Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-12-02; Planning Commission; ; AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) – LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL Item No. Application complete date: NA P.C. AGENDA OF: December 2, 2020 Project Planner: Jason Goff Project Engineer: Tecla Levy SUBJECT: AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) – LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL – A recommendation for approval of a Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit and Site Development Plan to allow for the subdivision of a 7.2 acre parcel into two lots, one with 76 townhomes and one with 19 affordable condominiums, including development standards modifications, on property generally located north of the intersection of Calle Timiteo and La Costa Avenue, within the La Costa Master Plan, Neighborhood SE-13B, in the Southeast Quadrant of the city and Local Facilities Management Zone 11. The City Planner has determined that the potential environmental effects of the project were adequately analyzed by the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the construction of La Costa Town Square (EIR 01-02). I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7390 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Master Plan Amendment AMEND 2017-0012, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7391 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Tentative Tract Map CT 2017-0003, Planned Development Permit PUD 2017-0004 and Site Development Plan SDP 2018-0018, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT BACKGROUND On November 18, 2020 the Planning Commission considered the project. The commission vote on the staff recommendation ended in a tie 3-3 vote with Commissioner Merz absent. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 1.20.130 H. tie votes constitute “no action” and the item shall be placed on the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission for further consideration. Commissioner Merz has reviewed the video of the November 18, 2020 Planning Commission Hearing and the staff report prepared for the project so that he is able to participate and vote on the project. No new information is being provided by staff. The staff report for the project dated November 18, 2020 was previously distributed. 1 AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL December 2, 2020 Page 2 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 18, 2020 with attachments (previously distributed) Item No. Application complete date: NA P.C. AGENDA OF: November 18, 2020 Project Planner: Jason Goff Project Engineer: Tecla Levy SUBJECT: AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) – LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL – A recommendation for approval of a Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit and Site Development Plan to allow for the subdivision of a 7.2 acre parcel into two lots, one with 76 townhomes and one with 19 affordable condominiums, including development standards modifications, on property generally located north of the intersection of Calle Timiteo and La Costa Avenue, within the La Costa Master Plan, Neighborhood SE-13B, in the Southeast Quadrant of the city and Local Facilities Management Zone 11. The City Planner has determined that the potential environmental effects of the project were adequately analyzed by the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the construction of La Costa Town Square (EIR 01-02). I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7390 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Master Plan Amendment AMEND 2017-0012, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7391 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Tentative Tract Map CT 2017-0003, Planned Development Permit PUD 2017-0004 and Site Development Plan SDP 2018-0018, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Background On August 18, 2009, the La Costa Town Square project was approved for the development of an 83.07- acre site with a 284,400-square-foot community shopping center, a 55,000-square-foot office complex (subject site), 64 detached single-family lots and 128 multiple-family residential units. An amendment to the La Costa Master Plan (MP-149R) was also approved at the time creating Neighborhood SE-13B and establishing the underlying Office (O) Zone for the subject site. The La Costa Town Square community shopping center and associated residential developments have since been constructed. The subject office parcel, identified as Parcel 3 of Minor Subdivision MS 04-08, is situated to the rear of the La Costa Town Square community shopping center fronting on La Costa Avenue. The subject site has been precise graded, includes a developed pad and takes access from La Costa Avenue at its intersection with Calle Timiteo. The La Costa Avenue frontage has already been improved to its full road width and includes the project entrance, curb, gutter, sidewalk, bike lanes and a bus stop. The developed pad is further situated approximately 41 feet below the elevation of the adjacent community shopping center and between 12-and-32-feet above the elevation of La Costa Avenue. The area between the subject 1 AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL November 18, 2020 Page 2 building pad and the back of the community shopping center consists of a large retaining wall ranging in height from 14 to 22 feet with an uphill perimeter slope rising above it. A 6-foot-high noise wall runs along the top of slope separating the commercial uses from the proposed residential development. All manufactured slopes have been landscaped. With the approval of the city’s new General Plan in 2015, the General Plan Land Use designation on the project site was changed from Office (O) to R-23 Residential (15-23 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)). All facilities were analyzed for the land use change with the General Plan update. With the change in land uses for the site came a requirement through Resolution No. 7114 for the subject parcel to be developed with a minimum density of 15 du/ac and a further allocation of 120 dwelling units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDUB). The site is also required to provide a minimum of 20% inclusionary housing units, or one of two other options that provides a deeper level of affordability per Resolution No. 7114 (see Attachment 6). Project Description La Costa Parcels, LLC, has submitted an application for the development of a multiple-family residential project on a 7.2-acre parcel of land generally located north of the intersection of Calle Timiteo and La Costa Avenue. The project proposes to subdivide the site into two parcels and construct 95 airspace condominium units total. On Parcel 1, 76 market rate townhome condominium units are proposed. On Parcel 2, 19 affordable condominium units are proposed. While the project has been analyzed together and will function as one development project sharing onsite visitor parking, access and recreational amenities, separate parcels are proposed for future ownership purposes and management. Market Rate Townhomes (Buildings 1-15 and 17-18): On Parcel 1, most of the buildings will comprise four townhome units each, with remaining buildings containing three, five and eight townhome units. Of the 18 total building designs that are proposed, three consist of three-plex townhomes, 11 consist of four-plex townhomes, three consist of five-plex townhomes, and one consists of an eight-plex townhome building. All units are three stories tall, with a ground floor two-car garage and living space, as well as two floors of living space above. Architecture is described as contemporary rustic with three color schemes to provide variation throughout. Primary building materials consist of sand finished plaster, horizontal tongue and grove siding, asphalt roof shingles and cultured stone veneer attached to each of the entry wall stoops. Additional accent materials and features include metal railings and awnings, wood awnings and eyebrows, exposed wood rafter tails and fascia, and varied window shapes with window trims that provide the appearance of two-inch-deep window recesses throughout. Each building provides varied roof shapes with a 2:12 and 4:12 roof pitch combination. The maximum height for each proposed building is 35’-9¾”. Affordable Condominiums (Building 16): On Parcel 2, one multiple-family residential condominium building is proposed with open parking spaces and landscaping surrounding it. All 19 affordable units are of one level each, stacked one over the top of the other for a total of three stories. On the ground floor, the building includes a community room, laundry facility and individual storage rooms for each residential unit that range in size from 240 cubic feet (cu. ft.) to 330 cu. ft. AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL November 18, 2020 Page 3 The architectural design of the proposed affordable units is comparable to the townhome units on Parcel 1, which is also described as contemporary rustic. Primary building materials consist of sand finished plaster, horizontal tongue and grove siding and asphalt roof shingles. The plans note that one of the three proposed color schemes for the Parcel 1 Townhomes will be used on the affordable building and the architect has indicated that the masonry walls that are proposed around the ground floor patios will incorporate the cultured stone veneers that are being proposed on the townhomes. A condition to this effect has been added to the resolution. Additional accent materials and features include metal railings, wood fascia, and some variation in window shapes. Like the townhomes, the proposed affordable building provides varied roof shapes with a 3:12 and 4:12 roof pitch combination. The maximum height for the proposed building is 37’-⁷⁄₈”. A breakdown of each of the above noted residential unit types is summarized in Table “A” below. TABLE A – DETAILS FOR UNIT TYPE Unit Type # Size Bedroom/ Bathrooms Quantity Parcel 1 Townhomes Plan 0 1,070 SF 2/2.5 3 Plan 1 1,454 SF 2/2.5 8 Plan 2 1,546 SF 3/2.5 41 Plan 3 1,603 SF 3/2.5 24 TOTAL MARKET-RATE UNITS 76 Parcel 2 Affordable Condominiums Plan 4 563 SF 1/1 5 Plan 5 765 SF 2/1 2 Plan 6 775 SF 2/1 6 Plan 7 1,005 SF 3/2 6 TOTAL AFFORDABLE UNITS 19 TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS 95 Table “B” includes the General Plan designations, zoning and current land uses of the project site and surrounding properties. TABLE B Location General Plan Designation Zoning Current Land Use Site R-23 Residential Planned Community (P-C) Vacant lot, precise graded with development pad, landscaped slopes and large retaining wall North Local Shopping Center (L) P-C La Costa Town Square Shopping Center South R-15 Residential P-C Multi-family Residential AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL November 18, 2020 Page 4 TABLE B Location General Plan Designation Zoning Current Land Use East Open Space (OS) P-C Non-HMP landscaped open space for the La Costa Town Square Shopping Center. Includes pedestrian connection from adjacent neighborhoods with several stormwater retention basins supporting the shopping center. West L P-C Retention basin for the La Costa Town Square Shopping Center Table “C” below includes the project site’s gross and net acreage, the number of dwelling units allowed by the General Plan’s Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) density and the proposed project’s number of dwelling units and density. TABLE C Gross Acres Net Acres DUs Allowed at GMCP Density DUs Proposed and Project Density 7.2 6.3 119 95 (15.1 du/ac) The application was submitted prior to the effective date of Policy 84, Development Project Public Involvement Policy, which requires the enhanced stakeholder public outreach for this type of project. Instead, the project complies with the Early Public Notice procedures that were in effect at the time of the application. Early in the project’s development, staff and the applicant received and responded to phone calls and email correspondence and attended an onsite meeting with nearby residents to better understand and try and resolve specific neighborhood concerns. Most concerns at the time related to the compatibility of the affordable housing in context with the nearby surrounding larger single-family homes. The applicant has responded to the concerns they are able to address, such as adding additional screen type vegetation on both the lower slopes between La Costa Avenue and the project pad, and most importantly on the upper slope near the top to help provide some additional screening of the rear elevations of the La Costa Town Square community shopping center buildings. The project requires the following discretionary actions: • Master Plan Amendment (AMEND 2017-0012) A Master Plan Amendment to 1) change the Master Plan Land Use designation of SE-13B from Office (O) to the R-23 Residential (15-23 du/ac) to be consistent with the city’s General Plan Land Use Map and Housing Element; 2) change the underlying Master Plan zoning for SE-13B from Office (O) to Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M) consistent with the land use designation; and 3) update the SE- 13B development processes to facilitate the proposed project. • Tentative Tract Map (CT 2017-0003) A Tentative Tract Map for the creation of two residential condominium parcels. 76 market rate units within Parcel 1, and 19 affordable units within Parcel 2. AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL November 18, 2020 Page 5 • Residential Planned Development Permit (PUD 2017-0004) A Planned Development Permit for the airspace subdivision of the residential development. • Site Development Plan (SDP 2018-0018) A Site Development Plan for the affordable housing component. The project’s discretionary applications are all within the purview of the Planning Commission per the Carlsbad Municipal Code. However, the Master Plan Amendment requires action by the City Council. Therefore, per CMC Section 21.54.040, decision-making authority for multiple development permits, all the applications require City Council action. The Planning Commission’s action on the project will be a recommendation. III. ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following regulations: A. General Plan R-23 Residential Land Use Designation; B. La Costa Master Plan (MP-149R); C. Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M) Zone (Chapter 21.24); Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45); and Site Development Plan (Affordable Housing) (Chapters 21.06 and 21.53); D. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.85); E. Subdivision Ordinance (CMC Title 20); and F. Growth Management Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.90) and Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 11. The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below. A. General Plan R-23 Residential Land Use Designation The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is R-23 Residential (R-23). The R-23 land use designation allows for development of multiple-family residential within a density range of 15-23 du/ac with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 19 du/ac. The project site has a net developable acreage of 6.3 acres. At the GMCP, the site would yield 119 dwelling units. Although the project is below the GMCP for the R-23 General Plan Land Use designation by 24 dwelling units, the General Plan Land Use Element allows the city to approve residential development at a density that is below the GMCP for the applicable density range provided that the proposed residential density (15.1 du/ac, 95 dwelling units) is within the R-23 density range of 15-23 du/ac. Consistent with Program 3.2 of the city’s certified General Plan Housing Element, all of the dwelling units which were anticipated toward achieving the city’s share of the regional housing needs that are not used by developers in approved projects will be deposited into the city’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDUB). The project will therefore deposit 25 dwelling units into the EDUB (based on the City Council’s initial allocation of 120 dwelling units), which will then be made available for allocation to other projects in the future. Accordingly, there is no net loss of residential unit capacity and there are adequate properties identified AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL November 18, 2020 Page 6 in the Housing Element allowing residential development with a unit capacity, including second dwelling units, adequate to satisfy the city’s share of the regional housing need. In addition to the above, the project also complies with the other Elements of the General Plan as outlined in Table “D” below: TABLE D – GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY? Land Use & Community Design Goal 2-G.2 – Promote a diversity of compatible land uses throughout the city, to enable people to live close to job locations, adequate and convenient commercial services, and public support systems such as transit, parks, schools, and utilities. The project will provide new multi- family residential condominiums in the form of 76 market rate units and 19 affordable units located near jobs, schools, parks and convenient neighborhood-serving commercial services. The project design is limited to an existing graded pad with a large retaining wall (14 to 22 feet in height) downslope from the La Costa Town Square shopping center. The project provides all required parking onsite and has convenient access to public transit via NCTD local bus Route 304, serving Encinitas, Carlsbad, and San Marcos with service along the Rancho Santa Fe Road corridor. Route 304 also connects to the Coaster in Encinitas and the Sprinter in San Marcos providing further regional connectivity. Yes 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 project is proposed on an existing graded pad surrounded by existing developments on all sides and is not located within or adjacent to any preserve areas as identified in the city’s HMP. The project would provide future residents with access to convenient neighborhood-serving commercial uses and will also provide housing to support nearby employment centers. AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL November 18, 2020 Page 7 TABLE D – GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY? Land Use & Community Design Goal 2-G.4 – Provide balanced neighborhoods with a variety of housing types and density ranges to meet the diverse demographic, economic and social needs of residents, while ensuring a cohesive urban form with careful regard for compatibility. The multi-family residential project with 95 condominium units (76 market rate and 19 affordable), provides for much needed higher density housing located adjacent to convenient neighborhood-serving commercial uses and nearby employment centers. Yes Mobility Goal 3-G.3 – Provide inviting streetscapes that encourage walking and promote livable streets. The proposed project maintains an existing sidewalk along La Costa Avenue and will provide continuous connected sidewalks and pathways throughout the interior of the project site, which will provide pedestrian access to and from the project. Additionally, the project will provide a new sidewalk connection to an existing pedestrian pathway located east of the site and connecting the adjacent shopping center with the adjacent neighborhoods. Bike lanes already exist on La Costa Avenue in front of the project site. Yes 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. The project does not require additional improvements to the existing street system in that the project’s frontage along La Costa Avenue is fully improved as part the La Costa Town Square development project. Existing La Costa Avenue frontage improvements include full width right-of-way, curb, gutter, sidewalk, bus stop, and landscaped slopes. Open Space, Conservation & Recreation Goal 4-G.3 – Protect environmentally sensitive lands, wildlife habitats, and rare, threatened or endangered plant and animal communities. There is no wildlife habitat, or rare, threatened or endangered plant or animal communities present on the project site, nor adjacent to it. Yes AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL November 18, 2020 Page 8 TABLE D – GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY? Noise Goal 5-G.1 – Protect public health and welfare by eliminating existing noise problems where feasible, maintaining an acceptable indoor and outdoor acoustic environment, and preventing significant degradation of the acoustic environment. 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. According to the project noise study (Ldn Consulting, June 29, 2017), the principal noise source associated with the proposed project will be from future vehicle traffic along La Costa Avenue. An existing 6-foot tall masonry sound wall is presently constructed at the top of slope between the project site and the La Costa Town Square shopping center. All building facades were found to be below the 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard, and thus there is no requirement to mitigate exterior noise levels to an interior level of 45 dBA CNEL. Yes AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL November 18, 2020 Page 9 TABLE D – GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY? 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. According to the La Costa Town Square Project EIR 01-02, the project site is not located within a flood zone, no hazardous materials were found to exist within the project site or within the vicinity of the project site; and any seismic related geotechnical issues were addressed in the grading of the existing site. Additionally, while the project site does not interface directly with native habitat, and surrounding land uses consist primarily of residential and commercial development, maps produced by the State show the site located within an area containing a very high threat from wildfires. However, the city has adopted the City of Carlsbad Emergency Plan, which addresses the city’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations, including wildfires. The Plan identifies certain open space areas and public buildings to serve as emergency shelters when residents must be relocated. The Emergency Plan also identifies primary road arterials to move people in the event of an emergency. These arterials are El Camino Real, Carlsbad Boulevard, La Costa Avenue, Rancho Santa Fe Road, and Carlsbad Village Drive. Carlsbad Police, Fire, and other personnel would assist in the execution of an Emergency Plan. Yes AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL November 18, 2020 Page 10 TABLE D – GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY? Public Safety Goal 6-G.2 – Minimize safety hazards related to aircraft operations in areas around the McClellan-Palomar Airport. The proposed project is not located within a safety zone, airspace protection area or noise contour of the ALUCP. Yes Goal 6-G.4 – Maintain safety services that are responsive to citizens’ needs to ensure a safe and secure environment for people and property in the community. The proposed project would provide fire hydrants and supporting water infrastructure in accordance with fire marshal requirements; secondary emergency access is provided on site; fire sprinklers are required and provided for on all residential structures built on or after January 2011; and the dwelling units proposed by this project are all within a 5-minute emergency response time as required by the Growth Management Plan. 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. The project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of “best management practices” for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities. 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. The project is required to comply with all Building and Fire codes to ensure that fire protection standards are met by the proposed structures. Policy 6-P.39 – Ensure all new development complies with all applicable regulations regarding the provision of public utilities and facilities. The project is required to construct or pay applicable fees for necessary improvements, public utilities and facilities in accordance with Growth Management requirements; Fire Station No. 6 is located 1.6 miles away from the project site and is well within emergency response timeframes; and the project will not impact the city’s ability to implement its Emergency Operations Plan. AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL November 18, 2020 Page 11 TABLE D – GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY? Sustainability Policy 9-P.1 – Enforce the Climate Action Plan (CAP) as the city’s strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The project implements and is consistent with measures identified in the Climate Action Plan (CAP) through the provision of renewable energy generation (photovoltaic systems), energy conservation (Green Building Code), and by accommodating Zero-Emission vehicles and other greenhouse gas reduction measures and features. The project will also be subject to CAP ordinances that are in effect at the time building permits are issued. 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. Per CMC Section 21.85.030, a project is required to provide 15% of the total units as affordable units. Through the 2015 General Plan Update (Planning Commission Resolution No. 7114) the city required this site to provide additional affordable housing (minimum of 20% of the total housing units on the site affordable to low income households at 80% or below the San Diego County Area Median income, or one of two other options that provides a deeper level of affordability (see Staff Report Attachment 6)). The project is providing an affordable housing project onsite in the form of 19 affordable units (20%) to low income households at 80% or below the San Diego County Area Median income. Yes AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL November 18, 2020 Page 12 TABLE D – GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY? Housing Policy 10-G.2 – New housing developed with diversity of types, prices, tenures, densities, and locations, and in sufficient quantity to meet the demand of anticipated city and regional growth The majority of housing in Carlsbad is detached single-family dwellings, occupied by above-moderate income households. The proposed project will increase the diversity of housing in Carlsbad by adding 95 multi-family condominium units to the city’s housing inventory. In addition, the project will increase housing diversity by providing housing offered at a price affordable to low income households (19 units will be provided onsite for low-income households at 80% or below the San Diego County Area Median income). Yes Policy 10-P.15 – Pursuant to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, require affordability for lower income households of a minimum 15 percent of all residential ownership and qualifying rental projects. For projects that are required to include 10 or more units affordable to lower income households, at least 10 percent of the lower income units should have three or more bedrooms (lower income senior housing projects are exempt). Through the 2015 General Plan Update (Planning Commission Resolution No. 7114), the project is meeting a 20% requirement and is providing 19 affordable units to low income households at 80% or below the San Diego County Area Median income. Additionally, of those 19 affordable units, six (6) units consist of 3-bedrooms (32%) whereas only 10% are required to be 3-bedroom units. AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL November 18, 2020 Page 13 TABLE D – GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY? Housing Policy 10-P.19 – Address the unmet housing needs of the community through new development and housing that is set aside for lower and moderate-income households consistent with priorities set by the Housing and Neighborhood Services Division, in collaboration with the Planning Division, as set forth in the city’s Consolidated Plan. The city currently has a jobs/housing ratio where there are more jobs than housing. The project replaces a previously approved 55,000-square-foot office project with 95 residential condominium units (76 market rate and 19 affordable) in accordance with the General Plan Update (Planning Commission Resolution No. 7114). The project expands the city’s affordable housing stock to assist in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment and provides an adequate number of housing units to meet the needs of low income households. Yes B. La Costa Master Plan The project site is in an area subject to the La Costa Master Plan (MP-149R) and consists of Neighborhood SE-13B, which was originally approved for 55,000 square feet of office as part of the La Costa Town Square commercial project. The Master Plan provides a framework for the development of properties within the Master Plan area to ensure the logical and efficient provision of public facilities and community amenities for future residents. A Major Master Plan Amendment is required to be approved through a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.38.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The proposed Master Plan Amendment (AMEND 2017-0012) proposes to 1) change the Master Plan Land Use designation of SE-13B from Office (O) to the R-23 Residential (15-23 du/ac) to be consistent with the city’s existing General Plan Land Use Map and Housing Element; 2) change the underlying Master Plan zoning for SE-13B from Office (O) to Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M) consistent with the land use designation; and 3) update the SE-13B development processes to facilitate the proposed project. The amendment proposes that development of SE-13B comply with all applicable regulations and development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including zoning standards for the RD-M Zone (Chapter 21.24) except as modified by the Master Plan. The Master Plan designates Neighborhood SE-13B with Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M) Zoning, requires multiple-family residential development at the R-23 density range, and allows for the utilization of the Planned Development Regulations (CMC Chapter 21.45) to configure the residential project. As demonstrated in Staff Report Section “A”, the proposed land uses are compatible with the General Plan and the proposed multiple-family residential condominium project will assist in creating a more balanced community. As demonstrated in Staff Report Sections “C”-“F”, all findings to support the proposed affordable housing on Parcel 2 can be made, and all development standards to adjust the uses on the site can be met or will be met as conditioned. As demonstrated in Staff Report Section “F”, the proposed amendment is in compliance with Growth Management (Chapter 21.90). The Master Plan Amendment includes nine pages of revised text and AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL November 18, 2020 Page 14 tables, which are included as Exhibit “AMEND 2017-0012” and attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 7390. C. Residential Density–Multiple (RD-M) Zone (CMC Chapters 21.24), Planned Development Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.45) and Site Development Plan (Affordable Housing) (CMC Chapter 21.06 and 21.53) The project site is zoned Planned Community (P-C) and is located within Neighborhood SE-13B of the La Costa Master Plan. As part of the Master Plan Amendment a zone change is proposed to change the underlying zoning designation on Neighborhood SE-13B from Office (O) to Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M) in order to be consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of R-23 Residential as updated in the 2015 General Plan. Multiple-family residential is a permitted use within the RD-M zone subject to a Site Development Plan (SDP) for affordable multiple-family residential projects and a Planned Development Permit (PUD) for multiple-family residential projects that are not affordable. A PUD is also required for condominium development. Both projects are proposing condominiums; therefore, the PUD development standards apply to the project as a whole as outlined in Table C (General Development Standards) and Table E (Condominium Projects). An SDP has also been included for the affordable housing portion of the project and compliance with the required findings is summarized below. A PUD is necessary to configure the two condominium lots onsite. With exception to providing all of the active recreation area for both projects and five covered parking spaces for the affordable site, the project complies with all applicable requirements and development standards of the Planned Development Regulations as demonstrated in Staff Report Attachment 3 (see Planned Development Table C, Table E and City Council Policy 66 Compliance Table). In accordance with CMC Section 21.53.120, a Site Development Plan (SDP) is required to be processed pursuant to the provisions of CMC Chapter 21.06, Qualified (Q) Overlay Zone, for the affordable multi- family residential condominium project proposed on Parcel 2. An SDP for affordable housing projects may allow less restrictive development standards than specified in the underlying zone or elsewhere, provided that the project is in conformity with the General Plan and adopted policies and goals of the city, and it would not have a detrimental effect on public health, safety and welfare. Additionally, Program 2.2 of the General Plan’s Housing Element “Flexibility in Development Standards,” describes how the Planning Division “may recommend waiving or modifying certain development standards to encourage the development of low-income housing.” Site topography, limited development pad area and minimum dwelling unit yield have all worked to limit the project’s ability to provide for more in the way of active recreational facilities (i.e., large grassy play areas (min. 5,000 sq. ft.), pool/spa areas, basketball and tennis courts, etc.) and covered parking for the affordable project. An offset (standards modification) to the cost of affordable housing development is permitted pursuant to CMC Section 21.85.100. In exchange for providing all of the inclusionary housing onsite, along with providing four (4) additional 3-bedroom affordable units than is required by code, the Housing Policy Team agreed to both a 3,950-sq.-ft. reduction in the amount of active recreation amenities being provided as well the elimination of the requirement to provide five covered parking spaces on the affordable housing site. As it relates to the active recreation, the project is still providing 6,738 sq. ft. of common active recreation amenities and will benefit from the project site’s proximity to Stagecoach Park, and possibly the adjacent 24-hour Fitness located in the La Costa Town Square commercial center. AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL November 18, 2020 Page 15 In addition to the above, five SDP findings are required for the affordable housing portion of the project. The required findings with justification for each are summarized below and contained in Planning Commission Resolution 7391. 1. That the proposed development or use is consistent with the General Plan and the La Costa Master Plan, complies with all applicable provisions of Chapter 21.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and all other applicable provisions of this code. The project is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan as discussed in Section A above. The affordable condominiums are consistent with the underlying Residential-Density Multiple (RD-M) Zone as outlined in the La Costa Master Plan, Neighborhood SE-13B. The project site is served by existing transit and is directly adjacent to existing community commercial shopping with direct pedestrian connections from the site. The project provides at least 20% of the total housing units onsite as affordable to low income households at 80% or below the San Diego County Area Median Income. The project complies with all applicable standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, except for a requested development standard modification to allow a reduction in the required amount of active recreation and elimination of covered parking on the affordable housing Parcel 2. Justification for allowing the development standard modification is discussed above, and also contained in finding number 19 of Planning Commission Resolution 7391. 2. That the requested development or use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental settings, will not be detrimental to existing development or uses or to development or uses specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed development or use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or traffic circulation. The proposed condominiums within the Residential-Density Multiple (RD-M) Zone will not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which the use is located in that multiple- family residential dwellings are a permitted use within the zone. The proposed affordable condominium units are compatible with the proposed multiple-family townhomes onsite in scale, massing and design, the existing multiple-family residential projects located across La Costa Avenue to the south, and the existing commercial uses on the adjacent La Costa Town Square shopping center to the north. Existing two-story single-family residential lots to the east are buffered by a 170-foot-wide area of open space separating the two projects. The condominiums will not adversely impact the site, surroundings, or traffic circulation. La Costa Avenue, a neighborhood connector street, has adequate capacity to accommodate the 760 Average Daily Trips (ADTs) generated by the overall project, which is a net decrease of 340 ADTs associated with the previously approved office project (1100 ADT). The project is adequately parked on- site and does not result in any significant environmental impacts. 3. That the site for the intended development or use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. The condominium project complies with the development standards of the Residential-Density Multiple (RD-M) Zone and Carlsbad Municipal Code, except for a requested development standard modification to allow a reduction in the required amount of active recreation and elimination of covered parking on the affordable housing Parcel 2. Justification for allowing the development standard modification is discussed above, and also contained in finding number 19 of Planning Commission Resolution 7391. AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL November 18, 2020 Page 16 4. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested development or use to existing or permitted future development or use in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained. The affordable condominium project complies with all of the minimum development standards of the Residential-Density-Multiple (RD-M) Zone and the Carlsbad Municipal Code, except for a requested development standard modification to allow a reduction in the required amount of active recreation and elimination of covered parking on the affordable housing Parcel 2. Justification for allowing the development standard modification is discussed above, and also contained in finding number 19 of Planning Commission Resolution 7391. Landscaping throughout the project site will be provided consistent with the requirements of the city’s Landscape Manual. 5. That the street systems serving the proposed development or use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. The proposed project has been designed with one street entry from La Costa Avenue in line with the existing intersection at Calle Timiteo. La Costa Avenue is identified as a neighborhood connector street and is designed to adequately handle the 760 Average Daily Trips (ADTs) generated by the overall project, which is a net decrease of 340 ADTs associated with the previously approved office project (1100 ADT). The project site is served by one NCTD bus route with stops adjacent to the site, and bike lanes are provided on La Costa Avenue. In addition, the applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees prior to issuance of building permits that will go towards future road improvements. D. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.85) According to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), any residential development of seven (7) or more units shall provide not less than 15% of the total number of units as restricted to occupancy and affordability to low-income households. However, it should be noted that the project site, in accordance with the 2015 General Plan Update (Planning Commission Resolution No. 7114), was conditioned to enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City of Carlsbad to provide a minimum of 20% of the total housing units onsite as affordable to low income households at 80% or below the San Diego County Area Median Income. Therefore, the project has been conditioned to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement for low-income households by entering into an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) to provide 19 units onsite as affordable to low income households earning 80% or below the San Diego County Area Median Income. By entering into the AHA accordingly, the project is providing its fair share of housing affordable to low income households and therefore is consistent with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Chapter 21.85 of the CMC also requires that for those developments which are required to provide ten (10) or more units affordable to low-income households, at least 10% of the low-income units (two (2) units required for this project) shall have three or more bedrooms. Of the 19 affordable units proposed, six (6) will consist of three bedrooms, equating to 32% of the affordable units. E. Subdivision Ordinance (CMC Title 20) The project necessitates the processing of a Tentative Tract Map (CT 2017-0003) for the creation of two residential parcels for a total of 95 residential airspace condominium units. Parcel One proposes 76 market AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL November 18, 2020 Page 17 rate units, while Parcel 2 proposes 19 affordable units. As discussed previously, a Planned Development Permit (PUD 2017-0004) accompanies the Tentative Tract Map (CT 2017-0003) application. Table E below summarize the project’s compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance. TABLE E – RESIDENTIAL COMPLIANCE TABLE STANDARD REQUIRED PROVIDED COMPLY? Minimum Lot Area 10,000 SF Parcel 1 = 5.51 net acres (240,016 sq. ft.) Parcel 2 = 0.77 acres (33,541 sq. ft.) Yes Front on a dedicated street Frontage on a public street unless allowed per CMC Chapter 21.45 for residential planned developments. The project and Parcel 1 front entirely on La Costa Avenue, which is a public street. Parcel 2 is allowed per CMC Chapter 21.45. Yes Lot width 60 feet Parcel 1 = 914 feet Parcel 2 = 166 feet Yes Lot lines on manmade slopes Locate side and rear lot lines at top of manmade slopes whenever practicable. Side and rear lot lines for Parcel 2 are provided at the top of manmade slopes where practicable. Yes Flag/through lots N/A N/A Yes Access to residential lots from rights-of- way Residential lots shall not front on/be accessed from arterials, railroads, transmission lines or flood control channels. None of the residential lots front on/have access from an arterial, railroads, transmission lines or flood control channels. Yes Bicycle routes Provide for bicycle routes on Circulation Element roadways. Bicycle lanes are currently provided along La Costa Avenue. Yes Street Plan Assure proper development of abutting properties and street plans. The project’s intersection has been aligned with existing street intersection at Calle Timiteo and La Costa Avenue. Yes F. Growth Management Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.90) and Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 11. The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 11 in the southeast quadrant of the city. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table “F” below. TABLE F – GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE STANDARD IMPACTS COMPLY City Administration 336 square feet Yes Library 179 square feet Yes Wastewater Treatment 95 EDU Yes AMEND 2017-0012/CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018 (DEV2017-0178) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL November 18, 2020 Page 18 TABLE F – GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE STANDARD IMPACTS COMPLY Parks 0.67 acres Yes Drainage 51 CFS/Drainage Basin “D” Yes Circulation 760 ADT (340 ADT net decrease from previous office project approval) Yes Fire Fire Station 6 Yes Open Space Acres Existing = 9.5 acres (provided w/ the La Costa Town Square) Yes Schools (Encinitas) 10 Elementary, 10 Middle, 10 High School) Yes Sewer Collection System 95 EDU Yes Water 23,750 GPD Yes IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Planner has determined that the potential environmental effects of the project were adequately analyzed by the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the construction of La Costa Town Square (EIR 01-02) – La Costa Town Square, City Council Resolution No. 2009-213, dated August 18, 2009). The project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as significant in the certified Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; none of the circumstances requiring further environmental compliance under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163 exist; and all feasible mitigation measures identified in the certified Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which are appropriate to this subsequent project, will be incorporated. The approved EIR and MMRP are on file for review at the Planning Division. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7390 (AMEND 2017-0012) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7391 (CT 2017-0003/PUD 2017-0004/SDP 2018-0018) 3. PD Compliance Tables C, E and City Council Policy 66 4. Location Map 5. Disclosure Statement 6. PC Resolution No. 7114 7. La Costa Town Square Master Plan (MP-149R) 8. Correspondence from the Public 9. Reduced Exhibits 10. Full Size Exhibits “A” - “KK” dated November 18, 2020 ATTACHMENT 3A PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.060) TABLE C: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS REF. NO. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE COMMENT C.1 Density Per the underlying General Plan designation. When two or more general plan land use designations exist within a planned development, the density may be transferred from one general plan designation to another with a general plan amendment. NA. C.2 Arterial Setbacks All dwelling units adjacent to any arterial road shown on the Circulation Element of the General Plan shall maintain the following minimum setbacks from the right-of-way: Prime Arterial 50 Feet Major Arterial 40 Feet Secondary Arterial 30 Feet Carlsbad Boulevard 20 Feet La Costa Avenue is considered a Secondary Arterial requiring a 30- foot setback. A 30-foot landscaped setback is being provided. Project complies. Half (50%) of the required arterial setback area located closest to the arterial shall be fully landscaped to enhance the street scene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials, and: • Shall contain a minimum of one 24” box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage; and • Shall be commonly owned and maintained The required 30-foot arterial setback along La Costa Avenue is proposing landscape in accordance with this provision. All common area landscape and open space will be maintained by an HOA as established by condition of approval. Project complies. Project perimeter walls greater than 42 inches in height shall not be located in the required landscaped portion of the arterial setback, except noise attenuation walls that: • Are required by a noise study, and • Due to topography, are necessary to be placed within the required landscaped portion of the arterial setback. A single retaining wall is located within the required landscape portion of the 30-foot-wide arterial setback. The portions of the retaining wall that are located within the required landscaped arterial setback do not exceed 42- inches in height. Project complies. C.3 Permitted Intrusions into Setbacks/ Building Separation Permitted intrusions into required building setbacks shall be the same as specified in Section 21.46.120 of this code. The same intrusions specified in Section 21.46.120 shall be permitted into required building separation. NA. C.4 Streets Private Minimum right-of-way width 56 feet NA. Minimum curb-to-curb width 34 feet Minimum parkway width (curb adjacent) 5.5 feet, including curb Minimum sidewalk width 5 feet (setback 6 inches from property line) Public Minimum right-of-way width 60 feet NA. Minimum curb-to-curb width 34 feet Minimum parkway width (curb adjacent) 7.5 feet, including curb Minimum sidewalk width 5 feet (setback 6 inches from property line) Street Trees within parkways One-family dwellings and twin homes on small-lots A minimum of one street tree (24-inch box) per lot is required to be planted in the parkway along all streets. NA. Condominium projects Street trees shall be spaced no further apart than 30 feet on center within the parkway. NA. Tree species should be selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk damage and minimize water consumption. NA. C.5 Drive-aisles 3 or fewer dwelling units Minimum 12 feet wide when the drive-aisle is not required for emergency vehicle access, as determined by the Fire Chief. NA. If the drive-aisle is required for emergency vehicle access, it shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 4 or more dwelling units Minimum 20 feet wide. All proposed drive-aisles are a minimum 20 feet wide. Project complies. All projects No parking shall be permitted within the minimum required width of a drive-aisle. No parking is proposed within the minimum required drive-aisle width. Project complies. A minimum 24-foot vehicle back-up/maneuvering area shall be provided in front of garages, carports or uncovered parking spaces (this may include driveway area, drive-aisles, and streets). Each garage and surface parking space provides a minimum 24-foot vehicle back-up/maneuvering area. Project complies. Additional width may be required for vehicle/emergency vehicle maneuvering area. NA. Parkways and/or sidewalks may be required. A parkway is provided along the north side of Drive Aisle “B”. No more than 24 dwelling units shall be located along a single- entry drive-aisle. No more than 24 dwelling units are proposed along a drive-aisle. All drive-aisles shall be enhanced with decorative pavement. Drive Aisle “A”, leading up to the project from La Costa Avenue, will be enhanced with decorative paving, as will Drive Aisles “C” through “H”. Project complies. C.6 Number of Visitor Parking Spaces Required (1) Projects with 10 units or fewer A .30 space per each unit. NA. Projects 11 units or more A .25 space per each unit. The proposed 95-unit project is required to provide 24 visitor parking spaces. The project is providing 24 visitor parking spaces along Drive Aisle “B”. Project complies. When calculating the required number of visitor parking spaces, if the calculation results in a fractional parking space, the required number of visitor parking spaces shall always be rounded up to the nearest whole number. C.7 Location of Visitor Parking On Private/ Public Streets On-street visitor parking is permitted on private/public streets, subject to the following: • The private/public street is a minimum 34-feet wide (curb- to-curb) • There are no restrictions that would prohibit on-street parking where the visitor parking is proposed • The visitor parking spaces may be located: o Along one or both sides of any private/public street(s) located within the project boundary, and o Along the abutting side and portion of any existing public/private street(s) that is contiguous to the project boundary NA. In parking bays along public/private streets within the project boundary, provided the parking bays are outside the minimum required street right-of-way width. NA. When visitor parking is provided as on-street parallel parking, not less than 24 lineal feet per space, exclusive of driveway/drive-aisle entrances and aprons, shall be provided for each parking space, except where parallel parking spaces are located immediately adjacent to driveway/drive-aisle aprons, then 20 lineal feet may be provided. NA. Within the Beach Area Overlay Zone, on-street parking shall not count toward meeting the visitor parking requirement. NA. On Drive- aisles Visitor parking must be provided in parking bays that are located outside the required minimum drive-aisle width. All visitor parking spaces are provided in parking bays located outside the required minimum drive-aisle width. Project complies. On a Driveway Outside the Beach Area Overlay Zone One required visitor parking space may be credited for each driveway in a project that has a depth of 40 feet or more. NA. For projects with 10 or fewer units, all required visitor parking may be located within driveways (located in front of a unit’s garage), provided that all dwelling units in the project have driveways with a depth of 20 feet or more. NA. Within the Beach Area One required visitor parking space may be credited for each driveway in a project that has a depth of 40 feet or more. NA. Overlay Zone If the streets within and/or adjacent to the project allow for on-street parking on both sides of the street, then visitor parking may be located in a driveway, subject to the following: • All required visitor parking may be located within driveways (located in front of a unit’s garage), provided that all dwelling units in the project have driveways with a depth of 20 feet or more. • If less than 100% of the driveways in a project have a depth of 20 feet or more, then a .25 visitor parking space will be credited for each driveway in a project that has a depth of 20 feet or more (calculations resulting in a fractional parking space credit shall always be rounded down to the nearest whole number). NA. All projects The minimum driveway depth required for visitor parking (20 feet or 40 feet) applies to driveways for front or side-loaded garages, and is measured from the property line, back of sidewalk, or from the edge of the drive-aisle, whichever is closest to the structure. NA. Compact Parking For projects of more than 25 units, up to 25% of visitor parking may be provided as compact spaces (8 feet by 15 feet). No overhang is permitted into any required setback area or over sidewalks less than 6 feet wide. NA. For all projects within the Beach Area Overlay Zone, up to 55% of the visitor parking may be provided as compact spaces (8 feet by 15 feet). NA. Distance from unit Visitor parking spaces must be located no more than 300 feet as measured in a logical walking path from the entrance of the unit it could be considered to serve. Visitor parking spaces are spread throughout the project site along Drive aisle “B” and are located closer than 300 feet to the unit it is intended to serve. Project complies. C.8 Screening of Parking Areas Open parking areas should be screened from adjacent residences and public rights-of-way by either a view-obscuring wall, landscaped berm, or landscaping, except parking located within a driveway. Proposed planting along the perimeter of open parking spaces provide a minimum 3-foot-tall landscape screen consistent with the city’s Landscape Manual. The added combination of slope vegetation combined with elevation will ensure that open parking, as viewed from the public right-of-way and near-by residential will be obscured. Project complies. C.9 Community Recreational Space (1) Community recreational space shall be provided for all projects of 11 or more dwelling units, as follows: The project is located within an R- 23 General Plan Land Use designation; and therefore, must provide a minimum of 14,250 square feet of community recreational space (95 units x 150 sq. ft. = 14,250 sq. ft). The project is proposing 14,655 square feet of common open space. Project complies. Minimum community recreational space required Project is NOT within R-23 general plan designation 200 square feet per unit Project IS within R-23 general plan designation 150 square feet per unit Projects with 11 to 25 dwelling units Community recreational space shall be provided as either (or both) passive or active recreation facilities. NA. Projects with 26 or more dwelling units Community recreational space shall be provided as both passive and active recreational facilities with a minimum of 75% of the area allocated for active facilities. NA. Projects with 50 or more dwelling units Community recreational space shall be provided as both passive and active recreational facilities for a variety of age groups (a minimum of 75% of the area allocated for active facilities). Of the required 14,250 square feet of common recreational space provided, 10,688 square feet (75%) is required to be active, while 3,563 square feet (25%) is required to be passive. The project is proposing 6,738 square feet of active (47%), and 7,917 square feet of passive (56%). Site topography, limited development pad and minimum dwelling unit yield have all worked to limit the project’s ability to provide more in the way of active recreational facilities (i.e., large grassy play areas (min. 5,000 sq. ft.), pool/spa areas, basketball and tennis courts, etc.). Also, because the project site is providing its affordable housing onsite, development standards can be waived to help achieve this goal. The project will still provide two (2) play structures for children ages 2- 5 and 5-12, as well as a bocce ball court and two (2) horseshoe pit game areas. From an active recreation standpoint, the project will benefit from its close proximity to Stagecoach Park, and also possibly the 24-hour Fitness located in the adjacent La Costa Town Square commercial center. Project complies. For projects consisting of one-family dwellings or twin homes on small-lots, at least 25% of the community recreation space must be provided as pocket parks. • Pocket park lots must have a minimum width of 50 feet and be located at strategic locations such as street intersections (especially “T- intersections”) and where open space vistas may be achieved. NA. All projects (with 11 or more dwelling units) Community recreational space shall be located and designed so as to be functional, usable, and easily accessible from the units it is intended to serve. All community recreational space is located and designed to be functional, useable and easily accessible from all units in the complex. Credit for indoor recreation facilities shall not exceed 25% of the required community recreation area. NA. Required community recreation areas shall not be located in any required front yard and may not include any streets, drive-aisles, driveways, parking areas, storage areas, slopes of 5% or greater, or walkways (except those walkways that are clearly integral to the design of the recreation area). All community recreational space is properly located to comply with this requirement. Recreation Area Parking In addition to required resident and visitor parking, recreation area parking shall be provided, as follows: 1 space for each 15 residential units, or fraction thereof, for units located more than 1,000 feet from a community recreation area. NA. The location of recreation area parking shall be subject to the same location requirements as for visitor parking, except that required recreation area parking shall not be located within a driveway(s). NA. Examples of recreation facilities include, but are not limited to, the following: Active Swimming pool area Children’s playground equipment Spa Courts (tennis, racquetball, volleyball, basketball) Recreation rooms or buildings Horseshoe pits Pitch and putt Grassy play areas with a slope of less than 5% (minimum area of 5,000 square feet and a minimum dimension of 50 feet) Any other facility deemed by the City Planner to satisfy the intent of providing active recreational facilities Passive Benches Barbecues Community gardens Grassy play areas with a slope of less than 5% (1) This standard does not apply to housing for senior citizens (see Chapter 21.84 of this code). C.10 Lighting Lighting adequate for pedestrian and vehicular safety shall be provided. Project provides pedestrian scaled bollard lighting located throughout the project along walking paths and within recreation areas; decorative up-lighting of the median landscaping is provided at the main project entrance (Drive Aisle “A”); and 20-foot-tall pole mounted street lights are provided along all vehicular drive-aisles. Project complies. C.11 Reserved C.12 Recreational Vehicle (RV) Storage (1) Required for projects with 100 or more units, or a master or specific plan with 100 or more planned development units. Exception: RV storage is not required for projects located within the R-15 or R-23 land use designations. NA. 20 square feet per unit, not to include area required for driveways and approaches. Developments located within master plans or residential specific plans may have this requirement met by the common RV storage area provided by the master plan or residential specific plan. RV storage areas shall be designed to accommodate recreational vehicles of various sizes (i.e. motorhomes, campers, boats, personal watercraft, etc.). NA. The storage of recreational vehicles shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and on any public or private streets or any other area visible to the public. A provision containing this restriction shall be included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the project. All RV storage areas shall be screened from adjacent residences and public rights-of-way by a view-obscuring wall and landscaping. NA. C.13 Storage Space 480 cubic feet of separate storage space per unit. All affordable condominium units located within Building No. 16 on Parcel 2 are provided with a minimum 480 cubic feet of storage space. Project complies. If all storage for each unit is located in one area, the space may be reduced to 392 cubic feet. Required storage space shall be separately enclosed for each unit and be conveniently accessible to the outdoors. Required storage space may be designed as an enlargement of a covered parking structure provided it does not extend into the area of the required parking stall and does not impede the ability to utilize the parking stall (for vehicle parking). A garage (12’x20’ one-car, 20’x20’ two-car, or larger) satisfies the required storage space per unit. All condominium buildings on Parcel 1 provide a two-car garage for each dwelling unit. For these buildings, each two-car garage space meets the minimum 20 ft. x 20 ft. interior dimension, and thus satisfies the storage space requirements for these units. Project complies. This requirement is in addition to closets and other indoor storage areas. ATTACHMENT 3B PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.080) TABLE E: CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS REF. NO. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE COMMENT E.1 Livable Neighborhood Policy Must comply with City Council Policy 66, Principles for the Development of Livable Neighborhoods. SEE SEPARATE COMPLIANCE CHART E.2 Architectural Requirements One-family and two-family dwellings Must comply with City Council Policy 44, Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines NA. Multiple-family dwellings There shall be at least three separate building planes on all building elevations. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include, but not be limited to, building walls, windows, and roofs. The buildings proposed in this project provide at least three (3) separate planes per elevation, with minimum 18-inch offsets between planes. Project complies. All building elevations shall incorporate a minimum of four complimentary design elements, including but not limited to: • A variety of roof planes; • Windows and doors recessed a minimum of 2 inches; • Decorative window or door frames; • Exposed roof rafter tails; • Dormers; • Columns; • Arched elements; • Varied window shapes; • Exterior wood elements; • Accent materials such as brick, stone, shingles, wood, or siding; • Knee braces; and • Towers. The project architecture proposes varied roof planes, recessed windows (minimum 2 inches), and cultured stone. In addition, the architecture includes front porch stoops, metal entry awnings, exterior wood elements, such as trellising over windows, horizontal wood siding and exposed wood rafter tails and facia boards. Project complies. E.3 Maximum Coverage 60% of total project net developable acreage. Parcel 1 = 25.3%; Parcel 2 = 20.6%; Combined = 45.9% Project complies. E.4 Maximum Building Height Same as required by the underlying zone, and not to exceed three stories (1)(7) NA. Projects within the R- 23 general plan designation (1)(7) 40 feet, if roof pitch is 3:12 or greater The project site is located within a R- 23 General Plan designation. All buildings include a roof design with a roof pitch that consists of 2:12 and 4:12 combination, or a 3:12 and 4:12 combination. For those portions of the roof with a 2:12 roof pitch, all portions are under the 35-foot maximum height limit. For those portions of the roof with a 3:12 or 4:12 pitch, all portions are under the 40-foot maximum height limit. Overall, the maximum height for the proposed buildings range from 35’- 9¾” to 37’-⁷⁄₈”. Project complies. 35 feet, if roof pitch is less than 3:12 Building height shall not exceed three stories E.5 From a private or Residential structure 10 feet NA. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.080) TABLE E: CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS REF. NO. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE COMMENT Minimum Building Setbacks public street(2)(3) Direct entry garage 20 feet From a drive- aisle(4) Residential structure (except as specified below) 5 feet, fully landscaped (walkways providing access to dwelling entryways may be located within required landscaped area) 5 feet provided (fully landscaped). Project complies. Residential structure – directly above a garage 0 feet when projecting over the front of a garage. Buildings 1-15 and 17-18 all include a 2nd and 3rd floor overhang that projects beyond the face of garage below, but not closer than 0 feet to the drive-aisle. Project complies. Garage 3 feet All garages provide the minimum 3- foot setback from a drive-aisle. Project complies. Garages facing directly onto a drive-aisle shall be equipped with an automatic garage door opener. All floor plans showing a garage includes a note that electric garage door opener with remote is provided. Project complies. Projects of 25 units or less within the R- 15 and R-23 general plan designations 0 feet (residential structure and garage) NA. Garages facing directly onto a drive-aisle shall be equipped with an automatic garage door opener. Balconies/decks (unenclosed and uncovered) 0 feet No balconies or decks are proposed on a side of a building located adjacent to a drive-aisle. Project complies. May cantilever over a drive-aisle, provided the balcony/deck complies with all other applicable requirements, such as: • Setbacks from property lines • Building separation • Fire and Engineering Department requirements From the perimeter property lines of the project site (not adjacent to a public/private street) The building setback from an interior side or rear perimeter property line shall be the same as required by the underlying zone for an interior side or rear yard setback. The underlying RD-M Zone requires a minimum 5-foot side yard setback and a minimum 10-foot rear yard setback. As currently proposed, all buildings are setback greater than 5 feet along each side yard and greater than 10 feet along the rear. Project complies. E.6 Minimum Building Separation 10 feet All buildings provide a minimum 10- feet of separation. Project complies. E.7 Resident Parking (6) All dwelling types If a project is located within the R-23 general plan designation, resident parking shall be provided as specified below, and may also be provided as follows: • 25% of the units in the project may include a tandem two-car garage (minimum 12 feet x 40 feet). NA. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.080) TABLE E: CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS REF. NO. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE COMMENT • Calculations for this provision resulting in a fractional unit may be rounded up to the next whole number. One-family and two- family dwellings 2 spaces per unit, provided as either: • a two-car garage (minimum 20 feet x 20 feet), or • 2 separate one-car garages (minimum 12 feet x 20 feet each) • In the R-W Zone, the 2 required parking spaces may be provided as 1 covered space and 1 uncovered space (5) NA. Multiple- family dwellings Studio and one-bedroom units 1.5 spaces per unit, 1 of which must be covered (5) The project includes five units that are one-bedroom in size and 90 units that are two or more bedrooms. The project is required to provide eight (8) parking spaces for the one-bedroom units and 180 parking spaces for the units with two or more bedrooms for a total of 188 parking spaces. The project provides a total of 212 parking spaces onsite (covered/uncovered). The 76 townhome units each provide a two-car garage for 152 parking spaces (covered). The remaining 60 parking spaces consist of surface parking. Of these 60 spaces, 24 spaces are dedicated to meeting the project’s visitor parking requirements, while the remaining 36 spaces accommodate the parking demands for the 19 affordable units. In exchange for 5 covered parking spaces associated with the requirements for one-bedroom units, the Housing Policy Team was convened and allowed a waiver of the requirement pursuant to CMC Section 21.53.120.B in exchange for four additional three-bedroom affordable units (beyond the two that are required per the inclusionary housing ordinance). Project complies. When calculating the required number of parking spaces, if the calculation results in a fractional parking space, the required number of parking spaces shall always be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Units with two or more bedrooms 2 spaces per unit, provided as either: • a one-car garage (12 feet x 20 feet) and 1 covered or uncovered space; or (5) • a two-car garage (minimum 20 feet x 20 feet), or • 2 separate one-car garages (minimum 12 feet x 20 feet each) • In the R-W Zone and the Beach Area Overlay Zone, the 2 required parking spaces may be provided as 1 covered space and 1 uncovered space (5) Required parking may be provided within an enclosed parking garage with multiple, open parking spaces, subject to the following: • Each parking space shall maintain a standard stall size of 8.5 feet by 20 feet, exclusive of supporting columns; and • A backup distance of 24 feet shall be maintained in addition to a minimum 5 feet turning bump-out located at the end of any stall series. NA. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.080) TABLE E: CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS REF. NO. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE COMMENT Required resident parking spaces shall be located no more than 150 feet as measured in a logical walking path from the entrance of the units it could be considered to serve. All units, as currently designed, include a two-car garage attached directly to the unit; or in the case of Building 16, surface parking is provided within a surrounding parking lot located closer than 150 feet. Project complies. E.8 Private Recreational Space One-family, two-family, and multiple- family dwellings Required private recreational space shall be designed so as to be functional, usable, and easily accessible from the dwelling it is intended to serve. All units are meeting their private recreational space through private decks. Each deck is connected directly to the dwelling unit it is intended serve; is located outside of required setbacks; and does not include driveways, parking area, storage area or common walkways. Required private recreational space shall be located adjacent to the unit the area is intended to serve. Required private recreational space shall not be located within any required front yard setback area, and may not include any driveways, parking areas, storage areas, or common walkways. One-family and two- family dwellings Minimum total area per unit Projects not within the R- 15 or R-23 general plan designations 400 square feet NA. Projects within the R-15 or R-23 general plan designations 200 square feet May consist of more than one recreational space. NA. May be provided at ground level and/or as a deck/balcony on a second/third floor or roof. NA. If provided at ground level Minimum dimension Not within the R-15 or R- 23 general plan designations 15 feet NA. Within the R- 15 or R-23 general plan designations 10 feet Shall not have a slope gradient greater than 5%. NA. Attached solid patio covers and decks/balconies may project into a required private recreational space, subject to the following: • The depth of the projection shall not exceed 6 feet (measured from the wall of the dwelling that is contiguous to the patio/deck/balcony). The length of the projection shall not be limited, except as required by any setback or lot coverage standards. NA. Open or lattice-top patio covers may be located within the required private recreation space (provided the patio NA. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.080) TABLE E: CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS REF. NO. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE COMMENT cover complies with all applicable standards, including the required setbacks). If provided above ground level as a deck/ balcony or roof deck Minimum dimension 6 feet NA. Minimum area 60 square feet Multiple-family dwellings Minimum total area per unit (patio, porch, or balcony) 60 square feet All units provide a minimum 60 square foot private deck. Project complies. Minimum dimension of patio, porch or balcony 6 feet Each deck on all units provides the 6-foot minimum dimension. Project complies. Projects of 11 or more units that are within the R-23 general plan designation may opt to provide an additional 75 square feet of community recreation space per unit (subject to the standards specified in Table C of this Chapter), in lieu of providing the per unit private recreational space specified above. NA. (1) If a project is located within the Beach Area Overlay Zone, building height shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 21.82 of this code. (2) See Table C in Section 21.45.060 for required setbacks from an arterial street. (3) Building setbacks shall be measured from the outside edge of the required street right-of-way width, whichever is closest to the building. (4) Building setbacks shall be measured from one of the following (whichever is closest to the building): a) the outside edge of the required drive-aisle width; b) the back of sidewalk; or c) the nearest side of a parking bay located contiguous to a drive- aisle (excluding parking located in a driveway in front of a unit’s garage). (5) Any uncovered required parking space in the R-W zone may be located within a required front yard setback and may be tandem. (6) This standard does not apply to housing for senior citizens (see Chapter 21.84 of this code). (7) Protrusions above the height limit shall be allowed pursuant to Section 21.46.020 of this code. Such protrusions include protective barriers for balconies and roof decks. ATTACHMENT 3C CITY COUNCIL POLICY 66 – LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS Principle Compliance Comments 1 Building Facades, Front Entries, Porches Facades create interest and character and should be varied and articulated to provide visual interest to pedestrians. Clearly identifiable front doors and porches enhance the street scene and create opportunities for greater social interaction within the neighborhood. Building entries and windows should face the street. Front porches, bay windows, courtyards and balconies are encouraged. The topography of the project site is such that the pad elevations of proposed buildings are elevated approximately 15-to-30-feet above the street elevation of La Costa Avenue, the closest adjacent public street. However, even though the project site does not provide the opportunity to offer a traditional connection to La Costa Avenue, the proposed buildings that are fronting this adjacent street are oriented in such a manner that front doors, porches, windows and balconies are visible and clearly identifiable. The design of the proposed buildings include articulated surfaces, both in their general massing and variation of materials, which will provide visual interest to pedestrians passing by the site. Additionally, common open space areas, with both active and passive recreation facilities, have been located along parts of this street frontage, resulting in greater activity and social connection to the adjacent street and neighborhood. 2 Garages Homes should be designed to feature the residence as the prominent part of the structure in relation to the street. A variety of garage configurations should be used to improve the street scene. This may include tandem garages, side-loaded garages, front-loaded garages, alley-loaded garages and recessed garages. For the townhome portion of the development offering individual garages for each unit, the garages have been placed on internal private drives- aisles, not visible to the public way. This allows for a clear designation of pedestrian and vehicle spaces. Residences are oriented away from the private drives to encourage social interactions and reduce the presence of vehicles. CITY COUNCIL POLICY 66 – LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS Principle Compliance Comments 3 Street Design An interconnected, modified (grid) street pattern should be incorporated into project designs when there are no topographic or environmental constraints. Interconnected streets provide pedestrians and automobiles many alternative routes to follow, disperse traffic and reduce the volume of cars on any one street in the neighborhood. Streets should be designed to provide both vehicular and pedestrian connectivity by minimizing the use of cul- de-sacs. The street network should also be designed to create a safer, more comfortable pedestrian and bicycling environment. Local residential streets should have travel and parking lanes, be sufficiently narrow to slow traffic, provide adequate access for emergency and service vehicles and emergency evacuation routes for residents and include parkways with trees to form a pleasing canopy over the street. Local residential streets are the public open space in which children often play and around which neighborhoods interact. Within this context, vehicular movement should be additionally influenced through the use of City-accepted designs for traffic calming measures. Due to the project sites elevated position above the surrounding community, its private drive-aisles cannot interconnect with the existing street pattern in a traditional manner other than the entry drive leading uphill from La Costa Avenue. Once within the private development, internal drive- aisles offer easy access to resident parking and garages, as well as to both emergency and service vehicles. Within the community, sidewalks provide residents and visitors a safe and enjoyable environment to interact in the onsite amenities. Sidewalks connect the individual units to all the amenities as well as the adjacent public street and the adjacent La Costa Town Square Shopping Center. The placement of the recreational open space allows residents comfortable areas oriented away from both the internal private drive-aisles and the public street. The landscaping throughout the site provides shading and welcoming areas. 4 Parkways Street trees should be planted in the parkways along all streets. Tree species should be selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk damage and minimize water consumption. All landscaping conforms to the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual. The slopes abutting La Costa Avenue are planted and provide a vegetated buffer of the project above. Tree species have been selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk damage and minimize water consumption. 5 Pedestrian Walkways Pedestrian walkways should be located along or visible from all streets. Walkways (sidewalks or trails) should provide clear, comfortable and direct access to neighborhood schools, parks/plazas and transit stops. Primary pedestrian routes should be bordered by residential fronts, parks or plazas. Where street connections are not feasible (at the end of cul-de-sacs), pedestrian paths should also be provided. A pedestrian walk along the access road and pedestrian ramp from La Costa Avenue are provided to the elevated site, creating the pedestrian connection to the adjacent community below. There is also a proposed pedestrian walk on the east side of the project that provides access to the existing stairs leading up to the La Costa Town Square Shopping Center. CITY COUNCIL POLICY 66 – LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS Principle Compliance Comments 6 Centralized Community Recreation Areas Park or plazas, which serve as neighborhood meeting places and as recreational activity centers should be incorporated into all planned unit developments. As frequently as possible, these parks/plazas should be designed for both active and passive uses for residents of all ages and should be centrally located within the project. Parks and plazas should not be sited on residual parcels, used as buffers from surrounding developments or to separate buildings from streets. The entry road to the project terminates at a central passive recreation area. Interconnected pedestrian walks and paseos link each passive and active recreation area to the residences. The buildings are oriented such that the units open out toward the paseos and recreation areas and encourage interactions and connection to other units onsite. The common recreation areas provided throughout offer both active and passive uses for residents of all ages. LA COSTA AVVIA MONTE B E L L O CALLECANCUNA CAMINITOSIERRACALLECARACASCALLETIMI TEOC A MIN IT O P U E R T O CA MINIT O TIN G O AMEND 2017-0012 / CT 2017-0003 / PUD 2017-0004 / SDP 2018-0018 LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL SITE MAP J SITE E L C AMINO R E ALLA COSTA AVCARLSBAD BLMELROSE DR POINSETT I A L N ATTACHMENT 4 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 6 LA COSTA MASTER PLAN Amendment MP 149(R) Prepared by Planning Department City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 ATTACHMENT 7 Planning Department Staff: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Don Neu Assistant Planning Director Eric Munoz, Senior Planner (760) 602-4600Van Lynch, Senior Planner (760) 602-4613 Information Supplied by: KSC Development 2111 Costa del Mar Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 Amendment MP 149 (R) Information supplied by Ladwig Design Group, Inc. Bob Ladwig 2234 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone: (760) 438-3182 Fax: (760) 438-0173 ldg@dwilsoneng.com LA COSTA MASTER PLAN MP-149 (MP-6) 2900 acres, located east of El Camino Real and northerly of Olivenhain Road (La Costa Land Development Co.). ADOPTED BY: City Council Ordinance # 9322, September 5, 1972 AMENDED to delete an indicated school site shown westerly of El Fuerte Street in an area known as La Costa Estates North (CT 73-10, SP 112) APPROVED BY: Planning Commission Resolution # 1019, December 11, 1973 City Council Ordinance # 9376, January 15, 1974 *** MP-149(A) Referred back to Planning Commission for partial amendment to allow for “continual” (concurrent) processing of Rancheros De La Costa, La Costa Vale Unit #2, Green Valley Knolls, and Santa Fe Knolls while a new PC zone was being developed. The processing of the remainder of the Master Plan area was delayed until adoption of the PC zone. No formal action by City Council. APPROVED BY: Planning Commission Resolution # 1253, May 19, 1976 *** MP-149(B) Repealed Ordinance # 9376. Adopted an interim Master Plan for La Costa area. Referred to new exhibit for type of development which reflected La Costa’s plans for more single family development and less condominium development. Established a circulation plan, school site plan, park site plan, and development standards for Santa Fe Knolls, Rancheros De La Costa, La Costa Vale #2, and Green Valley Knolls. ADOPTED BY: City Council Ordinance # 9469, November 2, 1976 *** MP-149(C) No action taken *** MP-149(D) Deletes 45 acres from MP-149(B). Deleted property is located generally east of El Fuerte on both sides of the extension of Alga Road (Hidden Meadows, Meadow Crest, and Meadowlark areas). APPROVED BY: Planning Commission Resolution # 1567, November 14, 1979 City Council Ordinance # 9546, March 18, 1980 *** MP-149(E) Amended the La Costa Master Plan to provide for conformance with the newly revised General Plan Elements for Parks and for Public Facilities. APPROVED BY: Planning Commission Resolution # 1719, City Council Ordinance # 9570, December 16, 1980 *** MP-149(F) Deleted 4.5 acres from the La Costa Master Plan. Property deleted was located on Centella Street south of Levante. APPROVED BY: Planning Commission Resolution # 1757, City Council Ordinance # 9579, March 17, 1981 *** MP-149(G) Revised the Land Use Plan of the La Costa Northwest area and made minor administrative changes to the Master Plan text and maps on property …located generally east of El Camino Real and north of Alga Road. Changes to land use included the golf course which was reduced in size from 105 acres to 85 acres, increased unit count by 100, and increased area of proposed park from 21 to 23.5 acres. APPROVED BY: Planning Commission Resolution # 1954, City Council Ordinance # 9628, June 29, 1982 *** MP-149(H) WITHDRAWN on August 31, 1981, with no action taken. *** MP-149(I) Minor amendment to the La Costa Master Plan to allow for separate development of neighborhood SE-13. ADOPTED BY: Planning Commission Resolution # 1935, March 24, 1982 *** MP-149(J) Revised the Land Use Plan of La Costa Southeast and made minor administrative changes to the Master Plan text and maps on property generally located at the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and future Camino de Los Coches. APPROVED BY: Planning Commission Resolution # 2011, City Council Ordinance # 9647, October 19, 1982 *** MP-149(K) Changed Master Plan designation of a parcel from RLM to RMH on property generally located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Levante. APPROVED BY: Planning Commission Resolution # 2083, City Council Ordinance # 9676-9677, dated April 5, 1983 *** MP-149(L) WITHDRAWN on June 27, 1983. No action taken. *** MP-149(M) Amendment to change densities and land uses on property generally located in the southwest portion of La Costa Master Plan. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the amendment (P.C. Resolution # 2277). Amendment was WITHDRAWN before it was heard by City Council. *** MP-149(N) Amendment to request land use change from C to RM on property generally located on the southeast corner of Rancho Santa Fe Road and future Camino de Los Coches. WITHDRAWN on August 9, 1985. No action taken. *** MP-149(O) Elimination of any reference to the area previously known as Southwest (Arroyo La Costa), and stipulation that updated EIRs and new Master Plans be required prior to future development occurring in the Northwest and Southeast areas of La Costa. APPROVED BY: Planning Commission Resolution # 3028, June 20, 1990 City Council Ordinance # NS-123, September 4, 1990 *** MP-149(P) Submitted for the La Costa Town Center Project on August 31, 1993. WITHDRAWN on January 12, 1996. No action taken. *** MP-149(Q) An amendment to remove portions of the Northwest and Southeast areas (including the Rancheros) from the plan. The areas removed are subject to the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. APPROVED BY: Planning Commission Resolution #5012, September 5, 2001 City Council Ordinance #NS-604, November 6, 2001 *** MP-149(R) La Costa Town Square Project An adjustment to the neighborhood boundaries separating the local shopping center and residential landuse in neighborhoods SE8, SE13 and SE14 (La Costa Town Square) APPROVED BY: Planning Commission Resolution #6579 on July 15, 2009 City Council Ordinance #CS-051 on August 18, 2009 *** MP-149(S) An amendment to remove the La Costa Resort and Spa properties from the plan. The area removed will be subject to the La Costa Resort & Spa Master Plan, MP 03-02. APPROVED BY: Planning Commission Resolution # 5701, August 4, 2004 City Council Ordinance # NS-721, September 21, 2004 *** MP-149(T) An amendment to change the underlying zoning of commercial neighborhoods (SE-13, SE-14, SE-15, and SE-17) from “C-1” (Neighborhood Commercial) and “C-2” (General Commercial) to the new zone “C-L” (Local Shopping Center) for those properties with the “L” (Local Shopping Center) general plan designation. This amendment changes Table III-2 and text in paragraph III.E.1 (Land Use and Development Standards). APPROVED BY: Planning Commission Resolution # 5922, June 15, 2005 City Council Ordinance # NS-767, August 9, 2005 *** MP-149(U) An amendment to delete from the Master Plan (MP-149), a 0.5 acre vacant city owned site (Assessor Parcel 223-617-24) at 7201 Rancho Santa Fe Road approximately a half mile south of San Elijo Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 11. Subject site is proposed Fire Station No. 6. APPROVED BY: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6156, August 16, 2006 City Council Ordinance # NS-818 *** i TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose .............................................................................................................. I-1 B. General Provisions ............................................................................................ I-2 C. Location ............................................................................................................ I-2 D. Legal Description .............................................................................................. I-3 E. Legislative Background .................................................................................... I-3 F. Existing and Approved Development ............................................................... I-6 II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS A. Tentative Map Approval .................................................................................. II-1 B. Grading Permit Issuance .................................................................................. II-2 C. Building Permit Issuance ................................................................................. II-3 III. LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Overall Design Concepts ............................................................................... III-1 B. Development Review Process........................................................................ III-2 C. General Neighborhood Development Standards ........................................... III-3 D. Special Neighborhood Development Standards ............................................ III-4 E. Community Core and Local Shopping Center ............................................... III-5 F. Recreational Storage Parks ............................................................................ III-7 G. Homeowners’ Associations ........................................................................... III-8 H. General Grading Guidelines .......................................................................... III-8 I. Noise Attenuation .......................................................................................... III-8 J. Fire Suppression Standards ............................................................................ III-9 K. Affordable Housing ....................................................................................... III-9 L. Individual Neighborhood Development Regulations .................................. III-11 IV. OPEN SPACE A. Introduction. ................................................................................................... IV-1 B. Dedication ...................................................................................................... IV-1 C. Improvements ................................................................................................ IV-2 V. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PHASING A. Introduction ..................................................................................................... V-1 VI. SIGN PROGRAM A. Purpose ........................................................................................................... VI-1 B. Sign Categories and Locations........................................................................ VI-1 C. Design Standards ............................................................................................ VI-3 ii LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Page Exhibit Title Number Number Legal Map ........................................................................ I-1............................................** Zoning Map ...................................................................... I-2............................................** Master Plan Vicinity Map ................................................................................................. I-8 Topographic Map .............................................................II-1............................................** Land Use ........................................................................ III-1............................................** General Grading Guidelines ........................ III-2 thru III-16.................... III-13 thru III-21 Noise Attenuation Guidelines .................... III-17 thru III-21.................... III-22 thru III-24 Open Space Plan ............................................................ IV-1............................................** Two-Way Bikepath on Separated Right-of-Way ........... IV-2........................................ IV-6 Sign Plan ........................................................................ VI-1............................................** Sign Design Guidelines.................................................. VI-2........................................ VI-4 **On file in the Planning Department LIST OF TABLES Table Page Number Number General Neighborhood Development Standards La Costa Northwest (DELETED) .....................III-1 .............................................. La Costa Southeast ...............................................III-2 ...................................... III-6 Phasing Schedule Northwest .............................................................V-1 ........................................ V-1 Southeast ..............................................................V-2 ........................................ V-2 I - 1 I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose This Master Plan constitutes an amendment to the La Costa Master Plan first adopted by the City Council on September 5, 1972 (Ordinance #9322). This Master Plan is intended to comply with the requirement for a Master Plan contained in the Planned Community Zone Ordinance and, therefore, provides the basis for further decisions by the City on future land use for the La Costa community. Historically, the La Costa community was divided among three local governmental agencies of general jurisdiction: the City of Carlsbad, the County of San Diego and the City of San Marcos. Approximately 5,287 acres, consisting of both developed and undeveloped lands, of the La Costa community are within the City of Carlsbad. Of this 5,287 acres, 3,200± already have been developed or approved for development. The historic La Costa community also includes an additional approximately 240 acres in the City of San Marcos and approximately 157 acres in the unincorporated area of the County of San Diego. This Master Plan is not applicable to the portion of La Costa in the City of San Marcos or the unincorporated area of the County of San Diego. The portion of the historic La Costa Master Plan located within Carlsbad can be divided into four portions. 1. Old La Costa consisting of approximately 2,888 acres centered around the La Costa Golf Course. Most of this area has been built out. Any remaining development will basically be infill development of the few remaining vacant lots. Properties in this area have a variety of different zonings. All future development in this area will comply with the requirements of Chapter 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. (See also the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan, MP 03-02, adopted by City Council September 21, 2004.) 2. The Southwest Area consisting of approximately 529 acres is located south of Levante Street, east of El Camino Real and west of Rancho Santa Fe Road. All development within the Southwest Area of the La Costa Master Plan shall comply with the requirements of MP 88-1, the Arroyo La Costa Master Plan. 3. The Southwest Area consisting of approximately 1,121 acres is bisected by Rancho Santa Fe Road and San Marcos Canyon. The Southeast Area also includes the Rancheros estate area located east of El Fuerte Drive. 4. The Northwest Area consists of approximately 744 acres and is located north of Alga Road and east of El Camino Real. The Northwest Area is bisected by the northern extension of the La Costa Golf Course. I - 2 B.General Provisions 1. Nonvesting of Rights Individual development projects shall be governed by the specific land useand development standards set forth in this Master Plan and by applicableprovisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code including, but not limited to, Title 20, Subdivisions, and Title 21, Zoning. Where a conflict in development standards occurs, the most restrictive and limiting regulation and standardsshall control. Approval and construction of a development project pursuantto this Master Plan shall not vest any rights to construct any otherdevelopment projects nor create any vested rights to the approval of any subsequent development projects. 2. Amendments to the Master Plan Approval of this Master Plan indicates acceptance by the City Council of a basic framework for development of the subject property. It is part of an on- going planning process and is subject to amendment in the future by the City.Said amendments may be initiated by either the City Council or the landowner at any time. 3. Availability of Public Services Approval of this Master Plan does not constitute any guarantee thatindividual development projects within the Master Plan area will be approvednor that the availability of public facilities and services will necessarily coincide with the developer’s timetable for construction. The adopted Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan and the Local FacilitiesManagement Plans for Zones 6, 10, 11, and 12 address adequacy of publicfacilities. Availability of public services will be evaluated in the context ofsubsequent approvals of individual development projects as well as compliance with the City of Carlsbad’s Growth Management Program and all other policies or ordinances in effect at the time of approval. 4. Dedications All dedications to the City of Carlsbad of land and/or easements required bythis Master Plan and the adopted Local Facilities Management Plan forZones 6, 10, 11, and 12 shall be granted to the City without cost to the Cityand free of all liens and encumbrances except (a) nondelinquent taxes and (b)liens and encumbrances in favor of public agencies. C.Location The historical La Costa community, within the City of Carlsbad, comprises 5,287acres of land located 2.6 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean at the easterly end of Batiquitos Lagoon and approximately 6.5 miles southeast from the commercial center of Carlsbad. It is located approximately 7 miles south of the City of I - 3 Oceanside, 5 miles southwest of the City of San Marcos, 10 miles west of the City of Escondido and 30 miles north of downtown San Diego. The property is bounded on the west by El Camino Real, on the south by Olivenhain Road, and bisected by Rancho Santa Fe Road. It is bounded on the east by the City of San Marcos and on the north by the Bressi Ranch property. D. Legal Description The historical La Costa community, which is located in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, is as shown on Exhibit I-1 [on file in the Planning Department] Legal Map, and described as follows: Fractional Section 23, Fractional Section 24, Section 25, portions of Section 26 and 35, Section 36 and a portion of Lot A of Rancho Agua Hedionda, Map No. 823 on file in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, all in Township 12 South, Range 4 West, of the San Bernardino Meridian; Fractional Section 1, a portion of Fractional Section 2, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 10 of Rancho Las Encinitas, Map No. 848 on file in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, all in Township 13 South, Ranch 4 West, of the San Bernardino Meridian; portions of Section 19 and Section 29, Section 30, Fractional Section 31, a portion of Section 32, all in Township 12 South, Range 3 West; and Fractional Section 6, Lots 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of said Rancho Las Encinitas, all in Township 13 South, Range 3 West, of the San Bernardino Meridian. E Legislative Background The following, in chronological order, represents official actions pertaining to those areas covered by this Master Plan or adjacent areas thereto: August 1, 1972 Pre-annexation of changes of zone (ZC-26) with a Specific Plan, adopted by Carlsbad City Council Ordinance #9318 on 1190 acres. September 5, 1972 City Council adoptions of pre-annexation change of zone (ZC-26) to Planning Community Zone on 2900 acres by Ordinance #9323. September 5, 1972 Adoption of Master Plan (MP-6) for 2900 acres subject to annexation by City Council Ordinance #9322. September 5, 1972 Annexation of East Carlsbad Annexation #2.12 to City of Carlsbad, composed of 4090 acres, by adoption of City Council Ordinance #1147. May 15, 1973 Pre-annexation of change of zone (ZC-106) to Planned Community for Rancho Ponderosa, 124.5 acres, adopted by City Council Ordinance #9351 June 5, 1973 Pre-annexation change of zone (ZC-105) to Planned Community for El Camino Glens, 311 acres, adopted by City Council Ordinance #9354. I - 4 August 7, 1973 Adoption of Master Plan (MP-128) for 717 acres on property generally located north of Alga Road, east of El Camino Real, known as Kratter property (La Costa North), by City Council Resolution #3183. August 7, 1973 Annexation of East Carlsbad Annexation #2.16, Kratter property (La Costa North), 717 acres, adopted by City Council Resolution #3184. August 8, 1973 Annexation of East Carlsbad Annexation #2.15 by City Council Resolution #3185, El Camino (Ayres) (Weigand), 435.5 acres, of which 311 acres is a La Costa annexation and 124.5 acres is a Ponderosa annexation. August 21, 1973 Pre-annexation change of zone (ZC-124) to Planning Community of 717 acres (Kratter property) by City Council Ordinance #9359. September 4, 1973 Amendment to General Plan (GPA-16) for property generally located north of Alga Road, east of El Camino Real, known as Kratter property (La Costa North), by City Council Ordinance #3207. October 2, 1973 Pre-annexation change of zone (ZC-116) to Planning Community for La Costa Northeast, 182 acres, adopted by City Council Ordinance #9361. January 15, 1974 Amendment to Ordinance #9322 by adoption of a revised Master Plan (MP-149) for the La Costa area (2900 acres), by City Council Ordinance #9376. March 16, 1974 Annexation of East Carlsbad Annexation #2.19 by City Council Ordinance #1167 (La Costa Northeast), 182 acres. October 16, 1974 Amendment to the Carlsbad General Plan (GPA 28-A) by adoption of a revised Land Use Element for entire City by City Council Resolution #3527. March 23, 1976 Annexation of uninhabited territory designated as South City (Byron White, et al.) Annexation No. CA 74-30 to the City of San Marcos by San Marcos City Council Ordinance #76-358. The amount of La Costa lands annexed to the City of San Marcos is approximately 240 acres. April 27, 1976 Carlsbad City Council certification of Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR-307) for the La Costa Master Plan (MP-149(A)) and General Plan Amendment (GPA-38). May 4, 1976 Amendment of Land Use Element Text and Plan and Circulation Element of the General Plan (GPA-38) by City Council Resolution #3896. June 15, 1976 Revision of the P.C. (Planned Community) zone by City Council Ordinance #9458. November 2, 1976 Adoption of an interim Master Plan (MP-149-B) for La Costa area by City Council Ordinance #9546. I - 5 March 18, 1980 Change of zone (ZC-206) from P-C to RD-M-Q on approximately 134 acres in La Costa Northeast area and deletion of that portion of the rezoning covered by a Master Plan (MP-149(D)) by City Council Ordinance #9546. December 16, 1980 Adoption of MP-149(E) for the La Costa area by City Council Ordinance #9570. March 17, 1981 Adoption of MP-149(F) deleted 4.5 acres from the La Costa Master Plan as amended MP-149(E). Property deleted was located on Centella Street south of Levante in La Costa. Concurrent zone change (ZC 225) was processed changing the zoning on the above property from C-2 and PC to RDM, Adopted by City Council Ordinance #9579. June 29, 1982 Adoption of MP-149(G) revised the Land Use Plan of the La Costa Northwest area and made minor administrative changes to the Master Plan text and maps on property located generally east of El Camino Real and north of Alga. Changes to land uses included the golf course, which was reduced in size from 105 acres to 85 acres, increased unit count by 100, and increased area of proposed park from 21 to 23.5 acres. Adopted by City Council Ordinance #9628. August 31, 1981 MP-149(H) was withdrawn on August 31, 1981, with no action taken. March 24, 1982 Adoption of MP-149(I) a minor amendment to the La Costa Master Plan. Allowed for separate development of neighborhood SE-13. Adopted by Planning Commission Resolution #1935. October 19, 1982 Adoption of MP-149(J) revised the Land Use Plan of La Costa Southeast and made minor administrative changes to the Master Plan text and maps on property generally located at the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and future Camino de Los Coches. This changed the land use designation from TS to C [see GPA 64(A)]. Amended Ordinance #9570 as amended by Ordinance #9628 and MP 149(E). Adopted by City Council Resolution #7030 and City Council Ordinance #9647. April 5, 1983 Adoption of MP-149(K) changed Master Plan designation of a parcel from RLM to RMH on property generally located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Levante. This amendment was consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of RMH on the property. This was formerly part of SP-171, which had provided for lower intensity land uses for this parcel along with 98 acres to the east to accommodate the Green Valley Knolls Development. The parcel had been the site of 6 model homes for the 98-acre development to the east. Adopted by City Council Ordinance #9676-9677. June 27, 1983 MP-149(L) was intended to change 14 acres of office and 37 acres of commercial to 34 acres of RMH and 17 acres of commercial located on the northeast corner of future La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. Withdrawn on June 27, 1983. No action was taken. I - 6 MP-149(M): Amendment was to change densities and land uses on property generally located in the southwest portion of the La Costa Master Plan. The Planning Commission recommended denial to the amendment to the City Council (Planning Commission Resolution #2277). The amendment was withdrawn before it was heard by the City Council. August 9, 1985 MP-149(N): Amendment was to request land use change from C to RM on property generally located on the southeast corner of Rancho Santa Fe Road and future Camino de Los Coches. Withdrawn on August 9, 1985, with no formal action taken. September 4, 1990 MP-149(O): Elimination of any reference to the area previously known as Southwest (Arroyo La Costa), and stipulation that updated EIRs and new Master Plans be required prior to future development occurring in the Northwest and Southeast areas of La Costa. Approved by City Council Ordinance #NS-123. MP-149(P): Submitted for the La Costa Town Center Project on August 31, 1993. Withdrawn on January 12, 1996, with no formal action taken. MP-149(Q): An amendment to remove portions of the Northwest and Southeast areas (including the Rancheros) from the plan. The areas removed are subject to the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. Approved by City Council Ordinance #NS-604. MP-149(R): An amendment to adjust the neighborhood boundaries separating the Local Shopping Center and residential landuse in neighborhoods SE-8, SE-13 and SE-14 (La Costa Town Square). MP-149(S): An amendment to remove the La Costa Resort and Spa properties from the plan. The area removed will be subject to the La Costa Resort & Spa Master Plan, MP 03-02. MP-149(T): A City-initiated amendment to change the underlying zoning of commercial neighborhoods (SE-13, SE-14, SE-15, and SE-17) from “C-1” (Neighborhood Commercial) and “C-2” (General Commercial) to the new zone “C-L” (Local Shopping Center) for those properties with the “L” (Local Shopping Center) general plan designation. Approved by City Council Ordinance #NS-767. MP-149-U: a City-initiated amendment removing a 0.5 acre parcel, identified as Assessor Parcel No. 223-617-24, from the La Costa Master Plan (MP-149) to allow for the approval of proposed Fire Station No. 6 approved by City Council Ordinance NS-818. F.Existing and Approved Development (See note at end of Section F) The areas that previously have been developed or committed to development consistof the La Costa Plaza area, La Costa Resort and Recreation area, including golfcourse, La Costa Valley Condominiums, and developments of various types of living units, such as single family, duplexes, cluster developments, condominiums, and homes of all types from luxury to more modest homes. I - 7 The area already developed within old La Costa can be generally defined as located from El Camino Real on the west, Alga Road on the north, Levante on the south and Rancho Santa Fe and Melrose Drive on the east. Outside of the Master Plan area, an industrial park has been constructed east of Rancho Santa Fe Road in the City of San Marcos. In the Southwest Area of the Master Plan, Neighborhoods previously designated SW 5 and SW 4 have been developed with single family homes. In the Southwest Area of the Master Plan Neighborhoods SE 20 and SE 21 have been developed with Single Family Homes. Neighborhoods SE 12 and SE 23 have been developed with apartments. Neighborhoods SE 10, SE 16, SE 18, SE 19 have been approved for development with single-family homes. Neighborhood SE 15 has been approved for development as a local shopping center. No development has been approved in the Northwest portion of the Master Plan. Except as otherwise specifically indicated in this Plan or exhibits hereto, nothing in this Master Plan shall be deemed to regulate or prohibit the development, redevelopment or rehabilitation of any area in the Master Plan (see Exhibit I-2 [on file in the Planning Department], Existing Zoning). The following eleven areas are zoned P-C but have already been developed or are in the process of being developed and the documents governing such development are described in Section III, Land Use and Development Standards. 1. Existing 27-hole golf course and San Marcos Canyon 2. Estates North 3. Rancheros de la Costa4. Vale 2 & 35. Vale 46. Corona La Costa 7. Spanish Village 8. Green Valley Knolls9. Santa Fe Knolls10. Santa Fe Glens11. SMCWD Reservoir Other than the eleven areas listed above, there exist areas within the 3,200+ acres zoned other than P-C. The development of such areas (see Exhibit I-2, Existing Zoning [on file in the Planning Department]) shall be governed by the applicable zoning. Note: The above information for historical purposes only. See Map on Page I-8 for existing remaining areas of the La Costa Master Plan after the approval of MP 149(S) and adoption of the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan MP 03-02. I - 8 II - 1 II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS The following mitigation measures were identified in the conditions of approval for MP- 149(B) and were developed from EIR-307 for La Costa. They shall be implemented whenapplicable and apply to each neighborhood unless otherwise noted or unless superseded by asubsequently certified EIR. All development within the southwest portion of the La CostaMaster Plan shall comply with the mitigation measures of the Arroyo La Costa Environmental Impact Report EIR 86-2. A.Tentative Map Approval 1. Additional Review Prior to approval of neighborhood development within the Master Plan, theapplicant shall submit the following reports as part of the Initial Study. Saidreports may cover more than one neighborhood. a.Detailed soil and geologic investigations. b. Detailed archaeological investigations. c.Detailed biological surveys. d. Mitigation measures and alternatives for all areas which havesignificant resources. e.A discussion of impacts attributable to the individual developments which have not been adequately assessed in the Master Plan EIR-307. f.Detailed drainage reports based on the Master Drainage Plan. 2. Maximization of Open Space Future developments within the Master Plan area shall maximize open spaceareas based on the following criteria: a.All riparian habitats and floodplains defined in EIR-307 shall be preserved. b. All areas with significant numbers of rare plant species shall bepreserved or mitigated to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. c.All archaeological or historic areas which cannot be satisfactorily salvaged shall be covered or preserved as open space. II - 2 d. All areas with extremely unstable soil conditions (as identified indetailed soil and geologic investigations) shall be preserved as open space. e.Development in areas of twenty-five (25) percent or greater slopes15’ or more shall be designed to maximize hillside integrity. 3. Preservation of San Marcos Canyon The preservation of San Marcos Canyon has been addressed in the Villagesof La Costa Master Plan (MP 03-02). 4. Accommodation of Public Transit All major cultural, commercial and recreational facilities shall accommodatepublic bus systems in their design. 5. Street Lighting All new street lights in the Master Plan shall be of a type which conserveenergy. Maximum spacing of street lights shall be utilized consistent withCity standards and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. B.Grading Permit Issuance Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the various neighborhoods, provisions tothe satisfaction of the City Engineer shall be made for the following: 1. Construction Timing All construction in the project area shall occur during normal daytimeworking hours. 2. Protection of Batiquitos Lagoon The following conditions are designed to reduce impacts of grading, siltationand water pollution on the Batiquitos Lagoon: a.Grading shall be limited to the minimum areas necessary toaccomplish the planned development. Where impacts are excessive,alternatives (such as less intensive uses) shall be considered. Thisrequirement shall be met to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b. Vegetation clearing operations shall be made no more than 2 weeks inadvance of grading unless clearing is required because of bird nestingrestrictions. c.All grading shall be completed in accordance with an approved grading plan per Carlsbad Grading Ordinance, Carlsbad Municipal II - 3 Code, Chapter 15. (Note: See current Municipal Code for grading restrictions window.) d. All drainage facilities shall be constructed concurrent with gradingactivities. e.All graded surfaces shall be watered and rolled to form a compacted cap of soil. f.Surfaces shall be graded to direct runoff toward planned drainagesand, wherever possible, away from cut and fill slopes. g.Ground cover shall be planted on all slopes upon completion of any grading activities. This ground cover shall be irrigated to thesatisfaction of the City Engineer. h. During construction, City Building and Engineering Inspectors shall attempt to ensure that all waste chemicals (especially paints, fuels and lubricants) are properly contained and transported off-site where theycan be recycled or destroyed. 3. Additional grading guidelines are detailed in the section on General Grading Standards, Section III-H. C.Building Permit Issuance Prior to the issuance of building permits for the various neighborhoods, provisions to the satisfaction of the Planning Director shall be made for the following: 1. Undergrounding of Utilities All utilities, including provisions for cable television, shall be placed underground. 2. Use of Native Landscaping Native landscaping shall be used wherever possible in the project area. 3. Energy Conservation All future developments within the Master Plan area shall utilize, whereverpossible, the following energy-saving techniques: a.Architectural design which reduces window and door openings andtakes advantage of winter sun and summer shade. b. Insulation for all structures according to State standards. II - 4 c.Solar heating for both space and water heating. d. Landscaping using deciduous trees (to shade in summer and allow sunlight in winter) and windbreaks. III - 1 III. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A.Overall Design Concepts 1. Areas of existing development (see Section I.E.) zoned P-C shall begoverned by the following previously approved actions. If desired,amendments in these areas can be accomplished by only amending said actions. No amendment to this Master Plan shall be necessary. If desired, amendments in these areas require a General Plan Amendment, and the areais to remain in the P-C zone, this Master Plan shall also be amended toincorporate the approved changes. a.Existing 27-hole golf course and San Marcos Canyon: MP-6, Ordinance #9322, 9/5/72MP-149, Ordinance #9376, 1/15/74MP-149(B), Ordinance #9469, 11/2/76(Removed – See La Costa Resort & Spa Master Plan (MP 03-02) b. Estates North:SP-169, Ordinance #9435, 8/19/75CT 75-4, Resolution #3709, 8/5/75 c.Vale 2 & 3: SP-38, Resolution #3128, 6/5/73SP-159, Ordinance #9405, 10/1/74CT 72-20, Resolution #3129, 6/5/73 d. Vale 4: SP-176, Ordinance #9462, 7/6/76CT 76-3, Resolution #3925, 6/15/76 e.Corona La Costa: PUD-7, Resolution #4081, 2/1/77 CT 76-17, Resolution #4080, 12/1/77 f.Spanish Village:SP-37, Ordinance #9339, 1/2/73 CT 72-24, Resolution #3031, 12/19/72 g.Green Valley Knolls:SP-171, Ordinance #9447, 1/6/76SP-171(A), Ordinance #9476, 2/1/77 CT 75-7, Resolution #3809, 12/16/75 CT 76-10, Resolution #4033, 11/16/76 h. Santa Fe Knolls:SP-178 withdrawn (processing allowed by MP-149(B)) CT 75-9, Res. #4072 & #6200, 1/4/77 & 6/3/80 III - 2 i. Santa Fe Glens: SP-116, Ordinance #9409, 12/3/74 CT 73-2, Resolution #3547, 11/19/74 j. SMCWD Reservoir: PDP-3, Resolution #6080, 2/5/80 2. Areas of existing development (see Section I.E.) zoned other than P-C shall be governed by applicable zoning. B. Development Review Process 1. This Master Plan provides for two alternative processes that may be utilized in the submission and review of individual neighborhood development proposals: the Standard Review Process and the La Costa Development Plan Review Process, hereinafter referred to as the Development Plan. Process selection shall be at the discretion of the applicant as provided herein. 2. The Standard Review Process shall utilize the requirements as set forth in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and any other applicable zone and development type for neighborhoods developed under this process are set forth in Tables III-1 and III-2 of this Master Plan. The Standard Review Process may include the utilization of Chapter 21.45 Planned Development Ordinance at the discretion of the applicant. The Standard Review Process shall not be applicable to Neighborhoods SE-10, SE-12, SE-13, SE-14, SE-15, SE-16 or SE 23, identified in this Master Plan as the Community Core, or to SE-17, designated as a Local Shopping Center. 3. The La Costa Development Plan Review Process shall require the submission of a Development Plan, which shall be subject to the general and special development standards, and regulations as set forth in this Master Plan. The processing procedures set forth in Chapter 21.06 Q Qualified Development Overlay Zone shall apply to the Development Plan Review Process of this Master Plan except that: a. A tentative subdivision map, if required by the Subdivision Map Act, shall be submitted in conjunction with the Development Plan. b. The Development Plan shall be acted on by the same decision-making body that acts on the tentative subdivision map. If the City Engineer approves the map for a project, then the Planning Commission shall approve the Development Plan. c. The Planning Director shall be authorized to approve minor amendments to approved Development Plans providing such amendment shall not increase the approved densities or boundaries of the site development plan, permit a new use or group of uses not III - 3 shown on the approved Development Plan, rearrange the uses within the neighborhood or change more than ten percent of the approved yards, coverage, heights, open space, landscaping, parking or other development standards. d. The hearings for the Development Plan and tentative subdivisionmap shall be duly noticed public hearings. e.Notwithstanding the above provisions, development processing inall neighborhoods for which the C-L (Local Shopping Center) zoneis shown in Table III-2 as the zoning reference for the StandardReview Process shall follow the standards and process established by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.31, Local Shopping Centers. Chapter 21.31 calls for processing a Site DevelopmentPlan for local shopping centers pursuant to Chapter 21.06 QQualified Development Overlay Zone, but with certain changes,including a provision that the City Council shall approve the Site Development Plan. C.General Neighborhood Development Standards 1. Tables III-1 and III-2, General Neighborhood Development Standards, designate neighborhood zoning standards, development types and open space requirements applicable when utilizing the Standard DevelopmentProcess alternative provided by this Master Plan. 2. Neighborhood development applications provided by this Master Plan shall have residential densities as established in the General Plan Land Use Element. 3. Neighborhood development applications utilizing the Development PlanReview Process alternative provided by this Master Plan shall be guaranteed, as minimum, those residential densities set forth in 2 above, except as may be reduced by environmental constraints and provided allother applicable requirements of this Master Plan have been met, and mayachieve but not exceed the maximum dwelling units indicated in TablesIII-1 and III-2 except as provided in Section III.K. 4. The locations designated in this Master Plan of neighborhood boundaries,area boundaries, school sites, park sites, library sites, fire station sites,open spaces, major and secondary arterial alignments, and other facilitiesand improvements are approximate. The precise location will be established through the approval of the individual neighborhood development projects. A variation of up to but not exceeding ten (10)percent in such locations as shown on the Master Plan or in the boundariesor area of individual neighborhoods shall be considered consistent withthis Master Plan. To provide flexibility in the design of each neighborhood, open space areas as set forth in Tables III-1 and III-2 may III - 4 be reduced up to but not to exceed ten (10) percent and such reductions shall be considered consistent with this Master Plan. 5. There shall be permitted as part of a tentative subdivision map approval for any residential neighborhood, a model home area containing up to four (4) product types subject to the provisions of Section 21.60.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The Planning Director may approve more than four units subject to adequate agreements guaranteeing the removal of said units if the subdivision map does not record within the time period allowed by law. 6. The Planning Director may accept neighborhood development applications below the required minimum densities in neighborhoods SE- 10 and SE-16 and where significant environmental impacts which cannot be reasonably mitigated would otherwise result. D. Special Neighborhood Development Standards Neighborhood development applications utilizing the Development Plan Review Process alternative provided by this Master Plan shall be subject to the following special standards in addition to the Individual Neighborhood Development Regulations of Section III-L and all other applicable requirements of this Master Plan: 1. There shall be permitted in all RL and RLM neighborhoods: single family attached and detached housing including condominiums; accessory structures and buildings incidental to permitted uses; maximum building heights not to exceed thirty five (35) feet; a minimum of two (2) off-street parking not less than one (1) space per dwelling unit. 2. A Development Plan shall be submitted for all L and TS neighborhoods designated on Table and III-2. 3. Development standards, other than those identified in this Master Plan, may be modified by the Development Plan if such modification is found to be consistent with this Master Plan, the General Plan, protection of the environment and the public welfare. All uses, and development standards not addressed in the Development Plan, shall be established per the applicable zoning standards identified for each neighborhood in Table III-2. Note: Table III-1 is no longer applicable and has been deleted. E. Community Core and Neighborhood Commercial 1. Neighborhoods SE-10, SE-11, SE-13, SE-14, SE-15, and SE-16, are designated in this Master Plan as the Community Core. Prior to development of these neighborhoods, a Site Development Plan shall be III - 5 approved. Subsequent development shall be subject to said plan. For neighborhoods SE-10, SE-11, SE-14 and SE-16, the Site Development Plan shall be developed and approved pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 21.06, Q Qualified Development Overlay Zone, and for neighborhoods SE-13 and SE-15 it shall be developed and approved pursuant to Chapter 21.31, Local Shopping Center Zone of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 2. Preparation of all neighborhood development plans within the Community Core shall insure compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods particularlyregarding the placement of open spaces, selection and location oflandscaping material, continuity of pedestrian and bike paths, siting ofstructures for view opportunities and architectural harmony. 3. The Development Plan for neighborhoods SE-13 and SE-15 shall set forthdesignated land uses pursuant to Table III-2, external and internal trafficcirculation, a landscaping plan, building bulk, height and location, exteriorarchitectural style and signing, in addition to other standards of this Master Plan. Also refer to the Individual Neighborhood Development Regulations of Section III.L. 4. The preparation of Development Plans for neighborhoods SE-10, SE-11,SE-12, SE-14, SE-16 and SE-23 shall be governed by the Individual Neighborhood Development Regulations of Section III.L in addition to other standards of this Master Plan. III - 6 Note: The area described in Table III-1 below is for reference only and is removed MP 149(S) and by inclusion in MP 03-032. TABLE III-1 General Neighborhood Development Standards LA COSTA NORTHWEST Neighborhood General Plan Zone Zone and Development Type for Standard Review Process Max. * D.U. Gross Acres Open Space Individual Neighborhood Development Regulations NW-14 OS O-S Golf Course - 85.0 85.0 1.a. (p.III-13) Note: This chart does not comply with current City Policies and Growth Control Points. It is for illustrative purposes only. TABLE III-2 General Neighborhood Development Standards LA COSTA SOUTHEAST Neighborhood General Plan Zone Zone and Development Type for Standard Review Process Max. * D.U. Gross Acres Open Space Individual Neighborhood Development Regulations SE-8 SE-8A RLM RLM R-1 R-1 Standard; Detached Single Family 484 64 113 24 34 3.4 2.a. (p. III-11) 2.a. (p. III-11) SE-10 RM RD-M** Clustered Multi-Family 100 10 - 2.b. (p. III-11) SE-11 OS (STA) O-S** Public Park - 28 28.0 2.c. (p. III-11) SE-12 RMH (STA) RD-M** Clustered Multi-Family 540 27 - 2.d. (p. III-11) SE-13 A SE 13B L 0 CL** 0 Local Shopping Center Office - 41.58 7.14 3.7 2.e. (p.III-11) 2.f (p111-11) SE-14 RM (STA) RD-M** Single Family Detached 47 9.96 1.9 2.f. (p. III-11) SE-15 (L) (STA) C-L** Local Shopping Center - 6 - 2.g. (p. III-11) SE-16 RM (STA) RD-M** Clustered Multi-Family 270 27 - 2.h. (p. III-11) SE-17 L C-L Local Shopping Center - 6 1.6 2.i. (p. III-12) SE-18 RLM R-1 Standard, Detached Single Family 204 51 3.2 2.j. (p. III-12) SE-19 RLM R-1 Standard, Detached Single Family 172 43 2.3 2.k. (p. III-12) SE-20 RLM R-1 Standard, Detached Single Family 116 29 - 2.l. (p. III-12) SE-21 RLM R-1 Standard, Detached Single Family 212 53 10.2 2.m. (p. III-12) SE-22 RL R-E Rural Estate S.F. 100 67 1.9 2.n. (p. III-12) SE-23 RM (STA) RD-M** Clustered Multi-Family 140 7 - 2.o. (p. III-12) Totals 2,530 549.7 90.2 *Dwelling unit count shown on this table represents the potential maximum number of dwelling units under ideal planning conditions. Refer to Sections III.C, III.D., and III.L. **See Sections III.B., III.D. and III.E. III - 7 F.Recreational Storage Parks 1. Prior to the recordation of the first final subdivision map in the Southeastarea of this Master Plan, there shall be an approved comprehensiverecreational storage park plan to accommodate recreational vehicles including horse trailers, campers, boats, mobile homes or similarequipment which are restricted from being stored on home sites by thevarious neighborhood covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs). Aproposed plan shall be submitted with the tentative map for the firstneighborhood and it shall utilize one of the following approaches: a.Provision for an ultimate site location or locations with necessaryimprovements which shall serve the projected needs of allneighborhoods within the Southeast area, individually orcollectively; or b. Provision for an ultimate site location(s) together with only thoseimprovements necessary to serve the initial neighborhood includedin the final subdivision map together with a phasing program for completion of improvements in conjunction with subsequent submittal of future neighborhood development proposals; or c.Provision for an interim site location(s) and only those necessaryimprovements to serve the initial neighborhood together with a program for ultimate relocation of this interim park facility to a permanent site(s) in conjunction with a phased program of futureneighborhood development. Reuse of the interim site(s) shall be inaccordance with development standards set forth in this MasterPlan for the neighborhood in which the interim site(s) is located. 2. Standards shall be established as part of comprehensive recreational storagepark plan or plans for the Southeast area collectively or individually whichshall be periodically revised to reflect economic, energy or other factorswhich alter ownership and use patterns and have an impact upon demand for and location of recreational storage space needs. 3. This comprehensive recreational storage park program shall include theconcept of phasing of improvements in recognition of changes in demandover time and shall also include the concept of transferability from interim to permanent facilities as development phasing of various neighborhoods warrant. Nothing herein shall require transfer or ownership of suchimprovements or sites. 4. Provision shall be made for the maintenance and operation of therecreational storage parks in the CC&Rs. III - 8 G.Homeowners’ Associations 1. The essential design characteristics of the La Costa residential communitieswill be adhered to as set forth in this Master Plan in and through the use ofCovenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to be established by thedeveloper. These CC&Rs shall provide regulations known as Architectural Committee Rules and Guidelines which shall be administered by an Architectural Committee. The essential design characteristics of the LaCosta residential Communities will be adhered to as set forth in therespective Master Plans (Southeast, Northwest and Southwest (Arroyo LaCosta and Villages of La Costa) through the use of covenants, conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) established by the Developer and subject to the approval of the Planning Director. This Committee’s responsibility shallonly be in matters more restrictive than the minimum standards allowed bythis Master Plan and the City. This Committee’s approval shall be requiredon all building plans prior to review by the City unless the Planning Director determines there are extenuating circumstances that would allow the City to accept the plans without the Committee’s prior approval. TheCity shall not participate as a member of this committee. 2. The CC&Rs shall incorporate by reference this Master Plan, and shall state expressly that the declarations are subject to the provisions of this Master Plan and that the City shall have the right to enforce the provisions of thisMaster Plan through its normal enforcement procedures if the City Councildetermines such enforcement is necessary to protect the public welfare. 3. CC&Rs for subsequent developments shall be submitted to the Planning Director for his approval as to consistency with the paragraphs 1. and 2.,above. H.General Grading Guidelines Exhibits III-2 to III-16 inclusive, in addition to those standards set forth inSections II.B. and C. above and in Title 15 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, shallbe utilized when reviewing Development Plans for each of the neighborhoods inthis Master Plan. I.Noise Attenuation 1. Purpose There shall be incorporated into the development of the areas included in this Master Plan physical designs which insofar as practical attenuate theadverse impact noise has on residential neighborhoods, schools, parks andother recreational areas and open space. III - 9 2. Physical Design Standards a. Suitable mitigating measures shall be taken to minimize the effects of noise generators such as prime, major and secondary arterials on residential areas, schools, parks and other recreational areas and open space areas. b. Where opportunities exist, street, school and active park and other recreational areas shall be designed to achieve a depressed elevation separation from adjacent areas requiring noise attenuation. c. Where opportunities for depressed elevation design do not exist, berms and/or noise attenuation walls shall be used where space permits to provide noise attenuation to adjacent areas. d. Dense evergreen landscaping shall be considered for supplementary noise attenuation purposes to all of the above physical design standards. e. Example of various installations are shown in Exhibit III-17 through III-21 inclusive (See pages III-25 to III-27.) J. Fire Suppression Standards 1. There shall be continuously maintained firebreaks of at least thirty feet or greater between structures and native vegetation areas as may be required by the Fire Marshal. Responsibility for maintenance of these firebreaks shall reside with the appropriate homeowner’s association or owners. 2. Clearance of heavily vegetated open space areas containing concentrations of volatile fire fuels shall be cleared for fire suppression purposes as required by the Fire Marshal commensurate with appropriate protection of sensitive environmental habitats. 3. There shall be provided adequate accessibility to open space areas for fire suppression purposes as required by the Fire Marshal through fire vehicle roads or other forms of special access easements. 4. Natural or manufactured slopes shown in Exhibits III-8 through III-16 inclusive which have been cleared and replanted shall be irrigated by a homeowner’s associations, rather than individual property owners, wherever practicable. K. Affordable Housing Section III.L. of this Master Plan has identified those neighborhoods that would be suitable for low or moderate income housing because of their accessibility to necessary services such as shopping and public transit. During the development III - 10 review of any of these neighborhoods, the developer and the City should consider the feasibility of developing affordable housing consistent with the Housing Element of the Carlsbad General Plan. Densities of affordable housing projects may be approved above the maximum densities established by this Master Plan through the approval of a Development Plan as described in Section III.B. and if found consistent with the Housing Element of the Carlsbad General Plan. The conditions of approval for such a project shall include provisions that guarantee the ongoing availability of the units to low and moderate-income persons. Mobilehome park development should also be considered within the following neighborhood of this Master Plan: SE-18. When considering mobile-home parks in the RLM areas, the allowable densities may be twice the amount established by this Master Plan. Said mobilehome parks would be processed per requirements established by the City and must be consistent with the Housing Element of the Carlsbad General Plan. A requirement of The City of Carlsbad’s General Plan Housing Element is to provide sufficient affordable housing. The Housing Element sets forth goals, policies, and a variety of methods to meet this General Plan requirement, however, specific programs to meet the goal are a product of the continuing development process Citywide. As a part of this process, The Fieldstone Company or successor in interest has agreed to enter into a “Housing Element Agreement” as follows: 1. The City of Carlsbad shall develop a definition of affordable housingusing, but not restricted to, the options set forth in the City’s Housing Element, which shall include, among other things, the estimated “fair share” of affordable housing which should reasonably be required of allLa Costa Master Plans. If it is determined that a fair share contribution toAffordable Housing is to be calculated with reference to the amount of anapplicant’s property approved for development, the Southeast area of the La Costa Master Plan shall all be included within that calculation. This calculation shall be determined prior to approval of future Master Plansfor the Southeast portion of La Costa. Said Master Plans shall requiredeveloper’s agreement to provide the specified ratio of affordable housingwithin the Master Plan areas. 2. The City of Carlsbad, with the assistance and cooperation of theDeveloper, shall compile an inventory of affordable housing units withinthe City consistent with the definition of affordable housing to beestablished in Item 1 above (preceding paragraph). This inventory is necessary to determine future need. 3. All of the foregoing shall be documented in an Agreement between theCity of Carlsbad and the Developer. This Agreement shall be recorded asa lien on the Developer’s Southeast Master Plan Property to insure compliance. III - 11 L.Individual Neighborhood Development Regulations The following individual neighborhood development regulations shall apply when neighborhood development proposals utilize the Development Plan ReviewProcess alternative provided by this Master Plan. 1. Individual Regulations for the Northwest Area (See La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan (MP 03-02). 2. Individual Regulations for the Southeast Area a.(SE-8) Development should: utilize standard detached single family housing oriented to maximize eastward and westward views; minimize grading due to underlying rock conditions; utilizestep pads above and below the streets with turn-in driveways orother techniques to minimize grading. A Site Development Planshall be processed pursuant to Chapter 21.06 (Qualified Development Overlay Zone). b. (SE-10) Development should: utilize multiple dwelling unitdevelopment in two cluster; provide access to adjacent StageCoach Park and open spaces; provide neighborhood entrance/exit from Camino de Los Coches. This area is suitable for low and moderate-income housing. Minimum number of dwelling units forthis neighborhood shall be 40. Also see Section III.E. c.(SE-11) Previously developed. d. (SE-12) Previously developed. e.(SE-13 A & B) See Section III.E. above. The site developmentplan for SE-13A shall be processed concurrent with Neighborhood SE-13B. The square footage reserved for office use shall not be less than 15% of the total square footage of structures in SE-13Aand SE13B. f.(SE-14) Development shall: utilize single family detached development. See Section III. E. g.(SE-15) See Section III.E. above. h. (SE-16) Development should: utilize careful grading due to potential archaeological sites; provide dense landscaping and berms for noise attenuation from Rancho Santa Fe Road; utilizeview orientation eastward into open space area; provide open spacelinks to Stage Coach Park. This area is suitable for low andmoderate-income housing. Minimum number of dwelling units for this neighborhood shall be 108. Also see Section III.E. III - 12 i. (SE-17) Development should: carefully plan access from Rancho Santa Fe Road and Camino de Los Coches at locations which will minimize traffic congestion and hazards. j. (SE-18) Development should: utilize standard, detached single family housing on 7,500 square feet and attached single family housing on lots to a minimum of 4,000 square feet with zero lot lines; utilize turn-in driveways to reduce set-backs and minimize grading. k. (SE-19) Same as j. above. l. (SE-20) Previously developed. m. (SE-21) Previously developed. n. (SE-22) Same as j. above. o. (SE-23) Previously developed. 3. Individual Regulations for the Southwest Area See Chapter IV of the Arroyo La Costa Master Plan MP 88-1. III - 13 III - 14 III - 15 III - 16 III - 17 EXHIBIT III-9 III - 18 III - 19 III - 20 III - 21 III - 22 III - 23 III - 24 IV - 1 IV. OPEN SPACE A. Introduction This Master Plan for La Costa designated 228 acres to be set-aside as open space prior to the various amendments, which have removed areas from the plan. These open space areas, as shown on Exhibit IV-1 [on file in the Planning Department], Open Space Plan, provide buffers between residential areas and roads and commercial and public areas as well as define neighborhoods. A system of pedestrian trails will traverse these open space corridors to connect schools, parks and the community core with the housing areas. These trails may connect to a broader citywide circulation system. This Master Plan also includes the improvement of two public parks totaling 51.5 acres. (See the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan (MP 03-02) for updated references to the golf course.) The open space trails requirements of this chapter shall be applicable to all areas of the La Costa Master Plan except for the southwest area which has its own detailed open space/trails program delineated in the Arroyo La Costa Master Plan and the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. B. Dedication Approval of development of each neighborhood shall include the dedication of an open space easement over its respective open space area as shown on Exhibit IV-1 [on file in the Planning Department]. Approval of development of each neighborhood containing a portion of the pedestrian trail shown on Exhibit IV-1 [on file in the Planning Department] shall include an offer to dedicate a public access easement covering that portion of the pedestrian trail located within that neighborhood. This offer to dedicate shall provide that the pedestrian trail shall not be open for public use unless and until the City accepts the offer to dedicate and assumes liability and maintenance responsibility for the pedestrian trail. Adjoining areas, including but not limited to slopes, shall not be included in this offer to dedicate. If the City does not accept this offer to dedicate by a recorded written instrument within five years from the date of recordation of the final map for each neighborhood, the offer to dedicate shall expire and the owner shall have no further obligation to offer to dedicate or dedicate a public access easement and the use and maintenance of the property shall be governed by the CC&Rs. The width and location of the open space corridors shall be as shown on Exhibit IV-1 [on file in the Planning Department]. A deviation of ten percent (+/- 10%) shall be allowed when determining said width and location. The minimum width allowed shall be twenty feet. Additional open space areas may be required within each neighborhood development. IV - 2 C. Improvements 1. Landscaping and Grading The landscaping in the open space corridors will be Undisturbed Native Vegetation, Restored Native Vegetation or Fire Control Vegetation as described below. Efforts shall be made to retain existing natural landforms. Wherever grading is necessary the general grading guidelines in Section III shall apply. a. Undisturbed Native Vegetation Areas of native or naturalized vegetation to be left in their natural state, as described in Section III. 1) No installation 2) Maintenance a) Litter control b) Firebreaks 3) No irrigation b. Restored Native Vegetation Areas of native and naturalized vegetation disturbed by construction or grading should be restored to their natural state. Replanting of species like those naturally occurring or which are adjacent with provision to install slope stabilization procedures until permanent plants become established, as described in Section III. 1) Installation a) Temporary irrigation system that would be salvaged or abandoned b) Erosion prevention measures c) Ground cover d) Trees and shrubs 2) Maintenance a) Litter control b) Firebreaks c) Irrigation repair until removed d) First year fertilization 3) Irrigation System For areas of restored native vegetation the use of “rain for rent” type Rainbird sprinklers with aluminum pipe are recommended. With this system, the natural areas are not IV - 3 trenched and removal of the system leaves the area in a natural condition. Another alternative would be to install permanent systems to assist in additional fire prevention and control. These systems would be used only during emergency periods or extreme drought. c.Fire Control Vegetation Areas shall be 30’ or greater as may be required by the FireMarshal between structures and the natural areas, as described inSection III. 1) Installation Plant material usage can vary according to the desiredeffect. It is recommended that plants selected berepresentative of the natural existing material as far as form, color and texture are concerned. Specific plant varieties should be selected for their fire resistant quality. a)Generally preferred are shrubs of low growth habitand fuel volume which have low heat output when they burn, can be easily established, and will grow under native site conditions. b) Some low volume and low profile native shrubs thatare recommended for the conditions of the site include: Salvia sonomensis, Creeping Sage Atriplex gardneri, Gardner’s Saltbush Atriplex cuneata, Castlevalley Saltbush Atriplex canescens, Fourwing Saltbush Other low growing plants introduced from other countries that are also suitable to reduce fire hazards include: Cistus albidus and C. crispus, hybrid rockrose; Galenia pubescens, green galenia; Mesembryanthemum edule, iceplant; Artemisia caucasica and Atriplex ssp., saltbushes, other than the above. c)Pelargonium peltatum, gazania uniflora, Osteospermum fruticosum, iceplant varieties, andVinca major may be used for color accent. IV - 4 2) Maintenancea)Litter control b) Irrigation repair c)Fertilizationd) Weed and pest controle)Pruning and aborculturef)Irrigation water g)Electricity h) Turf mowing 3) Irrigation System Complete sprinkler systems. All areas shall receive a moisture sensing override at the controller to avoid over-watering and provide plant material with the proper soil-moisture relationship required in the root zone. Allsprinklers having potential “run-off” from a higher elevation of sprinkler heads should be supplied with check valves to avoid erosion and wasted water run-off. Systemsshould be designed to operate in the hours 11 p.m. to 6 a.m.Drip irrigation for any area, using the proper system,should be considered if designed correctly. It is recommended only as automatic irrigation and each area, by its merit, should be determined for drip potential. Thisis the irrigation designer’s role in pursuing alternativemethods. 2. Bikeways and Bikepaths All of the arterial streets within this Master Plan shall provide on-streetbikeways as required by the City Engineer. Off-street bikepaths shallfollow the standards contained herein. The everyday use of the bikeways and other trails as an alternative mode of transportation shall be encouraged through the review of each subdivision. Bicycle racks andrelated facilities shall be provided in the community core, parks andsimilar areas to encourage the use of this transportation mode. Bikeways shall be improved in accordance with the standards establishedby the California Department of Transportation unless otherwise approvedby the City Engineer. A typical cross-section of an off-street bikepath isshown on Exhibit IV-2 3. Pedestrian Trails Pedestrian trails shall be provided within the open space corridors asshown on Exhibit IV-1 [on file in the Planning Department]. The trails shall consist of compacted soil cement, suitably compacted native material or decomposed granite four feet in width. The trails shall IV - 5 have a constantly curving alignment and shall follow the contours or switch back where required to prevent grades exceeding fifteen percent (15%). Rest stops for relaxation and picnicking shall be located at significant points along the trail or bikepath, such as a viewpoint. They shall consist of areas of approximately two hundred (200) square feet of suitably compacted native material by the topography, small retaining walls. Trees not requiring irrigation shall be incorporated where feasible to provide shade. Rest stops shall be provided along the trails approximately as shown on Exhibit IV-1 [on file in the Planning Department], Open Space Plan. 4. Standards Common to Bikepaths and Pedestrian Trails Construction of the bikepaths and pedestrian trails have several standards in common. Both shall be constructed to provide good drainage. A cross slope shall be maintained with a minimum two percent (2%) grade, with berms and ditches utilized to prevent washouts of cuts and fills. Neither cut nor fill slopes shall exceed 2:1. Signs displaying the symbol of a pedestrian for pedestrian trails and a bicycle for the bikepaths shall be spaced approximately every 1,000 feet. Trail entrance signs shall be posted at trail entrances and street crossings. For any trail crossing a roadway, a crossing sign warning motorists is to be set 300 feet before the crossing. 5. Uses in General All uses and improvements within the open space corridors shown on Exhibit IV-1 [on file in the Planning Department] shall be governed by the Open Space Zone (O-S) development standards. Streets may cross open space areas where required to provide internal and external neighborhood access. 6. Maintenance Prior to issuance of building permits for development within the Master Plan, there shall be established a homeowners’ association(s) which shall include provision for the maintenance of land and improvements by the association(s). This association(s) shall be created through the CC&R process and be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director as required in Section III.G. IV - 6 V - 1 V.PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PHASING A.Introduction The following represents the public facilities and services required to supportdevelopment in those areas subject to this Master Plan. The Public Facilities and Phasing proposed by the La Costa Master Plan havebeen superceded by the City of Carlsbad’s Growth Management Program and theLocal Facilities Management Plans for Zones 6, 10, 11 and 12. All necessarypublic facilities shall be provided per the requirements of these plans. Note: This chart does not comply with current City Policies and Growth Control Points. It is for illustrative purposes only. See also the following Master Plans: 1. Villages of La Costa (MP 98-01)2. Rancho Carrillo (MP 139 as amended)3. La Costa Resort and Spa (MP 03-02) TABLE V-1 NORTHWEST PHASING SCHEDULE PHASE NEIGHBORHOOD MAX DU’S ARTERIALS PARK SITES SCHOOL SITES PUBLIC SITES OPEN SPACE & TRAILS I NW-14 -- ½ of Alga Road & ½ Carrillo Way -- -- -- Private golf course V - 2 Note: This chart does not comply with current City Policies and Growth Control Points. It is for illustrative purposes only. TABLE V-2 SOUTHEAST PHASING SCHEDULE PHASE NEIGHBOR-HOOD MAX. DU ARTERIALS PARK SITE SCHOOL SITES PUBLIC SITES OPEN SPACE & TRAILS I SE-17 -- ½ of Rancho Santa Fe & ½ of Mision Estancia -- -- -- Trail & corridor SE-18 204 ½ of Rancho Santa FE & ½ of Camino de Los Coches -- -- -- Corridor SE-19 172 -- -- -- -- -- SE-20 116 -- -- -- -- Trail & corridor SE-21 212 ½ of Rancho Santa Fe -- 10 Ac. -- SDG&E Easement SE-10 100 ½ of Camino de Los Coches -- -- -- -- SE-11 -- -- 28 Ac. -- -- -- SE-12 540 ½ of Camino de Los Coches & ½ of La Costa Ave -- -- -- -- SE-13 -- ½ of Rancho Santa Fe & ½ of La Costa Ave -- -- -- -- SE-14 -- ½ of Rancho Santa Fe -- -- -- -- V - 3 Note: This chart does not comply with current City Policies and Growth Control Points. It is for illustrative purposes only. TABLE V-2 - continued SOUTHEAST PHASING SCHEDULE PHASE NEIGHBORHOOD MAX. DU’S ARTERIALS PARK SITE SCHOOL SITES PUBLIC SITES OPEN SPACE & TRAILS I SE-15 -- ½ of Rancho Santa Fe & ½ of La Costa Ave -- -- -- -- SE-16 270 ½ of Rancho Santa Fe -- -- -- -- SE-23 140 ½ of La Costa Ave. -- -- -- -- II SE-8 SE-8 A 484 64 ½ of Rancho Santa Fe ½ of La Costa & ½ of Melrose Ave. -- -- -- Trail, corridor SDG&E easement SE-22 100 -- -- -- -- Corridor VI - 1 VI. SIGN PROGRAM A.Applicability The provision of Chapter 21.41 (Sign Ordinance) shall apply to the La CostaMaster Plan area. City of Carlsbad Council Policy #65 will also apply for signson public property. ATTACHMENT 8 From:Steve Linke To:Planning Subject:Correspondece for "La Costa Town Square Parcel 3 Residential" (12/2/2020 meeting) Date:Monday, November 30, 2020 12:06:32 AM Attachments:2020-12-02 PC LCTS Parcel 3 Linke comment.pdf Carlsbad Planning: Please ensure that the attached letter is circulated to the Planning Commissioners and is made part of the public record for the La Costa Town Square Parcel 3 Residential item of business scheduled for the 12/2/2020 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. 1 November 29, 2020 Re: December 2, 2020 Planning Commission Item #1—La Costa Town Square Parcel 3 Residential Planning Commissioners: INTRODUCTION After observing your 11/18/2020 meeting on La Costa Town Square Parcel 3 Residential (Parcel 3), I would like to provide additional information and recommendations on mobility impacts as a supplement to my 11/16/2020 letter. Please at least read through the SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATIONS, and then refer to the DETAILS and/or contact me directly if you would like additional clarification. There are two parallel paths required to assess traffic impacts in Carlsbad: 1. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 2. Growth Management Plan (GMP)/Local Mobility Analysis (LMA) For the CEQA/EIR path, vehicle level of service (LOS) was essentially the only standard in place back in 2009 when the La Costa Town Square EIR was developed. However, the traffic counts in that EIR are nearly 15 years old and significantly under-estimated traffic in cases that are relevant to Parcel 3. In addition, the methods themselves subsequently were determined to be fatally flawed, in that they vastly under-reported congestion levels with overly optimistic LOS grades. For the parallel GMP/LMA path, there is now a reformed vehicle LOS method in place that reflects actual congestion levels, but the so-called multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) point systems for the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of travel set an extremely low standard and do not reflect reality, similar to the old vehicle LOS methods. Staff seems to be arguing that the old EIR adequately addresses all traffic-based environmental impacts under CEQA, despite its fatal flaws. That determination should be challenged, but even if that argument is accepted, the GMP/LMA path could still be used to address the mobility impacts. However, staff has chosen to only apply the extremely low-standard MMLOS point systems for the LMA (no vehicle analysis), which will not require any mitigation for the Parcel 3 project. All of this is very troubling given the vehicle congestion on Rancho Santa Fe Road adjacent to La Costa Avenue, which will be exacerbated by Parcel 3 traffic, as well as the many lost opportunities to improve traffic flow, amenities, safety, and comfort for all modes of travel on La Costa Avenue adjacent to the project site. 2 SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The traffic studies in the 2009 EIR are fatally flawed for the reasons stated in my 11/16/2020 letter and this letter, so the Planning Commission should not make the finding that it adequately addresses all Parcel 3 traffic impacts, or the finding that the current street system can handle all of the traffic to be generated by Parcel 3. 2. More comprehensive LOS-based traffic studies need to be conducted using valid methodologies (at least “Level III”), including LOS analyses of the Rancho Santa Fe Road/La Costa Avenue intersection and adjacent street facilities. Parcel 3 should pay its fair share for any improvement projects, such as creation of dedicated right-turn lanes at the intersection, and the city should pay the remainder. 3. The La Costa Avenue/Calle Timiteo intersection will be dangerous and stressful for pedestrians and bicyclists (and even vehicle drivers) due to the 45 MPH speed limit and five lanes on La Costa Avenue. The La Costa Avenue/Camino De Los Coches intersection is also challenging. No improvements are currently proposed, so the Planning Commission should not make the findings that the project is consistent with the General Plan’s “livable streets” and “multimodal” goals/policies. 4. To achieve the “livable streets” goal, and to improve safety and connectivity for all modes of travel—particularly to destinations to the south, such as Stagecoach Park, bus stops, schools, churches, etc.—Parcel 3 should be conditioned to study and construct traffic controls at the Calle Timiteo and/or Camino De Los Coches intersections with La Costa Avenue. This could include consideration of roundabouts, a traffic signal (if warranted after construction), and/or other pedestrian and bicycle friendly features. 5. Parcel 3 should improve the amenities at the adjacent bus stops, including concrete pads away from traffic, benches, covers, trash cans, and enclosed bicycle parking. 6. The 2009 EIR contains commitments for the project to pay its fair shares for construction of traffic signals at both the Calle Timiteo and Camino De Los Coches intersections with La Costa Avenue, as well as a traffic signal interconnect in the area. At the very least, these commitments should be redirected to the projects described above. 3 DETAILS Role of the Planning Commission in reviewing staff determinations and making findings One of the main findings in both resolutions the Planning Commission is being asked to adopt is your concurrence with the City Planner’s determination that the 2009 EIR for the overall La Costa Town Square project adequately addresses all potential environmental impacts for the current Parcel 3 project.1 In addition, there are numerous other findings in both resolutions claiming that there are no significant traffic/mobility impacts of Parcel 3.2 It was very troubling when staff claimed that you are not allowed to question these determinations/findings. If the City Planner and/or City Engineer can unilaterally make such determinations, and if the Planning Commission is required to adopt the corresponding findings without questioning them, what is the point of having the Planning Commission review projects? 2009 EIR traffic studies were defective and should not be relied upon for findings on Parcel 3 As detailed in my 10/12/2020 and 11/16/2020 letters to the Planning Commission, the vehicle LOS environmental impact methods in use when the EIR was done in 2009 have since been discredited and abandoned. Three independent traffic engineering consultants have now confirmed my own previous findings that both the intersection (ICU) and street segment LOS methods did not realistically reflect actual roadway capacities or conditions, because they did not take into consideration roadway configurations, speed limits, signal spacing, lost time, other traffic signal characteristics, lane utilizations, etc. on any of Carlsbad’s streets.3 If you have any doubts about this, see the yellow highlighted passages in Exhibits A through C attached to this letter, which include select pages from the three traffic engineering reports. The discredited methods consistently generated stellar LOS grades for both developers and the city’s own annual monitoring program, even on Carlsbad’s most congested streets. Carlsbad staff was aware of these problems but continued to use the methods for nearly 30 years. They were finally retired a couple of years ago, as required by the 2015 General Plan update. As just one example of the defective data included in the 2009 La Costa Town Square EIR, below is a table from that document showing the 2030 projected vehicle levels of service with the project. The table falsely suggests that nearly every street will operate at LOS “A” during peak traffic periods (LOS “A” is supposed to indicate virtually no traffic). I have added (in red text) the results achieved with the new valid LOS method using the same predicted traffic volumes. 1 The preamble and Finding #4 in Resolution No. 7390, and Finding #27 in Resolution No. 7391 2 For example, see Resolution No. 7390 Findings 1e and 1f; Resolution No. 7391 Findings 11, 15, 18, 20e, and 20f. 3 Fehr & Peers “LOS Assessment of the City of Carlsbad’s Traffic Monitoring Program Study Intersections” memorandum, 9/9/2015; STC “Growth Management Program Year 2018 Traffic Conditions Report,” 6/19/2019; Kimley Horn “City of Carlsbad Roadway Level of Service Analysis,” 2/2020 4 In the two resolutions, you are being asked to make multiple findings that the current street system is adequate to handle all of the traffic to be generated by Parcel 3, such that it will not adversely impact traffic circulation4—and this type of defective data forms the foundation for those findings. The Planning Commission should not allow staff to rely on the defective traffic studies in the EIR. A more comprehensive traffic study based on current methodologies needs to be conducted. 4 Resolution No. 7391 Findings 11, 15, and 18. 5 Staff’s incorrect claim that traffic will be cut in “half” It was claimed repeatedly at the 11/18/2020 meeting that development of Parcel 3 will reduce traffic by half, but that is not true. First, the site was never developed as office space and has not generated any traffic to date, so any traffic added by Parcel 3 will be new traffic. Second, the estimated traffic from the originally proposed office use, as presented in the EIR was 1,100 average daily trips (ADT), which has now been revised to 760 ADT with the change to residential condominiums. Simple math indicates that is only about a 30% reduction—not the 50% reduction repeatedly claimed by staff. Vehicle traffic impacts on Rancho Santa Fe Road and its intersection with La Costa Avenue The Rancho Santa Fe Road/La Costa Avenue intersection and adjacent street segments are very congested during peak hours. Despite the high vehicle volume at the intersection, there are no dedicated right-turn lanes. The latest GMP Monitoring Report (FY 2018-19) showed that northbound Rancho Santa Fe Road from Calle Barcelona to La Costa Avenue had 2,443 vehicles in the peak hour. That is around 500 more vehicles than the 2030 projection contained in the 2009 EIR, and it indicates that the facility is on the verge of GMP deficiency—being only 37 vehicles short of the 2,480 threshold to degrade to LOS “F.” In a 2019 traffic memo prepared for Parcel 3, it was estimated that the project would generate 760 new ADT with 76 PM peak hour trips.5 Over 90% of such trips are expected to use the already congested Rancho Santa Fe Road/La Costa Avenue intersection, and a majority of those will be approaching from northbound Rancho Santa Fe Road in the PM peak. Thus, Parcel 3 could have significant traffic impacts on these facilities, but that was not studied for the 2019 traffic memo. The facilities are approximately one-quarter mile from the project entrance, and, based on Carlsbad’s current Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, facilities up to one-half mile away can be included in traffic analyses. Given the potential to induce deficiency of Rancho Santa Fe Road, Parcel 3 should be required to conduct more detailed traffic analyses of the potentially impacted facilities, including a Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) LOS analysis of the Rancho Santa Fe Road/La Costa Avenue intersection to determine whether there are projects that could improve traffic flow there, such as creation of dedicated right-turn lanes. Parcel 3 should pay its fair shares for such projects, and the city should pay the remainder, if any. Connectivity with destinations south of La Costa Avenue At the 11/18/2020 meeting, Commissioners expressed concerns about “connectivity” of Parcel 3 with other destinations and the dearth of on-site active recreation space. There is a reliance on Stagecoach Park to the south to satisfy recreational opportunities for future residents. In addition, there are multiple bus stops, schools, churches, and other nearby destinations for which pedestrians and bicyclists originating from the project would need to safely cross/use La Costa Avenue—ideally at Calle Timiteo and/or Camino De Los Coches. 5 Urban Systems Associates, Inc. La Costa Town Square Residential Project MMLOS Analysis Memo, 1/23/2019 6 You are being asked to make several findings that Parcel 3 is promoting alternative modes of travel (pedestrian, bicycle, and transit) consistent with the 2015 General Plan update, including compliance with the “livable streets” goal and the requirement that developers pay their fair shares toward improvements for all travel modes.6 Unlike the current resolutions, which do not impose any mitigation/project requirements on the developer, the following will actually help satisfy the General Plan goals/policies. La Costa Avenue/Calle Timiteo intersection. At the Parcel 3 entrance at Calle Timiteo, the speed limit on La Costa Avenue is 45 MPH, and, once built, there will be five vehicle lanes to cross with cars traveling in many different directions (two westbound through-lanes, two eastbound through-lanes, and center U- turn/left-turn lanes in both directions). Yet, the only traffic control for that intersection appears to be stop signs on the southbound and northbound Calle Timiteo legs. And the nearest crosswalk/traffic signal is about 1,000 feet west on La Costa Avenue at Via Montebello, which is well beyond the 300-foot limit typically considered reasonable. The prospect of crossing La Costa Avenue at the Calle Timiteo intersection as a pedestrian (e.g., to walk to the bus stop, Stagecoach Park, or school) is daunting. Left turns from either leg of Calle Timiteo onto La Costa Avenue via bicycle—and even vehicle—also seem daunting, with five lanes of rapid cross-traffic and vehicles turning in many different directions. La Costa Avenue/Camino De Los Coches intersection. The sidewalk on the north side of La Costa Avenue to the east of Parcel 3 intersects with a pedestrian path coming from the shopping area of La Costa Town Square about 600 feet east of Parcel 3. That occurs at the Camino De Los Coches T-intersection, which has some of the same complexities as the Calle Timiteo intersection, and there is no crosswalk or traffic control beyond a stop sign on Camino De Los Coches. Proposed condition: Parcel 3 should be conditioned to construct (or post a bond for future construction of) traffic controls at these intersections. As detailed below, this could include a traffic signal at Calle Timiteo (if warranted) and/or a single-lane roundabout(s) at Camino De Los Coches and/or Calle Timiteo. Intersection studies and roundabout and traffic signal warrant analyses should be conducted both now and after construction of Parcel 3 is complete and occupied to reflect actual traffic generated. Additional justification follows. 6 Resolution No. 7390 Findings 1e and 1f and Resolution No. 7391 Findings 20e, and 20f 7 Traffic signal warrants A traffic signal warrant study was conducted in 2018 based on traffic counts taken on the three existing legs of the intersection and the predicted traffic from the fourth leg serving as the entrance to Parcel 3. The study suggested that a traffic signal was not warranted.7 However, one of the most relevant traffic signal warrants for this intersection is “Warrant 1” (Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume) was nearly satisfied, as shown in the following table: Street Minimum Volume8 7-8 AM 12-1 PM 1-2 PM 2-3 PM 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM La Costa Ave 336 672 410 310 631 401 461 521 483 Calle Timiteo 84 126 77 66 73 87 103 116 126 Traffic volume on La Costa Avenue only fell below the minimum for one of the eight hours, and traffic volume on Calle Timiteo only fell below the minimum for three of the eight hours—and none were very far below the minimums. The other relevant traffic signal warrant for this intersection is “Warrant 4” (Pedestrian Volume), but, for that warrant, the study only indicated that the “…conditions were not met as no pedestrian volumes were obtained.” Section 4C.01 of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) states: “An engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location.” Therefore, claiming that a traffic signal is not warranted based on a failure to collect the required data or predict future usage is unsatisfactory. Roundabouts In the interest of improving safety for the pedestrian and bicycle modes of travel, single-lane roundabouts also could be considered at the Camino De Los Coches and/or Calle Timiteo intersections. This would require reduction of La Costa Avenue to one vehicle through-lane in each direction. However, the vehicle volumes on that portion of La Costa Avenue likely could be accommodated—and overall traffic flow in the area might actually improve with roundabouts due to lack of traffic signals and stop signs. Carlsbad’s General Plan Mobility Element and TIA Guidelines encourage use of roundabouts in areas like this. In addition, Section 4C.01b of the CA MUTCD indicates that roundabouts should be considered before traffic signals: “On local streets and highways, the traffic study should include consideration of a roundabout (yield control). If a roundabout is determined to provide a viable and practical solution, it should be studied in lieu of, or in addition to a traffic control signal.” 7 Urban Systems Associates, Inc. La Costa Town Square Residential Traffic Signal Warrant Study Memo, 3/26/2018 8 Because the speed limit on La Costa Avenue is 45 MPH, the “80%” minimums are shown. 8 TIA Guidelines and “Levels” of analysis You will undoubtedly hear from staff that, under Carlsbad’s TIA Guidelines, Parcel 3 only requires a so- called “Level I” analysis. Level I does not include any vehicle analysis and virtually guarantees that no mitigation is ever required. However, the TIA Guidelines indicate that Level I only applies if the project conforms with an approved specific or master plan. Given the substantial changes to the Parcel 3 project, including a land use change and some variances, as well as the defective nature of the vehicle studies in the original EIR, it is more appropriate to conduct a “Level III” analysis given the project’s predicted ADT. It is also important to note that the TIA Guidelines were created by staff without any oversight/review by an advisory body or the City Council. And while the associated vehicle LOS system was devised by external experts, the MMLOS point systems (for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes) have been tweaked many times by staff to avoid showing LOS failures. In addition, staff removed vehicle intersection analysis from the guidelines, despite requirements in the GMP, Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP), and General Plan, and despite the fact that such analyses provide valuable information to improve traffic conditions. The Traffic and Mobility Commission is supposed to be reviewing the TIA Guidelines and MMLOS point systems, but that process has not begun yet, and the TIA Guidelines generally set a relatively low bar for review with toothless MMLOS point systems. So, it is currently fully at staff’s discretion what types of analyses and mitigation are required. Sincerely, Steve Linke Carlsbad, CA 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. City of Carlsbad September 9, 2015 Page 2 of 8 City’s ICU Methodology The City’s ICU methodology reports LOS based on volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios ranging from 0.0 to 1.0, which are shown in Table 1. Specifically, ICU calculates the V/C ratio and critical movements based on per lane capacity and intersection movement volumes. For the City of Carlsbad, ICU calculations are performed assuming 1,800 vehicles per hour (vph) for each turn lane and 2,000 vph for each through-lane. In some cases, even higher capacities were used on some facilities (e.g., El Camino Real) by some consultants, but a consistent policy was not followed for adjusting lane capacities. The intersection LOS is then determined by summing the V/C ratio of critical movements, plus a factor for yellow signal time. The City’s process for calculating ICU is typically conducted using a spreadsheet and not through a dedicated software. The ICU methodology is timing plan independent, and signal coordination, progression of through traffic, and queue spillback are not accounted for or measured in the analysis. This methodology is better suited for isolated signalized intersections that are not influenced by the traffic operations of adjacent intersections or high levels of congestion. If the ICU methodology is used for closely spaced and/or congested intersections, it is possible that the resulting LOS is better than what actually occurs at these intersections during the peak hours. In addition, this method is best suited for long-range, high-level planning efforts to help identify street cross-sections at intersections where signal timing may change substantially in the future. Synchro ICU Methodology ICU is also provided as one of the outputs from Synchro 8.0, which is a software that calculates intersection operations. The ICU analysis from Synchro assumes an ideal saturation flow rate of 1,900 vehicles per hour per lane for all lanes, but this flow rate is then adjusted based on several factors. Because of these adjustments, the results of the Synchro ICU may or not be similar to the results using the City’s ICU methodology. In addition, the threshold ranges for Synchro ICU are different (and slightly more conservative) than the City’s method (see Table 1). HCM Methodology The HCM methodology calculates LOS based on average stopped delay experienced per vehicle. Driver and/or passenger discomfort, frustration, and lost travel time are measures of delay. Table 1 shows the delay ranges for each LOS value. For closely-spaced intersections or congested locations, the queue length estimates are used to better understand traffic operating conditions and whether queuing may extend between intersections. If this occurs, traffic operations may be worse than reported by conventional analysis techniques that do not consider queuing. City of Carlsbad September 9, 2015 Page 3 of 8 TABLE 1 – SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS LOS City ICU Ratio Synchro ICU Ratio Delay (sec/veh) A 0.00 – 0.60 0.00 – 0.55 ≤ 10.0 B 0.61 – 0.70 0.55 – 0.64 > 10.0 to 20.0 C 0.71 – 0.80 0.65 – 0.73 > 20.0 to 35.0 D 0.81 – 0.90 0.74 – 0.82 > 35.0 to 55.0 E 0.91 – 1.00 0.83 – 0.91 > 55.0 to 80.0 F > 1.0 >0.91(1) > 80.0 City’s ICU Source: 2014 Traffic Monitoring Program, City of Carlsbad, 2014. Synchro ICU Source: Intersection Capacity Utilization 2003 Edition, Trafficware, 2003. HCM Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. (1)Synchro ICU includes LOS G and H thresholds for ICU ranges above 1.0. INPUT DATA AND RESULTS Fehr & Peers conducted the intersection operations analysis of the 49 key study intersections in the City using PM peak hour intersection count data provided in the 2014 TMP and the latest signal timings and lane geometry, as appropriate. For the Synchro ICU and delay calculations, Synchro 8.0 analysis software was used to calculate the average control delay and Synchro ICU ratios (the latter of which is provided for comparison purposes only). Table 2 presents the PM peak hour intersection LOS results using all three methodologies for the 49 signalized intersections that are monitored. Based upon the City’s ICU analysis, all 49 intersections are currently operating at LOS D or better; however, using the HCM methodology, the following intersections are operating deficiently (LOS E or LOS F): 7. El Camino Real/Faraday Avenue (HCM LOS E; City’s ICU LOS C) 8. El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road (HCM LOS E; City’s ICU LOS C) 11. El Camino Real/Alga Road/Aviara Parkway (HCM LOS F; City’s ICU LOS B) 12. El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue (HCM LOS F; City’s ICU LOS C) 21. Palomar Airport Road/ Melrose Drive (HCM LOS E; City’s ICU LOS C) Overall, the results demonstrate how the HCM methodology provides more conservative and appropriate existing condition results. In general, the HCM results appear to be more realistic in terms of driver experience at most locations. At the five locations listed above, heavy traffic volumes City of Carlsbad September 9, 2015 Page 4 of 8 on El Camino Real and/or Palomar Airport Road at these intersections cause substantial delays during the PM peak period on all intersection approaches. As noted above, the Synchro ICU method generally results in a worse LOS than the City ICU approach. In some cases, the Synchro ICU actually shows a worse LOS than the delay method. Overall, Synchro ICU is not used by many jurisdictions for quantifying existing or future intersection operations and is not recommended for use by the City of Carlsbad. The delay approach provides the most accurate representation of existing traffic operations and provides a metric that is most easily understood by the driver: time. TABLE 2 – INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY COMPARISON # Intersection City ICU Method(1) Synchro ICU Method(2) HCM Delay Method(3) PM PM PM ICU Ratio LOS ICU Ratio LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS 1 El Camino Real Plaza Dr 0.64 B 0.661 C 31.1 C 2 El Camino Real Marron Rd 0.56 A 0.636 B 36.9 D 3 El Camino Real Carlsbad Village Dr 0.60 A 0.714 C 38.9 D 4 El Camino Real Tamarack Ave 0.61 B 0.664 C 29.6 C 5 El Camino Real Cannon Rd 0.81 D 0.984 F 47.1 D 6 El Camino Real College Blvd 0.67 B 0.755 D 44.6 D 7 El Camino Real Faraday Ave 0.78 C 0.808 D 58.1 E 8 El Camino Real Palomar Airport Rd 0.80 C 0.955 F 68.4 E 9 El Camino Real Cassia Rd 0.70 B 0.844 E 44.1 D   City of Carlsbad 2  Year 2018 Traffic Conditions Report  1 INTRODUCTION  This traffic conditions report was prepared to evaluate and document the year 2018 roadway conditions  and to assess changes in traffic patterns from previous years. A total of twenty (20) roadway segments  are included and monitoring and evaluation was performed by collecting 24‐hour mid‐block roadway  segment traffic counts.    2 BACKGROUND  This report is prepared annually as part of the Growth Management Program (GMP).  The City of Carlsbad  adopted the GMP in 1986 which put conditions on how growth could occur in the city and to ensure that  public infrastructure was delivered concurrently with development. In turn, a Local Facilities Management  Plan (LFMP) was adopted for each of the 25 local facility management zones. These LFMPs demonstrated  that the local public facilities, including transportation, would be sufficient to meet the forecast level of  growth in each of the zones.  The LFMP also established thresholds for public facilities, which are  monitored and reported to City Council on an annual basis.     As part of the GMP, the city prepares an annual traffic monitoring report for critical roadway segments  throughout the City. This is necessary to comply with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance and Local  Facilities Management Plan. The Local Facilities Management Plan states:    “Implement a comprehensive livable streets network that serves all users of the system‐vehicles,  pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. Maintain LOS D or better for all modes that are subject  to this multi‐modal level of service (MMLOS) standards, as identified in Table 3‐1 of the General  Plan Mobility Element, excluding LOS exempt intersections and streets approved by the City  Council.”    Since 1988, the City has conducted annual traffic monitoring by collecting traffic counts including 24‐hour  mid‐block roadway segment counts and morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement  counts. The data is then used to conduct operational analysis on the roadways and intersections which  allows the city to identify existing and/ or future areas with deficient capacity. The current year’s traffic  volumes and level of service are compared with the previous year’s traffic volumes and level of service to  determine changes which may be the result of new development or changed traffic patterns.   3 PREVIOUS MONITORING AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY  The City of Carlsbad historically monitored traffic by collecting traffic count data during the summer  season. Traffic count data was collected and monitored at both roadway segments and intersections.  Since 2011, the City began collecting pedestrian and bicycle count data in addition to vehicular data.  However, the pedestrian and bicycle data has been collected for informational purposes only.      Historically, the city evaluated intersections using Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology and  evaluated roadway segments using the peak hour volume to capacity ratio method. Carlsbad’s application  of ICU methodology was unique in that it evaluated peak hour intersection conditions using the following    City of Carlsbad 3  Year 2018 Traffic Conditions Report  unadjusted  ideal  roadway  capacity  values  of  a)  2,000  vehicles‐per‐hour  ‐per‐lane  (vphpl)  for  thru  movements, and b) 1,800 vphpl for left turn movements. The “Carlsbad ICU Methodology” was not  consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) as it did not adjust the capacity values to account for  factors that typically reduce ideal roadway capacity (e.g., signal timing and lost time). Similarly, segments  were analyzed using an unadjusted ideal roadway capacity value of 1800 vphpl which did not account for  factors that reduce the capacity (e.g., signal spacing and traffic speed). Results using the Carlsbad ICU  method for intersection analysis and peak hour volume to capacity method for roadway segment analysis  did not adequately reflect the actual conditions observed in the field.  4 CHANGES TO THE MONITORING AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY  At the time this report was prepared, the city was in the process of developing a Growth Management  Program Annual Traffic Monitoring Procedures Manual which provides guidance to prepare future annual  traffic conditions reports.    Starting  in  2017,  the  city  collected  traffic  count  data  during the  fall  season  to  comply  with  traffic  engineering practice that typically collects traffic count data during the spring and fall seasons when  schools are in session. The traffic count data collected during summer season was found to be generally  higher in comparison to the more recent fall season data collection and reflects the city’s summer tourist  season. Moving forward it may be more conservative to monitor traffic growth and roadway conditions  during the summer season.     The city accepted the HCM as the analysis method for roadway conditions with the September 2015  General Plan Update. It requires the analysis to be consistent with the most recent version of the HCM.  Starting this year (2018), the GMP monitors and reports conditions for roadway segments only and  monitoring intersection conditions is no longer required.    The city also recently developed service volume tables which utilize HCM 2010 methodology to evaluate  roadway conditions.  The roadway segment service volume tables consider key geometric and operational  factors  including  type  of  facility,  number  of  lanes,  intersection cycle length, distance between  intersections, and other factors related to lane capacity and signal operations. Two roadway segment  service volume tables were derived; 1) the specific corridor roadway service volume table and 2) the  generalized data roadway service volume table. The specific corridor service volume table was derived  specifically for each roadway subject to Auto Multi Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) in the city’s General  Plan Mobility Element. The generalized data service volume table defines general capacities for arterial  and industrial street roadway classifications. Both service volume tables provide peak hour roadway  capacities in the peak direction of travel. The service volume tables are included in Appendix A.    The service volume tables were developed based on the input parameters available at the time. In the  future service volume tables will be validated and updated according to field observations. For example,  the “arrival type” is an evaluation of the percentages of vehicles that arrive at an intersection during a  green light. This value typically reflects professional judgement and not statistical data. The new traffic  signal controllers installed as part of the Advanced Traffic Management System CIP project will report the  3 City of Carlsbad │Roadway Level of Service Analysis February 2020 Introduction This document summarizes the Level of Service (LOS) analysis of 43 roadway segments in the City of Carlsbad. The LOS analysis is used to provide qualitative evaluation based on quantitative calculations of roadway performance. Results of the LOS analysis can identify potential Traffic Signal Management solutions to improve traffic flow, be used to evaluate traffic conditions in future environmental documents and monitor transportation facilities as required by the Growth Management Program (GMP). New State laws, updates to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, all established that auto delay methodologies cannot be used to define environmental impacts related to new developments. Instead, all analyses should be consistent with the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The City of Carlsbad has previously used planning-level capacities to associate a daily volume with a level of service on roadway segments, using a constant value commonly set at 1,800 vehicles per hour (vph) per lane. This methodology was inconsistent with the HCM as it did not account for typical roadway factors such as signal spacing or lost time — all of which reduce capacity. As a result, the unadjusted capacity methodology did not adequately reflect actual roadway conditions. The City’s new methodology evaluates roadway facilities using roadway segment capacities adjusted based on specific characteristics of the roadway and quantified using ARTPLAN software consistent with Volume 3 of the HCM, as documented in Carlsbad Roadway Capacity Tables. These capacities consider roadway geometry and operational factors such as type of facility, number of lanes, cycle length, distance between intersections, number of lanes, posted speed limit, and roadway type (e.g. divided or undivided). The Roadway Capacity Tables better reflect actual field conditions and will be used for the new City of Carlsbad TIA Guidelines and GMP monitoring. Analysis Methodology Data was collected by National Data and Surveying Services (NDS) along the study corridors on Wednesday, May 1, 2019 and Tuesday, May 7, 2019 as well as follow up counts along Palomar Airport Road from El Fuerte to Melrose Road and El Camino Real between Tamarack and Cannon from Tuesday September 17, 2019 through Thursday September 19, 2019. This represents typical weekday traffic conditions. Counts were collected midblock at 15-minute increments for a 24-hour period each day. For each roadway segment, the highest volume of the two days peak AM and PM periods were determined by direction. The locations at which data was collected are presented in Figure 1. The highest peak volumes at each location are presented in Figure 2. The analysis was completed using this peak period data, comparing AM/PM peak volumes to the Carlsbad Roadway Capacity Tables to determine LOS. The Appendix to this report includes an evaluation between the new methodology in this report and the old methodology previously used by the City: a)New Methodology: compares AM/PM peak volumes to the Carlsbad Roadway Capacity Tables to determine LOS. b) Unadjusted Capacity Methodology: determines LOS by comparing AM/PM peak volumes to the unadjusted 1,800 vphpl North County Advocates is a non-profit 501© 3 public benefit corporation. TIN 27-3158348. www.northcountyadvocates.com 11/17/2020 Dear Chair and Planning Commission: Regarding Agenda Item #1 for your meeting tomorrow the following comments are submitted on behalf of North County Advocates. The original plans for La Costa Town Square included office space. The amendment before you requests approval of 76 market townhomes on one site and 19 affordable condominiums on another totaling 95 residential units instead of office buildings. The purpose of this letter is to emphasize and document what you already know: The increased number of residents in this quadrant triggers a need for more park space since the general plan requires three acres of community parks or special use areas per 1,000 population in each quadrant. Also, fifteen percent of the total land area in specified Local Facility Management Zones (LFMZ), exclusive of environmentally constrained non-developable land, must be set aside for permanent open space (public or private) and must be available concurrent with development. Table F of your staff report claims the project is compliant with both of these measures. But there are no details about how the required park acres are calculated and where specifically in the southeast quadrant the park is located. And where exactly are the needed .95 open space acres in LFMZ 11? The southeast quadrant of Carlsbad is currently deficient in parks and open space. Please be sure any developments approved are consistent with general plan and Proposition E requirements. This letter concerns parks and open space and is not to be construed as a criticism of the La Costa Town Square project itself by NCA, its members or by me personally. Howard Krausz, President North County Advocates From:Howard Krausz To:Planning Subject:Agenda item 1. AMEND 2017 LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PARCEL 3 RESIDENTIAL Date:Tuesday, November 17, 2020 11:00:49 PM Attachments:NCA letter to planning commission re LCTS condos.pdf Please enter these comments from NCA in regards to your first item of public discussion attomorrow's 11/18/2020 planning commission meeting. Thank you, Howard Krausz 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:11/18/2020 Planning Commission Meeting Item #1 (LCTS Parcel 3) - verbal comment Date:Wednesday, November 18, 2020 10:01:19 AM Please read this comment at the meeting for the above-referenced agenda item.   Good afternoon Chair and Planning Commissioners. My name is Steve Linke. I am a member of the Traffic and Mobility Commission, but I am commenting as an individual. I will summarize the letter I submitted.   The staff report claims that the traffic study published with the original Environmental Impact Report for the overall La Costa Town Square project is adequate to prove that the current infrastructure can handle all of the traffic to be generated by this project. But that Environmental Impact Report is very old. The data underlying the traffic study is now nearly 15 years old, and the study extensively used the old Carlsbad level of service methods that have since been abandoned and discredited as very inaccurate.   Further, since the time the old traffic study was conducted, the entire approach to traffic analysis in Carlsbad has been changed through major revisions to the General Plan and Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. A valid vehicle level of service method is now required, as are level of service assessments for other modes of travel. A vehicle miles traveled approach also has been introduced.   In addition, according to staff responses to previous questions, the travel forecast models have changed substantially for the project area since the original traffic study was conducted. And recent traffic counts suggest that Rancho Santa Fe Road and its intersection with La Costa Avenue are at or near Growth Management Plan deficiency for congestion.   There has to be an expiration date on ancient traffic studies, and this project should conduct a new VMT analysis and a level of service-based Local Mobility Analysis consistent with the new TIA and VMT guidelines.   Mitigation measures that could be explored include: (1) upgrading the intersection control at the La Costa Avenue/Camino De Los Coches intersection—for example, to a roundabout; (2) installation of dedicated right-turn lanes at the congested Rancho Santa Fe Road/La Costa Avenue intersection, and (3) upgrading the amenities and service at several of the nearby bus stops.   State housing crisis laws do not prohibit the imposition of conditions and fees for these types of projects. In fact, state climate action laws encourage them. We can’t continue to rely on defective traffic studies conducted over a decade ago.   Thank you. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 November 16, 2020 Re: November 18, 2020 Planning Commission Item #1—La Costa Town Square Parcel 3 Planning Commissioners: Summary The staff report claims that the current street system can handle all of the traffic to be generated by this project, because there are no new concerns beyond those addressed in the traffic study published with the original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for La Costa Town Square. However, that study relies on traffic counts that are now nearly 15 years old, and it used methods that have since been discredited and abandoned. In addition, the congestion on Rancho Santa Fe Road/La Costa Avenue, some street configurations, and the travel forecasting model all have changed substantially, since the EIR was certified in 2009. Further, the whole approach to conducting traffic studies has been completely reformed, as detailed in the 2015 General Plan and the new 2018 Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and 2020 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Guidelines. Accordingly, the very old TIA for this project should be updated with appropriate conditions and mitigation to reflect new information, as recommended below. Recommendations • VMT analysis should be conducted for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes, and a level of service (LOS) based Local Mobility Analysis (LMA) should be conducted for Growth Management Plan (GMP) purposes. • Given the rising congestion at the Rancho Santa Fe Road/La Costa Avenue intersection and the adjacent street segment facilities, that intersection should be analyzed for potential improvements, including dedicated right-turn lanes. The closely spaced La Costa Avenue/Levante Street intersection also should be considered in this analysis. • The amenities at the six area bus stops should be improved, including concrete pads away from traffic, benches, covers, trash cans, and enclosed bicycle parking. • The EIR describes a traffic signal to be installed at the La Costa Avenue/Calle Timiteo intersection. Details In the staff report for this project, it is claimed that “…the street systems serving the proposed development or use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use…” In support of that claim, staff states that the 760 average daily trips (ADT) forecasted to be generated by this residential project is less than the 1,100 ADT previously forecasted to be generated when it was originally approved as an office project. And it is further stated in the staff report: “The City Planner has determined that the potential environmental effects of the project were adequately analyzed by the previously certified 2 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the construction of La Costa Town Square (EIR 01-02),” and “[t]he project has no new significant environmental effect not [previously] analyzed as significant…” However, it is pure folly that the original La Costa Town Square EIR is sufficient to assess the traffic impacts of this project now, including but not limited to the following reasons: 1. The traffic counts used in the December 2008 traffic study1 for the March 2009 La Costa Town Square EIR were largely collected in January 2006—almost 15 years ago! 2. In the EIR’s Mitigation Plan (Table 5.2-26), it is stated that the street segments were forecasted to operate at acceptable vehicle LOS consistent with Carlsbad’s GMP standard with no improvements necessary. However, that was based on the old Carlsbad LOS methods, which have since been discredited and abandoned, because they significantly under-reported congestion levels. A recent city report acknowledged that those methods “did not adequately reflect actual roadway conditions,” and that “the new methodology captures a more realistic analysis of LOS” and “better reflect[s] field conditions.”2 3. The 2008 traffic study used the SANDAG “Series 10” travel forecast model, while the current SANDAG model is “Series 14,” reflecting many significant changes in regional travel modeling since Series 10. 4. Street configuration/capacity changes have occurred since 2008, including the elimination of vehicle lanes on La Costa Avenue. 5. In 2015, Carlsbad’s General Plan was updated, which changed the entire approach to assessing traffic for annual monitoring and development projects, including reform of the vehicle LOS method and introduction of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit LOS. 6. Related to transit, both the original La Costa Town Square EIR and the current staff report refer to the availability of transit as an alternative to vehicle usage. However, the bus stops along La Costa Avenue directly adjacent to the project site have poor amenities and currently average less than one boarding per day, and the bus stops along Rancho Santa Fe Road average less than ten boardings per day, so transit usage has not materialized in this area to mitigate vehicle traffic (see Attachment A).3 7. In 2018, Carlsbad’s TIA Guidelines underwent a complete makeover to better reflect the 2015 General Plan update. The guidelines include references to implementing VMT analysis for CEQA purposes, as well as updating to the new, valid LOS-based methods for analysis under the GMP. The TIA Guidelines indicate: “The vehicle traffic data used in the TIA should generally not be more than 2 years old…” 8. The traffic impacts of multiple development projects in Carlsbad began to be evaluated based on VMT in late 2019, and VMT (or equivalent) analysis became a state requirement beginning in 1 Traffic Impact Analysis for La Costa Town Square, Urban Systems Associates Inc., December 23, 2008 2 Kimley Horn’s City of Carlsbad Roadway Level of Service Analysis, 2/2020 and Fehr & Peers’ LOS Assessment of the City of Carlsbad’s Traffic Monitoring Program Study Intersections memorandum, 9/9/2015 3 Based on data obtained from North County Transit District for July 2018 through June 2019. 3 July 2020. The current project is in a relatively high VMT area, and, if a VMT analysis were to be done, it would require a 20.4% VMT reduction.4 9. In the last GMP Monitoring Report (for Fiscal Year 2018-19), northbound Rancho Santa Fe Road between Calle Barcelona and La Costa Avenue was within 37 vehicles of LOS deficiency in the PM peak hour.5 It is likely that this project would push that street facility into deficiency, requiring mitigation, which would be revealed by an LMA. 10. The project would almost certainly add more than 50 new vehicle trips to the already congested Rancho Santa Fe Road/La Costa Avenue intersection, which may already be failing. There are potential turn lane improvements that could improve traffic flow there, including dedicated right turn lanes, which currently do not exist in any of the directions. Sincerely, Steve Linke Carlsbad, CA 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. 4 Based on Carlsbad’s VMT Analysis Guidelines, the project is located in Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1401, which has a mean VMT per capita of 23.06, while the mean for the entire city is 22.53. To mitigate below the “85% of city mean” significance threshold, the project would have to reduce its VMT by 20.4%: (23.06 – [22.53][0.85])/(22.53)(0.85). 5 The Rancho Santa Fe Road street facilities between Calle Barcelona and La Costa Avenue transition from LOS “D” to LOS “E” when the 2,480 vehicle threshold is exceeded, and there were 2,443 vehicles northbound in the PM in FY 2018-19 monitoring. Eastbound La Costa Avenue near Calle Timiteo (0 boardings/day) Westbound La Costa Avenue near Calle Timiteo (1 boarding/day) Bench only No amenities Linke Attachment A 4 Eastbound La Costa Avenue near Rancho Santa Fe Road (0 boardings/day) Westbound La Costa Avenue near Rancho Santa Fe Road (0 boardings/day) Bench only No amenities Linke Attachment A 5 Southbound Rancho Santa Fe Road near La Costa Avenue (10 boardings/day) Northbound Rancho Santa Fe Road near La Costa Avenue (11 boardings/day) No amenities Bench, cover, trash can Linke Attachment A 6 BLDG. NO. 15BLDG. NO. 14BLDG. NO. 13BLDG. NO. 12BLDG. NO. 11BLDG. NO. 9BLDG. N O. 4 BLDG. NO. 10BLDG. NO. 8BLDG. NO. 7BLDG. NO. 6BLDG. NO. 2BLDG. NO. 19BLDG. NO. 18BLDG. NO. 16BLDG. NO. 5BLDG. NO. 3BLDG. NO. 17BLDG. NO. 1 2 1 L A C O S T A A V E .CAMI NO DELAS COCHESCALLETIMITEOPROJECTBOUNDARY PVT. STREET "B"PVT. DR. AISLE "B" PVT . DR. AISLE "B"PVT. DR. AISLE "C"PVT. DR. AISLE "D"PVT. DR. AISLE "E"PVT. DR. AISLE "F"PVT. DR. AISLE "G"PVT. DR. AISLE "H"PVT. DR. AISLE "I"PVT. DR. AISLE "J"PVT. DR. AISLE "A"OPEN SPACE SUMMARY REQUIRED SQ. FT. COMMON OS TOTAL (95 UNITS X 150 SF/UNIT)14,250 ACTIVE OS (75% OF TOTAL REQ'D)10,688 PASSIVE OS (25% OF TOTAL REQ'D)3,563 PRIVATE OS TOTAL (95 UNITS X 60 SF/UNIT)5,700 PROVIDED SQ. FT. COMMON OS COMMON ACTIVE REC AREAS 6,738 COMMON PASSIVE REC AREAS 7,917 COMMON OS PROVIDED 14,655 PRIVATE OS AFFORDABLE UNITS (19 UNITS W /6'X10' PATIO)1,140 MARKET RATE UNITS (76 UNITS W /6'X12' PATIO)5,472 PRIVATE OS PROVIDED 6,612 1 PREPARED BY:REVISIONS DATE BYNO. CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT MAP ABBREVIATIONS LEGEND HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES OPEN SPACE SUMMARY PARCEL 3 BLDG. NO. 16 OF SHEET 12 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND PARCEL 3 AMEND 2017-0012/CT2017-0003/PUD2017-0004/SDP2018-0018 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PUBLIC UTILITIES AND DISTRICTS LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP & PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT LEGAL DESCRIPTION REFERENCE DRAWINGS GENERAL NOTES GENERAL DESIGN NOTES-SITE PLANVICINITY MAP PROJECTSITE OWNERAPPLICANT BUILDING COVERAGE SUMMARY ENGINEER P=294.5 CONDOMINIUM NOTE PROJECT SUMMARY AC TOTAL GROSS SITE AREA 7.2 LA COSTA AVENUE ( = PROPOSED PUBLIC ROW EXISTING WITHIN THE PROJECT BOUNDARY )0.9 TOTAL NET PROJECT AREA 6.3 PROPOSED PRIVATE DRIVE AISLES/PARKING 1.3 PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE 1.4 PROPOSED LANDSCAPING COVERAGE 1.5 LA COSTA AVE. MANUFACUTURED SLOPES 2.1 TOTAL PROPOSED NET SITE AREA 6.3 EARTHWORK 1 BLDG TYPE # OF BLDGS # OF UNITS FOOTPRINT SQ. FT. TOTAL BLDG. COVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF COVERAGE LOT 1 NET SF = 241,795 3-PLEX 3 9 2,248 6,744 2.4% 4-PLEX 1 4 3,365 3,365 1.2% 4X-PLEX 8 32 3,273 26,184 9.4% 4Y-PLEX 2 8 3,180 6,360 2.3% 5-PLEX 3 15 3,965 11,895 4.3% 8-PLEX 1 8 6,514 6,514 2.3% LOT 1 SUB-TOTAL 18 76 -61,062 25.3% LOT 2 TOTAL SF = 33,664 AFFORDABLE 1 19 6,940 6,940 20.6% LOT 2 SUB-TOTAL 1 19 6,940 6,940 20.6% TOTAL COMBINED 19 95 -68,002 21.7% UNIT TYPE DU's # BDRMS # SPACES/DU TOTAL SPACES PLAN 0 3 2 2 6 PLAN 1 8 2 2 16 PLAN 2 41 3 2 82 PLAN 3 24 3 2 48 MARKET RATE MULTI FAMILY TOTAL 76 2+2 152 RESIDENT SUBTOTAL 152 GUEST SPACES 76 0.25 19 MARKET RATE TOTAL 171 UNIT TYPE DU's # BDRMS # SPACES/DU TOTAL SPACES PLAN 4 5 1 1.5 8 PLAN 5 2 2 2 4 PLAN 6 6 2 2 12 PLAN 7 6 3 2 12 RESIDENT SUBTOTAL 19 36 GUEST SPACES 19 0.25 4.75 AFFORDABLE TOTAL 41 UNIT TYPE TOTAL SPACES MARKET RATE RESIDENT 152 MARKET RATE GUEST 19 AFFORDABLE RESIDENT 36 AFFORDABLE GUEST 5 TOTAL 212 PER CMC ZONING SECTIONS 21.44.020B TBL A & SECTION 21.45.060 TBL C & 21.45.080 TBL E AFFORDABLE RENTAL - REQUIRED TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED MARKET RATE - REQUIRED PARKING SUMMARY UNIT TYPE TOTAL SPACES MULTI-FAMILY (GARAGE)152 21 12 3 36 RESIDENT SUBTOTAL 188 8 14 2 24 TOTAL PROVIDED 212 VISITOR PARKING STANDARD PARALLEL ACCESSIBLE COMPACT PROVIDED PARKING PARKING TYPE STANDARD AFFORDABLE (SURFACE)ACCESSIBLE PARKING SUMMARY (CONTINUED) BENCHMARK ATTACHMENT 9 SECTION A-A 290 300 290 300 SECTION B-B 280 290 280 290 (SEE SHEET 6 FOR LOCATION) (SEE SHEET 6 FOR LOCATION) PLAN 3 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN TYP. GRADING DETAIL PLAN 3 (1% DRIVE AISLE WITH CROWNED SECTION) (PORTION OF DRIVE AISLE "B") PLAN 3 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 TYP. GRADING DETAIL(1% DRIVE AISLE WITH INVERTED SECTION) (DRIVE AISLES "C", "F", "I" & "J") PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 1PLAN 2PLAN 3 PLAN 3 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 3 TYP. GRADING DETAIL PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 2PLAN 3 PLAN 3 PLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 3 TYP. GRADING DETAIL (1% DRIVE AISLE WITH INVERTED SECTION)(2% DRIVE AISLE WITH INVERTED SECTION) (DRIVE AISLES "G" & "H")(DRIVE AISLES "D" & "E") TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DETAIL SECTION C-C (SEE SHEET 6 FOR LOCATION) 300 310 320 330 300 310 320 330 FENCE RETROFIT DETAIL 2 PREPARED BY: HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES OF SHEET 12 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND PARCEL 3 AMEND 2017-0012/CT2017-0003/PUD2017-0004/SDP2018-0018 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DETAILS TOP OF SLOPE SETBACK SECTION "A" TOP OF SLOPE SETBACK SECTION "D" BLDG 19 BLDG 4 TOP OF SLOPE SETBACK SECTION "B"TOP OF SLOPE SETBACK SECTION "C" TOP OF SLOPE SETBACK SECTION "E"TOP OF SLOPE SETBACK SECTION "F" BLDG 17 BLDG 3 BLDG 2PVT. DR. AI SLE "J" P V T . D R . A I S L E "B "20.8'21'23.1'B L D G . N O . 4 BLDG. NO. 2P=293.1P =2 9 4 .8 FF=293.85F F =2 9 5 .5 5 BLDG. NO. 3P=293.1FF=293.85P =2 9 3 .0FF=2 9 3 .7 5 A A20.8'B B 21' C C23.1'PVT. DR. AI SLE " I "20.8'22.7'26.2'BLDG. NO. 19BLDG. NO. 18P=295.0P=294.4P=295.8 FF=295.15FF=295.75P=296.8FF=297.55 FF=296.55 BLDG. NO . 1 7 E E20.8' F F22.7'26.2' D D 3 PREPARED BY: HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES OF SHEET 12 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND PARCEL 3 AMEND 2017-0012/CT2017-0003/PUD2017-0004/SDP2018-0018 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SITE SECTIONSSLOPE EDGE BUILDING SETBACK SLOPE EDGE BUILDING SETBACK INDEX 4" MOD. ROLLED CURB TYPICAL PARKING SPACE EXISTING LA COSTA AVENUE PER DWG 409-4 100' EAST OF CALLE TIMITEO) EXISTING LA COSTA AVENUE (100' EAST OF CALLE TIMITEO TO CAMINO DE LAS COCHES) ENTRANCE ROAD PVT. DRIVE AISLE 'B' OPTION III OPTION II PORTION OF PROPOSED OPTION I "C" THROUGH "G", "I" & "J" ENTRANCE ROAD PVT. DRIVE AISLE 'A' PORTION OF PROPOSED PVT. DRIVE AISLE 'A'PORTION OF PROPOSED PORTION OF PROPOSED PROPOSED PVT. DRIVE AISLESPROPOSED PVT. DRIVEPVT. DRIVE AISLE "B"AISLE "H"EMERGENCY ACCESSPROPOSED SECONDARY (RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD TO PER DWG 409-4 4 PREPARED BY: HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES OF SHEET 12 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND PARCEL 3 AMEND 2017-0012/CT2017-0003/PUD2017-0004/SDP2018-0018 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT STREET SECTIONS & DETAILS LA COSTA AVE.CAMI NO DELAS COCHESCALLETIMITEO5 PREPARED BY: HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES OF SHEET 12 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND PARCEL 3 AMEND 2017-0012/CT2017-0003/PUD2017-0004/SDP2018-0018 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT EXISTING CONDITIONS & UTILITIES L A C O S T A A V E .CALLETIMITEOPVT. DR. AISLE "C"PVT. DR. AISLE "D"PVT. DR. AISLE "E"PVT. DR. AISLE "F"PVT. DR. AISLE "G"PVT. DR. AISLE "H"PVT. DR. AISLE "I"PVT. DR. AISLE "J"REC AREA S-13S-03P-06 P-08 P-09 P-11 H-14P-16 P-21 H-34 C-50 S-53S-30 PVT. DR. AISLEPV T. DR. A IS LE "B" C-52 EV-59PVT. DR. AISLE "B""A"B B REC AREAREC AREA REC AREA 2 1 S-0 1 S-02EV-05P-15 P-18 P-19 H-32 P-12 A A S-22 C-41 S-60S-40 EV-58REC AREA BASIN 1 AREA: 1,499 SF BOTTOM ELEV.: 268.6 DDCAMI NO LASCOCHESCCBIOFILTRATIONBMP AREA: 5,598 SF BASIN 2 BOTTOM ELEV.: 270.4 H-33 BLDG. NO. 15BLDG. NO. 14BLDG. NO. 13BLDG. NO. 12BLDG. NO. 11BLDG. NO. 9B L D G. NO . 4 BLDG. NO. 10BLDG. NO. 8BLDG. NO. 7BLDG. NO. 6BLDG. NO. 2BLDG. NO. 19BLDG. NO. 18BLDG. NO. 16P=295.3P=295.3P=294.7P=294.7P=294.3P=294.3P=293.1P=294.8 P=295.8P=295.8P=295.0P=294.4P=296.6P=296.6P=297.5P=299.0BLDG. NO. 5FF=296.05FF=296.05FF=295.45FF=295.45FF=295.05FF=295.05FF=296.55FF=296.55FF=297.35FF=297.35FF=298.25P=295.8 FF=295.15FF=295.75FF=293.85FF=295.55 BLDG. NO. 3P=293.1FF=293.85P=296.8 FF=297.55 FF=296.55 P=298.0FF=298.75FF=299.75BLDG. NO. 17BLDG. NO . 1 P=293.0FF=293.75 PVT. DR. AISLE "B"SITE CROSS-SECTION D-D 6 PREPARED BY: HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES OF SHEET 12 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND PARCEL 3 AMEND 2017-0012/CT2017-0003/PUD2017-0004/SDP2018-0018 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SITE PLAN L A C O S T A A V E .CALLETIMITEOPVT. DR. AISLE "C"PVT. DR. AISLE "D"PVT. DR. AISLE "E"PVT. DR. AISLE "F"PVT. DR. AISLE "G"PVT. DR. AISLE "H"PVT. DR. AISLE "I"PVT. DR. AISLE "J"PVT. DR. AISLEPV T.DR. A IS LE "B" PVT. DR. AISLE "B""A"2 1 CAMI NO LASCOCHESBLDG. NO. 15BLDG. NO. 14BLDG. NO. 13BLDG. NO. 12BLDG. NO. 11BLDG. NO. 9B L D G. NO . 4 BLDG. NO. 10BLDG. NO. 8BLDG. NO. 7BLDG. NO. 6BLDG. NO. 2BLDG. NO. 19BLDG. NO. 18BLDG. NO. 16BLDG. NO. 5BLDG. NO. 3BLDG. NO. 17BLDG. NO . 1 PVT. DR. AISLE "B"BOUNDARY BOUNDARY PROJECT PROJECT 7 PREPARED BY: HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES OF SHEET 12 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND PARCEL 3 AMEND 2017-0012/CT2017-0003/PUD2017-0004/SDP2018-0018 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SETBACKS A A BASIN 2 BOTTOM ELEV.: 270.4 BIOFILTRATIONBMP AREA: 5,598 SF LA C O STA A VE. BASIN 2 - CROSS-SECTION A-A 20.8'26.2'BLDG. NO. 19BLDG. NO. 18B B BASIN 1 AREA: 1,499 SF BOTTOM ELEV.: 268.6 L A C O S T A A V E . TYPICAL BIOFILTRATION BASIN DETAIL (PVT) (BASIN 2) BASIN 1 - CROSS-SECTION B-B TYPICAL BIOFILTRATION BASIN DETAIL (PVT) (BASIN 1) 8 PREPARED BY: HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES OF SHEET 12 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND PARCEL 3 AMEND 2017-0012/CT2017-0003/PUD2017-0004/SDP2018-0018 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BASIN 2 BASIN & DETAILS BASIN 1 L A C O S T A A V E .CALLETIMITEOPVT. DR. AISLE "C"PVT. DR. AISLE "D"PVT. DR. AISLE "E"PVT. DR. AISLE "F"PVT. DR. AISLE "G"PVT. DR. AISLE "H"PVT. DR. AISLE "I"PVT. DR. AISLE "J"PVT. DR. AISLEPV T. DR. A IS LE "B" PVT. DR. AISLE "B""A"2 1 CAMI NO LASCOCHESBLDG. NO. 15BLDG. NO. 14BLDG. NO. 13BLDG. NO. 12BLDG. NO. 11BLDG. NO. 9B L D G. NO . 4 BLDG. NO. 10BLDG. NO. 8BLDG. NO. 7BLDG. NO. 6BLDG. NO. 2BLDG. NO. 19BLDG. NO. 18BLDG. NO. 16BLDG. NO. 5BLDG. NO. 3BLDG. NO. 17BLDG. NO . 1 PVT. DR. AISLE "B"REC AREA 1,055 SF REC AREA 768 SF REC AREA 1,605 SF REC AREA2,134 SF 1,176 SFREC AREA 9 PREPARED BY: HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES OF SHEET 12 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND PARCEL 3 AMEND 2017-0012/CT2017-0003/PUD2017-0004/SDP2018-0018 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OPEN SPACE LEGEND COMMON ACTIVE REC AREAS (6,738 SF) * COMMON PASSIVE REC AREAS (7,917 SF) PARCEL A PARCEL B PARCEL C PREPARED BY: HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES OF SHEET 12 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND PARCEL 3 AMEND 2017-0012/CT2017-0003/PUD2017-0004/SDP2018-0018 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 10 EXISTING BOUNDARY & ENCUMBRANCES LEGAL DESCRIPTION TITLE REPORT EXCEPTIONS TITLE REPORT EXCEPTIONS (CONT.)TITLE REPORT EXCEPTIONS (CONT.)TITLE REPORT EXCEPTIONS (CONT.) “” “ ” “” TITLE REPORT EXCEPTIONS (CONT.) “” “ ” L A C O S T A A V E .CALLETIMITEOPVT. DR. AISLE "C"PVT. DR. AISLE "D"PVT. DR. AISLE "E"PVT. DR. AISLE "F"PVT. DR. AISLE "G"PVT. DR. AISLE "H"PVT. DR. AISLE "I"PVT. DR. AISLE "J"PVT. DR. AISLEPV T. DR. A IS LE "B" PVT. DR. AISLE "B""A"2 1 CAMI NO LASCOCHESBLDG. NO. 15BLDG. NO. 14BLDG. NO. 13BLDG. NO. 12BLDG. NO. 11BLDG. NO. 9B L D G. NO . 4 BLDG. NO. 10BLDG. NO. 8BLDG. NO. 7BLDG. NO. 6BLDG. NO. 2BLDG. NO. 19BLDG. NO. 18BLDG. NO. 16BLDG. NO. 5BLDG. NO. 3BLDG. NO. 17BLDG. NO . 1 PVT. DR. AISLE "B"PROJECTBOUNDARY PROJECTBOUNDARY 11 PREPARED BY: HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES OF SHEET 12 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND PARCEL 3 AMEND 2017-0012/CT2017-0003/PUD2017-0004/SDP2018-0018 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ACCESSIBILITY ROUTE LEGEND PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE ROUTE L A C O S T A A V E .CALLETIMITEOPVT. DR. AISLE "C"PVT. DR. AISLE "D"PVT. DR. AISLE "E"PVT. DR. AISLE "F"PVT. DR. AISLE "G"PVT. DR. AISLE "H"PVT. DR. AISLE "I"PVT. DR. AISLE "J"PVT. DR. AISLEPV T.DR. A IS LE "B" PVT. DR. AISLE "B""A"2 1 CAMI NO LASCOCHESBLDG. NO. 15BLDG. NO. 14BLDG. NO. 13BLDG. NO. 12BLDG. NO. 11BLDG. NO. 9B L D G. NO . 4 BLDG. NO. 10BLDG. NO. 8BLDG. NO. 7BLDG. NO. 6BLDG. NO. 2BLDG. NO. 19BLDG. NO. 18BLDG. NO. 16BLDG. NO. 5BLDG. NO. 3BLDG. NO. 17BLDG. NO . 1 PVT. DR. AISLE "B"BOUNDARY BOUNDARY PROJECT PROJECT 12 PREPARED BY: HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES OF SHEET 12 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND PARCEL 3 AMEND 2017-0012/CT2017-0003/PUD2017-0004/SDP2018-0018 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FIRE EXHIBIT FIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND DETAILLEGEND PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED FIRE WATER LINE FIRE TRUCK WIDTH: 8.5 FT TRACK: 8.5 FT LOCK TO LOCK TIME: 6.00 SEC. STEERING ANGLE: 33.3 DEG. 218.3 43 PATH FRONT TIRES VEHICLE BODY REC AREAS-13S-03P-06P-08P-09P-11H-14P-16P-21H-34C-50S-53 S-30F F F MFWWW W W PVT. DR. AISLE PVT. DR. AISLE "B"C-52EV-59PVT. DR. AISLE "B""A"REC AREAREC AREAREC AREAS-01S-02EV-05P-15P-18P-19H-32P-12WWFFFWWWFFFWWFFWWWFFFW W W F F F W W W F F F WWWFFFWWFFS-22C-41S-60 S-40EV-58REC AREAFMWF W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW W WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF F F H-33RWBLDG. NO. 15 BLDG. NO. 14 BLDG. NO. 13BLDG. NO. 12BLDG. NO. 11BLDG. NO. 9BLDG. NO. 4BLDG. NO. 10BLDG. NO. 8BLDG. NO. 7BLDG. NO. 6BLDG. NO. 2BLDG. NO. 19BLDG. NO. 18BLDG. NO. 16BLDG. NO. 5BLDG. NO. 3BLDG. NO. 17BLDG. NO . 1ASPH.ASPH.DENSE TREES2852752852652652 7 5 2 8 5 295 305315 3 2 5 3353253353353153253253252752652 6 5TREES275280280280290 2702802902702702 8 0 2903003103 2 0 330320330320330320280270LOT 15MAP 15998LOT 17MAP 11636CALLETIMITEO13LACOSTAAVENUERWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW RW XXXXXXXXXXXXRRRRRXXXXXXXXXRRXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXSIGHT LINEACDEFGHR.O.W.ACCESSIBLESIDEWALKRETAININGWALL, TYP.EXISTINGBIO-FILTRATION BASINRETAININGWALLSPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTYLINEPRIVACYVIEW FENCEI30' SETBACKSEWEREASEMENTPLANTING WITHIN SIGHTTRIANGLE SHALL NOTEXCEED 30" IN HEIGHT.LA COSTA AVE. STREETFRONTAGE IS 887 L.F. ATLEAST 30 TREESPROVIDED IN STREETARTERIAL TO MEET 1TREE PER 30 L..F.3" CALIPERLOPHOSTEMONCONFERTUS1.5" CALIPERLOPHOSTEMONCONFERTUS2" CALIPERQUERCUSAGRIFOLIAJENHANCED PAVING AT CTHROUGH J, TYP.PLANTING ON EXISTING SLOPE SHALL BE SUPPLEMENTED ASNEEDED TO MEET CITY LANDSCAPE MANUAL REQUIREMENTS, TYP.SIGHT LINEPLANTING WITHIN SIGHTTRIANGLE SHALL NOTEXCEED 30" IN HEIGHT.PLANTINGADJACENT TOPARKING EDGESSHALL BE APPROX.THREE FEET (3')HEIGHT, TYP.BKPROPOSED DEBRIS FENCETO BE INSTALLED ON TOP OFEXISTING RETAINING WALL,PER FENCE RETROFITREPORT.ENHANCED PAVING ATPRIVATE ST. A, TYP.PREPARED BY:OFSHEET6CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIALA COSTA TOWNTENTATIVE MAP ANDSQUARE PARCEL 3GRAPHIC SCALE 1"= 30'-0"30 15 0603090WYAC PROJECT #16-029.000PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITI AM FAMILIAR WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS CONTAINED IN THECITY OF CARLSBAD'S LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS. I HAVEPREPARED THIS PLAN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE REGULATIONS AND THE LANDSCAPE MANUAL ANDAGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS WHEN SUBMITTING CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. ICERTIFY THAT THE PLAN IMPLEMENTS THOSE REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER.9/6/18PAT CAUGHEYDATE1CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLANVICINITY MAPNTSROADAIRPORTCARLSBADBLVD.LACOSTAAVE.RANCHO SANTAFE ALGAPROJECTSITERD. REALPALOMARPOILANERD.LAGOONBATIQUITOSNSETTIA5 AVIARAPKWY.ITASBLVD.CINENEL CAMINOCAMINODE LASCOCHESNPROJECT APPLICATION #:AMEND 2017-0012 / CT 2017-0003 / PUD 2017-0004SDP 2018-0018MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET 2LANDSCAPE NOTES:1. SEE SHEET 2 FOR SLOPE PLANTING NOTES.2. SEE SHEET 3 FOR LANDSCAPE CONCEPT LEGEND AND NOTES.3. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY COMMON HOA. FPASPH.305305275LA COSTA AVE280290270310310RWWPREPARED BY:OFSHEET6CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIALA COSTA TOWNTENTATIVE MAP ANDSQUARE PARCEL 3GRAPHIC SCALE 1"= 30'-0"30 15 0603090WYAC PROJECT #16-029.000PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT2CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLANPROJECT APPLICATION #:AMEND 2017-0012 / CT 2017-0003 / PUD 2017-0004SDP 2018-0018MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET 1OFF-SITE BASIN PLANTINGSLOPES 6:1 OR STEEPER REQUIRING EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS SPECIFIEDHEREIN SHALL BE TREATED WITH ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING PLANTINGSTANDARDS:a. STANDARD 1 - COVER CROP/REINFORCED STRAW MATTING:COVER CROP SHALL BE A SEED MIX TYPICALLY MADE UP OF QUICK GERMINATINGAND FAST COVERING GRASSES, CLOVERS, AND/OR WILD FLOWERS. SUBMIT THESPECIFIC SEED MIX FOR CITY APPROVAL PRIOR TO APPLICATION. THE COVERCROP SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE AND MANNER SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE 90%COVERAGE WITHIN THIRTY {30} DAYS.TYPE OF REINFORCED STRAW MATTING SHALL BE AS APPROVED BY THE CITYAND STAKED TO THE SLOPE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER.REINFORCED STRAW MATTING SHALL BE REQUIRED WHEN PLANTING OCCURSBETWEEN AUGUST 15 AND APRIL 15. THE COVER CROP AND/OR REINFORCEDSTRAW MAT SHALL BE USED THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR.b. STANDARD #2 - GROUND COVERONE HUNDRED {100%} PERCENT OF THE AREA SHALL BE PLANTED WITH AGROUND COVER KNOWN TO HAVE EXCELLENT SOIL BINDING CHARACTERISTICS(PLANTED FROM A MINIMUM SIZE OF FLATTED MATERIAL AND SPACED TOPROVIDE FULL COVERAGE WITHIN ONE YEAR).c. STANDARD #3 - LOW SHRUBSLOW SPREADING WOODY SHRUBS {PLANTED FROM A MINIMUM OF 1 GALLON)SHALL COVER A MINIMUM OF SEVENTY {70%} PERCENT OF THE SLOPE FACE (ATMATURE SIZE).d. STANDARD #4 - TREES AND/OR LARGE SHRUBSTREES AND/OR LARGE SHRUBS SHALL BE {PLANTED FROM A MINIMUM OF 1GALLON CONTAINERS) AT A MINIMUM RATE OF ON {1) PER TWO HUNDRED {200}SQUARE FEET.SLOPES - 6:1 OR STEEPER AND:a. 3' OR LESS IN VERTICAL HEIGHT AND ARE ADJACENT TO PUBLIC WALKS OR STREETSREQUIRE AT MINIMUM STANDARD #1.b. 3' TO 8' IN VERTICAL HEIGHT REQUIRE STANDARDS #1 (EROSION CONTROL MATTINGSHALL BE INSTALLEDIN LIEU OF A COVER CROP), #2 AND #3.c. IN EXCESS OF 8' IN VERTICAL HEIGHT REQUIRE STANDARDS #1 (EROSION CONTROLMATTING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LIEU OF A COVER CROP), #2, #3, AND #4.AREAS GRADED FLATTER THAN 6:1 REQUIRE STANDARD #1 (COVER CROP) WITHTEMPORARY IRRIGATION WHEN THEY HAVE ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWINGCONDITIONS:a. SHEET GRADED PADS NOT SCHEDULED FOR IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN 6 MONTHS OFCOMPLETION OF ROUGH GRADING.b. A POTENTIAL EROSION PROBLEM AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY. .c. IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY AS HIGHLY VISIBLE AREAS TO THE PUBLIC OR HAVE SPECIALCONDITIONS THAT WARRANT IMMEDIATE TREATMENT.LANDSCAPE NOTES:1. SEE SHEET 3 FOR LANDSCAPE CONCEPT LEGEND AND NOTES.2. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY COMMON HOA. XRENTRY PALMS22PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA `MEDJOOL` / DATE PALM12` BTHSYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA / QUEEN PALM12` BTHENTRY TREES11JACARANDA MIMOSIFOLIA / JACARANDA48"BOXOLEA EUROPAEA `MAJESTIC BEAUTY` / MAJESTIC BEAUTY FRUITLESS OLIVE48"BOXTIPUANA TIPU / TIPU TREE48"BOXRECREATION SPACE25PISTACIA CHINENSIS / CHINESE PISTACHE36"BOXULMUS PARVIFOLIA `TRUE GREEN` / TRUE GREEN ELM36"BOXX CHITALPA TASHKENTENSIS `MORNING CLOUD` / MORNING CLOUD CHITALPA36"BOXACCENT TREES45HANDROANTHUS IMPETIGINOSUS / PINK TRUMPET TREE24"BOXLAGERSTROEMIA X `MUSKOGEE` / LAVENDER CRAPE MYRTLE MULTI-TRUNK24"BOXX CHITALPA TASHKENTENSIS `PINK DAWN` / PINK DAWN CHITALPA24"BOXINTERIOR TREES30ACACIA STENOPHYLLA / SHOESTRING ACACIA24"BOXGEIJERA PARVIFLORA / AUSTRALIAN WILLOW24"BOXLOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS / BRISBANE BOX24"BOXCOURTYARD TREES12CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS `GLAUCA` / ITALIAN CYPRESS24"BOXMAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA `LITTLE GEM` / DWARF SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA24"BOXPODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUS MAKI / SHRUBBY YEW24"BOXSLOPE TREES53LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS / BRISBANE BOX24"BOXPLATANUS RACEMOSA / CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE24"BOXQUERCUS AGRIFOLIA / COAST LIVE OAK24"BOXEXISTING TREE TO REMAIN38EXISTING TREE TO REMOVE8SCREENING TREES35PINUS CANARIENSIS / CANARY ISLAND PINE24"BOXPINUS ELDARICA / AFGHAN PINE24"BOXPINUS HALEPENSIS / ALLEPO PINE24"BOXEXISTING PLANTING TO REMAINFOUNDATION PLANTINGACACIA COGNATA `COUSIN ITT` / RIVER WATTLE5 GAL 15% @ 48" ocACANTHUS MOLLIS / BEAR`S BREECH5 GAL 5% @ 36" ocARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA `HOWARD MCMINN` / HOWARD MCMINN MANZANITA 5 GAL 20% @ 84" ocCALLISTEMON VIMINALIS `SLIM` / BOTTLE BRUSH15 GAL 10% @ 48" ocCOPROSMA REPENS `MARBLE QUEEN` / MARBLE QUEEN MIRROR PLANT5 GAL 15% @ 48" ocJUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM `SKYROCKET` / SKYROCKET JUNIPER15 GAL 10% @ 36" ocMAHONIA `SOFT CARESS / SOFT CARESS OREGON GRAPE5 GAL 10% @ 36" ocMAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM `COMPACTA` / COMPACT OREGON GRAPE5 GAL 15% @ 36" ocRECREATION TURFPASPALUM VAGINATUM `PLATINUM TE` / PLATINUM PASPALUMSOLID SODDRIVEWAY PLANTINGAGAVE X `BLUE GLOW` / BLUE GLOW AGAVE1 GAL 10% @ 24" ocARCTOSTAPHYLOS X `EMERALD CARPET` / EMERALD CARPET MANZANITA5 GAL 20% @ 36" ocFESTUCA MAIREI / ATLAS FESCUE1 GAL 20% @ 24" ocRHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA `SPRINGTIME` TM / SPRINGTIME INDIAN HAWTHORNE5 GAL 20% @ 48" ocROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `TUSCAN BLUE` / TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY5 GAL 15% @ 48" ocWESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `BLUE GEM` / COAST ROSEMARY5 GAL 15% @ 36" ocACCENT PLANTINGALOE X `BLUE ELF` / ALOE1 GAL 10% @ 18" ocCALLISTEMON VIMINALIS `LITTLE JOHN` / DWARF WEEPING BOTTLEBRUSH5 GAL 15% @ 48" ocCOPROSMA X `PACIFIC SUNSET` / PACIFIC SUNSET MIRROR PLANT5 GAL 20% @ 36" ocDIANELLA CAERULEA `CLARITY BLUE` / DIANELLA1 GAL 15% @ 24" ocHESPERALOE PARVIFLORA / RED YUCCA5 GAL 15% @ 36" ocLEONOTIS LEONURUS / LION`S TAIL5 GAL 10% @ 48" ocWESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `BLUE GEM` / COAST ROSEMARY5 GAL 15% @ 36" ocSCREENING PLANTINGCALLISTEMON VIMINALIS `SLIM` / BOTTLE BRUSH15 GAL 20% @ 36" ocHETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA / TOYON15 GAL 20% @ 96" ocLAURUS NOBILIS `LITTLE RAGU` / SWEET BAY15 GAL 20% @ 72" ocMETROSIDEROS COLLINA `SPRINGFIRE` / NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE15 GAL 20% @ 72" ocRHUS INTEGRIFOLIA / LEMONADE BERRY15 GAL 20% @ 96" ocSLOPE PLANTINGACACIA COGNATA `COUSIN ITT` / RIVER WATTLE5 GAL 10% @ 48" ocBACCHARIS PILULARIS `PIGEON POINT` / COYOTE BRUSH1 GAL 25% @ 72" ocBOUGAINVILLEA X `LA JOLLA` / BOUGAINVILLEA5 GAL 13% @ 60" ocHETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA / TOYON5 GAL 10% @ 84" ocLANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS `PURPLE` / TRAILING LANTANA1 GAL 12% @ 72" ocROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `TUSCAN BLUE` / TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY5 GAL 15% @ 48" ocSALVIA CLEVELANDII `WINIFRED GILLMAN` / CLEVELAND SAGE5 GAL 15% @ 48" ocVINECLYTOSTOMA CALLISTEGIOIDES / VIOLET TRUMPET VINE5 GAL 33% @ 72" ocDISTICTIS BUCCINATORIA / BLOOD RED TRUMPET VINE5 GAL 34% @ 72" ocPANDOREA JASMINOIDES `ROSEA` / JASMINE PANDOREA5 GAL 33% @ 72" ocBIORETENTION PLANTINGIVA HAYESIANA / SAN DIEGO POVERTY WEED5 GAL 25% @ 60" ocJUNCUS PATENS / CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH1 GAL 25% @ 24" ocRIBES SPECIOSUM / FUCHSIA FLOWERING GOOSEBERRY5 GAL 25% @ 60" ocROSA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA WILD ROSE5 GAL 25% @ 84" ocCONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULECONCEPT AMENITY SPACES SUCH AS:A. RECREATION SPACE- TURF AREAS- SEATINGB. GATHERING/RECREATION SPACE- HORSESHOE PIT AND SEATINGC. PLAYGROUND RECREATION SPACE- PLAYGROUND W/ RUBBERIZED SURFACING- SEATINGD. GATHERING/RECREATION SPACE- HORSESHOE PIT AND SEATINGE. GATHERING/RECREATION SPACE- ENCHANCED CONCRETE PAVING W/ TRELLIS, BBQ, AND SEATINGF. RECREATION SPACE- TURF AREASG. PLAYGROUND RECREATION SPACE- PLAYGROUND W/ RUBBERIZED SURFACING- SEATINGH. ENTRY ART ELEMENT - ENHANCED CONCRETE PAVINGI. GATHERING SPACE- BENCHES AND FIRE PLACEJ. GATHERING / EATING SPACE- TRELLIS W/SEATING & BBQK. RECREATION SPACE- BOCCE BALL COURTSYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION PEDESTRIAN LIGHTED BOLLARD, CUT-OFF SHIELD STYLE, TYP. LANDSCAPE ACCENT UPLIGHT, AT ENTRY MEDIAN, TYP. POLE MOUNTED VEHICULAR SITE LIGHTING, 20` HEIGHT, LED OR AS REQUIRED BY CODE, TYP.LIGHTING SCHEDULEPREPARED BY:OFSHEET6CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIALA COSTA TOWNTENTATIVE MAP ANDSQUARE PARCEL 3WYAC PROJECT #16-029.000PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT31. ALL PLANTING AND FINISH GRADING OPERATIONS SHALL BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROJECT DRAWINGS, DETAILS, AND PROJECTSPECIFICATIONS. REFER TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALL PLANTING REQUIREMENTS. FINE GRADE ALL PLANTING AREAS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OFPLANTING OPERATIONS.2. SEE THIS SHEET FOR PLANTING LEGEND AND NOTES.3. CONTRACTOR SHALL INFORM THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF ANY CHANGED CONDITIONS WHICH OCCUR ONPROJECT SITE WHICH ARE NOT REFLECTED ON PLANS.4. REMOVE ALL WEEDS, DEBRIS, AND ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE-HALF-INCH (1/2") FROM ALL PLANTING AREAS, AND DISPOSE OF APPROPRIATELY OFF-SITE.5. FINISH GRADE OF SOIL SHALL BE TWO-INCHES (2") BELOW ADJACENT FINISH PAVING SURFACE OR CURB WITHIN SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER AREAS, AND ONE-INCH(1") BELOW ADJACENT FINISH PAVING SURFACE OR CURB WITHIN TURF AREAS.6. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ELECTRONIC PHOTOGRAPHS OF ALL PROPOSED TREES TO BE INSTALLED, TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TOPURCHASE AND INSTALLATION. EACH TREE PHOTOGRAPH SHALL INCLUDE GRAPHIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE TREE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: DIAMETER ATBREAST HEIGHT, OVERALL HEIGHT, TRUNK HEIGHT, CROWN WIDTH AND HEIGHT, AND NURSERY SOURCE.7. ALL TREES SHALL BE SINGLE-TRUNK STANDARDS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS. FOR TREES WITHIN FIVE FEET FROM HARDSCAPE AREAS,CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL ROOT BARRIERS PER SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS.8. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SUN, WIND, HEAT, AND FROST DURING TRANSPORTATION TO THE SITE AND DURING STORAGE AT THE SITE. DO NOTSTORE PLANTS IN TOTAL DARKNESS FOR MORE THAN ONE DAY.9. DO NOT DAMAGE PLANT ROOT BALL DURING TRANSPORTATION OR PLANTING PROCESS.10. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY OF ANY PLANT MATERIAL WHICH HAS BEEN DAMAGED OR IS IN POORCONDITION. THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL DETERMINE ACCEPTABILITY OF SUBJECT PLANT MATERIAL.11. PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BEFORE PLANTING. PLANT MATERIAL MAY BE REJECTED ATANY TIME BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE DUE TO POOR CONDITION, FORM, OR DAMAGE PRIOR TO, DURING, OR AFTER THE PLANTING PROCESS. ANY PLANTBROUGHT TO THE CONSTRUCTION SITE WHICH IS FOUND TO HAVE DISEASE OR INVASIVE SPECIES SHALL BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY.12. ALL ON-SITE PLANT MATERIALS (BALL AND BURLAP, CONTAINERS, TEMPORARILY STAGED IN BARK MULCH, AND/OR PLANTED IN THE GROUND) SHALL BE PROPERLYWATERED AND MAINTAINED TO ENSURE HEALTHY GROWTH.13. AT LEAST ONE PLANT OF EACH SPECIES DELIVERED TO THE SITE SHALL HAVE AN IDENTIFICATION TAG FROM THE SUPPLYING NURSERY SHOWING BOTH COMMONAND SCIENTIFIC NAMES.14. THE PLANTING PLANS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE SPOTTED APPROXIMATELY AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. TREE LOCATIONS ARE TO BEAPPROVED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO EXCAVATION FOR PLANTING PITS AND REMOVAL FROM CONTAINERS. FINALLAYOUT OF ALL OTHER PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE APPROVED IN THE FIELD BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PLANTING.15. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING PLANT MATERIALS SUFFICIENT TO COVER AREAS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AT THE SPECIFIED SPACINGS.QUANTITIES ARE PROVIDED ON THE PLANS FOR REFERENCE ONLY.16. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT AN AGRICULTURAL SUITABILITY AND FERTILITY ANALYSIS REPORT (SOILS ANALYSIS REPORT FROM REPRESENTATIVE ON-SITE SOILSAMPLES - SEE SPECIFICATIONS) TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO ANY PLANTING WORK OR SOILAMENDMENT INCORPORATION. THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOILS ANALYSIS REPORT FOR TOPSOIL AMENDMENT AND BACKFILL MIX AMENDMENT SHALLSUPERSEDE THE RECOMMENDATIONS LISTED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS.17. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE PLANTING WORK WITH THE WORK OF OTHER TRADES AND PROFESSIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN PROPER DRAINAGEDURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION.18. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION OF EXISTING PROPOSED UTILITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY INSTALLATION.IMMEDIATELY CONTACT THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IF A CONFLICT IS EVIDENT.19. REMOVE ALL TYING MATERIALS, MARKING TAPES, AND NURSERY STAKES AT THE TIME OF PLANTING.20. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A THREE-INCH (3") LAYER OF BARK MULCH IN ALL SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER AREAS WITH SLOPES SHALLOWER THAN THREE-TO-ONE(3:1) GRADIENT.21. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ON ALL SLOPES WITH THREE-TO-ONE (3:1) GRADIENT AND GREATER.22. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL BERESPONSIBLE FOR THE REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY DAMAGES INCURRED.23. THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD SHALL BEGIN ONLY UPON WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPLETED PLANTED AREAS BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.24. 50% OF SHRUBS (EXCEPT ON SLOPES 3:1 OR STEEPER) SHALL BE A MINIMUM 5 GALLON SIZE.25. ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE SCREENED.26. LANDSCAPE SHALL HAVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM STRUCTURES TO APPROVED DRAINAGE SYSTEM.27. WHEN IRRIGATION IS USED FOR VEGETATION WITHIN 24" OF AN IMPERMEABLE SURFACE, OVERHEAD IRRIGATION SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED AND ONLYSUBSURFACE IRRIGATION SHALL BE USED, UNLESS THE ADJACENT IMPERMEABLE SURFACE IS DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO CAUSE WATER TO DRAINENTIRELY INTO LANDSCAPE AREA.28. EXISTING SLOPE LANDSCAPING SHALL BE REFURBISHED, REPLACING DEAD/MISSING PLANT MATERIAL AS APPROPRIATE TO MEET LANDSCAPE MANUALREQUIREMENTS.PLANTING NOTES:NOTES & SCHEDULECONCEPT LANDSCAPEPROJECT APPLICATION #:AMEND 2017-0012 / CT 2017-0003 / PUD 2017-0004SDP 2018-0018 REC AREAS-13H-14BLDG. NO. 11BLDG. NO. 10HIJREC AREABLDG. NO. 2BLDG. NO. 1RRCREC AREAEFEV-59 REC AREAEV-58 GPREPARED BY:OFSHEET6CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIALA COSTA TOWNTENTATIVE MAP ANDSQUARE PARCEL 3GRAPHIC SCALE 1"= 30'-0"30 15 0603090WYAC PROJECT #16-029.000PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT4CONCEPT LANDSCAPE VIGNETTESCONCEPT AMENITY SPACE E & FRECREATION, OUTDOOR EATING, AND GATHERING SPACE3,201 SFPASSIVE RECREATIONTURF AREAPEDESTRIAN LIGHTBOLLARD, TYP.STABILIZED D.G.TRELLIS WITH ATTACHEDLIGHTING ELEMENTSTABLE/ CHAIR SEATINGBBQ GRILLS WITHPREPARATION TABLEPASSIVE RECREATIONTURF AREAPEDESTRIAN LIGHTBOLLARD, TYP.BENCH SEATINGPLAY STRUCTURE -2-5 YR. AGEPLAY ELEMENT -2-5 YR. AGERUBBERIZED PLAYSURFACINGCONCEPT AMENITY SPACE GPLAYGROUND - 2-5 YR AGE RANGE1,055 SFCONCEPT AMENITY SPACE CPLAYGROUND - 5-12 YR. AGE RANGE2,134 SFSITE PERIMETERFENCESITE PERIMETERFENCEPEDESTRIAN LIGHTBOLLARD, TYP.PLAY STRUCTURE -5-12 YR. AGERUBBERIZED PLAYSURFACINGBENCH SEATINGPASSIVE RECREATIONTURF AREAPLAY ELEMENT -5-12 YR. AGECONCEPT AMENITY SPACE HART ELEMENT AND SEATING1,050 SFCONCEPT AMENITY SPACE IOUTDOOR GATHERING SPACE1,045 SFCONCEPT AMENITY SPACE JOUTDOOR EATING AND GATHERING SPACE1,050 SFTRELLIS WITH ATTACHEDLIGHTING ELEMENTSBBQ GRILLS WITHPREPARATION TABLEBENCH SEATINGFIRE RINGPEDESTRIAN LIGHTBOLLARD, TYP.BUILT-IN SEATINGDECORATIVECONCRETEART ELEMENTDECORATIVECONCRETECONCEPT AMENITY SPACE A (SEE CONCEPT PLAN)PASSIVE RECREATION AND SEATING1,580 SFCONCEPT AMENITY SPACE B (SEE CONCEPT PLAN)HORSESHOE PIT AND SEATING768 SFCONCEPT AMENITY SPACE D (SEE CONCEPT PLAN)HORSESHOE PIT AND SEATING1,176 SFCONCEPT AMENITY SPACE K (SEE CONCEPT PLAN)BOCCE BALL COURT1,605 SFPRIVACY VIEW FENCEBLACK COATED TUBE STEELPROJECT APPLICATION #:AMEND 2017-0012 / CT 2017-0003 / PUD 2017-0004SDP 2018-0018TABLE/ CHAIRSEATING REC AREAS-13S-03P-06P-08P-09P-11H-14P-16P-21H-34C-50S-53 S-30F F F MFWWW W W PVT. DR. AISLE PVT. DR. AISLE "B"C-52EV-59PVT. DR. AISLE "B""A"REC AREAREC AREAREC AREAS-01S-02EV-05P-15P-18P-19H-32P-12WWFFFWWWFFFWWFFWWWFFFW W W F F F W W W F F F WWWFFFWWFFS-22C-41S-60 S-40EV-58REC AREAFMWF W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF F F H-33RWBLDG. NO. 15 BLDG. NO. 14 BLDG. NO. 13BLDG. NO. 12BLDG. NO. 11BLDG. NO. 9BLDG. NO. 4BLDG. NO. 10BLDG. NO. 8BLDG. NO. 7BLDG. NO. 6BLDG. NO. 2BLDG. NO. 19BLDG. NO. 18BLDG. NO. 16BLDG. NO. 5BLDG. NO. 3BLDG. NO. 17BLDG. NO . 1ASPH.ASPH.DENSE TREES2852752852652 6 5 275285295 30531 5 325335325335335315325325325275265265TREES2752802802802902702802902702 7 0 2802 9 0 3003103 2 0 330340320330320330320280270LOT 15MAP 15998LOT 17MAP 11636MAP 11391CALLETIMITEO13LACOSTAAVENUERWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW RW R.O.W.EXISTING RECYCLED WATERIRRIGATION TO REMAIN,PROTECT IN PLACE (REDCOLOR)PROPOSED RECYCLED WATERIRRIGATION POINT OF CONNECTIONINCLUDING METER, CONTROLLER,MASTER VALVE, AND FLOWSENSOR. PROPOSED IRRIGATIONSHALL CONNECT TO THIS POINT OFCONNECTION.PROPOSED RECYCLEDWATER IRRIGATION.(PURPLE COLOR)PROPOSED POTABLEWATER LINE.PROPOSED FIREWATER LINE.305275LA COSTA AVE270310310RWPREPARED BY:OFSHEET6CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIALA COSTA TOWNTENTATIVE MAP ANDSQUARE PARCEL 3GRAPHIC SCALE 1"= 30'-0"30 15 0603090WYAC PROJECT #16-029.000PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITSEE SHEET 5 FOR WATERCONSERVATION CONCEPTLEGEND AND NOTES.5HYDROZONE PLANWATER CONSERVATION ANDPROJECT APPLICATION #:AMEND 2017-0012 / CT 2017-0003 / PUD 2017-0004SDP 2018-0018MATCHLINE, SEE ABOVE MATCHLINE, SEE BELOW IRRIGATION NOTES:- PROPOSED IRRIGATION SHALL CONNECT TO PROPOSED 1 1/2" RECYCLED WATER IRRIGATION METER (PER CIVIL). POINTOF CONNECTION SHALL INCLUDE 1 1/2" MASTER VALVE AND FLOW SENSOR. IRRIGATION SYSTEM CONTROLLED BYWEATHER-BASED "SMART" CONTROLLER.WATER CONSERVATION FEATURES:1. 3" DEPTH BARK MULCH IN ALL PLANTER AREAS TO ASSIST REGULATING EVAPOTRANSPIRATION.2. REQUIRING SOIL TESTING AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CONTRACTORS FOLLOWING ANY GRADING OPERATIONS.3. SOIL AMENDMENTS BASED UPON SOIL TESTING WHICH WILL AIDE IN NUTRIENT ABSORPTION BY PLANTING MATERIAL.4. UTILIZATION OF NATIVE/ADAPTIVE PLANTING MATERIAL TO MINIMIZE WATER NEEDS.5. ONLY UTILIZING TURF IN HIGH USE RECREATION AREAS.6. INSTALLING 'SMART' WEATHER-BASED CONTROLLER(S).7. IRRIGATING UTILIZING RECYCLED WATER.8. IRRIGATING WITH SUB-GRADE DRIP IRRIGATION IN SHRUB AREAS AND HIGH-EFFICIENT OVERHEAD SPRAYS IN TURFAREAS.9. OWNER WILL HIRE QUALIFIED, EXPERIENCED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE COMPANY TO PROVIDE PROPER LANDSCAPEMAINTENANCE.10. WATERING IN THE LATE EVENING/EARLY MORNING TO REDUCE EVAPORATION.11. CONTINUALLY ADJUSTING WATER RUN TIMES TO MORE EFFICIENTLY WATER PLANTING.HYDROZONE LEGEND:TREES - LOW WATER USE ON BUBBLERS (2,950 SF)TREES - MEDIUM WATER USE ON BUBBLERS (2,550 SF)SHRUBS - LOW WATER USE ON SPRAYS (18,682 SF)SHRUBS - LOW WATER USE ON DRIP (19,494 SF)SHRUBS - MEDIUM WATER USE ON DRIP (12,067 SF)TURF - HIGH WATER USE ON SPRAYS (5,342 SF)PREPARED BY:OFSHEET6CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIALA COSTA TOWNTENTATIVE MAP ANDSQUARE PARCEL 3WYAC PROJECT #16-029.000PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT6SCHEDULE & CALCSWATER CONSERVATIONPROJECT APPLICATION #:AMEND 2017-0012 / CT 2017-0003 / PUD 2017-0004SDP 2018-0018