.G. 88'AT BUILDING FOOTPRINT F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F.39'-8"9'-0" 13'-11 1/2" 9'-0"20'-0"5'-0"20'-0"5'-0"9'-0"HSS 8X12HSS 6X12HSS 6X12W16 BEAMZ-PURLINW12X26 BEAMZ-PURLINC-PURLINLIGHT GAUGERACKINGPV MODULESPV MODULESPV MODULESC-PURLINLIGHT GAUGERACKINGW12X26 BEAMZ-PURLINEQUIP. WELLEQUIP. WELL202012020120201SOLAR SHADE OVER PARKING:SINGLE COLUMN, SINGLE CANTILEVERSOLAR SHADE OVER PARKING:SINGLE COLUMN, DOUBLE CANTILEVERSOLAR SHADE OVER PARKING:SINGLE COLUMN, SINGLE CANTILEVER± 57'-11" TOP OF SOLAR SHADECARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001010205A8.6SOLAR SHADE DETAILSWEST PARCELSOLAR SHADE OVER PARKING:SINGLE COLUMN, DOUBLE CANTILEVERSOLAR SHADE OVER PARKING:SINGLE COLUMN, SINGLE CANTILEVERNOTE: TYPICAL SPECFICATIONS FOR CANTILVERED SOLARSHADES. ACTUAL PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS MAY VARY.ROOF SECTION 33'-0"DECK11'-6" X 7'-9"90 SQ. FT.BEDROOM11'-4" X 12'-5"BATH11'-3" X 8'-3"LIVING20'-10" X 13'-8"LINENW/DCOAT25'-10 1/2"KITCHEN8'-3" X 11'-3"UNIT 1A ALT. : 1 BEDROOM785 SQ. FT. NET RENTABLE24'-10"32'-4"BEDROOM13'-11" X 10'-11"BATH7'-4" X 9'-9"W.I.C.8'-9" X 8'-9"KITCHEN11'-10" X10'-9"DECK15'-3" X 6'-0"82 SQ. FT.LIVING13'-2" X 11'-8"COATW/DPLAN 1B : 1 BEDROOM720 SQ. FT. NET RENTABLEDECK5'-10" X 12'-5"72 SQ. FT.LIVING12'-2" X 15'-0"KITCHEN7'-10" X11'-3"BEDROOM11'-4" X 14'-10"BATH6'-9" X 11'-4"LINENW/DCOAT31'-0"24'-6"UNIT 1A : 1 BEDROOM711 SQ. FT. NET RENTABLECARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001A9.1UNIT PLANS 1A, 1A-ALT, 1BWEST PARCEL0 2 48 UNIT 1C : 1 BEDROOM774 SQ. FT. NET RENTABLEPLAN 2A : 2 BEDROOM1135 SQ. FT. NET RENTABLE33'-0"37'-2"M. BEDROOM11'-0" X 13'-8"M. BATH9'-8" X 9'-1"LIVING13'-6" X 15'-11"BEDROOM 211'-4" X 12'-8"BATH 211'-1" X 7'-4"KITCHEN9'-5" X 10'-9"W/DDECK7'-9" X 11'-6"90 SQ. FT.COAT33'-0"37'-2"M. BEDROOM11'-0" X 12'-2"M. BATH9'-8" X 9'-1"LIVING13'-6" X 15'-11"BEDROOM 211'-4" X 11'-5"BATH 211'-1" X 7'-4"KITCHEN9'-5" X 10'-9"W/DDECK9'-0" X 11'-6"103 SQ. FT.COATPLAN 2A-ALT : 2 BEDROOM1104 SQ. FT. NET RENTABLEDECK5'-10" X 14'-10"86 SQ. FT.LIVING14'-8" X 15'-1"KITCHEN9'-1" X 11'-3"BEDROOM11'-4" X 14'-10"BATH6'-9" X 11'-4"W/D31'-0"27'-0"CARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001A9.2UNIT PLANS 1C, 2A, 2AL-ALTWEST PARCEL0 2 48 BEDROOM 211'-2" X 11'-5"DECK8'-0" X 13'-5"96 SQ. FT.BATH 211'-1" X6'-10"COATLIVING11'-5" X 15'-8"M. BEDROOM11'-3" X 13'-10"M. BATH9'-2" X 9'-2"KITCHEN8'-4" X 10'-9"W/D35'-0"31'-0"PLAN 2B : 2 BEDROOM1026 SQ. FT. NET RENTABLEBEDROOM 211'-2" X 11'-5"DECK8'-0" X 13'-5"96 SQ. FT.BATH 211'-1" X6'-10"COATLIVING11'-5" X 15'-8"M. BEDROOM11'-3" X 12'-4"M. BATH9'-2" X 9'-2"KITCHEN8'-4" X 10'-9"W/D35'-0"31'-0"PLAN 2B-ALT : 2 BEDROOM1009 SQ. FT. NET RENTABLECARLSBAD, CA # 160328Aviara ApartmentsArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJANUARY 24, 2020619.231.6300bridgehousing.com949.537.3834shapartments.comCT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/ EIR 2018-0001A9.3UNIT PLANS 2B, 2B-ALTWEST PARCEL0 2 48 1TENTATIVE MAPAVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARLSBAD, CA 92011OWNER'S CERTIFICATE LEGAL DESCRIPTION GRADED AREA LEGEND BENCH MARK TOPOGRAPHY SOURCE CONSULTANTS TITLE REPORTS ZONING LEGEND OF ABBREVIATIONS: SITE INFORMATION: SHEET INDEX OWNER:PROJECT ADDRESS: CANNON ROADFA R A D A Y AVE PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD COLLE G E BLVDPOINTS ETTI A AVE CAMINOR E A L E L VICINITY MAP: KEY MAP: LAND USE UTILITIES FEMA ZONE AVIARA PARKWAY LAUREL TREE LANE UNDERGROUND DETENTION BASIN DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE STORM WATER QUALITY NOTES: EAST:WEST: L BMP-2 BMP-2 AVIARAPARKWAY LAUREL TREELANE CT2018-002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-005/HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 DRAINAGE QUANTITIES TENTATIVE MAP NO. CT2018-0002 EAST:WEST: SHEET 8 SHEET 5 AVIARA PARKWAYEASTERLY - DRAINAGE BASIN WESTERLY - DRAINAGE BASIN LAUREL TREE LANE (PUBLIC)TYPICAL SECTION LOT CLASSIFICATION: BMP-2 BMP-1 GRADING QUANTITIES REMEDIAL GRADING QUANTITIES BMP-1 UNDERGROUND DETENTION BASIN UNDERGROUND DETENTION BASIN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.'S 2AVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARLSBAD, CA 92011TENTATIVE MAP NO. CT2018-0002 CT2018-002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-005/HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 3AVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARLSBAD, CA 92011DEMOLITION ITEMS: EASEMENT LEGEND: TENTATIVE MAP NO. CT2018-0002 CT2018-002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-005/HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 4AVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARLSBAD, CA 92011WATER FACILITIES: EASEMENT LEGEND: RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES: SEWER FACILITIES: FIRE FLOW: PROPOSED ITEMS: TENTATIVE MAP NO. CT2018-0002 WEST DEVELOPMENT: CT2018-002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-005/HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE DETAIL A = 3,700 SF A = 1329 SF A = 626 SF 5WEST - GRADING PLANAVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARLSBAD, CA 92011A-A 11 SHEET 11 TENTATIVE MAP NO. CT2018-0002 CT2018-002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-005/HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 B-B 12 C-C 12 D-D 12 E-E 12 PROPOSED ITEMS: SHEET 11 SHEET 10 6AVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARLSBAD, CA 92011EASEMENT LEGEND: TENTATIVE MAP NO. CT2018-0002 CT2018-002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-005/HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 7AVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARLSBAD, CA 92011EASEMENT LEGEND: WATER FACILITIES: RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES: SEWER FACILITIES: FIRE FLOW: TENTATIVE MAP NO. CT2018-0002 EAST DEVELOPMENT: CT2018-002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-005/HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 PROPOSED ITEMS: DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE DETAIL 8EAST - GRADING PLANAVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARLSBAD, CA 92011PROPOSED ITEMS: A-A SHEET 11 SHEET 11 SHEET 11 TENTATIVE MAP NO. CT2018-0002 CT2018-002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-005/HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 B-B C-C 9DETAILSAVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARLSBAD, CA 92011TENTATIVE MAP NO. CT2018-0002 CT2018-002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-005/HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 SECTION A-A: UNDERGROUND DETENTION BASIN UNDERGROUND DETENTION BASIN (UDB) ORIFICE DETAIL SECTION B-B: INTERIOR WALL W/ ORIFICES MODIFIED D-09 TYPE A8 SD CLEANOUT FRENCH DRAIN NOTE AVIARA WEST AVIARA EAST SECTION A-A: UNDERGROUND DETENTION BASIN UDB-1: UNDERGROUND DETENTION BASIN SECTION B-B: INTERIOR WALL W/ ORIFICESMODIFIED D-09 TYPE A4 SD CLEANOUT SECTION C-C: UNDERGROUND DETENTION BASIN UDB-2: UNDERGROUND DETENTION BASIN MODIFIED D-09 TYPE A4 SD CLEANOUT TREE WELL DETAIL AVIARA EAST AVIARA EAST AVIARA WEST D H L PIPE INLET DETAIL SECTION D-D: INTERIOR WALL W/ ORIFICES DETAIL OF LOW FLOW OPENING DETAIL OF LOW FLOW OPENING DETAIL OF LOW FLOW OPENING NOTES: SECTION 10DETAILSAVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARLSBAD, CA 92011TENTATIVE MAP NO. CT2018-0002 CT2018-002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-005/HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 MATCH LINE MATCH LINE SEE LEFT A = 3,700 SF A = 1329 SF A = 626 SF PROPOSED ITEMS: SEE RIGHT SECTION A-A A-A 11DETAILSAVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARLSBAD, CA 92011DRIVEWAY & ADA ACCESS DETAIL - WEST PROPOSED ITEMS: DRIVEWAY AT LAUREL TREE LANE & ADA ACCESS DETAIL - EAST PROPOSED ITEMS: PROPOSED ITEMS: STAIR ACCESS DETAIL - EAST PROPOSED ITEMS: TENTATIVE MAP NO. CT2018-0002 CT2018-002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-005/HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 L DRIVEWAY AT AVIARA PARKWAY DETAIL - EAST AVIARA WEST - SOUTH ACCESS DRIVEWAY 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 124 128 132 136 140 144 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 124 128 132 136 140 144 AVIARA WEST - NORTH ACCESS DRIVEWAY 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 124 128 132 136 140 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 124 128 132 136 140 AVIARA WEST - SOUTHWESTERLY ROAD (SECTION A-A) 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 AVIARA WEST - PUMP STATION SECTION (SECTION B-B) 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 AVIARA WEST - NORTHERLY ROAD (SECTION C-C) 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 AVIARA WEST - NORTHWESTERLY ROAD (SECTION D-D) 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 AVIARA WEST - SOUTHERLY ROAD (SECTION E-E) 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 12AVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARLSBAD, CA 92011TENTATIVE MAP NO. CT2018-0002 CT2018-002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-005/HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 PROPOSED ITEMS: SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE DETAIL - WEST EASEMENT LEGEND: 13LAUREL TREE LANE STRIPING PLAN AVIARA APARTMENTS 6145 LAUREL TREE ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92011 LEGENDMATCHLINE - THIS SHEET MATCHLINE - THIS SHEET TENTATIVE MAP NO. CT2018-0002CT2018-002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-005/HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 MATCHLINE - THIS SHEETMATCHLINE - THIS SHEET14AVIARA PARKWAY STRIPING PLANAVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARLSBAD, CA 92011LEGEND SEE STRIPING PLAN FOR LAUREL LANE RIGHT TURN LANE ONLY TENTATIVE MAP NO. CT2018-0002 CT2018-002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-005/HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 MODIFY EXISTING SIGNAL TO INCLUDE RIGHT TURN OVERLAP PHASING PER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS BY MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL DATED: 01/11/19 AVIARA WEST - NORTHERLY RETAINING WALL - CENTERLINE 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 15AVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE LANECARSLBAD, CA 92011 SECTION E-E - CENTERLINE 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 9296 100 104 108 112 116 120 124 128 132136 140 144 148 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 9296 100 104 108 112 116 120 124 128 132136 140 144 148 SECTION F-F - CENTERLINE 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 16AVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE LANECARSLBAD, CA 92011E-EF-F AVIARA EAST - NORTHERLY WALL - CENTERLINE 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 17AVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARSLBAD, CA 92011 LAUREL TREE LANE WALL ALIGNMENT - CENTERLINE 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 EAST SIDE STAIRS ALIGNMENT - CENTERLINE 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 18AVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARSLBAD, CA 92011 SECTION A-A - CENTERLINE 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 SECTION C-C - CENTERLINE 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 SECTION D-D - CENTERLINE 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 SECTION B-B - CENTERLINE 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 19AVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARSLBAD, CA 92011D-DC-C A-AB-B 20OVERALL - PARKING EXHIBITAVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARSLBAD, CAPARKING COUNT SUMMARY LEGEND L 21GARAGE - PARKING EXHIBITAVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARSLBAD, CAPARKING COUNT SUMMARY LEGEND L PARKING GARAGE LEVEL 2 PARKING GARAGE LEVEL 4 PARKING GARAGE LEVEL 3 PARKING GARAGE ROOF LEVEL 22AVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARSLBAD, CA 92011LEGEND PARKING GARAGE SOUTH ENTRANCE AVIARA PARKWAY 23AVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARSLBAD, CA 92011AVIARA PARKWAY ENTRANCE LAUREL TREE LANE ENTRANCEAVIARA PARKWAYLAUREL TREE ROAD AVIARA PARKWAYLAUREL TREE ROAD LEGEND 24AVIARA APARTMENTS6145 LAUREL TREE ROADCARSLBAD, CA 92011PASSENGER CAR TURN AROUNDAVIARA PARKWAYLAUREL TREE ROAD LEGEND From:Glenn Domingo To:Planning Subject:CASE NAME: CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001(DEV2017-0033) - AVIARA APARTMENTS Date:Monday, December 14, 2020 12:39:32 PM Please read into public record for the December 16, 2020 3pm meeting Dear Planning Commission, First of all, thank you for all you do to make our community desirable for all in SouthernCalifornia. My name is Glenn Domingo and our family has been Carlsbad Residence since2001. I am writing to support the above project for affordable housing. We moved fromLaguna Niguel in a Master Planned Community because of the affordability of housing inCarlsbad. Since living in beautiful Carlsbad, we noticed many hospitality employees andservice employees were driving quite a distance to work. The new apartments will assist thesetypes of citizens to work and live in our community. Thus, creating a better way of life andstandard of living for these citizens. We believe that many family demographics will benefit from additional lower income housingfrom Empty Nesters downsizing, New Families entering into the Carlsbad Community withaffordable starter housing and Hospitality and Tourism employees being able to afford in thecommunity they earn and serve. Finally, the overall community will look more appealing as new home buyers and traffic alongPalomar Airport Road continues to increase. Your department has done such a wonderful jobwith the limited open space, parks and reserves. This specific plot of land will be best utilizedfor affordable housing because the streets and infrastructure is already in place. Don't hesitateto reach out if you have any questions or concerns, Kindly, Glenn & Jenifer Domingo1184 Magnolia AveCarlsbad, CA 92008 farmers profile Glenn Domingo 3520 College Blvd Ste 105Oceanside, CA 92056 Phone:(866) 486- 3276 Toll Free: (866) 486- 3276 Fax:(760) 407- 8190 Connect with Me: BROWSE OUR PRODUCTS » Your Agency for Life CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Jennifer Bettis To:Planning Subject:City of Carlsbad Planning Case Name CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018- 0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV 2017-0033)- AVAIRA APARTMENTS: Date:Monday, December 14, 2020 12:20:31 PM Dear Planning Commissioner: I am writing regarding City of Carlsbad Planning Case Name CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018- 0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV 2017-0033)- AVAIRA APARTMENTS: I am writing in support of this project for many reasons. I believe that affordable housing for employees working in nearby industry, hotels, and tourist destinations is imperative to the long-term growth of Carlsbad as a City. Affordable housing allows “starter families” to live close to their workplace such as LEGOLAND, restaurants and other small businesses in Carlsbad. These small businesses are the foundation of the Carlsbad economy. Providing this housing will also keep the revenue generated from sales tax, income tax and other forms of city-based charges and miscellaneous fees in Carlsbad. Enabling employees to live near their jobs will reduce traffic congestion in Carlsbad as well. I have lived in Carlsbad 30 years and a business owner for 20 years. I can tell you I have had difficulty retaining good employees due to the lack of affordable housing. Many of my employees over the years have had to leave employment as they commute to my business from Vista, San Marcos, Oceanside and other surrounding more affordable communities. Another benefit this project will provide is housing accommodations for long term Carlsbad residents who are downsizing after they become empty nesters yet want to remain in Carlsbad. Families impacted by the unfortunate circumstance of divorce are forced to move their children out of the school district they are familiar and comfortable with. This housing project will provide the “new” single parent a housing alternative minimizing the disruption to the lives of their children. I believe this project will benefit the City of Carlsbad for many years to come and needs further consideration by the City Planning Commission for future housing projects in Carlsbad. Sincerely Jennifer Bettis-Jones North County Martial Arts 6451 El Camino Real Suite B-1 Carlsbad, CA 92009 760-814-2283 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Jeff Segall To:Planning; Don Neu; cgarcia@carlsbadca.gov Subject:Public Comment of Planning Commission Agenda for Item 2 - Aviara Apartments - Dec. 16, 2020 Date:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 4:57:02 PM Please read the attached letter of support for Aviara Apartments into the record of theDecember 16, 2020 Carlsbad Planning Commission hearing during both the PublicComment section of the hearing and please make this part of the written record. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Chairperson Anderson and Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter in support of the Aviara Apartments request and Planning Staffrecommendation for approval that you are hearing tonight. I have never spoken in support of, or opposition against, any project before the Commission, but I have found an exception tothis tonight. My biggest reason for supporting this project is it directly addresses the much-needed housing options important to this community….not only the apartment units it provides, but theaffordable units as well. Carlsbad, as you know, has a huge deficit to overcome in construction of new affordable housing units as identified by the 6th Cycle of RHNA Allocation requirements. This projectwill add 69 new affordable units to the mix. Sure, although that is a small number in comparison to the 2,844 very low, low and moderate units required through RHNA, the City isheading in the right direction. These new options … both market rate and affordable … will allow school teachers, entry- level medical professionals and first responders, and employees in our hospitality and tourismindustries an opportunity to call Carlsbad home. It will allow your children (and grandchildren) and mine … and those new to the workforce … to live in the community wherethey work and/or were raised. Additionally, with the location of this project on a major and secondary arterial, the immediate access to public transportation … that will reduce traffic impacts and carbon emissions … is asignificant factor in my support of the project. This is one of the key and remaining locations in this City for such apartment housing, and it supports the core values identified through theEnvision Carlsbad and General Plan planning processes. With this in mind, the standards modification to parking that has been recommended by Planning Staff and City’s Housing Policy Team should be supported on its merits. The additional circulation and Encina Creek improvements also make this project importantfor the community. I realize the Commission has two architects, so I will take a risk at saying the integrity of the design detail of both complexes … the Spanish Colonial Revival and the ContemporarySpanish-style design using Irving Gill planning elements … make this project fit beautifully into the community. In other words, the applicant focused heavily in not only creatinghousing options, but in making sure there was architectural integrity as well. Finally, the community outreach efforts conducted by the applicant appear to have mitigated any community concerns as evidenced by the lack of any known opposition comments orletters to the project in the Staff Report. As such, I ask the Carlsbad Planning Commission to consider approving this project as submitted. Sincerely, Jeff Segall Jeff Segall C: 760.419.4901 JeffSegall@me.com CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Michael Schumacher To:Planning Subject:Aviara Apartments - letter of support Date:Monday, December 14, 2020 8:53:45 AM Attachments:Aviara Apartments-letter of support.pdf Dear Carlsbad Planning Department, Please see the attached letter of support for the Aviara Apartments project. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael Schumacher CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Jim Boone To:Planning Subject:Aviara Apartments Date:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 12:56:56 PM I want to encourage our City Planning Commissioners to approve the “Aviara Apartments” project. This project creates the unique opportunity to provide quality affordable living space for young families, empty nesters, employees of nearby businesses, and affordable housing units for families that qualify. The popularity and rapid sales of new condominiums at Bressi Ranch is an excellent indicator of the need for additional housing on the Palomar Airport Road corridor. Since the location of “Aviara Apartments” has already been designated as ‘multi-family use’, it makes good common sense to build what the community needs where the community needs it. Approval of this project is wise, insightful, and appropriate planning for the present and future housing needs in Carlsbad. Respectfully submitted Jim Boone 3955 Skyline Rd Carlsbad. 92008 (Carlsbad resident since 1971) Sent from my iPhone CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Carlsbad Lagoon To:Planning Subject:Aviara Apartments Date:Monday, December 14, 2020 10:00:17 PM I would like my comments read into the record. As a resident and business owner in Carlsbad for the last 16 years I feel as if I have a fairly good read of the culture and needs of Carlsbad. As Carlsbad continues to grow it is importantthat that growth is done in conjunction with our communities culture. The project must fit the needs of the community. I have looked over the Aviara Apartment project and I am in favor ofit. I feel it is a well thought out plan that fits the needs of our growing community, in a responsible way. A way that is in line with our current residents, and culture of ourcommunity. Myself like many people wish Carlsbad would stay the same. However, I understand that this is not reality and in order to continue to be an amazing city we mustcontinue to move forward. That does not mean we need to do it in an irresponsible way. That is why I strongly feel that this project is a great thing for Carlsbad now and moving forward. -- Josh Cantor | CEO | California Watersports Office: (760)434-30894215 Harrison St.Carlsbad,CA 92008 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Deborah Grant To:Planning Subject:Aviara apartments Date:Monday, December 14, 2020 8:55:03 PM Good evening! I’m writing to you tonight in regards to case: CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV 2017- 0033)- AVAIRA APARTMENTS As a member of the Carlsbad community for over 10 years, we are in huge support of this because there is a big shortage of affordable housing in Carlsbad. Carlsbad NEEDS affordable housing for employees working in nearby industry, hotels, and tourist destinations. We also believe that the proximity to these jobs will reduce traffic in a huge way. Thank you for taking the time to read this email. Best Regards, -Debbie Woody Sent from my iPhone CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Michelle Shaver To:Planning Cc:martathobois50@gmail.com Subject:Aviara Apartments Date:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 11:10:52 PM 12/12/2020 To the Carlsbad Planning Commission, I am writing this letter to show my enthusiasm for the Aviara Apartments project. You may read this at your planning meeting as my family and I are in complete support of this affordable housing project. Above all, the character and integrity of the family behind the project is second to none. Jimmy Ukegawa and his family, have the best interest of humanity in their hearts and minds. What a blessing that people in our amazing Carlsbad community will get touched by their good sense and generosity. The Aviara Apartments will bring hope to & help families who may not be able to live in Carlsbad without a more affordable option. As for our beloved aging population these units are a great option to have as they are located in a nice and easily accessible area. We wholeheartedly support the Ukegawa family and this Aviara Apartment Project for the above reasons and more. Sincerely, Michelle Shaver & The Shaver Family Michelle Shaver google site link: Third Grade Teacher Sage Canyon School (858)481-7844 ext: 3166 mshaver@dmusd.org CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Kayla MacGray To:Planning Subject:Aviara Apartments Date:Thursday, December 10, 2020 3:00:37 PM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission, I am writing you in support of case #: CT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001 / HMP 2018-0001 / EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) - Aviara Apartments. My name is Kayla MacGray and I live at 2718 Waterbury Way Carlsbad 92010 and I have been living in Carlsbad for 23 years. Being a recent college graduate, the apartments would be beneficial for me as it would be an affordable place to live while staying close to my family. After graduation I am now working in Carlsbad. The project would be beneficial since the apartments allows for an easy commute to work. I believe the apartments will also provide a great starter home for young families that can’t afford expensive family homes yet. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Kayla MacGray CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Kerry Siekmann To:Planning Subject:Aviara Apartments Date:Monday, December 14, 2020 10:00:16 AM Attachments:Aviara Apartments.docx Chris, Attached is a letter to you and the Planning Commissioners regarding the Aviara Apartments project to be heard thisweek.Could you please send this letter to all commissioners today so that they can have a chance to read it before thecommission meeting?Thank you and stay healthy,Kerry Siekmann5239 El Arbol Dr,Former Planning CommissionerCAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:M. Curtin To:Planning Subject:CASE NAME: CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) — AVIARA APARTMENTS Date:Sunday, December 13, 2020 5:18:05 PM I would like my comment read into the record. Subject: CASE NAME: CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) — AVIARA APARTMENTS Dear Planning Commission: I have lived in Carlsbad for over 50 years, and I have followed the development issues in our city more closely in recent years as the State of California has mandated more housing units be built to address a housing shortage. I have also followed the attendant issues of density and affordability as they play out against the concept of “local control.” All that being said, in reviewing the subject proposed development, it seems to me that this is an ideal project for Carlsbad. It appears to “tick” virtually every box on the list of attributes for which the city is looking in a development project. I could list the litany of positive attributes that will benefit Carlsbad, but suffice it to say, for me the two most important issues this project addresses are 1) creating places to live in Carlsbad for “starter families” that can’t afford expensive single-family homes yet; and 2) providing places for “downsizers” to live after they become empty nesters. In my opinion, those attributes focus most on what the residents of Carlsbad need most. Therefore, I request that the Planning Commission wholeheartedly support and approve this highly beneficial development project. Mike Curtin Carlsbad, CA 92008 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Brian Conrey To:Planning Subject:CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) - Aviara Apartments Date:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 2:38:32 PM Carlsbad Planning Commission: As 20-year residents of North County including the past 7+ in Carlsbad, we support the Aviara Apartments project and encourage you to do the same. Through the leadership of your Commission and our City Council, the city has made huge strides over the past two decades to grow Carlsbad into a true live/work community through a careful blend of attracting top employers/industries and a growth management plan to provide guiderails along that journey. Housing is always a challenge, particularly with median home prices in our area. Additional apartments will provide affordable options and help more of those who are employed by Carlsbad businesses also become Carlsbad residents. Thanks much for the consideration, and thanks for all that you do in support of our City and its’ citizens. Regards, Brian and Melissa Conrey CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Catherine Miller To:Planning Subject:December 16-Agenda item 2/Aviara Apartments Date:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 1:46:22 PM Good afternoon, This letter is in support of the project known as Aviara Apartments on the Commission agenda December 16, agenda item 2.. As a 25 year resident of Carlsbad and a hospitality worker, I'm keenly aware of the need thatmany face with housing that is close to a workplace and also affordable. Many people commute from Temecula, Murrieta, Chula Vista and other areas that add hours to their eighthour workday. In addition, many service industry workers have 2 jobs to support themselves and their families. I've had two conversations this week in regards to local housing here in Carlsbad. One co-worker is hoping to find an affordable apartment in Carlsbad soon and the other has recently relocated to Carlsbad from Sonoma County.They are both young and eager to live here,specifically. While still furloughed from my hospitality position at a major resort in La Costa, I'm working for a private jet FBO at McClellan Palomar Airport. There are many pilots who keepapartments in the area for their flight crews and also flight instructors, of which there are many. You'd be surprised how many pilots are between the age of 20-30 who want to be nearthe airport due to the ever changing and on demand flight schedules. The surrounding hotels, restaurants, Costco, ViaSat and other service industries in Carlsbad would greatly benefit from their workforce being local. It makes for happier, healthier andmore productive employees! The property and how it is situated make it a desirable site to fulfill the needs of additional housing here in Carlsbad and San Diego County. Thank you for your time and service toCarlsbad. Respectfully, Catherine Miller El Arbol Dr., Carlsbad 92008 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Chris Garcia To:Melissa Flores Subject:Fw: Aviara Apartments - Info Date:Thursday, December 10, 2020 3:21:12 PM From: Chuck@ccajets.com <Chuck@ccajets.com> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 2:38 PM To: Chris Garcia <Chris.Garcia@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: RE: Aviara Apartments - Info Chris Garcia Thank you for your thoughtful provision of the planning and engineering document you provided me. My objection to this project is not total, nor, do I believe unreasonable. In December 1998, my family and I made a significant investment in our home in Carlsbad. We made an additional and substantial investment in a view specific lot, and personal development of rear yard views and sight lines. We did so relying on the prudent and reasonable building codes for Carlsbad upon which we relied and continue rely on, to protect our investment and life style. I always realized certain development to the property immediately below my home would be developed. I saw no probable of objection to such development, as the property developed immediately west the proposed were accomplished in accordance with Building Code, and does not adversely affect my views and sight line. I am not opposed to a reasonable variance to code to enable the economic basis of the proposed development. My objection is that a variance from 35 feet above grade to a maximum high variance to 60 feet above grade seems to me to be excessive, and ignores unreasonable impact on view and sight line of mine and adjacent homes. Specifically, the proposed tower stand directly in front of my view of the Crossing landscape and water fall. I believe it imposes a dominant intrusion. A more reasonable variance of not to exceed 50 feet above grade, would probably assuage my objection to the intrusion issue. I realize development conditions change. A variance that doubles code restriction I was promised is excessive and should not be granted. Please have this read into the record. Chuck Collins 6377 Ebb Tide Carlsbad, California 92011 Regards, Chuck Collins Charles G. Collins | President | CHUCK COLLINS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Atlantic Aviation Jet Complex l McClellan-Palomar Airport 2100 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 214, Carlsbad, California 92011-4402 Phone: (760) 929-0302 Fax: (760) 929-0304 Cell: (760) 420-7400 Email: Chuck@ccajets.com Web: www.ccajets.com www.office214.com Wednesday, December 16, 2020 Tracy Carmichael Carlsbad Resident 4566 Horizon Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-207-9751 Planning Commission Agenda Items #2: CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018—0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001(DEV2017-0033)- Aviara Apartments Dear City of Carlsbad Planning Commissioners, My name is Tracy Carmichael. I am a Carlsbad resident and taxpayer of 33 years. I am writing to you today in support of the Aviara Apartments project. The project before you is a 329 multifamily units located at 1205 Aviara Parkway. The project is an appropriate use of land. The developer over the years has done an excellent job in communicating their vision by soliciting input from local residents and extensively researching the needs of our community. They understand we value and recognize that providing all types of housing for our citizens is necessary for a balanced socio-economic sustainable society. Our regions’ need of affordable housing is complex and has many obstacles to overcome. The San Diego Association of Government has determined that all local governments must do their fair share in providing new housing. Carlsbad’s RHNA allocation is 3,873. Aviara Apartments project will assist the City of Carlsbad in meeting its SANDAG RHNA goals. This will provide our community its much needed affordable housing options from those seeking a “ﬁrst time out on your own” experience to those wanting a down-sized simpliﬁed lifestyle. Regionally Carlsbad is seen as a job center. Aviara Apartment’s is a perfect location as it is centered in the City of Carlsbad job’s corridor allowing for ease in accessibility to local jobs, transit, good and services, our beaches, parks, schools. Lastly; Aviara Apartments aligns with the climate action goals by establishing housing adjacent to roadways with ease to the major freeways for extensive travel but additionally it offers accessibility to mass transit that will reduce traffic and vehicle miles traveled by further reducing greenhouse gas emission and will improve the air quality and protect the environment. I am in favor of Aviara Apartments for all the reasons stated above but mainly because it offers an affordable housing component which is essential to developing a balanced approach to a great quality of life in which we can sustain and thrive as a community. I thank you for your time and encourage you to support Aviara Apartments project today by accepting the City staff’s recommendation to approve Resolution 7398 and 7399. Respectfully, Tracy Carmichael Carlsbad Resident A California Public Benefit Corporation ● 501(c)(3) Exempt ● TIN: 33-0411888 1580 Cannon Road, Carlsbad, CA, 92008 ● 760.804.1969 ● www.aguahedionda.org Board of Directors Rachel Ivanovich Chairman Jani Jackson Vice-chair Stacy Hall Treasurer Lynnell Talone-Honda Secretary Christopher Crespo Maxwell Dana Gary Endres Fred Hale John Johnson George Piantka Diane Proulx Sam Ross Regina Schnell Maureen Simons Thomas Stewart Jennifer Summers Staff Lisa Rodman Chief Executive Officer Samantha Richter Chief Operations Officer Cierra Russo Director of Education December 11, 2020 Dear Planning Commissioners: On behalf of the Board of Directors of Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation I write to express our support of “The Aviara Apartments”. We have been working with Mr. Ukegawa over the last 6 years with a successful collaboration during our Gala fundraising event held each summer and Field of Screams held annually in October. Mr. Ukegawa has been integral person in helping get the word out about the teaching that goes on here at the foundation. He also gives annually to our Gala auction. We look forward to other collaborations with him as we have experienced exemplary professional outreaches from his entire staff. It is our pleasure to write this letter of recommendation for “the Aviara Apartments”. In closing, given an opportunity to help our city in other ways like bringing affordable dwellings for all to enjoy. I believe he will assist you in reaching your goals and vision. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you might have. Sincerely, Lisa Rodman Chief Executive Officer From:Tracy Carmichael To:Planning Subject:Planning Commission: Public comments agenda #2 Date:Wednesday, December 16, 2020 10:06:14 AM Attachments:Letter of support of Aviara Apartments-Final.pdf Dear City Staff and Planning Commissioners, Below is an attachment to be forwarded to all planning commissioner and added to the record of today's Planning Commission meeting in support of Agenda #2: Ct 2018-0002/SDP 2018- 002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP2018-0001/HMP2018-0001/EIR2018-0001 (DEV2017-00033)- AVIARA APARTMENTS. Best Regards, Tracy Carmichael CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:DeAnn Weimer To:Planning; Chris Garcia Cc:dweimer318@yahoo.com Subject:Please read Letter (not addendum) as part of Public Hearing Item 2 Aviara Apartments Date:Wednesday, December 16, 2020 11:47:10 AM Attachments:FOAAviaraAptsletter.docxAddendum A to FOA Planning Commission Letter for Aviara Apartments.docx Re: Aviara Apartments Dear Planning Commission Members: As you are aware, Friends of Aviara (FOA) supports building on the 2017Carlsbad Integrated Pest Management Plan -- which prioritizes the use of non-chemical products and methods for all city-owned and operated parks,open space areas, trails, rights of way, and school campuses -- to include the entire city. This apartment project is a prime example of the need for aunified approach due to its proximity to Encinas Creek, native willows, as well as other threatened wildlife and plant species. The report before you allocates 1.6 acres as open space. There is a riparian buffer. Alas, our wildlife cannot adopt these arbitrary buffer distinctions,since their territory includes the entire 8.2 acres designated as developable. To truly protect the species and closest neighbors to these buildings, FOAasks that you include anti-poison protections as condition for approval of this project. As the California Coastal Commission (CCC) has noted these"provisions are very important to ensure that environmentally sensitive habitat areas are protected against any significant disruption of habitatvalue." The language supported by the CCC is provided in the addendum to this letter. Years ago, FOA raised concerns and indeed took legal action over the development of the Lowe's site. Then, as with this project, the volume of soilto be removed and replaced was staggering. We reached an agreement with that developer to address many of our concerns. One of the central issueswas the impact of the construction runoff and the development's future runoff into the water flowing to the coast. Again, we are concerned that thisdocument is lax in monitoring the removal of surface soils, the removal of concentrations of hazardous materials from the identified storage tanksformally on the site, and chemicals from past agricultural uses. FOA requests the Commission include increased runoff and creek monitoring on a weeklybasis as a condition of approval. FOA also objects to the following: --A 60% increase in density from the original 205 units allocated for this site. The previous proposed bump of less than 5% allowing for 224 units isunderstandable. However, the jump to 329 units is to reduce the General Master Plan guidance to a joke. This is not good governance. --The reduction in parking spaces from the 631 required to 533 is not equitable as it disadvantages the affordable housing units, forcing them to park extra vehicles in the adjoining neighborhoods. --Ingress and egress are not sufficient in case of fire. --The East phase lacks the space needed for a learning center like that utilized by the MAAC Project at the Laurel Tree Apartments. Addressing these issues will improve this project and bring it in line with the community's vision. Sincerely, De’Ann Weimer on behalf of the FOA Board CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Eva Ahrens To:Planning Subject:Proposed Aviara Apartments - 12/16/20 Planning Commission Meeting Date:Monday, December 14, 2020 4:39:35 PM PROPOSED E-MAIL AND REQUEST TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD: On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Aviara Masters Association, we requestthe below comments be read into the record at the Planning Commission Meeting onDecember 16, 2020, regarding the Aviara Apartment Project scheduled for hearingbefore the Planning Commission. The purpose of this comment is to object to the use of the name “AviaraApartments” by the Aviara Apartment Project (“Proposed Project”) and to provide noticeto all interested persons and members of the general public of the same. The ProposedProject is in close proximity to the Aviara Master Planned Community which is subjectto the Aviara Masters Association (the “Aviara Master Community”) and its governingdocuments. The Aviara Master Community is an award winning, master-plannedcommunity with over 20 years of history in Carlsbad and is located less than a mile fromthe Proposed Project. The Aviara Master Community is made up of 17 separateneighborhoods under the Aviara Master Plan and includes the Park Hyatt Aviara Resort,Spa and Golf Club (“Park Hyatt Aviara Resort”). The Aviara Master Community iscommonly known in the broader community simply as “Aviara.” The Aviara Masters Association believes the name “Aviara Apartments” isconfusing to the general public as there is no association between the Aviara MasterCommunity and the Proposed Project. In addition, the Aviara Master Associationresidents are conferred certain benefits at the Park Hyatt Aviara Resort which will not beavailable to the residents of the new “Apartment” facility and may cause confusion tothem as well. To avoid such confusion to the general public, the Aviara MastersAssociation requests the Aviara Apartment Project to change the name of its proposedproject from the “Aviara Apartments” to another name not likely to cause confusion tothe general public as to the existence of any relationship between the Proposed Projectand the Aviara Master Community. Eva Ahrens | General Manager Aviara Master Association Keystone direct: 760.431.7874 | main: 949.833.2600 1921 Palomar Way, Suite 104 | Carlsbad, CA 92008 www.kppm.com | eahrens@keystonepacific.com We’d love your feedback! Let us know how we're doing. Click here for updates on our response to COVID-19 Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified thatany disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictlyprohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived byMimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brandprotection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecasthelps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; andto lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Ray Pearson To:Planning Subject:Read into the Record Date:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 9:54:19 AM To: Planning Commission. To be read into the record Re: The Aviara Apartments Housing Case Name: CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) – Aviara Apartments We are writing in support of the aforementioned project to add more affordable housing to meet the demand in North County and specifically Carlsbad. This project provides a geographical location that it makes it walkable and close to public transportation options for employees working in nearby industry, hotels and tourist destinations. Once the pandemic concludes pent up demand for affordable housing will grow and this project adds affordable inventory to help families that can’t afford to purchase a home. This project is long overdue for approval and was already designated in the 2015 General Plan Update. Visual impacts, traffic and parking to the local neighborhood have been mitigated. This project upgrades the current visual elements and usage in the local neighborhood. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and goal to increase affordable housing inventory to our community. Sincerely, Karen and Ray Pearson 6500 Easy Street Carlsbad, 92011 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 December 13, 2020 Re: Aviara Apartments – correspondence for the 12/16/2020 Planning Commission public hearing Planning Commission: I am neutral on whether the Aviara Apartments project gets built, and the addition of affordable housing would be desirable, but the City and developer have not followed the applicable Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) rules. In addition, the developer needs to pay its fair share toward improvements for all travel modes and for mitigation of its traffic impacts pursuant to General Plan Policy 3-P.5. As summarized and detailed below, several areas need to be addressed in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and staff report Findings and Conditions, prior to certification/approval. Please refer to my Comment Letter in the final EIR1 (labeled “F”) for additional details. Summary (recommendations in bold text) • A remarkable letter from the EIR consultant suggests that the developer, with the support of staff, had an unusual level of influence over revisions to the EIR. • A “Tier 2” Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan is proposed, but that applies when developments generate 275 or less average daily trips (ADT), but this project generates 1,974 ADT. • The trip distribution estimate (60% north/40% south of the project) likely under-reports traffic impacts on the northern Aviara Parkway and Palomar Airport Road street facilities, and no detailed justification is provided. It will probably be closer to 80%/20%. o The trip distribution should be justified more thoroughly or re-done. • In violation of the General Plan and TIA Guidelines, a defective vehicle level of service (LOS) method was used for the EIR; and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit LOS were not included at all in the EIR. Staff is dubiously claiming that their own failure to have the TIA Guidelines “approved” is justification to ignore them for CEQA/EIR purposes. o The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines should be used for both the CEQA/EIR and Growth Management Plan (GMP) traffic studies for all modes of travel. • The defective vehicle LOS method inappropriately combines two different methods (ARTPLAN and a SANTEC/ITE LOS table) to produce numerous tables with invalid LOS “A” and “B” grades for Aviara Parkway segments, several of which would likely be GMP deficient (LOS “E”) under the cumulative scenario if analyzed properly. 1 Aviara Apartments Project, Final Environmental Impact Report, November 2020: https://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=46255 2 o The traffic studies in the EIR need to be revised to use ARTPLAN for both the service volumes and the LOS grades, and TDM and Transportation Systems Management (TSM) based mitigation for deficiencies need to be included in the MMRP. • Traffic added by the project to the Palomar Airport Road/Aviara Parkway intersection and adjacent Palomar Airport Road street segments also require CEQA mitigation under the TIA Guidelines in the form of TDM and TSM, because they are already GMP-deficient and exempt from street improvements. • The project relies heavily on transit for TDM. There are three bus stops in the project area with very infrequent service and essentially no current ridership. The proposed plan to provide only a sidewalk, bench, and trash can to the stops will not induce meaningful ridership. • The TDM-related Conditions of approval and EIR/MMRP should be expanded to include the following: o A fully documented “Tier 3” level TDM plan, plus additional TDM/TSM-based mitigation triggered by the addition of traffic to GMP-deficient/exempt street facilities, with the goal of a 15% reduction in ADT or vehicle miles traveled (VMT). o Carpool/rideshare spaces on both sites with usage monitoring and reporting by the Transportation Coordinator. o Free wireless communications in all units with central access to business services, including printing, scanning, and faxing at both sites, as described in EIR Appendix J. o Access of all residents to secure bicycle lockers at both sites, as described in EIR Appendix J. o Additional bus stop improvements, including full pedestrian-scale lighting at the stops and lighting between the project and the stops for safety, a shelter at each stop for protection from the sun and weather, and secure bicycle storage. o Free transit passes for the affordable units; and parking space fees unbundled from rent for the standard units, with free transit passes for those who forego parking; plus usage monitoring and reporting by the Transportation Coordinator. (The current proposal—listed only in EIR Appendix J—is for transit passes to be provided to residents who agree to forego one or more parking spaces.) • The traffic study failed to include the I-5 ramps at Palomar Airport Road and Poinsettia Lane, for which the TIA Guidelines require analysis to confirm that ramp storage capacity is not exceeded. o Queue analysis of the I-5 ramps should be added to the traffic study (also consistent with a request in the public comment letter from Caltrans). • Both Caltrans and I requested a VMT study, and a March 2017 legal settlement required consideration of VMT for all discretionary development projects. 3 Influence of developer in EIR creation To put some of the following comments in better context, I want to begin by describing a remarkable letter from the independent consultant hired by the city to prepare the EIR,2 in which the consultant requests a “budget augmentation,” because, in their words: ...[The] original scope of work did not anticipate the level of applicant involvement and the multiple rounds of review and revisions that would be necessary due to the applicant's significant involvement…The additional level of effort required to address comments on the submitted screencheck drafts of the EIR were primarily due to the applicant's heavy involvement. At one juncture, the city directed [us] to use our own judgement in considering whether or not to implement the applicant's requested revisions. However, when we did so, we received specific feedback from the applicant and the city that the applicant did not understand why we did not implement their suggested revisions. One of the areas cited by the EIR consultant in relation to this problem was the traffic studies. It is troubling that staff seemingly told the consultant to just work directly with the developer to incorporate the developer’s revisions into the EIR, and then apparently challenged the consultant when they did not want to do so. The LOS analysis methods in the EIR violate the General Plan and TIA Guidelines Carlsbad’s 2015 General Plan Mobility Element requires usage of the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to determine vehicle LOS3 and also requires LOS analysis for the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of travel. In turn, Carlsbad’s TIA Guidelines4 implement the General Plan by fleshing out the LOS analysis requirements for all modes of travel for the purposes of both CEQA and city regulations (the GMP). The very first sentences in the TIA Guidelines read: Projects in the City of Carlsbad may require an analysis and evaluation of project-specific transportation impacts to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City regulations. These Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines provide direction for this review consistent with the General Plan Mobility Element… However, instead of following the General Plan and TIA Guidelines for the CEQA transportation analysis, staff allowed the applicant to use a bizarre mix of vehicle LOS methods that produce ridiculously optimistic LOS grades for the EIR—an approach that is not consistent with the most recent version of the HCM and does not reflect sound traffic engineering (see below for details). In addition, staff allowed the applicant to completely exclude pedestrian, bicycle, and transit LOS from the EIR. Carlsbad’s LOS methods for all modes of travel, as described in the TIA Guidelines, need to be included in the EIR. 2 Amendment No. 1 to Agreement for Consultant Services to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report EIR 2018- 0001 – Aviara Apartments, Exhibit A, 6/6/2020 3 2015 Carlsbad General Plan Mobility Element (https://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=24065): “Vehicular Level of Service…will be determined by the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual.” (also cited in the TIA Guidelines) 4 Carlsbad TIA Guidelines (April 2018): https://cityadmin.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=22758 4 Staff’s invalid excuse for not using the TIA Guidelines for CEQA Staff’s excuse for not following the TIA Guidelines for CEQA, as provided in their responses to my public comments on this project (F-2 and F-7 in the final EIR) and others, is that the guidelines/LOS significance thresholds were never “approved” (presumably by the City Council). Staff then cites a State CEQA statute that describes the need to formally adopt significance thresholds.5 However, that statute is very clear that, while threshold adoption can be done through an ordinance or resolution (City Council), it also can be accomplished by simply publishing a rule, which was effectively done with the publication of the TIA Guidelines back in April 2018. For reference, the TIA Guidelines were only begrudgingly created by staff due to a requirement in a March 2017 legal settlement with an environmental group.6 Now, several years later, the argument that “the guidelines do not have to be followed for CEQA because they were never approved” appears to be a brazen attempt to bypass that legal agreement. And the argument is even more disingenuous, in that the lack of “approval” of the TIA Guidelines springs exclusively from staff’s own protracted refusal to present the document to the City Council for approval, or otherwise have it adopted. In addition, the statute also allows significance thresholds to be determined on a “case-by-case basis” without adoption. Staff has cited on multiple occasions its ability to decide on a “case-by-case basis” whether to use the LOS or VMT as the standard of review for traffic studies, which is also an establishment of the significance threshold. Yet, staff just allowed the developer to pick the method that required the least mitigation (e.g., the Marja Acres developer opted for the VMT approach, and the developer of this project opted for LOS). As I review all of these development applications, dubious loopholes are routinely used to justify following, ignoring, or creatively re-interpreting the rules in the General Plan and TIA Guidelines, but there is one consistent theme—the developer is allowed to choose the methods that create the least mitigation burden, and staff tends to defend those decisions regardless of public input. The fact is the TIA Guidelines should have been used for the CEQA analysis, rather than contriving convoluted excuses to avoid them. 60% north/40% south vehicle trip distribution and lack of horizon-year analysis under-estimate traffic impacts The project is just south of Palomar Airport Road off Aviara Parkway, and there are far more destinations north of the project along Palomar Airport Road, including access to I-5. Destinations to the south are largely residential. Therefore, the current assumption in all of the traffic studies that 40% of project-related vehicle trips will be to the south on Aviara Parkway (EIR Appendix J, Figure 4-1) likely under-estimates the traffic impacts on the northern segment of Aviara Parkway and on Palomar Airport Road. Allowing the applicant to split trips more equally in both directions on Aviara Parkway allows 5 California Code of Regulations 15064.7(b): “Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. Thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency's environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence. Lead agencies may also use thresholds on a case-by-case basis…” 6 Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 2017-044 (North County Advocates Settlement Agreement, 3/14/2017): http://edocs.carlsbadca.gov/HPRMWebDrawer/RecordHTML/467762 5 them to globally reduce the reported impacts, and no detailed justification for the trip distribution was provided in response to my public comment (F-6). The traffic studies also only include current cumulative conditions—and not a future horizon-year scenario when traffic conditions likely will further worsen. A horizon year analysis should be added to the traffic studies for the reasons stated in my public comment letter (F-14), and it is staff who made and is interpreting the rules that allow this project to avoid such an analysis. Specific defects in the Aviara Parkway vehicle LOS methods The TIA Guidelines implement the HCM-compliant evaluation method through a roadway capacity (service volume) table of LOS values for street facilities around Carlsbad calculated with the ARTPLAN software. For example, the entry in the following table represents Aviara Parkway from Palomar Airport Road to Poinsettia Lane, showing that, when the traffic volume exceeds 1,130 vehicles per hour in either direction, the LOS goes from “D” to “E,” causing the facility to become deficient under CEQA and Carlsbad’s GMP. And when the traffic volume exceeds 1,630 vehicles per hour, the street reaches full capacity. Note that, due to the unique characteristics of Aviara Parkway, including the close spacing of traffic signals, the best LOS grade that can be achieved there is “D,” and the LOS jumps to “E” when the volume reaches just 69% of the capacity (1,130/1,630). Although the EIR appears to use ARTPLAN (or an equivalent method) to calculate “capacity” values for the Aviara Parkway street segments (e.g., EIR Appendix J, Table 6-2), it does not use the entry in the TIA Guidelines table. More importantly, the EIR does not use the rest of the HCM-compliant LOS thresholds generated by the ARTPLAN software. Rather, it inappropriately applies the ARTPLAN capacity values to a generic old SANTEC/ITE volume-to-capacity table that does not account for the individual characteristics of Aviara Parkway (EIR Appendix J, Table 2-5). ARTPLAN capacity data is not intended to be used in this absurd manner with the unrelated SANTEC/ITE table, which results in vastly over-optimistic LOS grades that are not consistent with the most recent version of the HCM (as required by the General Plan) or the TIA Guidelines. As noted above, Aviara Parkway jumps to LOS “E” at just 69% of its capacity value, but the old SANTEC/ITE table assigns an LOS grade of “B” at that level. The EIR includes numerous tables full of invalid LOS “A” and “B” grades for the street segments as a result of this scheme, similar to the invalid LOS numbers generated by staff for the first 30 years of the GMP monitoring program. The whole approach and lack of oversight reflects poor traffic engineering judgement. The following table provides a more realistic look at the LOS values under cumulative conditions, estimated from the service volume table in the TIA Guidelines. Note the deficiencies highlighted in yellow, which should require mitigation under both CEQA and the GMP, but which are masked by the inappropriate use of the generic SANTEC/ITE table. 6 The traffic studies in the EIR need to be revised to use ARTPLAN for both the traffic volumes and the LOS grades (the SANTEC/ITE table should not be used). And mitigation for deficiencies in any scenario need to be included in the MMRP. Traffic added to Palomar Airport Road/Aviara Parkway intersection and adjacent Palomar Airport Road street segments requires CEQA mitigation Notwithstanding staff’s invalid “TIA Guideline approval” excuse, the TIA Guidelines require analysis of the Palomar Airport Road/Aviara Parkway intersection based on its proximity to the project (only about 600 feet) and the adjacent Palomar Airport Road street segments in the EIR for CEQA purposes. The intersection is already operating at a deficient LOS “E” (e.g., EIR Table 4.14-6), and the project will add around 100 new trips to Palomar Airport Road in both the AM and PM peak hours (EIR Appendix J, Figure 4-2)—and that is assuming only 60% of the trips are to the north. The TIA Guidelines (Table 6) states: “Any trip added to a segment forecast to operate at deficient LOS requires project mitigation…” Because the intersection and adjacent street segments have been exempted from further street improvements pursuant to General Plan Policy 3-P.9, mitigation must be done in the form of TDM and TSM pursuant to General Plan Policy 3-P.11 and Section 8.2 of the TIA Guidelines. And the TIA Guidelines establish these as CEQA mitigation requirements that need to be fully addressed in the EIR and its MMRP—not just with a sketchy plan to be finalized at some point in the future for approval at the sole discretion of the City Engineer, as is currently proposed in the staff report. There have been past instances where staff has included TDM and TSM related funding as conditions of approval for development projects but then never actually required compliance by the developer, because staff themselves failed to set up the program to collect on that requirement (e.g., Casa Aldea). In other instances, traffic signal warrant securities have been included as conditions of approval but then allowed to lapse without actually having meaningful warrant studies conducted. So, there should be great skepticism that new conditions, like TDM, will be meaningfully implemented by staff, unless they are spelled out in detail and included in the EIR/MMRP. Magnitude of TDM/TSM mitigation needs to be increased A Tier 2 TDM plan is being proposed. However, Carlsbad’s TDM Handbook defines the TDM plan tiers, and it designates Tier 3 plans—with significantly higher requirements—for new developments that generate more than 275 ADT (see the table below from the TDM Handbook). According to the EIR and traffic studies, Aviara Apartments is projected to generate 1,974 ADT. 7 7 Further, the TDM Handbook is designed to encourage TDM under normal conditions, but the Aviara Apartments project is unique in that it is adding vehicle traffic to street facilities that are already deficient/exempt, and other facilities that will become deficient in the future under cumulative conditions, as described above. This creates an additional TDM requirement pursuant to General Plan Policy 3-P.11. More expansive TDM/TSM mitigation plan needs to be developed and included in the EIR/MMRP The TIA Guidelines make TDM and TSM mitigation CEQA requirements. Therefore, more comprehensive TDM and TSM plans needs to be provided in the EIR/MMRP for public review to assess whether they will be sufficient to mitigate the traffic impacts to a less than significant level. As detailed in my public comment letter, a VMT analysis would have shown that the project would need to reduce VMT by about 16%, so that seems like a relevant goal for the TDM plan. All of my public comments expressing concerns about the currently proposed TDM plan were summarily dismissed and left unanswered by staff, presumably under the false premise that they do not have to follow the TIA Guidelines, so the TDM plan does not fall under CEQA and is not subject to public review. Those questions should require answers. The TDM-related Conditions of approval include the following: (1) Tier 2 TDM plan to include a Transportation Coordinator. For the reasons described above, this should be changed to at least a Tier 3 TDM plan, and it should be included in the MMRP, including the Transportation Coordinator. (2) Two carpool/rideshare parking spaces. The mere existence of these spaces will not meaningfully reduce the ~2,000 forecasted ADT from the project without providing access to a residential rideshare program and incentives to use it. The Conditions and MMRP should require these on both sites, as well as coordination, usage monitoring, and reporting by the Transportation Coordinator. (3) Business center for teleworking. The Conditions and MMRP should be expanded to include what was proposed in EIR Appendix J—free wireless communications in all units with central access to business services, including printing, scanning, and faxing at both sites. (4) Bicycle storage. The Conditions and MMRP should be expanded to include what was proposed in EIR Appendix J—access of all residents to secure bicycle lockers at both sites. Even so, it is unrealistic to assume that significant numbers of residents will be taking their bikes out on Palomar Airport Road, 7 City of Carlsbad Transportation Demand Management Handbook, August 21, 2019 8 College Boulevard, or Aviara Parkway as a substitute for regular vehicle trips, given the speeds and traffic volumes. (5) Bus stop improvements: sidewalks, benches, and trash cans The project relies heavily on bus ridership in its TDM plan outline. “High-density housing near transit” is promoted several times in the EIR to address traffic and environmental concerns. However, the currently proposed transit aspects of the TDM mitigation are woefully inadequate. There are three bus stops in the project area: westbound Palomar Airport Road, eastbound Palomar Airport Road, and northbound College Boulevard. However, there is currently only about one average daily boarding among all three stops combined8—essentially nobody currently uses these bus stops! One of the most significant barriers to ridership is the fact that the routes that serve these stops only arrive twice in the morning and twice in the afternoon (at most), and each pair of arrivals is separated by about 1-1/2 hours. The extent of the improvements currently included in the “Conditions” is to ensure that there is a sidewalk, bench, and trash can for each of these three bus stops. While that is sufficient to satisfy the minimum LOS “D” GMP transit performance standard in staff’s poorly contrived point system, it is laughable to think that they will lead to meaningful numbers of project residents using the bus rather than cars. And this project has TDM requirements that go beyond just achieving the minimum standards, because it is adding its traffic to deficient/exempt streets. The Conditions and MMRP should include full pedestrian-scale lighting at the stops and lighting between the project and the stops for safety, a shelter at each stop for safety and protection from the sun and weather, and secure bicycle storage. The shelters should be as far as possible from the streets due to the high speeds (50 to 55 MPH). In addition to the improved amenities, the Conditions and MMRP should be expanded to include what was proposed in EIR Appendix J—at a minimum, transit passes should be provided to residents who agree to forego one or more parking spaces. Preferably, transit passes would be offered to all residents in the affordable units, regardless of parking, and parking costs should be unbundled from the base rent of the standard units to provide more incentive to obtain and use the transit passes. The following photographs show the three bus stops in their current sorry state (Google Street View, 2/2020). Would you feel safe and comfortable walking about a quarter-mile after dark, or on a hot or rainy day, to wait for a bus at these stops—even if they have a small bench and trash can? 8 Data obtained from North County Transit District for July 2018 through June 2019 (8/6/2020 through Public Records Request 2020-1410). 9 Eastbound Palomar Airport Road at Aviara Parkway: Westbound Palomar Airport Road at Aviara Parkway: Northbound College Boulevard near Palomar Airport Road: 10 Traffic analysis should include I-5 ramps Caltrans (Comment D-2 in the FEIR) requested that the traffic analysis be extended to include the I-5 interchanges with Palomar Airport Road and Poinsettia Lane. Staff responded that the traffic analysis does not need to include those interchanges, because the guidelines only describe analysis of intersections up to 0.5 miles from project access points and street segments to which the project adds 50 or more peak-hour trips. However, staff selectively ignored the other provision in Section 3.2 of the TIA Guidelines that requires analysis of all freeway entrance and exit ramps to which the project would add 20 or more peak-hour trips or cause the traffic queue to exceed ramp storage capacity. It is unclear whether project traffic would exceed the queue capacities on the ramps, because that analysis was not presented, but this is yet another example of staff allowing the TIA Guidelines to be selectively enforced. The traffic analysis should consider the I-5 ramps, given the language in the TIA Guidelines and the request from Caltrans. VMT analysis The public comments from both Caltrans and I suggested doing a VMT analysis. Staff cited the fact that the State of California did not make that mandatory until July 1, 2020. However, the March 2017 settlement agreement with North County advocates9 required: As part of the development review process, the City shall evaluate all discretionary projects for consistency with applicable General Plan policies and CAP measures and actions that aim to reduce roadway congestion and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques and multi-modal improvements… Although the recently approved Marja Acres project circulated its EIR long before the July 1, 2020 deadline, they were allowed to use VMT analysis, which benefited the developer. The developer for Aviara Apartments, which circulated its EIR long after the Marja Acres EIR, was allowed to use the older LOS methodology. Staff’s response to my comment about the legal settlement requiring VMT was not responsive. Disclaimer: I am a member of the Carlsbad Traffic and Mobility Commission, but our commission is not involved in the review of development applications, so I am commenting as an individual. Sincerely, Steve Linke Carlsbad, CA splinke@gmail.com 9 Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 2017-044 (North County Advocates Settlement Agreement, 3/14/2017): http://edocs.carlsbadca.gov/HPRMWebDrawer/RecordHTML/467762 From:Steve Linke To:Planning Subject:Correspondence for the Aviara Apartments project (12/16/2020 Planning Commission meeting) Date:Monday, December 14, 2020 2:07:54 AM Attachments:2020-12-16 PC Aviara Apartments public comment - Linke.pdf Planning Department: Please distribute the attached letter to the Planning Commissioners ASAP and make it part of the public record for the Aviara Apartments item of business scheduled for the 12/16/2020 commission meeting. Best regards, Steve Linke 760.944.7546 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Julie Baker To:Planning Subject:Summerhill Apartment communities Date:Monday, December 14, 2020 10:23:23 AM To the Carlsbad Planning Commission: I am writing to voice my support for the Summerhill Apartment Communities project that you are considering at the December 16, 2020 meeting. I am in support of the project because it will provide additional low cost housing for nearby workers, young families, and those in need of affordable housing. The project is in close proximity to business and transportation corridors. Carlsbad has a demonstrated need for more housing options to fit our changing and growing community. BRIDGE Housing, a known and successful developer/operator of low income housing is participating in the project. Additional the Summerhill project is consistent with the 2015 General Plan update, the 2016 Local Coastal Plan Update, and other municipal codes. I urge the Carlsbad Planning Commission to approve this project. Respectfully, Julie Baker Former Carlsbad Planning Commissioner CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Brian Colby To:Planning Subject:Support for Aviara Apartments Project Date:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:28:12 AM Please feel free to read my comments below into record at the Dec. 16th meeting. City of Carlsbad Planning Commission, I’m writing this in support of Summerhill’s Aviara Apartments project. As home prices and rents continue to rise, many of our families and local employees are getting squeezed out of Carlsbad. I believe this project will provide additional options to those who desire to live near their work, or to those who want their kids to have access to our great schools who simply cannot afford to pay the astronomical real estate prices we experience here. Years of planning and due diligence have gone into making sure this project becomes a success to every standard, and the positive impact to the community will be significant. While I am not quick to support higher densities, we face a significant housing shortage in our community (shared by many others in California) and this type of project minimizes negative impacts while providing a valuable resource our current and future residents will benefit from. Thank you, BRIAN COLBY Broker Associate 760.707.7659 Brian@SandandSeaInvestments.com License #01940679 3142 Tiger Run Court #117 Carlsbad, CA 92010 KEYTOCARLSBAD.COM CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Brian Conrey To:Planning Subject:Support for CT 2018-002/SDP 2018-002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) Aviara Apartments Date:Sunday, December 13, 2020 9:42:07 PM Planning Commission: As a seven+ year resident of Carlsbad and a 20+ year resident of North County, we support the Aviara Apartments project and the additional housing it will create in North County, specifically Carlsbad. Given your role in local and regional planning, I’m sure you’re aware of the lack of affordable housing for Carlsbad families – this project won’t fully solve that problem but will go a long way towards providing additional housing opportunities to local families and has our full support. Thanks and regards, Brian and Melissa Conrey CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Rebecca Colby To:Planning Subject:Support of Aviara Apartments development Date:Monday, December 14, 2020 8:33:47 PM CT 2018-0002/SDP, 2018-0002/CDP, 2018-0005/HDP, 2018-0001/HMP, 2018-00001/EIR, 2018-0001 (DEV 2017-0033)-Aviara Apartments December 14, 2020 Carlsbad Planning Commission To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my support in developing the Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway corner into an apartment complex. These would be such an asset to our community for so many reasons. So many hard-working families struggle to afford a home in this area, housing prices are no joke. Our amazing local school Pacific Rim would be such a blessing to these families and children. This area is perfectly accessible, has great traffic flow and would allow kids in that community to walk or bike to school. I also feel these apartments would be the perfect resource for older couples who no longer need the space of a larger home but want to stay in beautiful Carlsbad. More affordable housing in this incredible location would be such a great thing for our community. Thank you for your time, Rebecca Colby Carlsbad resident for 10 years, mom of 4 children in the Carlsbad Unified School District CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Lisa Rodman To:Planning Subject:The Aviara Apartments Date:Friday, December 11, 2020 3:13:09 PM Attachments:image001.png Letter of Support Ukegawa ~2020.docx Please find our letter of support attached Case name: CT2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP2018-0005/HDP 2018-001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018- 0001 (DEV2017-0033)-AVAIRA Apartments Regards, Lisa Lisa Rodman Chief Executive Officer Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation ~ Discovery Center1580 Cannon Road Carlsbad CA 92008Office 760.804.1969 Cell 760.271.1356 www.aguahedionda.org Our Members Make it Happen ~ celebrating 30 years! Avoid crowdsMaintain a 6’ distance from people outside your own householdCover your face when you leave homeStay home if you have any symptoms of COVID-19Wash your hands often CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Brandon Mayo To:Planning Subject:The Aviara Apartments Date:Thursday, December 10, 2020 12:30:34 PM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission, I am writing you in support of case #: CT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/ HDP 2018-0001 / HMP 2018-0001 / EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) - Aviara Apartments. My name is Brandon Mayo and I live at 3525 Rock Ridge Road and I have been living inCarlsbad for 15 years. Being a nursing student that still lives at home, these apartments will give me a more cost effective reason to stay closer to home. Seeing as the housing market has become apremium here in San Diego these apartments give me an option after i graduate to live closer to my family. I fully intended on staying here in Carlsbad and raising my family here when thetime comes. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely,Brandon Mayo CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Robyn Ukegawa To:Planning Subject:The Aviara Apartments Project Date:Thursday, December 10, 2020 11:14:26 AM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission, I am writing you in support of case #: CT 2018-0002/ SDP 2018-0002/ CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001 / HMP 2018-0001 / EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) - AviaraApartments. My name is Robyn Ukegawa and I live at 4607 Telescope Ave Carlsbad CA 92008 and I have been living in Carlsbad for 24 years. My family has been living in Carlsbad since 1960. Being a recent college graduate, the apartments would be beneficial for me as it would be anaffordable place to live while staying close to my family. After graduation I am now working in Carlsbad. The project would be beneficial since the apartments allows for an easy commuteto work. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Robyn Ukegawa CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Mark and Bonnie To:Planning Subject:The Aviara Apartments Project Date:Monday, December 14, 2020 10:23:37 PM I would like to ask that my comments be read into the record and considered as you make your determination today regarding the Aviara Apartments project. Carlsbad was carefully planned and laid out as a cohesive community. Proper growth was anticipated and planned and prepared for- by property owners, by community members, by decision makers, and by staff. I was very pleased to learn that staff have worked with the property owners in creating a design and plan that they heartily support. It provides new housing opportunities for workers near their places of employment, provides opportunities for those seeking a hand up in housing, provides for a balance of different levels of housing need, reduces the net traffic congestion as we meet our housing needs, and helps with needed infrastructure. The property owners are long-time committed people of our community who want to enhance the city and provide a blend of housing opportunities where they are of most good to the city. They have the best interests of the city at heart. The city has a great team of well-qualified staff that understand how to help the city move carefully and wisely into the future, and these owners have worked with them to create a design that staff are declaring meets the best goals of the city in building for the future. I ask that you support the staff’s determination that this is good project for the city and vote in support. Mark Packard Sent from my iPad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Maureen Simons To:Planning Subject:The Aviara Apartments Date:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 6:53:39 PM Dear Planning Commission, I have called Carlsbad home for the last 20 years. I am hoping that the Aviara Apartment Project will make it possible for others to establish roots in our community. I have seen the evolution of Carlsbad as the city welcomes new residents and businesses and I support how Carlsbad has managed its growth. Part of managing the growth was the undertaking of the General Plan Update. The GP update was informed by robust and extensive public participation process known as Envision Carlsbad. After seven years of community engagement from resident and community organizations, the plan is a result of collaboration and smart growth that sets Carlsbad up for a successful future. This project will give affordable housing for employees in working in nearby industry, hotels and tourist destinations. It will give places to live in Carlsbad for “starter families” that can not afford expensive single family homes yet and will give a place for downsizers to live after they become empty nesters. I totally understand this. It also has easy access to traffic arteries. Please approve this project. CT 2028-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 20018-0005/HDP 2018- 001/HMP2018-001/ EIR 2018-0001(DEV2017-0033) Aviara Apartments Thank you, Patricia Maureen Simons 3462 Don Juan Dr. Carlsbad Ca 92010 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:John Bandimere To:Planning Subject:The Aviara Aprartments Date:Monday, December 14, 2020 7:21:46 AM CASE NAME: CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) - AVIARA APARTMENTS I'm a strong supporter of low income housing in our city. We need housing to help support our tradesman, hospitality workers as well as the elderly. This project is needed to help our community grow in a sustainable way. Thanks, planning@carlsbadca.gov John Bandimere FunktionUSA, Inc. 3465 Ann Drive Carlsbad CA 92008 P: 760-473-4171 e-mail: funktionusa@gmail.com http://FunktionUSA.com CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Steve Linke To:Planning Subject:Verbal comment to be read for Aviara Apartments agenda item at today"s commission meeting Date:Wednesday, December 16, 2020 10:00:14 AM My name is Steve Linke. I am on the Traffic and Mobility Commission but am commenting individually. The traffic studies for this project are unacceptable. Carlsbad’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines apply to both environmental impact reports and GMP compliance. It is outrageous that staff is now claiming they did not have to use the guidelines for the EIR, because they allegedly have not been approved yet. The legally obligated publication of the rules in April 2018 requires their use, and they need to be applied—in full—before approval of this project. Beyond that, it is staff itself that has refused to allow the TIA Guidelines to be reviewed. In fact, I have been calling for our commission to review them since I joined almost two years ago, but we are still waiting on staff to present them. Instead, staff and the applicant used a bizarre mix of different components from various methods for the EIR. For example, the new ARTPLAN software approach from the TIA Guidelines was used to generate the street segment capacities. However, rather than using the rest of the service table generated by ARTPLAN, as they should have, staff reverted to a 20-year-old SANTEC table, which generically generates much more favorable LOS grades—A’ and B’s rather than D’s and E’s—because it does not account for the individual characteristics of the street, as required by the Highway Capacity Manual and 2015 General Plan. In addition, the old SANTEC guidelines require “horizon” analysis 20 years into the future, but staff cites a provision in the new TIA Guidelines to justify the applicant avoiding that critical analysis. This inappropriate cherry-picking and mixing of methods, and the complete lack of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit analysis in the EIR, are also not consistent with the HCM or General Plan. And this unpublished mess of an approach does not even meet the standard of adoption that the TIA Guidelines do. As a result, there is currently no mobility related mitigation in the EIR—only separate watered down conditions that are at the future discretion of staff. There are multiple instances from past applications where such conditions have eventually been abandoned. For example, the Casa Aldea apartment complex, approved about four years ago, was conditioned to provide TDM and TSM funding, but they were never required to provide that funding, because staff chose not to create a mechanism to collect it. This nonsense needs to end—no more tortured legal arguments, pretzel logic, or allowing developers to choose their own methods and EIR revisions, in order to avoid following the rules and meaningful mitigation. I refer you to the detailed recommendations in my letter, which focus on re-doing the traffic analyses for the EIR based on the TIA Guidelines and including a more comprehensive TDM plan and monitoring directly in the EIR. Thank you. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Christian Garcia To:Planning Subject:RE: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership Date:Wednesday, December 16, 2020 1:24:12 PM Attachments:2020-12-16 - Californians Letter to Planning Commission.pdf To the Planning Commission: Please see the attached correspondence regarding Agenda Item 2 being considered at your upcoming meeting. TO STAFF: In light of the length of our letter, if the City has adopted a practice of reading written comments into the record, we are not asking that the letter be read into the record. Instead, we ask that you read this short statement: “Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to using legal tools to address California’s housing crisis. You have been provided with a letter we submitted as part of our work monitoring local compliance with the Housing Accountability Act. The City’s approval of this project is governed by the Act, which requires the City to approve housing development projects without applying informal or subjective criteria. Instead, the City must apply only applicable, objective standards in effect at the time a project is deemed approved. To count as objective, a standard must involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and be uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official. Violation of the Act can expose the City to significant financial penalties. We encourage you to review our letter closely to learn more about the City's obligations under the Act. By submitting this correspondence, our organization will have automatic statutory standing to sue the City under the Act if it denies this project. Thank you for your consideration." Sincerely, Christian Garcia Californians for Homeownership 525 S. Virgil Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90020 admin@caforhomes.org Tel: (213) 739-8206 Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that works to address California’s housing crisis through impact litigation and other legal tools. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CHRISTIAN GARCIA CHRISTIAN@CAFORHOMES.ORG TEL: (213) 739-8206 December 16, 2020 VIA EMAIL Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Email: planning@carlsbadca.gov RE: Aviara Apartments CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/ HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) To the Planning Commission: Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to using legal tools to address California’s housing crisis. We are writing regarding the Aviara Apartments project. The City’s approval of this project is governed by the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5. For the purposes of Government Code Section 65589.5(k)(2), this letter constitutes our written comments submitted in connection with the project. This letter is also intended to support the project’s environmental review, which has met the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Housing Accountability Act generally requires the City to approve a housing development project unless the project fails to comply with “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1). To count as “objective,” a standard must “involve[e] no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and be[] uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8). In making this determination, the City must approve the project if the evidence “would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that the project met the relevant standard. Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4). Projects subject to modified standards pursuant to a density bonus are judged against the City’s standards as modified. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(3).1 1 The staff report for this project refers to certain standards established under the City’s Growth Management Program. Although this project meets those standards, we must remind the City that the standards established by the Program are not applicable standards, because they December 16, 2020 Page 2 The City is subject to strict timing requirements under the Act. If the City desires to find that a project is inconsistent with any of its land use standards, it must issue written findings to that effect within 30 to 60 days after the application to develop the project is determined to be complete. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A). If the City fails to do so, the project is deemed consistent with those standards. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(B). If the City determines that a project is consistent with its objective standards, or a project is deemed consistent with such standards, but the City nevertheless proposes to reject it, it must make written findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,” meaning that the project would have “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A); see Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(i)(II). Once again, “objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8). Even if the City identifies legally sufficient health and safety concerns about a project, it may only reject the project if “[t]here is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact . . . other than the disapproval of the housing development project . . . .” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(B). Thus, before rejecting a project, the City must consider all reasonable measures that could be used to mitigate the impact at issue. For projects that provide housing for lower-income families, the Act is even more restrictive. In many cases, the City must approve such a project even if it fails to meet the City’s objective land use standards. See Gov. Code § 65589.5(d). These provisions apply to the full range of housing types, including single-family homes, market-rate multifamily projects, and mixed-use developments. Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2); see Honchariw v. Cty. of Stanislaus, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, 1074-76 (2011). And the Legislature has directed that the Act be “interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L). When a locality rejects or downsizes a housing development project without complying with the rules described above, the action may be challenged in court in a writ under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). The legislature has significantly reformed this process over the last few years in an effort to increase compliance. Today, the law provides a private right of action to non-profit organizations like Californians for Homeownership. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k). A non-profit organization can sue without the involvement or approval of the were invalidated by the enactment of Government Code Section 66300, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which was established by SB 330, Stats. 2019 c. 659 § 13. We provided a detailed analysis on this subject in our March 3, 2020 letter to the Community Development Director. December 16, 2020 Page 3 project applicant, to protect the public’s interest in the development of new housing. A locality that is sued to enforce Section 65589.5 must prepare the administrative record itself, at its own expense, within 30 days after service of the petition. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). And if an enforcement lawsuit brought by a non-profit organization is successful, the locality must pay the organization’s attorneys’ fees. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(2). In certain cases, the court will also impose fines that start at $10,000 per proposed housing unit. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i). In recent years, there have been a number of successful lawsuits to enforce these rules:  In Honchariw, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, the Court of Appeal vacated the County of Stanislaus’s denial of an application to subdivide a parcel into eight lots for the development of market-rate housing. The court held that the county did not identify any objective standards that the proposed subdivision would not meet, and therefore violated the Housing Accountability Act in denying the application.  In Eden Housing, Inc. v. Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 16CV300733, the court determined that Los Gatos had improperly denied a subdivision application based on subjective factors. The court found that the factors cited by the town, such as the quality of the site design, the unit mix, and the anticipated cost of the units, were not objective because they did not refer to specific, mandatory criteria to which the applicant could conform.  San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation v. Berkeley City Council, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG16834448, was the final in a series of cases relating to Berkeley’s denial of an application to build three single family homes and its pretextual denial of a demolition permit to enable the project. The Court ordered the city to approve the project and to pay $44,000 in attorneys’ fees.  In 40 Main Street Offices v. City of Los Altos, Santa Clara County Superior Court Consolidated Case Nos. 19CV349845 & 19CV350422, the court determined that the City violated the Housing Accountability Act, among other state housing laws, by failing to identify objective land use criteria to justify denying a mixed-use residential and commercial project. The Petitioners’ application for over $1.7 million in attorneys’ fees is pending before the court. In other cases, localities have settled lawsuits by agreeing to approve the subject projects and pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses. Approval of the project’s requested entitlements is well-supported by the record before the City, and the project’s environmental review has met the requirements of CEQA. Sincerely, Christian Garcia December 16, 2020 Page 4