HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-07-10; City Council; ; Village and Barrio Master PlanOver forty percent of the Village and Barrio Master Plan area is in the Coastal Zone. If the City
Council approves the master plan, it will not be effective in the Coastal Zone until approved by
the California Coastal Commission.
Discussion
Consistency with Carlsbad Community Vision and other guidance. Core values of the Carlsbad
Community Vision emphasize enhancing the city's small town feel and beach community
character and connectedness, increasing travel options through means other than the
automobile, and revitalizing its neighborhoods. Moreover, the Carlsbad Community Vision
specifically identifies the objectives of Village revitalization and Barrio rejuvenation. Consistent
with the vision, a FY 2018-2019 City Council goal is to "enhance the health and vitality of the
Village and Barrio by obtaining all outside agency approvals needed to implement a Village and
Barrio Master Plan by 2020."
A comprehensive discussion of master plan consistency with the Carlsbad Community Vision
and many other influencing documents is contained in the plan's first chapter.
Planning Commission action and comments. The Planning Commission considered the Village
and Barrio Master Plan over three successive meetings. The Commission opened the public
hearing on April 18, received a staff presentation, opened and closed public testimony, and
began its discussion. This discussion continued to May 2, 2018 and May 16, 2018. On May 16,
2018, the Planning Commission recommended plan approval with amendments (5-1, with Chair
Montgomery voting no).
The methodical plan review by Commissioners included discussion of building height, design
review and design guidelines, parking, bicycle facilities, standards to preserve a Village
commercial core, and the "Barrio" name. Staff responded to the Commission's direction and
comments by producing errata sheets for the May 2 and 16 meetings that recommended
changes to the master plan.
Along with its May 16 motion to recommend plan approval, the Planning Commission directed
staff to make plan changes regarding chain link fencing, a Barrio residential parking standard,
and street name signs/neighborhood identification; these are provided in the fourth errata
sheet, discussed in the next section. The Commission also recommended forwarding the
following specific concerns and comments to the City Council:
• Prioritizing Barrio street improvements: The Commission expressed concern about the
need for immediate attention to traffic calming in the Barrio. (Note: The master plan
already prioritizes this concern through policies, standards and identified
implementation actions. For example, Policy 1.5.3 A.2 on page 1-18 states in part
"dedicate special and immediate attention to traffic calming on principal and key Barrio
streets ... " And, the Implementation Action Matrix on page 5-9 identifies
implementation of Barrio traffic calming measures as a Phase 1 (1-2 year) action.)
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 2 of 321
• The "Barrio" name: Commissioners recommended the City Council consider the
appropriateness of the name "Barrio." Some community members have suggested
"South Village" as an alternate primary name with "Historic Barrio" appearing as a
secondary or special title on Barrio entryway or street name signs. (Note: As this is not a
land use matter, staff does not take a position on this topic.)
• Design review/consultant architect: The Commission debated the merits of a design
review board to critique design and architecture. The board's comments could aid
applicants with early-on feedback and the city and the public with professional advice.
However, this idea was not supported by a majority of the Commission. Instead of a
design review board, Commissioners also weighed the benefits of retaining a consulting
architect to aid staff in project review. While no consensus was reached, Commissioners
were supportive of this idea being presented to the City Council. (Note: Staff believes
the hiring of a consulting architect, if desired, would not trigger a change to the master
plan but would be an additional administrative function of the Planning Division, subject
to budget authority.)
Finally, a Commissioner questioned the master plan's use of the term "cycle track," or bikeways
that are protected from vehicle lanes. Staff reviewed the plan and finds its use of the term
acceptable.
Errata sheets: Staff produced four errata sheets to respond to not only Planning Commission
direction and remarks but also some public comments as well. The first three errata sheets
were provided for Commissioner consideration at the April 18, May 2, and May 16 meetings.
Staff prepared the fourth and final errata sheet following the Commission's May 16 discussion,
the contents of which are summarized above. The four separate errata sheets are provided as
an attachment to Planning Commission Resolution No. 7294, Exhibit 6, to this City Council staff
report. The four errata sheets have also been combined into a single document to reflect all
Planning Commission recommended changes. Please see Attachment B to Exhibit 3, the
proposed ordinance repealing the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and approving the
Village and Barrio Master Plan.
To respond to recent California Coastal Commission action and correct an oversight, staff has
also prepared a separate, fifth errata sheet for City Council consideration, provided as
Attachment C to Exhibit 3. On June 7, 2018, the Coastal Commission approved with
modifications recent city amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and existing Village Master Plan
and Design Manual. The amendments, approved by City Council in 2017 but effective in the
Coastal Zone only upon Commission approval, clarify that actions prohibited in the Carlsbad
Municipal Code are also prohibited in the two documents. The City Council-approved
amendments were incorporated into the proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan.
Consistent with the Commission's modifications, the fifth errata sheet would amend the master
plan's permitted uses table (Table 2-1) by replacing the general term "actions prohibited in the
Carlsbad Municipal Code" with the specific prohibited actions. These prohibited actions or uses
are camping on public property, cannabis activities, card rooms, retail sales of dogs and cats,
and mini-satellite wagering. They would be added to the list of expressly prohibited uses the
master plan already identifies.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 3 of 321
The errata sheet also corrects an oversight in the third errata sheet by imposing the same area
limits on fourth stories in the Hospitality and Freeway Commercial districts of the master plan
as the third errata proposed for the Village Center district. This change deletes the word
"occupiable;" by so doing, the size of the entire enclosed fourth floor space, not just that
considered occupiable, is restricted.
Public comments: As contained in the minutes for the April 18 Planning Commission meeting
(see Exhibit 10), eighteen people spoke during public testimony, which closed after the last
speaker. In addition, the city received significant written testimony, beginning soon after the
release of the third draft, January 2018, and following the Commission's last meeting on May
16. Written correspondence received is provided as Exhibit 13. Comments received across all
public testimony are wide-ranging and include but are not limited to Barrio traffic calming, the
Barrio name, building height and story maximums, parking, architecture, design review, project
review, notice and approval, historic preservation, commercial core preservation and ground
floor retail requirements, funding of improvements, bicycle planning, and the width of the
Grand Avenue Promenade.
Changes to project review process. The existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual has
unique permit requirements and a review process not applicable elsewhere in the city. For
example, the existing plan requires "major review permits" and City Council approval for most
new building construction. In contrast, and generally like the rest of Carlsbad, the proposed
Master Plan requires "site development plans" or "conditional use permits" and either city
planner or Planning Commission approval for new development. As proposed, City Council
approval would only be required for legislative actions, such as an amendment to the master
plan, or for appeals of a Planning Commission action. This is similar to permit requirements and
review thresholds outside the Village area (including in the Barrio), where most new
development does not require a City Council hearing.
Plan applicability/no pipeline provision. Except in the Coastal Zone, the master plan would
take effect 30 days after its adoption by City Council. Upon its effective date, the master plan
would apply to development proposals in the "pipeline," or those submitted to but not yet
approved by the city (see Exhibit 3, the ordinance approving the master plan). This ensures
projects presented at public hearings will be considered under the new standards and
guidelines. However, this also means those projects may have to redesign to meet the
requirements of the new plan. This may represent additional time and expense for applicants.
Nevertheless, staff recommends pending projects comply with the new plan; doing so
eliminates confusion over which standards apply when a project is presented for approval and
meets community expectations that the plan will apply to projects after it is approved. The staff
recommendation not to include a pipeline provision was brought to the attention of the
Planning Commission in the staff presentation. In their deliberations on the plan the Planning
Commission did not discuss a pipeline provision or modify the staff recommendation.
Climate Action Plan (CAP) Consistency
Multiple aspects of the Village and Barrio Master Plan directly align with greenhouse gas
reduction measures recommended by the CAP; these include an improved pedestrian and bike
network, traffic calming, parking management, transportation demand management (TOM),
and an overall land use pattern that promotes proximity of residences and businesses to each
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 4 of 321
other and to a variety of transportation options. These aspects are rooted in the plan's vision,
goals, and policies and implemented through its standards and guidelines, conceptual street
designs, and implementation plan.
Fiscal Analysis
On February 28, 2017, the City Council approved a professional services agreement and
additional appropriation to assist in preparation of this third master plan draft. No additional
funds are requested.
Next Steps
The master plan will be reprinted to incorporate any required revisions. For properties outside
the Coastal Zone (about 60 percent of the project area), the master plan will apply 30 days after
the second reading of project ordinances, including the ordinance that would repeal the
existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual and adopt the proposed plan.
Inside the Coastal Zone, the master plan will not apply to properties until is it approved by the
California Coastal Commission. Following a City Council action of approval, staff will submit the
master plan to the Coastal Commission. The schedule prepared for the City Council's FY 2018-
2019 goal regarding the Village and Barrio Master Plan anticipates a Coastal Commission
hearing in winter 2019.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study
(IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the Village and Barrio Master Plan.
The Draft IS/MND, including a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), was
circulated for public and state agency review in early 2016, following release of the first master
plan draft. During that time, the document was reviewed by various state and local agencies
and interested individuals and organizations. The city received five comment letters.
As part of the preparation of the third draft of the master plan, staff revised the 2016 Draft
IS/MND as necessary to address the revised master plan, resulting in a Final IS/MND. Revisions
also were made to ensure consistency with current city guidelines, such as the 2017 Carlsbad
Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines. Please see Planning Commission
Resolution No. 7293, an exhibit to this staff report, for details as well as city staff's responses to
the comments received.
No new information has been presented in the Final IS/MND that would require recirculation of
the 2016 Draft IS/MND pursuant to CEQA. The Draft IS/MND included adequate information for
a meaningful public review and comment; the Final IS/MND has not been changed in such a
way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial
adverse environmental effect of the Village and Barrio Master Plan or a feasible way to mitigate
or avoid a substantial environmental effect. Based on the above considerations, recirculation is
not warranted, and adoption of the MND and MMRP is recommended instead.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 5 of 321
Public Notification
Notice of the Master Plan’s development and meetings, including the public hearings before
Planning Commission and City Council, has included mailings to all Village and Barrio property
owners and tenants, postings on social media and the city’s website, and outreach to various city
committees and local groups. Staff has regularly updated the project website,
www.carlsbadca.gov/villagebarrio, to link to the latest master plan draft and information
produced for various plan meetings. Further, the city has provided resources for Spanish speakers
during much of the plan’s development and targeted Hispanic outreach occurred in both 2017
and 2018.
Exhibits
1. City Council Ordinance (MCA 16-01)
2. City Council Ordinance (ZCA 16-01, ZC 16-01 and LCPA 14-01)
3. City Council Ordinance (MP 14-01)
4. City Council Resolution (MND and MMRP, GPA 16-01, LCPA 14-01)
5. Location Map
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7293
7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7294
8. Planning Commission staff report dated April 18 (without attachments 1,2,3, 9 and 10)
9. Planning Commission staff report dated May 2, 2018 (without attachments)
10. Planning Commission minutes dated April 18, May 2, and May 16, 2018
11. Proposed text changes to Municipal Code (MCA 16-01) in strikeout/underline format
12. January 2018 Village and Barrio Master Plan (previously distributed; copy available at various
city facilities and on the city’s website at www.carlsbadca.gov/villagebarrio)
13. Public comments (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 6 of 321
ORDINANCE NO. CS-333
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 2, CHAPTER 2.24; TITLE 8, CHAPTER 8.09;
TITLE 11, CHAPTER 11.44; TITLE 13, CHAPTER 13.10; AND TITLE 18, CHAPTER
18.42 TO RECOGNIZE THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN, WHICH
WOULD REGULATE DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE FOR THE VILLAGE AND
BARRIO, AN APPROXIMATELY 350-ACRE AREA WEST OF INTERSTATE 5 AND
GENERALLY BETWEEN LAGUNA DRIVE AND TAMARACK AVENUE IN THE
CITY'S NORTHWEST QUADRANT.
CASE NO.: MCA 16-01
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad ordains as follows that:
1. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 2.24.060 is amended to read as follows:
EXHIBIT 1
In addition to the duties specified by this chapter, the planning commission shall perform the
duties and have all the rights, powers and privileges specified and provided for by city or state law. For
the Village and Barrio Master Plan, the planning commission shall be responsible for the administration
of, and shall carry out the duties specified in Chapters 21.35 and 21.81 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
2. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 8.09.080 A.6 is amended to read as follows:
The proposed entertainment establishment does not comply with all applicable laws, including
but not limited to: health, zoning, building, and fire code requirements. Prior to granting a license, the
chief of police or designee shall obtain certification from the fire chief, city planner, and building official
that the proposed use is in compliance with the land use and zoning provisions of the applicable
municipal codes provisions and Village and Barrio Master Plan (if applicable), and that the structures
are suitable and safe for the proposed operation of an entertainment establishment.
3. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 8.44.040 is amended to read as follows:
8.44.040 Consuming or possessing an open container of alcoholic beverages in certain
public places and parks owned by the city prohibited.
A. No person shall possess any can, bottle, or other receptacle containing any alcoholic
beverage that has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have been partially
removed, nor shall any person consume any alcoholic beverage in any city-owned public places and
park identified in this section as:
1. Any public street, sidewalk, alley, highway or public parking lot in the city's V-B
Village Barrio Zone, as that zone is designated in Chapter 21.35 of this code, as amended, and
specifically within or adjacent to the VC, VG, HOSP, FC, and PT districts and the VBO district (Magee
and Maxton Brown parks) of the Village and Barrio Master Plan.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 7 of 321
2. Rotary Park located at 2900 block of Washington Street, bordered to the west
by Washington Street, bordered to the east by the west alley of State Street immediately east of the
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Rail Road tracks, bordered to the south by Carlsbad Village Drive and
bordered to the north by Grand Avenue in the City of Carlsbad.
B. Any of the prohibitions set forth in this section may be waived during a special event
when a special event permit requesting a waiver has been granted by the city manager or designee.
C. This section does not apply when an individual is in possession of an alcoholic beverage
container within a sidewalk cafe or curb cafe that is approved and permitted as required by the Village
and Barrio Master Plan and the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
D. This section does not apply when an individual is in possession of an alcoholic beverage
container for the purpose of recycling or other related activity.
4. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 11.44.010 is amended to read as follows:
The provisions of the chapter shall apply generally to all zones within the city, including the V-
B, Village-Barrio Zone. No 11sign" as defined in the sign ordinance (Chapter 21.41), may be displayed on
city property, unless a city property sign permit has first been issued, or the subject sign is expressly
exempted from the city property sign permit requirement by this chapter.
A sign may be affixed, erected, constructed, placed, established, mounted, created or maintained only
in conformance with the standards, procedures and other requirements of this chapter. The standards
regarding number and size of signs regulated by this chapter are maximum standards, unless otherwise
stated.
5. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 11.44.050 is amended by revising the section title to
read as follows:
11.44.050 Permits for A-frame signs in the V-B, Village-Barrio Zone, bearing commercial
messages for adjacent establishments or noncommercial messages.
6. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 11.44.050 B.1 is amended to read as follows:
11A-frame" signs, as that term is defined in the sign ordinance, may be placed in particular
portions of the public right-of-way, within the V-B, Village-Barrio Zone only, namely, on the public
sidewalk directly in front of the store or other establishment displaying the sign.
7. Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 11.44.050 B.3 is amended to read as follows:
All such signs may be placed in the permitted space on the public right-of-way only when the
establishment is actually open to the public for business. A person employed by or associated with the
establishment must be physically present within 50 feet of the sign at all times. The sign must be placed
on the public sidewalk within the two feet closest to the curb or edge of the sidewalk, directly in front
of the establishment which owns the sign. Noncommercial messages may also be displayed on the
sidewalk in the V-B, Village-Barrio Zone, subject to the same rules regarding location, display times and
physical standards as commercial signs for adjacent establishments and only on sidewalks within or
adjacent to the VC, VG, HOSP, FC, and PT districts ofthe Village and Barrio Master Plan. Noncommercial
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 8 of 321
signs must also be attended by a person who is within 50 feet of the sign at all times; however, the
attendant need not be employed by or associated with an adjacent establishment. Any one person may
act as an attendant to only one noncommercial sign at a time.
8. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 11.44.050 C. is amended to read as follows:
Who May Display an A-frame Sign in the V-B, Village-Barrio Zone. The commercial A-frame signs
allowed by this section may be displayed only by the operators of establishments with ground floor
frontage on streets within the Village-Barrio Zone, who hold a currently valid city business license, who
are not currently in violation of, or nonconformance with, any of the zoning, land use, environmental
or business regulatory laws, rules or policies of the city. Persons acting as the official attendant of
noncommercial message signs must be over the age of 18.
Each eligible establishment location is allowed a maximum of one A-frame sign. However, when
an establishment is located within a business arcade or courtyard area, in which case only one "tenant
directory" sign, which lists all of the establishments within the arcade or courtyard, is allowed. The
display area of the permitted A-frame sign shall not count as part of the total signage for the
establishment, which is allowed under the Village and Barrio Master Plan.
9. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 11.44.050 H. is amended to read as follows:
Cancellation or Modification of Program. The city may, at any time and for any reason, cancel
or modify this program allowing commercial A-frame signs in the public right-of-way in the V-B,
Village-Barrio Zone.
10. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 13.10.020 C. is amended by revising the note after
Table 13.10.020(() as follows:
Note: Seats allowed in incidental outdoor dining areas pursuant to Section 21.26.013, and seats
allowed without any parking requirement in outdoor, sidewalk or curb cafes, as defined by and
pursuant to the Village and Barrio Master Plan and the city council, shall not count towards the
generation of equivalent dwelling units. However, any combination of outdoor seats which exceeds
the number of indoor seats and therefore is required to be parked, shall count towards the generation
of equivalent dwelling units.
11. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.42.020 is amended by revising "Note 2" after Table
18.42.020 as follows:
Note 2 Square footage of dining area allowed in incidental outdoor dining areas pursuant
to Section 21.26.013, and square footage of dining area allowed without any parking requirement in
outdoor, sidewalk or curb cafes, as defined by and pursuant to the Village and Barrio Master Plan and
the city council, shall not count towards the generation of trips. However, any combination of outdoor
dining area square footage which exceeds the amount of indoor dining area square footage shall count
towards the generation of trips.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 9 of 321
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption; and the City
Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause the full text of the ordinance or a summary
of the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to be published at least once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the __ _
day of ____ , 2018, and thereafter
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the ___ day of _________ , 2018, by the following vote, to wit:
\
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
CELIA A. BREWER, City Attorney
•
MATT HALL, Mayor
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk
(SEAL)
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 10 of 321
ORDINANCE NO. CS-334
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, AND
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENTTO REVISE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE, INCLUDING THE ZONING MAP, TO RECOGNIZE
AND IMPLEMENT THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN, WHICH WOULD
REGULATE DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE FOR THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO,
AN APPROXIMATELY 350-ACRE AREA WEST OF INTERSTATE 5 AND
GENERALLY BETWEEN LAGUNA DRIVE AND TAMARACK AVENUE IN THE
CITY'S NORTHWEST QUADRANT AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
CASE NO.: ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/LCPA 14-01 (DEV08014)
EXHIBIT 2
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Zoning Code is the implementing ordinance of the Carlsbad Local
Coastal Program, and therefore, an amendment to the Zoning Code also constitutes an amendment to
the Local Coastal Program; and
WHEREAS, the city planner has prepared a Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 16-01, Zone Change
ZC 16-01, and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 14-01 pursuant to Section 21.52.020 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Section 30514 of the Public Resources Code, and Section 13551 of California
Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 5 to revise various sections of the Zoning Ordinance, including
the zoning map; and
WHEREAS, the recommended amendments are necessary to recognize and implement the
Village and Barrio Master Plan (MP 14-01), which establishes the land use classifications, development
standards, procedures and guidelines for that unique area of the city within the Master Plan's
boundaries and which replaces the Village Master Plan and Design Manual; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Coastal Commission Regulations, a six-week public review
period for LCPA 14-01 occurred from February 26, 2016 to April 18, 2016; however, due to project
changes, LCPA 14-01 was recirculated for additional review from April 6, 2018 to May 18, 2018; no
comments were received in response to either review period; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2018, May 2, 2018 and May 16, 2018, the Planning Commission held a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/LCPA 14-01; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 7294
recommending to the City Council that ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/LCPA 14-01 be approved; and
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 11 of 321
WHEREAS, prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the City Planner posted on the Village
and Barrio Master Plan website (www.carlsbadca.gov/villagebarrio) a table and maps identifying all
properties within the boundaries of the Master Plan and relevant land use information for each
property, including existing and proposed General Plan land use designations, zoning, and land use
districts; and
WHEREAS, the table and maps are on file in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by
reference; and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2018, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council considered all factors, including written
public comments, if any, related to ZCA 16-02/ZC 16-01/LCPA 14-01.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council ofthe City of Carlsbad, California, ordains as follows that:
1. The above recitations are true and correct.
2. The findings of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7294
shall also constitute the findings of the City Council.
3. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.05.010 is amended to read as follows:
In order to classify, regulate, restrict and segregate the uses of land and buildings, to regulate and
restrict the height and bulk of buildings, to regulate the area of yards and other open spaces about
buildings, and to regulate the density of population, thirty-six classes of zones and overlay zones are
established by this title to be known as follows:
C-1-Neighborhood Commercial Zone
C-2-General Commercial Zone
C-F-Community Facilities Zone
C-L-Local Shopping Center Zone
C-M-Heavy Commercial-Limited Industrial Zone
CR-A/OS-Cannon Road-Agricultural/Open Space Zone
C-T-Commercial Tourist Zone
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 12 of 321
E-A-Exclusive Agricultural Zone
L-C-Limited Control Zone
M-lndustrial Zone
0-0ffice Zone
0-S-Open Space Zone
P-C-Planned Community Zone
P-M-Planned Industrial Zone
P-U-Public Utility Zone
R-1-0ne-Family Residential Zone
R-2-Two-Family Residential Zone
R-3-Multiple-Family Residential Zone
R-A-Residential Agricultural Zone
R-E-Residential Estate Zone
R-P-Residential-Professional Zone
R-T-Residential Tourist Zone
R-W-Residential Waterway Zone
RD-M-Residential Density-Multiple Zone
RMHP-Residential Mobile Home Park
T-C-Transportation Corridor Zone
V-B-Village-Barrio Zone
BAO-Beach Area Overlay Zone
Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone
Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone
Coastal Resource Overlay Zone Mello I LCP Segment
C/V-SO-Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone
F-P-Floodplain Overlay Zone
H-0-Hospital Overlay Zone
Q-Qualified Development Overlay Zone
S-P-Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone
4. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.05.020 (4) is amended to read as follows:
(4). The V-B, P-U and P-C zones have special conditions for their application and shall
be considered as more restrictive than other zones.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 13 of 321
5. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.05.030, the zoning map, is amended as shown on
Exhibit "ZCA/ZC 16-01" dated April 18, 2018, and attached hereto.
6. Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.35 (V-R Village Review Zone) is amended to read
as follows:
Chapter 21.35
V-B VILLAGE-BARRIO ZONE
Sections:
21.35.010 Intent and purpose.
21.35.020 Incorporation of Village and Barrio Master Plan by reference.
21.35.030 Land affected by this chapter.
21.35.040 Village and Barrio Master Plan and the Carlsbad Municipal Code compliance.
21.35.050 General regulations.
21.35.060 Permitted uses.
21.35.070 Permit required.
21.35.080 Findings of fact.
21.35.090 Amendments to the Village and Barrio Master Plan.
21.35.010 Intent and purpose.
The village-barrio zone is intended to establish land use classifications, development standards,
procedures and guidelines for that unique area of the city described in the Village and Barrio Master
Plan and designated "V-B, Village-Barrio" on the zoning map.
21.35.020 Incorporation of the Village and Barrio Master Plan by reference.
The Village and Barrio Master Plan, as adopted by City Council Ordinance CS-XXX on XXXX, 2018, and
as approved and certified by the California Coastal Commission on XXXX, XXXX, is hereby adopted by
reference and incorporated into this chapter.
21.35.030 Land affected by this chapter.
This chapter shall apply only to lands located within the boundaries of the Village and Barrio Master
Plan and zoned "V-B, Village-Barrio" on the zoning map.
21.35.040 Compliance with the Village and Barrio Master Plan and the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Projects developed pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the provisions of the Village and Barrio
Master Plan, and all applicable provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including but not limited to
those provisions of Titles 18, 19, 20 and 21.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 14 of 321
21.35.050 General regulations.
Except as otherwise provided by the Village and Barrio Master Plan, the regulations of this title which
apply to uses generally or generally to all zoning classifications shall apply to property and uses in this
zone.
21.35.060 Permitted uses.
The development standards of the Village and Barrio Master Plan, including the permitted uses table,
shall identify the permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses in the V-B zone. Any use
not identified in the permitted uses table is not permitted unless the city planner determines that
such use falls within the vision and intent of the Master Plan district in which it is proposed and is
substantially similar to an allowed use in the district. Further, the city planner shall not find that a use
substantially similar to an expressly prohibited use is permitted in any district.
21.35.070 Permit required.
Unless specifically exempt from a discretionary permit pursuant to the Village and Barrio Master Plan
and Section 21.201.060, no building permit or other entitlement shall be issued for any development
or use in the V-B zone unless there is a valid site development plan, conditional use permit, coastal
development permit or other discretionary permit as required by the Village and Barrio Master Plan
and as approved for the property.
21.35.080 Findings of fact.
No determination or decision shall be made pursuant to this chapter unless the decision-making
authority finds, in addition to any other findings otherwise required for the project, that the project is
consistent with the general plan, this code, as applicable, the Village and Barrio Master Plan, and the
Local Coastal Program, as applicable.
21.35.090 Amendments to the Village and Barrio Master Plan.
Amendments to the Village and Barrio Master Plan shall be deemed to be amendments to this
chapter; provided, however, that such amendments are processed and noticed in a manner which
meets the requirements of Chapter 21.52 of this code and are approved and adopted by city council
ordinance.
7. Carlsbad Municipal Code Sections 21.41.010 B. and C. are amended to read as follows:
B. Properties and uses in the village-barrio (V-B) zone are regulated first by the
sign standards of the Village and Barrio Master Plan, and then, to the extent not covered by said
master plan, by the provisions of this chapter.
C. Signs on city property, both within the V-B zone and other zones, are controlled
by other provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, not by this chapter.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 15 of 321
8. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.41.090 is amended to read as follows:
A. The following sign restrictions apply to properties in the coastal zone except the
Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Village-Barrio segments. If there is a conflict between the coastal zone sign
standards of this section and any regulations of this chapter, the standards of this section shall prevail.
Otherwise, within the coastal zone, the sign regulations of this chapter shall apply.
1. Each business or establishment shall be entitled to one fa~ade sign.
2. Each shopping complex shall have only one directory sign which shall not
exceed fifteen feet in height, including mounding.
3. Monument sign height including mounding shall not exceed eight feet and shall
apply where three or fewer commercial establishments exist on a parcel.
4. Tall freestanding and roof signs shall not be allowed.
5. Off-premises signs shall not be allowed.
9. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.44.020 Table A regarding number of off-street
· parking spaces required for "financial institutions and professional offices," is amended to read as
follows:
Financial institutions Medical Office 1 space/200 square feet of gross floor area
and professional offices Financial institutions 1 space/250 square feet of gross floor area
Other office uses 1 space/250 square feet of gross floor area
Office uses within 300 1 space/300 square feet of gross floor area
feet of the boundary of
the village-barrio zone '
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 16 of 321
10. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.45.040 Table A and footnote 8 are amended
to read as follows:
Legend:
P = Permitted.
Table A
Permitted Residential Uses
(#) Number within parentheses= Permitted only in certain circumstances.
X = Not permitted.
Zone Residential Use
One-Family Dwelling or Twin-Home on Small Condominium Project Lots (one unit per lot)
R-1 (1) or (4) One-family dwellings -(3) or (4)
Two-family dwellings -(1) or (4)
Multiple-family dwellings -(4)
R-2 p One-family or two-family dwellings - P
Multiple-family dwellings -(2) or (4)
R-3 p p
RD-M p p
R-W X p
R-P (5) (6)
RMHP p p
P-C (7) (7)
V-B (8) (8)
Accessory (9) (9) Uses
Notes:
(1) Permitted when the project site is contiguous to a higher intensity land use designation or zone, or an existing project
of comparable or higher density.
(2) Permitted when the proposed project site is contiguous to a lot or lots zone R-3, R-T, R-P, C-1, C-2, C-M or M, but in no
case shall the project site consist of more than one lot nor be more than ninety feet in width, whichever is less.
(3) Permitted when developed as two or more detached units on one lot.
(4) Permitted when the project site contains sensitive biological resources as identified in the Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan. In the case of a condominium project, attached or detached units may be permitted when the site
contains sensitive biological resources.
(5) Permitted when the R-P zone implements the RMH land use designation.
(6) Permitted when the R-P zone implements the RMH or RH land use designations.
(7) Permitted uses shall be consistent with the master plan.
(8) Refer to the Village and Barrio Master Plan for permitted uses.
(9) Refer to Table F for permitted accessory uses.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 17 of 321
11. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.53.140 is amended by deleting subsection (k).
12. That the use chart in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.83.040 and footnote 4 are
amended to read as follows:
"P" indicates that the use is permitted in the zone.
"LDCP" indicates that the use is permitted subject to approval of a large family day care permit, processed in accordance
with Section 21.83.050 of this chapter.
"MCUP" indicates that the use is permitted subject to approval of a minor conditional use permit (process one)
processed in accordance with Chapter 21.42 of this title.
"CUP" indicates that the use is permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit (process two) processed in
accordance with Chapter 21.42 of this title.
"X" indicates that the use is prohibited in the zone.
Small Family Day Care Large Family Day Care
Home (8 or fewer Home {14 or fewer
Zoning children) children) Child Day Care Center
R-A, R-E, E-A / p LDCP (1) X
R-1 p LDCP {1) X
R-2 p LDCP (1) X
R-3, RD-M, R-P p LDCP (1) MCUP(2)(3)
R-T, R-W, RMHP p LDCP (1) X
0 X X MCUP(2)(3)
H-0 X X P(2)
C-F X X MCUP(2)(3)
C-1, C-2, C-L X X P(2)
P-M, C-M X X CUP(S)
M, P-U, 0-S, L-C, T-C, C-T X X X
V-B, P-C (4) LDCP (1)(4) (2)(3)(4)
Notes:
(1) Permitted only when the large family day care home is located on a lot occupied by a detached, single-family dwelling,
subject to the provisions of Section 21.83.050 of this chapter.
(2) Permitted subject to the provisions of Section 21.83.080 of this chapter.
(3) Child day care centers are allowed as a permitted use (no conditional use permit or minor conditional use permit
required) within existing buildings on developed church or school sites,. subject to the provisions of
Section 21.83.080 of this chapter.
(4) Permitted subject to the standards of the controlling document (Village and Barrio Master Plan or designated master
plan).
(5) Permitted subject to the provisions of Sections 21.83.060 and 21.83.080 of this chapter.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 18 of 321
13. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.84.040 Table A and footnote 3 are amended
to read as follows:
Table A
Zones Where Housing for Senior Citizens Is Permitted
Zone Housing for Senior Citizens
R-3 MSDP/SDP1
R-P MSDP/SDP1, 2
R-T MSDP/SDP1
R-W MSDP/SDP1
RD-M MSDP/SDP1
V-B See note 3, below
P-C See note 3, below
Note: Housing for senior citizens is prohibited in
those zones not indicated.
Notes:
Housing for senior citizens with four units or less shall be subject to the approval of a minor site development plan,
and housing for senior citizens with five units or more shall be subject to the approval of a site development plan.
The city may approve a minor site development plan or site development plan for housing for senior citizens on
property in the R-P zone where the general plan applicable to such property permits residential uses.
May be permitted subject to the standards of the controlling document (i.e., in V-B zone -Village and Barrio Master
Plan, and in P-C zone -applicable master plan) and the provisions of this chapter.
14. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.201.080 C.1.a.iii is amended to read as follows:
iii. Projects that require a minor site development plan, minor conditional use permit, or
minor variance, pursuant to the Village and Barrio Master Plan.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF TH IS ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES LOCATED OUTSIDE THE
COASTAL ZONE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption; and the City Clerk shall
certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause the full text of the ordinance or a summary of the
ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to be published at least once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 19 of 321
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE COASTAL
ZONE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption or upon Coastal Commission
approval of LCPA 14-01, whichever occurs later; and the city clerk shall certify the adoption of this
ordinance and cause the full text of the ordinance or a summary of the ordinance prepared by the city
attorney to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad
within fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the __ _
day of , 2018, and thereafter
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the ___ day of _________ , 2018, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
CELIA A. BREWER, City Attorney
MATT HALL, Mayor
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk
(SEAL)
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 20 of 321
ORDINANCE NO. CS-335
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, REPEALING THE VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL
AND APPROVING THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN, MP 14-01,
WHICH WOULD REGULATE DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE FOR THE VILLAGE
AND BARRIO, AN APPROXIMATELY 350-ACRE AREA WEST OF INTERSTATE 5
AND GENERALLY BETWEEN LAGUNA DRIVE AND TAMARACK AVENUE IN THE
CITY'S NORTHWEST QUADRANT AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
CASE NAME:
CASE NO.:
VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
MP 14-01 (DEV08014)
Exhibit 3
WHEREAS, MP 14-01 constitutes a request for a Master Plan as (1) shown on Attachment A,
titled "Exhibit MP 14-01," and dated April 18, 2018, and (2) contained in the Village and Barrio
Master Plan on file in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, for properties in the Coastal Zone, portions of MP 14-01, in combination with
other city ordinances, also serve as the Local Coastal Program for the Village and Barrio; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2018, May 2, 2018, and May 16, 2018, the Planning Commission held
a duly noticed public hearing to consider MP 14-01; and
WHEREAS, at the May 16, 2018 hearing, Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 7294,
recommending the repeal of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and the approval of MP 14-
0l;and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, over the course of the public hearing, reviewed and
recommended changes to the Master Plan in the form of errata; and
WHEREAS, prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the City Planner posted on the Village
and Barrio Master Plan website (www.carlsbadca.gov/villagebarrio) a table and maps identifying all
properties within the boundaries of the Master Plan and relevant land use information for each
property, including existing and proposed General Plan land use designations, zoning, and land use
districts; and
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 22 of 321
WHEREAS, the table and maps are on file in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by
reference; and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2018, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors, including written
public comments, if any, related to MP 14-01; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also considered errata in addition to the errata recommended by
the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, ordains as follows that:
1. The above recitations are true and correct.
2. The findings of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7294
shall also constitute the findings of the City Council.
3. The Village Master Plan and Design Manual is repealed.
4. MP 14-01, on file in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by reference, is
approved and replaces the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. MP 14-01 shall establish the land
use vision, goals, policies, standards, guidelines, permitted and prohibited uses, and other provisions
for the use and development of all property within the boundaries of MP 14-01, and all development
within the plan area shall conform to its provisions.
5. MP 14-01 replaces the general zoning regulations applicable to those portions outside
the boundaries of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and within the boundaries of MP 14-01.
6. The approval of MP 14-01 includes errata recommended by the Planning Commission,
provided as Attachment B, and additional errata approved by the City Council, provided as Attachment
C and Attachment D.
7. Upon the effective date, MP 14-01 shall apply to development applications not yet
approved by the City of Carlsbad.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 23 of 321
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES LOCATED OUTSIDE THE
COASTAL ZONE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption; and the City Clerk shall
certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause the full text of the ordinance or a summary of the
ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to be published at least once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE COASTAL
ZONE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption or upon Coastal Commission
approval of LCPA 14-01, whichever occurs later; and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
ordinance and cause the full text of the ordinance or a summary of the ordinance prepared by the City
Attorney to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad
within fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 10th day
of !!!.!Y, 2018, and thereafter
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the ___ day of ________ _, 2018, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
CELIA A. BREWER, City Attorney
MA TT HALL, Mayor
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk
(SEAL)
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 24 of 321
0 Proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan
Boundary
-Existing Village Master Plan and Design
Manual Boundary (Master Plan To Be
Repealed and Replaced by Proposed Village
and Barrio Master Plan)
8
---=====:::1 Feet 0 800
Path: J:lcbgis\productslplanning\MapUpdate\GPA 16-01_ZCA 16-01_ZC 16-01_MP 14-01_LCPA 14-01_MCA 16-01\MP _14-01.mxd
MP 14-01 Exhibit "MP 14-01"
April 18, 2018
Village and Barrio Master Plan
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 25 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
COMBINED ERRATA SHEET
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
(DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
The table below identifies the Planning Commission's recommended changes to the Village and
Barrio Master Plan. The table combines the revisions contained in the three errata sheets
produced for the Commission's April 18, May 2, and May 16 meetings and in the fourth errata
sheet prepared to reflect the Commission's recommendations made at the May 16 meeting.
Strikethrough indicates text to be deleted and underline indicates text to be added.
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
n/a n/a Under "Planning Commission," change "Velyn Anerson" to "Velyn
Anderson."
CHAPTER 1 -INTRODUCTION
1-2 Section 1.3.1, Change overall Village and Barrio acreage from 325 to 350.
Overall Description
and Master Plan
Boundary
1-3 Figure 1-1, Master Revise the Coastal Zone boundary as shown in attached Exhibit 1. This
Plan Area, and affects multiple figures throughout the Master Plan. Revisions are the
other figures result of the California Coastal Commission's ongoing work with local
showing the jurisdictions to make minor adjustments that refine the boundary,
Coastal Zone originally established in 1977, in a manner consistent with California
boundary Coastal Act Section 30103(b).
1-5 Section 1.3.2, Change Village acreage from 210 to 215 acres.
Village
1-6 Section 1.3.3, Change Barrio acreage from 120 to 135.
Barrio
1-11 Section 1.5.1, Land Under Goal A., regarding maintaining and enhancing the Village, revise
Use and Policy 2 as follows:
Community 2. Encourage mixed use development projects in the Village Center Character €9fe, with an emphasis on pedestrian-oriented retail uses on the
ground floor, and office, other non-residential, and residential uses
on the upper floors.
1-13 Section 1.5.1, Land Under Goal E., "Recognize and support the historical roots of the Village
Use and and Barrio," add new Policy 3, to read as follows:
Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8560 fax
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 26 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 2
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
Community "Comply with the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological
Character Resources Guidelines."
1-14 Section 1.5.2, Under Goal A, regarding supporting increased alternative modes of
Mobility and transportation, revise the note applying to Policy 9 as follows:
Parking (Note: this objecti-ve .QQ.J.ky_complements Objectii.1e 4.1.2 Policy
1.5.4.A.2).
1-15 Section 1.5.2, Under Goal B, Policy 8, change Goal cross-reference as follows:
Mobility and ... (See also Goal bl 1.5.2.A)
Parking
1-18 Section 1.5.3, Change section number from 1.5.3 to 1.5.4.
Placemaking
1-19 Section 1.5.3, Change section number from 1.5.3 to 1.5.4.
Placemaking
1-19 Section 1.5.3, Under Goal B., revise Policy 7 as follows:
Placemaking (note: 7. As part of street improvements, consider new and enhanced
to be renumbered entry and neighborhood features, whether through landscaping,
to Section 1.5.4) public art, SQecially-designed street name signs, or other means,
that identify the Village and Barrio as unique places.
CHAPTER 2 -LAND USE
2-5 Section 2.3, Land Remove standards regarding non-conforming lots, structures and uses
Uses from Section 2.3.1, Allowable Land Uses, and place them under a new
and separate section and heading as follows:
2.3.2 Non-conforming Lots, Structures and Uses
Non-conforming lots, structures and uses within the Village and
Barrio Master Plan area shall be subject to aQQlicable i::1rovisions
within ChaQter 21.48 of the CMC.
2-5 Section 2.3, Land Remove standards regarding a development site that spans multiple
Uses districts (last paragraph on page 2-5) from Section 2.3.1, Allowable Land
Uses, and place them under a new and separate section and heading as
follows:
2.3.3 Develoi::1ment Site SQanning MultiQle Districts
A develoQment site that si::1ans multiQle districts shall be subject to
ai::1i::1roval of a site develoi::1ment Qian, which shall establish the
develoQment standards for the site in a manner most consistent
with the underlying districts' standards. Any use that is Qermitted
or conditionally-Qermitted over a QOrtion of such a site shall be
Qermitted or conditionally-Qermitted anywhere on the site.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 27 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 3
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
2-6 Table 2-1, Under the "Residential" category, revise "Mixed-use" as follows:
Permitted Uses
Mixed-use (see section 6.3.6 for decision making authority subject
to the uses permitted in this table)
2-6 Table 2-1, Under the "Lodging" category, revise "Timeshare Project" as follows:
Permitted Uses
Time Share Project {prohibited in combination with residential uses
in the same building or on the same lot) ,
2-7 Table 2-1, Under the "Civic" category, add "Mobility Hub" as a conditionally
Permitted Uses permitted use in the VC, Village Center, District as follows:
I Mobility Hub IC
2-8 Table 2-1, Revise footnote two of Table 2-1 as follows:
Permitted Uses 2Not permitted on the ground floor street frontage as identified in
Figure 2-2.
2-9 Figure 2-2, Use Revise Figure 2-2 as shown in attached Exhibit 2 by amending the use
Restrictions Map restrictions legend regarding ground floor uses as follows:
Boundary of area in which certain uses are not permitted on the
ground floor street frontage.
2-13 Section 2.6.1 C., Amend Section 2.6.1 C.4. as follows:
Property Line 4. Razor wire, barbed wire, cyclone and chain link fencing {except
Walls/Fences as noted below), or other similar fences are prohibited. Cyclone
or chain link fencing existing as of the Master Plan's adoption
date is permitted to remain.
2-20 Section 2.6.5 B., Revise Section 2.6.5 B.4. as follows:
Sidewalk Cafes 4. No signs, including signs prohibited by CMC Section 21.41.030
21.51.030, or objects that would distract or impair motorists,
shall be attached or displayed on any part of the sidewalk cafe.
2-22 Table 2-3, Parking Under the "residential" category, revise the parking standard for studio
Requirements and one bedroom units as follows:
Studio and one bedroom One space per unit. For condominiums,
units the space must be covered.
I
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 28 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 4
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
2-22 Table 2-3, Parking Under the "residential" category, revise the parking standard for
Requirements multiple-family units with two or more bedrooms as follows:
Units with two or more One and a half spaces per unit. For
bedrooms (all districts condominiums, one space must be
exceQt BP and BC) covered. Tandem parking is
permitted.
Units with two or more Two si:1aces Qer unit. For
bedrooms (BP and BC condominiums, one SQace must be
districts only) covered. Tandem 1:1arking is
1:1ermitted.
2-23 Table 2-3, Parking Under the "lodging" category, remove "mixed-use" and its parking
Requirements requirement and insert it under the "residential" category to follow
"managed living unit."
2-24 Table 2-3, Parking Under the "other" category: •
Requirements 1. Delete "cinema" and its parking requirement.
2. Indent "curb cafe or sidewalk cafe" and "outdoor display" so it
is clearer that these uses fall under the "right of way uses"
heading.
2-27, Table 2-4, Parking Add the subheading "available to non-residential uses" at the top of the
2-28 Options table on each page as provided on page 2-26.
2-37 Section 2.7.1 A., Amend 2.7.1 A.1. as follows:
Village Center A. Setbacks
District Setbacks 1. Front/Corner: Minimum of O feet; maximum of 5 feet to
building (at the ground floor). Additional depth permitted
where area includes a plaza, courtyard, or outdoor dining.
2-37 Section 2.7.1 E., Amend 2.7.1 E.1. a. as follows:
Village Center 1. Public Space
District Open a. A Qlaza, a minimum 500 square feet feet or 7.5 Qercent of
Space lot area, whichever is less minimum plaza (exclusive of right
of way)i with street furnishing, landscaping, accent trees,
and lighting~ shall be provided at each corner located at the
following intersections: Carlsbad Village Drive and Carlsbad
Boulevard, Carlsbad Village Drive and State Street, State
Street and Grand Avenue, and Carlsbad Village Drive and
Harding Street. No vehicle access aisles or parking is
permitted in this area. This area shall also remain
unobstructed to the sky exceQt for limited Qrotrusions that
contribute to building architecture or street vibrancy, such
as awnings, architectural features, UQQer floor balconies, and
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 29 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 5 ·
Page
#
Section, Figure or
Table
2-39 Section 2.7.1 G.,
Village Center
District Building
Height
2-39,
2-52
and
2-57
Section 2.7.1 G.,
Village Center
District Building
Height
Section 2.7.3 G.,
Hospitality District
Building Height
Settion 2.7.4 G.,
Freeway
Commercial
District Building
Height
2-40 Section 2.7.1,
Village Center
District Standards
Recommended change
other non-habitable space. Not more than 50 square feet of
such protrusions shall project over the required plaza area.
Amend 2.7.1 G. as follows:
G. BUILDING HEIGHT
1. Maximum 45 feet and 4 stories
2. Ground floor plate height: 14 feet. This height shall be
measured from the finished floor to the top plate of the
ground floor or, where there is no "plate". to the bottom of
the floor structure of the second floor. This standard shall
apply only to ground floor street frontage uses permitted
within the boundaries of the use restriction area identified
on Figure 2-2.
5. If a 4-story building is proposed:
a. A maximum of 30 percent of the fourth story street
facing fa~ade can have a 0 foot setback (as measured
from property line). The remaining 70 percent shall be
set back a minimum of 10 feet (as measured from
property line).
b. The total square footage of enclosed occupiable fourth
floor space shall not exceed 80 percent of the third
floor footprint.
Modify the following graphic to more proportionally depict the
' maximum fourth floor area standard relative to the third floor.
Four-Story Buildings
1. Add new Section 2.7.11., Ground Floor Uses, as follows:
I. GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTAGE USES
1. New.ground floor street frontage uses permitted within the
boundaries of the use restriction area identified on Figure 2-2
shall occupy more than one-half of the habitable space
developed on the ground floor and shall span at least 80
percent of the building frontage.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 30 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 6
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
2. UQ to 20 i:1ercent of a building frontage may be used for a
lobby or entryway to uses above or behind ground floor
street frontage uses.
2. Renumber existing Section 2.7.11., Good Neighbor, to 2.7.1 J.; and
existing Section 2.7.1 J., Railroad Corridor, to 2.7.1 K.
2-42 Section 2.7.1 J., Amend 2.7.1 J.1 as follows:
Village Center The primary use of the railroad corridor shall be for transportation
District, Railroad facilities and improvements that provide rail and transit services
Corridor and support facilities, as determined by NCTD. Accordingly, land
uses in the railroad corridor in each transect district ;:ire subject to
CMC Chapter 21.100, Transportation Corridor.
2-49 Section 2.7.3 A., Amend 2.7.3 A.1. as follows:
Village Center A. Setbacks
District Setbacks 1. Parcels along Carlsbad Boulevard between Beech Avenue
and Carlsbad Village Drive:
a. Front: Minimum of O feet; maximum of 5 feet to
building (at the ground floor). Additional depth
permitted where one or more of the following are
provided: Plaza, courtyard, outdoor dining, enhanced
pedestrian connection, or landscaping.
b. Side: 0 feet
C. Rear: 0 feet
2-50 Section 2.7.3 E., Amend 2.7.3 E.2.a. as follows:
Village Center 2. Public Space
District Open a. 500 square foot minimum plaza (exclusive of right of way)
Space with street furnishing, landscaping, accent trees, and
lighting shall be provided at the intersection of Carlsbad
Village Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard. No vehicle access
aisles or 1:1arking is i:1ermitted in this area. This area shall
also remain unobstructed to the sky excei:1t for limited
Qrotrusions that contribute to building architecture or
street vibrancy, such as awnings, architectural features,
UQQer floor balconies, and other non-habitable si:1ace. Not
more than 50 sguare feet of such 1:1rotrusions shall Qroject
over the reguired Qlaza area.
2-52 Section 2.7.3 G., Amend 2.7.3 G. as follows:
Hospitality District G. BUILDING HEIGHT
Building Height 1. Maximum 45 feet and 4 stories
2. Ground floor plate height for buildings fronting Carlsbad
Boulevard: 14 feet. This height shall be measured from the
finished floor to the toQ Qlate of the ground floor or, where
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 31 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 7
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
there is no "Qlate", to the bottom of the floor structure of
the second floor.
3. If a 4-story building is proposed:
a. Parcels along Carlsbad Boulevard between Beech
Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive: A maximum of 30
percent of the fourth story street facing fac;:ade can
have a 0-foot setback (as measured from QroQerty
line). The remaining 70 percent shall be set back a
minimum of 10 feet (as measured from QroQerty line).
b. All other Qarcels: A maximum of 30 12ercent of the
fourth stor:y street facing fa~ade can have a minimum
10-foot setback (as measured from 12roi2erty line). The
remaining 70 Qercent shall be set back a minimum of
15 feet (as measured from 12roi2erty line).
_c._The total square footage of enclosed occupiable fourth
floor space shall not exceed 80 percent of the third-
floor footprint.
2-52 Section 2.7.3, 1. Add new Section 2.7.3 I., Ground Floor Uses, as follows:
Hospitality District I. GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTAGE USES
Standards 1. New ground floor street frontage uses 12ermitted within the
boundaries of the use restriction area identified on Figure 2-2
shall occui2y more than one-half of the habitable si2ace
develoi2ed on the ground floor and shall si2an at least 80
12ercent of the building frontage.
2. UQ to 20 12ercent of a building frontage may be used for a
lobby or entryway to uses above or behind ground floor
street frontage uses.
2. Renumber existing Section 2.7.3 I., Master Site Plan, to 2.7.3 J.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 32 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 8
2-57 Section 2.7.4 G.,
Freeway
Commercial
District Building
Height
2-61 Section 2.7.5 G.,
Pine-Tyler Mixed-
Use District
Building Height
2-61 Section 2.7.5,
Amend 2.7.4 G. as follows:
G. BUILDING HEIGHT
1. Maximum 45 feet and 4 stories
2. If a 4-story building is proposed:
a. A maximum of 30 percent of the fourth story street
facing fa<;:ade can2 have a minimum G 1.0-foot setback
(as measured from property line). The remaining 70
percent shall be set back a minimum of-W15 feet (as
measured from property line).
b. The total square footage of enclosed occupiable fourth
floor space shall not exceed 80 percent of the third-
floor footprint.
Amend 2.7.5 G.2 as follows:
G. Building Height
2. Minimum ground floor plate height for commercial and ground
floor mixed-use: 12 feet. This height shall be measured from the
finished floor to the top plate of the ground floor or, where there
is no "plate", to the bottom of the floor structure of the second
floor.
Amend this graphic to show a 12 ft., instead of 14 ft., minimum
Pine-Tyler Mixed-dimension.
Use District
Minimum Ground
Floor Plate Height
graphic
2-71 Section 2.8.1,
Area-Wide Design
Guidelines Intent
Revise the second paragraph to read as follows:
All development should align with the spirit and intent of the design
guidelines presented in this chapter. Designers and developers
should consider at a minimum be aware that these guidelines are
a minimum starting point for quality development, and do not
comprise every possible strategy for achieving high quality design.
Therefore, it is prudent that designers use their own techniques for
achieving authentic, high quality design. The following guidelines
apply to all new and remodeled development within the entire
Master Plan Area unless exempt as determined by Section 6.3.2
-5-:-3-d.
CHAPTER 4-MOBILITY AND BEAUTIFICATION
4-2 Section 4.2,
Maximize
Connectivity
Revise the last paragraph on page 4-2 as follows:
Two initiatives are at play that can dramatically change the division
of the community in the future. The first is the plan by NCTD and
SAN DAG to double-track the rail line; the second is the opportunity
to enhance street connections between the study area and the
eastern neighborhoods and provide attractive entry features,
"gateways," as a result of the proposed 1-5 enhancements planned
as part of freeway widening (North Coast Corridor Project).
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 33 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 9
4-3 Section 4.2, Add the following paragraph to accompany the three pictures that
Maximize depict railroad crossing options at and below street level at Carlsbad
Connectivity Village Drive:
Additionally, lowering the rail line creates an OQQOrtunity for a
central green SQace between Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand
Avenue that links both sides of the track. As Qictured in this
section, exQansion of Rotarv Park eastward and over the tracks
would result in a broad QUblic area comQlemented and anchored
by the historic rail deQot. Potential re-routing of the Coastal Rail
Trail to the alley west of State Street {or QOSsibly as Qart of the
central green as the Qictures deQict) and new Qedestrian and
bicycle crossings on Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue
would also enhance area connectivity. Section 4.4.12 further
discusses relocation of the Coastal Rail Trail.
4-5 Section 4.2, Amend the last paragraph on page 4-5 as follows:
Maximize Given its prominence and activity level, Grand Avenue could be
Connectivity connected under 1-5 as part of the overall North Coast Corridor
.P.-iaroject to create an important connection for resident's east of
the interstate. It would also provide at a minimum bike,
pedestrian, emergency vehicle, and transit/parking shuttle access
from the east side of the interstate to the beach, Village and
Barrio. Consideration of this underQass should occur as Qart of
discussions on a QOtential city hall exQansion or connectivity
imQacts to the Village and Barrio resulting from, for examQle,
future imQrovements to the freeway and the l-5LSR 78
interchange.
4-8 Section 4.3.2, Amend Section 4.3.2.3 as follows:
Make Carlsbad Consider intersection, street lighting, and sidewalk improvements
Accessible that provide accessible paths of travel from residential areas to
important destinations in and near the Village and Barrio
destinations, such as the Senior Center, Pine Avenue Park, the Post
Office, a-Ra businesses that provide neighborhood goods and
services, and City Hall and the Cole Libra[Y.
4-10 Section 4.3.4, Revise this section as follows:
Allow on-street On-street parking buffers pedestrians from moving cars and
Parking in Suitable calms traffic by forcing drivers to stay alert. Parallel parking is the
Locations ideal arrangement, because it keeps streets narrow. Diagonal
parking is acceptable on some shopping streets to provide more
parking, as long as the extra curb-to-curb width is not achieved at
the expense of sidewalk width. Angled on-street parking can also
be used to retrofit existing streets to provide additional parking
for the Village and Barrio within the existing curb-to-curb
dimension. This has already been accomplished, for example,
along the west side of Madison Street between Carlsbad Village
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 34 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 10
Drive and Oak Avenue. In addition, back-in angled parking can
enhance sight-lines between drivers and bicyclists and provide
other safety benefits. Areas that will allow for diagonal parking
will be developed at a later time. Parking strategies are
discussed in further detail in Section 4.5.
4-14 Section 4.3.8, Add a fifth recommendation on page 4-14 as follows:
Provide Shade 5. Near railroad crossings, street tree placement must be carefully
considered to ensure trees do not reduce visibility of warning
devices or approaching trains.
4-18 Section 4.3.10, Amend the last paragraph on page 4-18 as follows:
Festival An advantage of this street type is its flexibility; if it is desired to
Streets/Sha red temporarily close the street for a festival or an evening event, the
Space Streets resultant space is devoid of curbs and trip hazards and can be
given over 100% to people. During community engagement, this
concept was discussed as a possibility for Grand Avenue between
Roosevelt Street and the railroad tracks. Maintaining the curbs and
raised medians near the railroad crossing on Grand Avenue,
however, would be necessary to provide channelization to
discourage motorists from circumventing gate arms at the
crossing.
4-19 Section 4.3.11, Amend the last paragraph on page 4-19 as follows:
Street Design This section outlines potential street improvements to create
great streets within the Village and Barrio. See Figure 4-2 for
street cross section and plan locations. It is also proposed in
conjunction with Section 4.3.12, Intersection Design, and Section
4.4, Enhance the Bike Network. This latter section provides
further detail regarding the many bicycle facilities shown on the
sections and plans and discussed in the accompanying text. An
overall Bicycle Facilities map {Figure 4-32} is also provided.
Further, and in regard to all improvements presented, note the
descriptions, sections and plans are conceptual only and subject
to further evaluation and refinement as projects enter the design
engineering and permitting phases.
4-21 Section 4.3.11 A., Amend the section by revising the second to last paragraph as follows:
Grand Avenue: Proposed conditions would convert the southern half of the
The Grand right-of-way to an enhanced pedestrian zone and two-way cycle
Promenade-track. The resulting broad thirty-two-foot sidewalk would
Street Cross accommodate additional landscaping, outdoor dining, street
Section 1 furnishings, and an ample pedestrian walkway. Except at
intersections, alleys, and driveways, t+he proposed two-way
cycle1track would be physically separated from motor traffic and
distinct from the sidewalk. Cycle tracks are an exclusive bicycle
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 35 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 11
facility that combines the user experience of a separated path
with the on-street infrastructure of a conventional bicycle lane.
4-21 Section 4.3.11 A., Amend the section by adding a new paragraph before the final
Grand Avenue: paragraph as follows:
The Grand Additionally, alternatives could be considered to maximize the
Promenade-Qromenade's width. For examQle, the cycle tracks in figures 4-4 and
Street Cross 4-5, deQicted below the level of the sidewalk, could also be raised
Section 1 flush with it, creating a single, level surface from the store fronts to
the landscaQed median. In this configuration, the cycle track could
remain distinct from the sidewalk through the use of unigue
Qavers, brick banding, or other differentiating means. Much like
festival or shared SQace streets discussed in the Qrevious section,
the greater width enabled by a single level Qromenade would
benefit SQecial events while still retaining the seQarate functions of
a cycle track and sidewalk at all other times.
4-26 Figure 4-7, West In the text accompanying this figure, insert the following sentence
Carlsbad Village before the last sentence:
Drive, Proposed To increase mobility 01;1tions, small Qarking SQaces for
Condition neighborhood electric vehicles {NEV} could be added as well.
4-30 Figure 4-11, 1. Revise Figure 4-11 to delete the sharrows shown.
Carlsbad Village 2. Revise the paragraph accompanying Figure 4-11 to delete the
Drive: Proposed sentence regarding replacing bike lanes with sharrows and to
Conditions; and clarify the median would remain as follows:
Section 4.3.11 C., Proposed conditions would improve pedestrian facilities by
Carlsbad Village extending the curb toward the centerline by approximately
Drive (Interstate 5 five feet and six inches to create a total sidewalk width of
to Carlsbad fourteen feet and six inches on both sides, allowing for
Boulevard )-Street enhanced pedestrian mobility, landscaping, and amenities
Cross Section 3 such as street furniture. Bie•;ele la Res ,,..,e1:1la se Fe13laeea ,,,.,itl=i
sl=iaFFew maFkings ta facilitate tl=ie 13edestFiaR eRl=iaReemeRts.
Right-of-way width, vehicle lanes and the turn lane and
median would remain the same. However, removal of bicycle
lanes should not take place until adequate replacement bicycle
facilities are provided on Oak Avenue, the street parallel to
and south of Carlsbad Village Drive. Such adequate facilities
are proposed on Oak Avenue.
4-32 Figure 4-13, Oak Revise graphics to show two to three-foot-long angled stripes within
Avenue: Proposed the
Conditions A-bike lane and adjacent to the parking lane. These stripes will indicate to
Striping bicyclists to ride a safe distance away from car doors.
4-34 Section 4.3.11 E. Amend the fourth paragraph as follows:
State Street-Street Proposed conditions would provide pedestrian improvements by
Cross Section 5 widening both sidewalks to twelve feet to accommodate street
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 36 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 12
trees, furnishings, and an ample pedestrian walkway. Bulb-outs
could also be added to expand opportunities for outdoor dining,
or additional landscaping and public art. Bicycle mobility would
be enhanced through the provision of sharrows. Shared lane
markings, or "sharrows," are road markings used to indicate a
shared lane environment for bicycles and automobiles~ and to
Among other benefits, shared lane markings reinforce the
legitimacy of bicycle traffic on the street, reEommend ~
biEydist positioning, and may be rnnfigured to offer direEtional
and ,,.,,ayfinding guidanrn. Both vehicular travel lanes would be
reduced to ten feet in width and parallel parking lanes would
remain at eight feet in width.
4-36 Figure 4-16, State Revise the top graphic (the street section) to show bicyclists behind or
Street, Proposed ahead of the car and slightly off-center of the lane.
Condition
4-40 Section 4.3.11 H, Amend the section title and second paragraph in this section as follows:
Barrio/Village H. Barrio/VHlage Transition and Barrio Identification
Transition Similar improvements to Roosevelt and Madison Streets south
of Carlsbad Village Drive, along the one block stretch to Oak
Avenue, could serve to attractively demarcate the transition
from the Village to the Barrio. They should also help facilitate
pedestrian street crossings between businesses as well as slow
vehicles and can serve as Barrio entryway statements with
appropriate signs and /or public art. Entryway statements, such
as small monument signs, could tie into si;1ecially-designed
street name signs unigue to the Barrio.
4-43 Figure 4-23, Tyler Revise the figure to show a sharrow in each travel lane.
Street: Proposed
Conditions C
4-44 Section 4.3.11 J., Revise the first sentence of the third paragraph under this section as
Harding Street follows:
(and streets with Proposed conditions are illustrated for two locations along Harding
more than 48' Street, as figures 4-2, 4-25 4-1±, and 4-26 4-R indicate.
between curbs) -
Street Cross
Section 8
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 37 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 13
4-44 Section 4.3.11 Add the following paragraph to the bottom of the page:
J., Harding An interim imQrovement {not illustrated} is also QroQosed that
Street (and would slow vehicle s1;1eeds and im1;1rove bicycling through restri1;1ing
streets with of the existing street section shown in Figure 4-24. The generous,
more than 48' 14-foot wide travel lanes currently in Qlace could be reduced to ten
between feet, the Qarking lane widths decreased from eight feet to seven
curbs) -Street feet, and the bike lane widths also decreased from six feet to five
Cross Section feet. Through these reductions, three-foot wide buffers could be
8 added on either side of both bike lanes, Qroviding a buffer between
bicyclists, moving vehicles and 1;1arked cars.
4-49 Section 4.3.12, Revise the introduction by adding the following sentence to the end of
Intersection the paragraph:
Design As with the street sections and Qlans Qresented in Section 4.3.12,
the intersection tyQes Qresented are conceQtual and subject to
further evaluation and refinement as street imQrovement
Qrojects enter the design engineering and Qermitting Qhase.
4-49 Section 4.3.12, Revise the third paragraph under Section 4.3.12 A. as follows:
Intersection Vehicle lane width reduction and in some cases travel lane
Design removal are recommended changes within the Village and Barrio
street corridors. These road diet improvements provide different
ways to address vehicular circulation and can include
neighborhood traffic circles aoo or roundabouts at intersections.
The traffic circle treatment will be possible at several locations
within the Barrio and is dependent on the preferred mobility
treatment options along each street corridor.
4-50 Section 4.3.12, Revise Section 4.3.12 A., Figures 4-28, 4-29, and 4-30, in addition to
to Intersection any individual figure comments below, so that they depict bike lanes,
4-52 Design crosswalks, and other markings and improvements according to city
standards. As an example, bike lanes and cycle tracks approaching
intersections should be shown to terminate approximately 50 to 200-
feet from the intersections so it is clear bicyclists may merge into
traffic lanes to safely continue through intersections.
4-50 Section 4.3.12, Revise Section 4.3.12 A., Intersection Type A, by adding a second
Intersection paragraph as follows: -
Design This exhibit is illustrative of how a 4-way stoQ would be striQed to
1;1rovide maximum safety for 1;1edestrians. This assumes that a 4-
way stoQ is warranted by traffic volumes and assignment of who
has right of way.
4-51 Section 4.3.12, Revise Section 4.3.12 A, Intersection Type B, by adding the following
Intersection sentence to the end of the paragraph:
Design In addition, this exhibit assumes that a 4-way stoQ is warranted by
traffic volumes and assignment of who has right of way.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 38 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 14
4-52 Section 4.3.12, 1. Revise Section 4.3.12 A., Intersection Type C, so that the first
Intersection sentence of the paragraph states: "There are several intersections
Design; within the Barrio that could include neighborhood traffic circles 0f
and Figure 4-30, roundabouts depending on the individual street corridor mobility
Intersection Type improvements."
C
2. Revise Figure 4-30, including its caption, to identify a
"neighborhood traffic circle" instead of a "roundabout."
4-53 Section 4.3.12, Revise the fourth bullet point of Section 4.3.12 B. to read as follows:
Intersection Use all-way stops only if they meet engineering warrants if traffic
Design calrning de..,•ices are infeasible or too costly.
4-54 Figure 4-31, Traffic 1. Revise the legend as follows:
Calming A. Proposed Shared Space Intersection
Treatments B. Proposed Traffic Circle
C. Proposed AdG Bulb-Out
D. Existing Neighborhood Traffic Circle Roundabout.
2. Revise the figure caption as follows: Figure 4-31, Barrio Traffic
Calming Treatments.
4-55 Section 4.4, Revise the third paragraph as follows:
Enhance the Existing and proposed bicycle network facilities are illustrated in
Bicycle Network Figure 4-32, Bicycle Facilities, and described as defined by Caltrans.
Street design recommendations contained in Section 4.3, Create
Livable Streets, and si::1ecifically subsections 4.3.11 and 4.3.12,
incorporate bicycle facility recommendations in context with other
right-of-way improvements. Descriptions of specific improvements
and types of bicycle facilities are provided below.
4-55 Section 4.4, 1. Revise the Class Ill Bike Route graphic to show the bicyclists riding
Enhance the in line with the sharrow.
Bicycle Network 2. Revise the Class IV Cycle Track graphic to emphasize the cycle track
and the bicyclist using it.
4-56 Figure 4-32, Revise the map to show an existing Class Ill Bike Route on Laguna Drive
Bicycle Facilities between Jefferson and State streets.
4-57 Section 4.4.2, Class Amend the paragraph to read as follows:
II Bike Lanes Class II bikeways are bike lanes established along streets and
are defined by pavement striping and signage to delineate a
portion of a roadway for bicycle travel. Bike lanes are one-way
facilities, typically striped adjacent to motor traffic travelling in
the same direction. Contraflow bike lanes can be provided on
one-way streets for bicyclists travelling in the opposite
direction. A buffered bike lane, as dei::1icted in Figure 4-19 for
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 39 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 15
Carlsbad Boulevard, provides greater separation from an
adjacent traffic lane and/or between the bike lane and on-
street parking by using chevron or diagonal markings. Greater
separation can be especially useful on streets with higher motor
traffic speeds or volumes. The Qlacement of chevron or diagonal
markings, whether adjacent to travel andL or Qarking lanes,
requires evaluation of relative hazards of both the volumes and
SQeeds of the moving vehicles and the characteristics of the
Qarked car {turnover, for examQle}. This evaluation, together
with engineering judgment, will guide the Qlacement and size of
buffers.
4-57 Section 4.4.3, Class Revise the title and text of this section as follows:
Ill Routes 4.4.3 Class Ill Routes and Sharrows
Class Ill bikeways, or bike routes, designate a preferred route for
bicyclists on streets shared with motor traffic not served by
dedicated bikeways to provide continuity to the bikeway
network. Bike routes are generally not appropriate for roadways
with higher motor traffic speeds or volumes. Bike routes are
established by placing bike route signs and optional shared
roadway markings, (sharrow~) along roadways.
Shared lane markings, or "sharrows," are road markings used to
indicate a shared lane environment for bicycles and automobiles.
Sharrows are found on Carlsbad Village Drive adjacent to
Interstate 5 and on Laguna Drive. Sharrows are also deQicted on
many Qlans and sections in Section 4.3.11, including figures 4-16
and 4-17. Among other benefits, these shared lane markings
reinforce the legitimacy of bicycle traffic on the street,
recommend QroQer bicyclist QOsitioning, and may be configured to
offer directional and wayfinding guidance.
A liberal application of sharrows throughout the Village and Barrio
neighborhoods is recommended 'Nill be applied in order to
emphasize the notion that these neighborhoods are bicycle
friendly. On some busier routes, sharrows can receive a green or
black 'backing' to make them stand out on the road more.
Sharrows can also be painted in a larger size so that they take up
more of the road to make them stand out more. !=or example, if
sl:tarrows are installed on Garlsbad Village !:::>rive after E',1Ele traEks
are installed on Grand A•o<en1:1e and Gal~ A•ren1:1e, tl:tese sl=lo1:1ld
ind1:1de a green treatment in order to make tl=lem stand 01:1t more.
Shared routes may be used more by confident riders who prefer
not to ride on cycle tracks that tend to cater to more timid and
slower riders.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 40 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 16
4-57 Section 4.4.4, Revise this section as follows:
Bicycle Boulevard A Bicycle Boulevard is a shared roadway intended to prioritize
bicycle travel for people of all ages and abilities. Bicycle
Boulevards are typically sited on streets without large truck or
transit vehicles, and where traffic volumes and speeds are already
low, or can be further reduced through use of traffic calming to
minimize vehicular use of and SQeed through these streets.
4-58 Section 4.4.5, Revise the text discussion as follows:
Cycle Track A Class IV separated bikeway, often referred to as a cycle track or
protected bike lane, is for the exclusive use of bicycles, physically
separated from motor traffic with a vertical feature. The
separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation,
flexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on-street parking. Separated
bikeways can provide for one-way or two-way travel. By
providing physical separation from motor traffic, Class IV
bikeways can reduce the level of stress, improve comfort for
more types of bicyclists, and contribute to an increase in bicycle
volumes and mode share.
[new paragraph] C'icle tracks have been built throughout the
United States and much guidance is available for their QroQer
design. One local example of a two-way Class IV sei:1arated
bikewa'i path in ~Jorth County would be the strip of the Coastal
Rail Trail that extends between Carlsbad and Oceanside along the
Coast Highway. Both one-way and two-way cycle tracks can be
installed as appropriate in order to create more accessible
bikeways. Specifically, as shown in figures 4-4, 4-14, 4-25, and 4-
Th cycle tracks should be implemented on Harding Street, Oak
Avenue and Grand Avenue in order to provide safe and accessible
places for interested but concerned bicyclists to ride.
C'icle tracks will need to be clearly marked, clearl'i visible, and
signalized {with bicycle-signals} where aQQroQriate to ensure that
both Clclists and motorists are aware of each other. Dashed Clcle
track markings across alleywa'is and driveways, for examQle, as
shown in figures 4-4 and 4-26 for Grand Avenue and Harding
Street, resi:1ectivel'i, are a recommended method to increase
awareness at 12otential conflict 12oints.
4-58 Section 4.4.6, Amend the first sentence of the first paragraph to read as follows:
Creating Safer The vast majority of bicycle-motorist collisions occur at
Intersections intersections, alle'is and driveways, marking them as an important
design consideration in creating bicycle infrastructure.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 41 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 17
4-61 Section 4.4.12, Amend the second paragraph as follows:
Coastal Rail Trail Improvements to the Coastal Rail Trail are recommended at the
Improvements entry points to the Class I portion of the trail at Tamarack and Oak
Avenues. At Tamarack Avenue, providing a crossing to enable
bicyclists and pedestrians to cross the street is recommended. The
crossing would also enable turning movements across Tamarack
Avenue such that southbound bicyclists on the Coastal Rail Trail
could turn left (east) on Tamarack Avenue and eastbound
bicyclists on the street could turn left (north) onto the trail. Due to
the trail's Qroximity to the railroad, and since the cross may
reguire modifications to the street median, imQrovements would
reguire coordination with and aQQroval by NTCD. At Oak Avenue,
enhancements are recommended to improve the transition from
the Class I Trail to Oak Avenue. These improvements would
include signs and sharrows to alert both motorists and bicyclists to
each other's presence.
4-61 Section 4.4.12, The third paragraph describes bicycle infrastructure improvements
Coastal Rail Trail recommended for the State Street and Carlsbad Boulevard
Improvements roundabout. Supplement this text description with graphics (e.g.,
pictures and/or plans) to illustrate the recommended changes.
4-61 Section 4.4.12, Revise the last paragraph on the page as follows:
Coastal Rail Trail Routing of the Coastal Rail Trail along the alley would also require
Improvements coordination with NCTD and would likely like result in the loss of
public parking, particularly along the west side of State Street
between Carlsbad Village Drive and Oak Avenue. Coordination with
NCTD would be necessary in light of the possibility of railroad
trenching, future redevelopment, and the determination of how
the rerouted Coastal Rail Trail would connect with existing trail
improvements in the vicinity of the roundabout and on into
Oceanside. Section 4.2 deQicts how a relocated Coastal Rail Trail
could look with the railroad below street level and with a Carlsbad
Village Drive crossing. A central green SQace over the lowered
tracks also is deQicted and suggests an alternative alignment for
the trail that is west of the alley.
4-63 Section 4.5.2, To the bulleted list on page 4-63, revise the last item as follows:
Managing Parking • Support the vision outlined l!l_ef the Master Plan
and Increasing
Mobility
4-64 Section 4.5.2, To the bulleted list, add an additional item at the list's end as follows:
Managing Parking • TransQortation Demand Management
and Increasing
Mobility
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 42 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 18
4-66 Section 4.5.2, Under Section 4.5.2 A. on page 4-66, revise the Back-in Angled Parking
Managing Parking bullet point text to read as follows:
and Increasing Back-In Angled Parking -This type of parking, also known as
Mobility reverse angle parking, requires the user to back into a parking
space with the rear of the vehicle in the opposite direction of
travel. The back-in angled parking strategy has been applied
because of the safety enhancements realized for users leaving a
parking space. A user can easily see oncoming traffic (and
bicyclists) and exit the parking space in a much safer manner.
Moreover, drivers and passengers exit toward the sidewalk when
the doors are open, which is safer for young children. It is also
safer to load packages into the trunk or rear of the vehicle from
the sidewalk than the street.
4-72 Section 4.5.2 E., In-At the second bullet point, amend the first sentence to read as follows:
Lieu Fees Allow funds to pay for parking program improvements -Amend
the policies related to the in-lieu fee program to allow the
collected funds to support shared public parking and leased
public parking that the city will broker.
CHAPTER 5 -IMPLEMENTATION
5-1 5.1, Introduction Delete the fourth bullet point, "Roles and Responsibilities."
5-6 Section 5.5, Roles Delete this section.
and
Responsibilities
CHAPTER 6 -ADMINISTRATION
6-1 Section 6.2.1, Amend the paragraph as follows:
Local Coastal For properties within the Coastal Zone (shown in Figure 2-1), the
Program goals and policies in Chapter 1, the use and development
standards in Chapters 2 and 3, afHi the administrative processes
of Chapter 61 and the definitions in Appendix A of this Master
Plan, together with CMC Chapters 15.12 -Stormwater
Management and Discharge Control, and 15.16 -Grading and
Erosion Control, as well as those provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance not superseded herein, shall constitute the Local
Coastal Program for the Village and Barrio.
6-2 Section 6.3, Permit Amend the first bulleted item as follows:
Requirements 1. The vision and objectives for the Village and Barrio as a
whole as described in Chapter 1-Introduction and Vision;
and
6-3 Section 6.3.2, Amend 6.3.2 A. and 6.3.2 A.1 as follows:
Exempt Projects A. The following improvements and activities are exempt from a
discretionary permit except as provided in Section .§~.3.2.C.
below:
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 43 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 19
1. One single-family detached dwelling (however, compliance
with Section 2.8.3, Residential Design Guidelines, ae5igR
guidelines shall be required; additionally, a minor coastal
development permit shall be required if located in the
Coastal Zone);
6-4 Section 6.3.3, Revise Sections 6.3.3 A. A.4, (Minor Site Development Plans) as follows
Permit Types (note: section numbering is to be revised as described below):
4. Additions to existing structures which result in a
cumulative increase of the internal floor area f¼ of 10 to
50 percent eF FAeFe, up to a maximum 5,000 sguare feet,
whichever is less FegaFdless ef squaFe feetage, and (2) ef
FAeFe tl=lan 2,§QQ squaFe feet and up tea FAa*iFAuFA §,QQQ
squaFe feet, regardless ef tl=le percentage increase ef
internal fleer area;
6-4 Section 6.3.3, Revise Section 6.3.3 B.A.2 (Site Development Plans) as follows (note:
Permit Types section numbering is to be revised as described below):
Additions to existing structures which result in a cumulative
increase of the internal floor area of more than 5,000 square feet
or 50 percent e-f fleer aFea, FegaFdless ef tl=le peFcentage incFease
ef internal fleeF aFea.
6-4 Section 6.3.3, Correct paragraph numbering and a section subheading as follows:
to Permit Types A. Minor Site Development Plan
6-5 AL The following improvements require ...
[renumber 1-8 to a-hl
-8-: Io All minor site development plans ...
B. Site Development Plan
AL The following improvements require ...
[renumber 1-2 to a-bl
-8-: 2. All site development plans ...
C. Minor Conditional Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit
[renumber A-D to 1-41
D. Coastal Development Permit
A 1,_Unless exempt, and e*cept as provided in paFagFapl=ls B
and G ef tl=lis sectien Section 6.3.2 B., all development
within the Coastal Zone of the Village and Barrio Master
Plan shall be subject to issuance of a minor coastal
development permit or coastal development permit in
accordance with the provisions of CMC Chapter 21.201.
-8-: 2. In addition to the decision-making authority ...
[renumber 1-2 to a-bl
6-6 Section 6.5, Amend the first sentence to read as follows:
Amendments
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 44 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 20
Amendments to the Village and Barrio Master Plan shall be
processed in accordance with the provisions of CMC Chapter~
21.35 and 21.52.
APPENDIX A-DEFINITIONS
A-2 Dwellings Under the Dwelling category, delete the definitions of "Managed Living
Units" and "Mixed-Use;" relocate the definition of "Live/Work Unit" to
be after the definition of "Light Industrial."
A-3 Mixed-Use Amend the definition as follows:
Dwelling Mixed-Use DwelliAg: A building or portion thereof, designed for
occupancy by one or more families living independently of each
other, and containing one or more dwelling units in addition to
non-residential space (typically office, retail or other commercial
space). The non-residential space is typically located on the
ground floor.
APPENDIX C -FUNDING SOURCES
C-4 C.1.1, National Insert between third paragraph and "Environmental Justice"
Programs: Federal subheading, a new subheading and introductory paragraph, as follows:
Government D. u.s: Environmental Protection Agenc1t. (EPAl
EPA's mission is to grotect human health and the environment.
Where and how we build communities has a major imgact on the
environment and on gublic health. Many EPA grograms are aimed
at helging tribal, state, and local governments suggort activities
that build more sustainable communities and grotect human
health and the environment.
C-11 C.2.7, California Delete second paragraph (beginning at "Governor's Homeless
Department of Initiative") and third paragraph (beginning at "HOME Investment
Housing and Partnership Program"), and replace with the following:
Community Aflordable Housing_ and Sustainable Communities [AHS[l
Development Program: AHSC grovides grants and affordable housing loans for
{HCD} infill, transit-oriented develogment, infrastructure activities.
Projects will demonstrate how they suggort reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions by increasing accessibility of housing,
emgloyment centers and key destinations via low-carbon
transgortation ogtions resulting in fewer vehicle miles travelled.
Sueeortive Housing_ Multitamil1t_ Housing_ Program lSHMHPl:
SHMHP funds may be used for new construction, rehabilitation,
acguisition and rehabilitation, or conversion of nonresidential
structures. Priority QOints are given to Qrojects using sustainable
building methods sgecified in state regulations. SHMHP funds are
for germanent financing only. Eligible costs include facilities for
child care, after-school care, and social service facilities integrally
linked to the restricted housing units. Develogment costs may
include real grogerty acguisition, refinancing to retain affordable
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 45 of 321
ATTACHMENT B
Combined errata sheet of Planning Commission recommended changes
Page 21
rents. necessaty on-site and off-site imi:1rovements. reasonable
fees and consulting costs, and cai:1italized reserves.
Veterans Housing_ and Homelessness Prevention Program (_VHHPl:
VHHP makes long-term loans for develoi:1ment or i:1reservation of
rental housing for vety low-and low-income veterans and their
families. Funds are made available to si:1onsors who are for-i:1rofit
or noni:1rofit cori:1orations and i:1ublic agencies. Availability of funds
is announced annually through a Notice of Funding Availability.
APPENDIX D-CHRONOLOGY
D-1 n/a Delete "D.1" from the heading
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 46 of 321
+-+-Railroad
- - -Coastal Zone Boundary
- - -Previous Coastal Zone Boundary
D • •
Village and Barrio Master Plan Area
Village
Barrio
---===::::JFeet a o 1,000 V
Path: J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0011347 _ 18\ExhibitO_CZBndyComp.mxd
C cityof
Carlsbad Coastal Zone Boundary Comparisons
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 47 of 321
Figure 2-2, Use Restrictions Map
MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018
(
r771 Boundary of area in which certain uses
~ are not permitted on the ground floor
street frontage.
Boundary of area in which automobile r--• service and light industrial uses are I._ J conditionally permitted.
Combined Errata, Exhibit 2
2-9
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 48 of 321
July 10, 2018
, ATTACHMENT C
Ccicyof
Carlsbad
FIFTH ERRATA SHEET FOR VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN -GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-
01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014)
This fifth errata sheet contains changes prepared by staff to implement recent Coastal
Commission, action regarding uses prohibited by the Municipal. Code and to correct an oversight
in third errata sheet regarding enclosed fourth floor space. The changes are in addition to those
produced in four prior errata sheets for the April 18, May 2, and May 16, 2018, Planning
Commission meetings.
Strikethrough indicates text to be deleted and underline indicates text to be added.
Page# Section{ Recommended change
Figure or
Table
2-8 Table 2-1, Revise the 11expressly prohibited uses" portion of the Table 2-1 as follows:
Permitted EXPRESSLY vc VG HOSP FC PT BP BC .
Uses PROHIBITED
USES ,
A6tiaRs -- -- - - -
13Fal=tieiteel iA
tl=te Giulseael
M1:1Alsi13al
Geae
Adult ----- --
Businesses . {CMC8.60}
Bars and ---- ---
Cocktail
Lounges Not
Part of a
Restaurant
Camping on - --- - - -
r - - - --- -
Public
Propertv
{CMC8.36}
Cannabis ------I ------- -
Activities
{CMC8.90}
r July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 49 of 321
Fifth Errata Sheet for Village and Barrio Master Plan
July 10, 2018
Page 2
Card Rooms ----------
(CMCS.121 '
I Drug -----
Paraphernalia
Stores
Escort ' -----
Services
(CMCS.17)
Hookah or -----
Tobacco I
Lounges
\ Mini-satellite - ---------Wagering
(CMC8.80}
' i Retall sale of ----------
dol<S and cats
(CMC7.16}
'
Tattoo -----
Parlors
2-52 Section Amend Section 2.7.3 G.3. b. as follows:
2.7.3 G., b. The total square footage of enclosed
Hospitality occuf)iable fourth floor space shall not exceed
District 80 percent of the third-floor footprint.
Building
'Height
2-57 Section Amend Section 2.7.4 G.2. b. as follows:
2.7.4 G., b. The total square footage of enclosed
Freeway occuf)iable fourth floor space shall not exceed
Commercial 80 percent of the third-floor footprint.
District
Building r
Height,
\.
----
- -
--
--,
----
----
--
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 50 of 321
July 10, 2018
ATTACHMENT D
{ City of
Carlsbad
SIXTH ERRATA SHEET FOR VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN -GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-
01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014)
This sixth errata sheet adds to the Village and Barrio Master Pla n a Farmers' Market as a conditionally
permitted use in t he Village and correct s a map error in the combined errata sheet provided as pa rt of
Attachment B to Ordinance CS-335. It also adds amendments read into the approving motion to
introduce Ordinance No. CS-335.
Underline indicates text to be added and strikeout indicates text to be deleted.
Page#
2-7 (of
Master
Plan)
Section, Figure or Table
Table 2-1, Permitted Uses
Exhibit 2 of Attachment B-
(Combined Errata Sheet)
of City Council Ordina nce
No. CS-335 for MP 14-01
Recommended change
Under t he "Other" category, add "Farmers' Market" as a
conditionally permitted use in the VC, Village Ce nter,
District as fo llows:
I Farmers' M arket
Revise Exhibit 2 to co rrectly show t he proposed districting
for a pa rcel (APN 203-101-22) between State and Rooseve lt
Streets and north of Beech Avenue. The exhibit presently
shows the parcel as being entirely w ithin the VG District.
Consistent with Figure 2-1 of the proposed plan, t he parcel
should be split by t he VC and VG districts. See below.
Figure 2-2, Use Restrictions Map with incorrect districting
Sixth Errata Sheet for Village and Barrio Master Plan
July 10, 2018
Page 2
2-37
2-45
Section 2.7.1 A., Vi llage
Center District Setbacks
Section 2.7.2.A., Village
General District Setbacks
Figure 2-2, Use Restrictions Map with correct districting
Amend 2.7.1 A.1. as follows:
A. Setbacks
1. Front/Corner: Minimum of 0 feet; maximum of
5 feet to building (at the ground floor).
Additional depth permitted where area
includes a plaza, courtyard, or outdoor dining.
Additional depth is also permitted to
accommodate electrical transformers, utility
connections. meter pedesta.ls. and similar
equipment only if other locations are infeasible
as determined by the decision-maker.
Amend 2.7.2 A as follows:
A. Setbacks
1. Front/Corner: Minimum of 5 feet; maximum of
10 feet to building. Additional depth permitted
where area includes a plaza, courtyard, or
outdoor dining. Additional depth is also
permitted to accommodate electrical
transformers. utility connections, meter
pedestals. and similar equipment only if other
locations are infeasible as determined by the
decision-maker.
a. Awnings, canopies, upper floor ba lconies,
plazas, courtyards, and outdoor dining are
permitted to encroach within the setback
up to the property line.
b. Minimum 10 foot landscape setback where
surface parking areas are located adjacent
to a public street.
Sixth Errata Sheet for Village and Barrio Master Plan
July 10, 2018
Page 3
2.~ Side: Minimum of 5 feet
3.4 Rear: Minimum of 10 feet
2-49 Section 2.7.3 A., Amend 2.7.3 A.l. as follows:
Hospitality District A. Setbacks
Setbacks 1. Parcels along Carlsbad Boulevard between
Beech Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive:
a. Front: Minimum of O feet; maximum of 5
feet to building (at the ground floor).
Additional depth permitted where one or
more of the following are provided: Plaza,
courtyard, outdoor dining, enhanced
pedestrian connection, or landscaping.
Additional dei;1th is also i;1ermitted to
accommodate electrical transformers,
utilitll connections, meter i;1edestals, and
similar eguii;1ment onlll if other locations
are infeasible as determined bll the
decision-maker.
b. Side: 0 feet
C. Rear: 0 feet
6-5 Section 6.3.4, Authority Revise section 6.3.4 as follows:
for Approval A. In all districts, +!he City Planner shall:
1. Be responsible for determining whether or
not a project is exempt from the permit
requirements and, for a project exempt from
a coastal development permit, maintaining a
record of exemption.
L Have the authority to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny minor site development
plans, minor conditional use permits, minor
coastal development permits, and minor
variances. The city planner may approve
minor conditional use permits up to the
square footage and dwelling unit limitations
for minor site development plans specified in
Section 6.3.3.A. The City Planner's decisions
are final unless appealed to the Planning
Commission.
B. The Planning Commission shall~
1. !:!have the authority to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny site development plans,
conditional use permits, coastal development
permits, and variances in the BP, BC and VBO
districts.
2. Have the authoritll to recommend to the Citll
Council ai;1i;1roval, ai;1i;1roval with conditions, or
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 53 of 321
Sixth Errata Sheet for Village and Barrio Master Plan
July 10, 2018
Page 4
~
denial of site develo12ment Qlans, conditional
use 12ermits, coastal develo12ment 12ermits,
and variances in the VC, VG, HOSP, FC, and PT
districts.
+Re PlaAAiAg GemmissieA sl=lall alse aAct
upon appeals from decisions made by the
City Planner. Planning Commission decisions
are final unless appealed to by-the City
Council.
C. The City Council shall2
~ !:!have the authority to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny projects in the VC, VG,
HOSP, FC, and PT districts.
2. Act u12on appealse4 from decisions made by
the Planning Commission.
~ +l=le Gity GeuAcil sl=lall bBe the final
decision-making authority on actions SQecified in
12aragra12hs C.1 and C.2 above, as well as on
legislative actions, such as amendments to this
Master Plan.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 54 of 321
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-129
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, (1) ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; (2) APPROVING
AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND COMMUNITY
DESIGN ELEMENT; OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION, AND RECREATION
ELEMENT; AND HOUSING ELEMENT, AND (3) APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO
THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM FOR THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER
PLAN, WHICH PROVIDES A LAND USE VISION, STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
AND AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 350 ACRES IN THE
NORTHWEST QUADRANT IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 AND
IN THE MOSTLY DEVELOPED AREA WEST OF INTERSTATE 5 AND GENERALLY
BETWEEN LAGUNA DRIVE AND TAMARACK AVENUE.
CASE NAME:
CASE NO.:
VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
GPA 16-01/LCPA 14-01 (DEV 08014)
EXHIBIT 4
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined that pursuant to
the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on April 18, May 2, and May 16,
2018, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider Planning Commission
Resolution No. 7293, recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MND); and Planning Commission Resolution 7294, recommending
approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA 16-01) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 14-
01); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on May 16, 2018, adopted Planning Commission
Resolution No. 7293 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 7294; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, held a duly noticed public hearing on July 10,
2018, to consider the MND and GPA 16-01 and LCPA 14-01, as recommended by the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the MND and
GPA 16-01 and LCPA 14-01; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Coastal Commission Regulations, a six-week public review
period for LCPA 14-01 occurred from February 26, 2016 to April 18, 2016; however, due to project
changes, LCPA 14-01 was recirculated for additional review from April 6, 2018 to May 18, 2018; no
comments were received in response to either review period.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 55 of 321
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the adoption of the MND is
adopted, and that the findings and condition of the Planning Commission contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 7293, on file with the city clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are
the findings and condition of the City Council.
3. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of (a) GPA 16-
01 to amend the Land Use and Community Design Element, Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation
Element; and Housing Element of the General Plan; and (b) LCPA 14-01 to amend the Carlsbad Local
Coastal Program is approved, and that the findings of the Planning Commission contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 7294, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are
the findings of the City Council.
4. The Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial
Review" shall apply. The parties are hereby informed that the time within which judicial review of this
resolution must be sought is governed by Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code with respect to
adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to General Plan Amendment 16-01 and
Local Coastal Program Amendment 14-01.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 10th day of :!.!!.[y, 2018, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
K. Blackburn, M. Schumacher, M. Packard.
C. Schumacher.
M. Hall.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 56 of 321
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7293
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN,
WHICH WOULD REGULATE DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE FOR THE
VILLAGE AND BARRIO, AN APPROXIMATELY 350-ACRE AREA GENERALLY
WEST OF INTERSTATE 5 AND BETWEEN LAGUNA DRIVE AND TAMARACK
AVENUE IN THE CITY'S NORTHWEST QUADRANT AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MAN AG EM ENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
CASE NO.: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-
01/MCA 16-01 (DEV 08014)
EXHIBIT 6
WHEREAS, the city planner has filed a verified application to adopt the Village and Barrio Master
Plan, which would guide land use and development in the city's downtown Village and adjacent Barrio,
an approximately 350-acre area west of Interstate 5 and between Laguna Drive and Tamarack Avenue;
and
WHEREAS, a Draft Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program ("Draft IS/MND") were prepared in conjunction with said project in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, following release of the first draft of the Village and Barrio Master Plan in November
2015, the city circulated the Draft IS/MND for public review from February 12 to March 16, 2016 and five
comment letters and emails were received; subsequently, a second Master Plan draft was released in April
2016;and
WHEREAS, in response to public interest and input on the first and second drafts of the Village
and Barrio Master Plan, the city proceeded to prepare a third draft of the Master Plan, released for public
review in January 2018; and
WHEREAS, based on the latest Master Plan release, the city has considered and revised as
necessary the 2016 Draft IS/MND and has produced a Final IS/MND to incorporate the changes made; and
WHEREAS, no new information has been presented in the Final IS/MND that would require
recirculation of the Draft IS/MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5; and
I f i i I I
I
I I
I l
I
I l
I I I l I I
f I I f
f I I July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 58 of 321
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, specifically, (1) no new significant environmental impacts would result from the
modifications to the Master Plan or new information in the Final IS/MND; (2) no substantial increase in
the severity of environmental impacts would occur; (3) impacts identified as less than significant in the
Draft IS/MND would remain the same or be slightly reduced as a result of the revisions to the Master Plan;
and (4) revisions presented in the Final IS/MND represent new information added to clarify, amplify, or to
make insignificant modifications to the Draft IS/MND; and
WHEREAS, the Draft IS/MND included adequate information for a meaningful public review and
comment, and the Final 15/MND has not been changed in such a way that deprives the public of a
meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Village and
Barrio Master Plan or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid a substantial environmental effect; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on April 18, 2018, May 2, 2018, and May 16, 2018, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written
comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad
as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission
hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, Exhibit "MND" (which includes the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Response to Comments), attached hereto and made
a part hereof, based on the following findings:
PC RESO NO. 7293 -2-July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 59 of 321
/ ,
EXHIBIT "MND"
City of Carlsbad
Village and Barrio Master Plan
Final
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
SCH No. 2016021056
Project Number: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
Prepared for:
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008 ·
Prepared by:
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
April 2018
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 61 of 321
/ ,
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
)
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 62 of 321
TABLE OF CONTENTS
\ Section
Introduction ........................................................................................................... follows Table of Contents
Mitigated Negative Declaration ..................................................................................... follows Introduction
Initial Study
1. . Project Name ................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Project No ....................................................................................................... : ................................. 1
3. Lead Agency ..................................................................................................................................... 1
4. Project Applicant .............................................................................................................................. 1
5. Lead Agency Contact Person ............................................................................................................ 1
6. Project Location ......................................................................... : ..................................................... 1
7. General Plan Land Use Designation ................................................................................................. 1
8. Zoning .............................................................................................................................................. 1
9. Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 1
10. Environmental Setting/Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................. 17
11. Other Required Agency Approvals ................................................................................................. 18
12. Previous Environmental Documentation ....................................................................................... 18
13. Summary Of Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................. 18
Preparation .................................................................................................................................... 18
Determination ................................................................................................................................ 19 f-14.
15.
16. Environmental Determination ....................................................................................................... 19
17. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: ...... .-................ ,. ................................................................... 20
I. Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 22
11. Agricultural and Forestry Resources ................................................................................. ?3
111. Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 25
IV. Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 30
V. Cultural/Paleontological Resources .................................................................................. 32
VI. Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 38
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 40
VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 43
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................... _. ................................ 46
X. Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 50
XI. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 55
XII. Noise ................................................................................................................................. 56
XIII. Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 59
XIV. Public Services ....... : ........................................................................................................... 61
xv. Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 63
XVI. Transportation/Traffic ...................................................................................................... 63
I I XVII. Tribal Cultural Resources ................... , .............................................................................. 66
\_-
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 63 of 321
(__
'
Section
XVIII.
XIX.
xx.
XXL
XXII.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................ 67
Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................ ~ ................................................. 71
List of Mitigation Measures ............ ,. ......................................... _. ....................................... 72
Earlier Analyses ................................................................................................................. 74
Earlier Analysis Used and Supporting Information Sources ............................................. 74
List of Appendices
A Draft 15/MND Figures (replaced by figures in Final IS/MND)
B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
C Responses to Comments
List of Figures
No. Follows Page
1 Regional Location Map .................................................................................................................. 76
2 Project Location ............................................................................................................................. 76
3 Existing and Proposed Land Use ..................................................................................................... 76
4 Existing and Proposed Zoning ........................................................................................................ 76
5 Key Village Recommendations .................................................................... · ................................... 76 '
6 Key Barrio Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 76
7 Districts .......................... ,. ...... ( ......................................................................................................... 76
List of Tables
1 Frequency of Air Quality Standard Violations, Number of Days Exceeding Standard ................... 27
2 Demonstration of General Plan Consistency ..................................... ~ ........................................... 51
ii July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 64 of 321
/
INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MIT,IGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study {IS)/Mitigated
Negative Declaration {MND) was prepared by the City of Carlsbad (city) for the city's Village and Barrio
Master Plan {Master Plan). The Notice of Intent to adopt a MND was published in the newspaper February
12, 2016, and invited public comment through March 13, 2016. The Draft IS/MND was submitted to the
State Clearinghouse (SCH) and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research and circulated for a 30-day
public review period beginning on February 16, 2016, and ending on · March 16, 2016 {SCH No.
2016021056). During that time, the document was reviewed by various state and local agencies, as well
as by interested individuals and organizations. '
The Final IS/MND is presented herein with changes incorporated after the completion of public review.
Additions, revisions, and clarifications to the Draft IS/MND are provided in strike out/underline format to
signify deletions and inserts in the Final IS/MND text. The Draft IS/MND was prepared based on the first draft
of the Master Plan, which was circulated for public review in November 2015. In April 2016, the city released
a second Master Plan draft. Subsequent public input and preparation of a comprehensive parking study
for the Village, Barrio, and adjacent beach area contributed to the decision to further revise the Master
Plan and prepare and release for public review a third draft, dated January 2018. Following its release,
the city prepared errata to identify recommended revisions to the third draft. The errata are provided as
part of the Planning Commission staff report on the Master Plan.
Revisions to the Master Plan that have occurred subsequent to public circulation of the Draft IS/MND are
summarized below.
Revisions or Clarifications to the Village and Barrio Master Plan
Subsequent to the circulation of the Draft IS/MND, a number of revisions or clarifications were made to the
Draft Village and Barrio Master Plan. The Master Plan has been restructured to separate the discussion into
six chapters instead of three parts. Where the first draft provided content ov~r the Plan, Code, and Design
Guidelines parts, the third draft separates plan content into the following chapters:
• Chapter 1, Introduction, contains the overall vision, goals and policies, and .key improvement
recommendations.
• Chapter 2, Land Use, contains the regulatory requirements, such as the permitted uses and
developm~nt and parking standards, and the design guidelines.
• Chapter 3, Signs, contains standards for design and placement of signs.
• Chapter 4, Mobility and Beautification, outlines and discusses overall and conceptual
improvements to public areas, such as streets and sidewalks; a bicycle network plan; and
parking and transportation demand management strategies.
• Chapter 5, Implementation, provides an implementation and phasing plan for Master Plan
public improvements as well as potential improvement funding sources.
• Chapter 6, Administration, details Master Plan permit and review requirements and
administrative procedures for amendments to the Master Plan.
In general, revisions to the Master Plan have been guided by the vision established through ongoing
community input, regulations, policies, studies, and other guidance. The city has continued to receive
input from the community on the Master Plan since the first draft was circulated for public review in
November 2015; the third draft Master Plan incorporates many of the community's recommendations for
April 2018 -1-1-Introduction to the Final 15/MND July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 65 of 321
'·
/
I
City of Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
both the vision and future development within the Village and Barrio. While some of the key improvement
recommendations presented in Chapter 1 are consistent with those presented in the Village and Barrio
Illustrative Plans of the first and second Master Plan drafts, the list of recommendations has been refined.
Refinements have resulted primarily through continued public input on the types of improvements that
would benefit the community, from a recently completed Parking Management Plan (as discussed in the
following paragraph}, and from continued work by the city to produce the third draft.
The parking standards and approaches to manage parking and increase mobility, presented in Chapters 2 and
4, incorporate the key recommendations and strategies from the Parking Management Plan (PMP} for th~
Village, Barrio and Beach Area, which was accepted by the City Council in September 2017. The
information presented in Chapter 4 replaces the Mobility Plan, as well as many other components of the .
"Plan" portion of the first and second drafts proposed to enhance the Village and Barrio. References to
creation of a Mobility Management District and Downtown Mobility Commission previously identified in
the earlier Master Plan drafts have been removed. The Master Plan recommends that the city implement
a comprehensive parking management program to strengthen and improve shared parking in the area
and implement other parking management and Transportation Demand Management (TDM} strategies
to create a more balanced land efficient parking system. The goals, policies, standards and programs
identified in the third draft Master Plan support creating a more walkable community and use of other
modes of transportation such as walking, bicycling, and transit.
The Master Plan boundary has been adjusted to exdude1 several parcels, including Jefferson Elementary
School in the Barrio at the southern end of the Master Plan area. As the city lacks land use jurisdiction
over the school, and much of the neighboring residential area developed separately and differently from
the Barrio and with Tamarack Avenue orientation, this area is not within the plan's boundaries. Tamarack
Shores, for example, the 80-unit planned community along the north and west sides of the school, was
built in the 1970s and 80s, considergbly later than and in a format'unlike much of the Barrio. The "transect
districts" presented in the first and second drafts of the Master Plan have been refined into more
descriptive and logical districts in Chapter 2 of the third draft Master Plan. The standards and permitted
uses for each of these districts have been updated accordingly. The design guidelines also have been
refined, but would still address many components of building style and orientation (including site layout,
parking and access, plazas and open space, building massing and form, roof forms, building fac;:ades, and
appurtenances}, as well as site planning considerations such as layout, parking, access, connectivity,
l~ndscaping, and utilities. The permit types presented in Chapter 6 have been revised from the "minor
review permit" and "major review permit" terminology previously presented to "minor site development
plan," "site development plan," and "minor conditional use permit," and "conditional use permit," to be
consistent with existing permitting requirements elsewhere in the city.
The third draft also contains an Implementation Plan in Chapter 5. The Implementation Plan identifies key ,
Master Plan project and program recommendations, general implementation time frames and potential
funding sources. An implementation plan was not presented in the earlier drafts.
r·
The Final 15/MND has incorporated the revisions summarized above. The analysis presented in the Draft
15/MND was reviewed against these changes, and revisions and clarifications have been made as necessary
to address the revised Master Plan, as described below. The figures presented in the Draft 15/MND that have
been updated and replaced in the Final 15/MND to reference maps and figures provided in the third draft
Master Plan are presented in Appendix A.
April 2018 -1-2-Introduction to the Final 15/MND July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 66 of 321
\
\.._
City of Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
Recirculation Requirements and Revisions or Clarifications to the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15073.5(a) and (b) state that recirculation is required when a Negative
· Declaration or an MND has been substantially revised, which is defined as:
(1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must
be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or;
(2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not
reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required .
Section 15073.5(c) also adds that recirculation is not required under the following circumstances:
(1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section
15074.1.
(2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's
effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant
effects.
(3) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration
which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and
are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable signific:ant effect.
(4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes
insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.
No new information has been presented in the Final IS/MND that would require recirculation of the Draft
IS/MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. Specifically, no new significant environmental
impacts would result from the modifications to the Master Plan or new information in the Final IS/MND.
No substantial increase in the severity of environmental impacts would occur. Impacts identified as less
than significant in the Draft IS/MND would remain the same or be slightly reduced as a result of the
revisions to the Master Plan. Potentially significant and mitigable impacts to biological resources, cuitural
and tribal cultural resources, paleontological resources, and noise would remain the same as analyzed in
the Draft IS/MND. Mitigation measures ARCH-1 and PALE0-1 have been revised to reference the Carlsbad
Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines, which were adopted by the city in September
2017 after public circulation of the Draft IS/MND. With incorporation of the new guidelines and standard
treatment measures, these mitigation measures are not considerably different from those analyzed in the
Draft IS/MND, and these mitigation measures would reduce the potentially significant impacts to less than
significant. Other revisions to the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts presented in the Final IS/MND are
generally summarized as follows:
• Updates to the IS Checklist format and discussion to be consistent with current city guidelines,
including expanding the checklist for agricultural and forestry resources and providing a
separate discussion of tribal cultural resources pe r the 2018 CEQA Guidelines;
• Updates to the regulatory framework to discuss the current applicable plans, policies,
guidelines, and regulations that have been published or adopted subsequent to public
circulation of the Draft IS/MND;
~ Minor revisions to address changes to the Master Plan boundary, vision and objectives, goals
and policies, development standards, design guidelines, and impl~mentation plan, as
summarized above;
April 2018 -1-3-Introduction to the Final IS/MND
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 67 of 321
I
City of Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
• Updated data and additional information to clarify and support the significance conclusions
presented in the Draft IS/MND; and
• Revisions in. response to comments received during public circulation.
The Draft IS/MND included adequate information for a meaningful public review and comment; the Final
IS/MND has not been changed in such a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to
comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Village and Barrio Master Plan or a
feasible way to mitigate or avoid a substantial environmental effect. Based on the above considerations,
recirculation of the Village and Barrio Master Plan is not warranted.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been included as Appendix B to this Final
IS/MND, which has been prepared in response to Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. The CEQA
Guideli_nes require that an MMRP be adopted upon certification of an IS/MND to ensure mitigation
measures identified in the IS/MND are implemented. The mitigation measures presented in the MMRP
incorporate the additions, revisions, and clarifications of the Final IS/MND text. Implementation of the
MMRP for the Village and Barrio Master Plan is the responsibility of the City of Carlsbad.
Response to Comments
Three lett~rs were received from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research indicating that the SCH
had submitted the Draft IS/MND to selected state agencies for review; comments from the responding
agencies were enclosed. These letters are included in Appendix C. /-
Written comments were received during the public review period from the following agencies, provided
in chronological order of comments received: California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG), and CalJfornia Department of Transportation (Caltrans). In
addition, written comments were received from two individuals: John Bailey and Robert C. Ladwig. The
comments and city responses to the comments are included as Appendix C to the Final IS/MND.
April 2018 -1-4-Introduction to the Final 15/MND July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 68 of 321
\
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
C c icy of
Carlsbad
PROJECT NAME: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
PROJECT NO: GPA 16-01/ZC 16-01/ZCA 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV 08014)
PROJECT LOCATION: The Village and Barrio Master. Plan establishes a vision, policies and standards for
future development and land uses with the city's downtown "Village" and adjac-ent "Barrio." The two
neighborhoods occupy approximately 350-acres. The Village and Barrio Master Plan would replace the
existing Vjllage Master Plan and Design Manual and the general zoning regulations applicable to the Barrio.
' i
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Village and Barrio are generally west of Interstate 5 between Tamarack
Avenue and Laguna Drive.
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described .
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the Initial Study
identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
[:8J Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached
sheet have been added to the project.
D
D
\
The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies
only to the effects that remained to be addressed).
Although: the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
A copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file
in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED:
ATIEST:
DAVID DE CORDOVA
Principal Planner
Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8560 fax July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 69 of 321
,/
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 70 of 321
/
\
(
Initial Study
1. PROJECT NAME: Village and Barrio Master Plan
. ( Cicy of
Carlsbad
2. PROJECT NO: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/M CA 16-01
3. LEAD AGENCY:
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
4. PROJECT APPLI CANT:
City of Ca rlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
5. LEAD AGENCY CONTACT I PERSON: Scott Donnell, Senior Planner, {760) 602-4618,
scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov.
6. PROJECT LOCATION: Carlsbad Village {Village) and the adjacent Barrio neighborhood are located at
the northwestern edge of the City of Carlsbad {City), c;alifornia {See Figure 1, Regional Location Map,
and Figure 2, Project Location). The Village is located within the City's historic center and downtown,
and generally extends between Interstate 5 {1-5) and Garfield Street and from Laguna Drive to Oak
Avenue. The Barrio neighborhood is adjacent to, and south of, the Village, and generally is cons idered
to be the area between Oak and Tamarack Avenues and the railroad tracks and 1-5. The proposed
Village and Barrio Master Plan {Master Plan) covers an approximately 350-acre area of the City, a
portion of which is located within the CoastaLZone.
7. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATI ON: General Commercial {GC), Open Space {OS), Public (P),
Residential (R-15 [8-15 ' dwelling units per acre; du/ac] and R-30 [23-30 du/ac]), Transportation
Corridor (TC) and, Village {V), and Visitor Commercial (VG).
8. ZONING: Commercial General (C-2), Commercial Tourist (CT), Open Space (OS), Public Utility (P-U),
Residential (.f{D-M, RD M Q, R-3), Transportati6n Corridor (T-C), and Village Review (V-R).
/
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTI ON:
The Village and Barrio Master Plan {Master Pian) is the planning document proposed to provide the
vision, goals and policies, regulations, guidelines, and procedures for land use and development
within the Village and Barrio areas of the City. The document updates and replaces the Carlsbad
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, adopted by the City in December 1995, aR€1-certified by the
Coastal Commission in September 1996, and periodically amended since. The document also provides
for the first time a master plan and area-specific standards for the Barrio; presently, the Barrio is
regulated by the Zoning Ordinance.
The Master Plan establishes the visiori and sets forth recommendations and allowed land uses for
future development of the Village and Barrio areas of the City. The Master Plan also discusses specific
potential projects that may be implemented in th~ future. However, these potential projects,.__!JJ.fil!Y
of which are identified as the "key recommendations" discussed below, are not addressed in this
Initial Study because there is insufficient information .to assess potential impacts. These projects
would require subsequent discretionary approval including environmental review by the City at the
time t~ey, are proposed.
April 2018 -1-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 71 of 321
\
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
The Master Plan contains the implementation strategy, standards, and criteria for development
within the Village and Barrio, per the vision the document identifies. The Master Plan is divided into
four parts six chapters and four appendices, as summarized below:
_•_-P-aft-Chapter 1 (Introduction) contains the overall v1s1on, strategies goals and
policiesobjectives, and generally presen;s improvement information conceptually.!sgy
improvement recommendations.
_•_---P-aft-Chapter 2 (Land Use) contains the regulatory requirements, such as the permitted uses
and development standards, and the design guidelines.
_•_P-art-Chapter 3 (Signs) contains standards for design and placement of signsthe Desigf1
Guidelines.
• Chapter 4 (Mobility and Beautification) outlines and discusses overall and conceptual
improvements to public areas, such as streets and sidewalks; a bicycle network plan; and
parking and transportation demand management strategies.
• Chapter 5 (Implementation) provides an implementation and phasing plan for Master Plan
public improvements as well as potential improvement funding sources.
• Chapter 6 (Administration) details Master Plan permit and review requirements and
administrative procedures for amendments to the Master Plan .. r
• The appendices provide supporting information, such as definitions, economic and
demographic data, a'dditional information regarding funding sources, and a chronology of
development of the Master Plan from 2011 to 2017Finally, Part 4 is the appendix, which
.includes a section further detailing street concepts presented in Part 1.
/\s stated in Part 1, the Master Plan:
• Provides guidance to property ovmers, merchants, and others interested in development or ,
property improvements within the Village and Barrio;
• Provides guidance in interpreting planning and zoning requirements for properties within the
Village and Barrio;
• Provides guidance on potential capital improvement projects to help incentivize and
implement development v,rithin the Village and Barrio;
• Provides principles, standards, regulations, and design guidelines that may be applied t-e
proposed improvements •.vithin the Village and Barrio; and
• Provides a strategy for continuing to implement various programs/projects to assist in
revitalizing the Village and Barrio areas ..
Project Objectives
Objectives of the project include the following:
• Develop a master plan that unifies the Village and Barrio, conforms with the General Plan,
and implements the community's vision through appropriate standards and guidelines;
April 2018 -2-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 72 of 321
/
\
/
,;:---.......
Project Name : VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
• Foster Village revitalization through a mix of uses that are traditionally located withil'l a
pedestrian-oriented downtown, attract residents and visitors, and create a lively social
environment;
• Strengthen the Village's commercial district, especially its core area, through standards that
are (1) adequate to enable a variety of retail tenants, businesses, services, and (where
appropriate) customer-serving office uses, and (2) mindful of the potential size and
configuration constraints of the Village's existing commercial spaces;
• Encourage homes in the Village, particularly in a mixed-use format, where appropriate;
' • Address long-term public parking and public access needs based on a multi-modal
transportation system objective and the accepted 2017 Parking Management Plan for the
Village, Barrio and Beach Area, recognizing the Village's attractiveness to residents and
visitors, as well as its proximity to beaches;
• Develop appropriate parking ratios based on available public parking, the accepted 2017
Parking Management Plan for the Village, Barrio and Beach Area and in recognition of the San
Diego Association of Governments (SAN DAG) designation of the Village and Barrio areas as
an "existing/planned smart growth area";
• Encourage Barrio/Village cohesion and access through community gathering spaces and
livable streets that serve all users with improved sidewalks, lighting, and street trees; and
• Ensure Barrio development enhances neighborhood quality and character.
In both the Village and Barrio areas, the Master Plan strives to:
• lncentivize and attract smart growth development;
• Foster better transit;
• Emphasize the pedestrian through design, uses, and the streetscape;
• Maintain and enhance the area through quality design, uses, public spaces, and livable
streets;
• Develop the Village and Barrio as concentrated, urban scaled nodes;
• Support future housing needs for all income groups;
• Support and enhance non-vehicular access within the planning area and to adjacent areas,
across the railroad, and to the beach;
_•_Recognize and preserve historic and cultural resources; and
• Manage parking.
• Encourage quality design.
Master Plan
The Master Plan is intended to enhance future development of the Village and Barrio areas,
particularly relative to the street experience, public spaces, and through appropriate development
standards and guidelines. The Master Plan has several focuses, including reestablishing the traditional
development pattern of the Village as a true village with a dovmto,,.,·n commercial core and a central
Barrio (residential) core, maintaining and enhancing the Village as a community focal point and the
Barrio as predominantly residential area; promoting development that protects and enhances the
character of both neighborhoods yet provides enough flexibility and opportunity for quality growth;
existing character of Carlsbad 1.Nhile promoting design focused regulations for nevo' de>.fe!opment,
creating "livable streets" that balance different modes of transportation_;_, creating magnetic public
April 2018 -3-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 73 of 321
\
(
c
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
spaces_;; and maximizing connectivity within the planning area, with adjacent neighborhoods, and with
the beach.
The Master Plan has been developed in consultation with the Carlsbad community through an
iterative process that began in 2013. The city received significant public input Key recommendations
for the vision and future development 1Mithin the Village and Barrio 'Nere cultivated during an
approximately two-week public charrette in September 2014, in response to the two previously-
released drafts, and at a community meeting in July 2016. This charrette, led by Master Plan
consultant Dover, Kohl & Partners, included hands on design sessions and meetings with residents,
community members, agency representatives, and City staff. The Master Plan incorporates many of
these community's recommendations for both the vision and future development within the Village
and Barrio in the vision or "Plan" portion of the document; in some cases, recommendations have
been modified upon further study. Generally, the recommendations presented in the Master Plan for
improvements to Village and Barrio streets and properties are in a conceptual form only and are
intended to be refined over time as future project-specific development is planned by the private and
public sector. Implementation ofthe recommendations also would be subject to further and separate
review, analysis, and approval. 1
Furthermore. while the Master Plan is guided by the vision established through community input,
regulations, policies, studies, and other guidance have also influenced the preparation of this plan.
These other influences include, but are not limited to, the Carlsbad Community Vision, General Plan,
Local Coastal Program, Climate Action Plan, Municipal Code, and Zoning Ordinance; a complete listing
is contained in Chapter 1 of the Master Plan.
In addition to conceptual imprmiements, the Master Plan also presents strategies and objectives to
guide land use. Some of the strategies, for eJCample, are contained within a (/Mobility Plan," discussed
further below.
The underlying General Plan designations and zoning currently in place within the Master Plan area
would change. This is mostly due to the need to recognize the Master Plan for the Barrio. This will
require a ,new designation and zoning to be applied to the Barrio. The present Village (V) designation
and Village-Review (V-R) zoning now applied to the Village would be revised to include and recognize
the Barrio. ,Figure 3, Existin[? and Proposed Land Use, and Figure 4, Existing and Proposed Zoning,
illustrate existing General Plan designations and zoning and how they would change under the Master
Plan. However, General Plan densities currently permitted in the Village and Barrio would not change,
and overall land use patterns in general would remain the same. Further, development would be
guided by the Master Plan to be consistent with the recommended goals for implementation of the
General Plan. Besides amendments to General Plan land use designation and zoning maps, portions
of the General Plan, such as the Land Use and Community Design Element, and the Zoning Ordinance
will need corresponding text amendments to recognize the proposed land use designations and
zoning and the Master Plan .
The existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual would be completely replaced and superseded by
the Master Plan. The Master Plan would establish new transect districts that would replace the
existing,land use districts of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. These transectnew districts
would also regulate land uses, 3-fl4.provide standards in the BarrioL as ·uell and replace existing zoning
currently in place in the Barrio.
April 2018 -4-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 74 of 321
(
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
Adoption of the City's General Plan in September 2015 changed zoning and General Plan designations
on four properties near or partially within the boundaries of the existing Village Master Pran and
Design Manual. These properties, located east and west of Carlsbad Boulevard (Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 203-250-08, 203-250-25, 203-250-26, and 203-231-01), now have the presentV designation
and V-R zone, although the zone change is still subject to Coastal Commission approval. The boundary
of the Village and Barrio Master Plan was not formally revised to incorporate these properties. This
boundary adjustment would occur as part of the Village and Barrio Master Plan approval. This
adjustment is already shown on the proposed master plan boundary indicated on Figures 3 and 4.
Portions of the Village and Barrio currently are part of two different Local Coastal Program segments
-the Village Area Reviev,' se·gment and the Mello II segment. The Local Coastal Program will be revised
as appropriate to recognize the Master Plan.
The following discussion summarizes specific sections of the Master Plan, as revised in January 2018,
that address the project objectives listed above.
Master Plan Vision, Goals and Policies
As identified in Chapter 1 ofthe Master Plan, the vision for the Village and Barrio is as follows:
Carlsbad's Village and Barrio are vibrant, safe, and healthy neighborhoods that:
• Serve as the historic heart of the city, honoring Carlsbad's past and creating a strong sense
of community.
• Are cdnnected in place and spirit yet retain their unique personalities.
• Embody the principles of smart growth, with a mix of commercial and residential land
uses, a variety of housing choices, walkable neighborhoods, and multiple transportation
options.
• Attract high quality, sustainable development that enhances vitality and local character.
To reinforce the vision, goals and policies have been established to guide public and private
development within the Village and Barrio. Each goal and policy links to one or more aspects of the
Master Plan vision. In turn, the plan's provisions, whether a development standard, permitted use or
recommended improvement, align with and support the goals and policies.
The goals and policies are identified in Chapter 1 of the Master Plan and fall into the following four
categories:
• Land use and community character;
• Mobility and parking;
• Connectivity; and
• Placemaking.
April 2018 -5-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 75 of 321
,-
/
The Village
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
Tbe proposed Master Plan would support Village revitalization over the long-term through a series of
key recommendations that are both broad and specific. The key recommendations are based on input
from extensive public participation and city staff work that have occurred throughout the
development of the Master Plan. Due to ongoing public outreach and refinement of the plan, the
recommendations have evolved from the "Village Illustrative Plan" presented in the November 2015
Draft of the Master Plan. provided in the Village Illustrative Plan. The Village Illustrative Plan f&ee
Figure 5, Vi.'-f.age !.'h1stretive PlanKey Village Recommendations,} highlights the key recommendations
for the Village, which are also depicts key redevelopment and infill opportunities ·.vithin the Village,
which correspond to the follo1Ning recommendations:listed below:
A. Consider pedestrian scrambles at key Carlsbad Village Drive intersections, such as at
Roosevelt Street and Carlsbad Village Drive.
B. Develop public plazas at key intersections, such as Carlsbad Village Drive and Carlsbad
Boulevard.
C. Reconfigure the Village Train Station1s State Street entrance into a formal plaza with vehicle
access maintained.
D. Incorporate cycle tracks on Grand Avenue, Oak Avenue, and State Street Alley.
E. Re-route the Coastal Rail Trail from State Street north of Oak Avenue to the alley west of State
Street; connect the trail with any railroad crossings; add new bike and pedestrian crossings at
Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue.
F. Tunnel under the freeway to connect Grand Avenue with streets to the east of the Interstate,
near City Hall.
G. Lower the railroad tracks below street level to enable more crossings over the tracks and
better connect the Village to the beach.
H. Make Grand Avenue a signature space by converting half the street into a pedestrian
promenade.
I. Provide a new east-west pedestrian connection between Madison Street and Roosevelt Street
in the vicinity of Beech Avenue and Arbuckle Place.
J. Improve Carlsbad Village Drive west of Carlsbad Boulevard to provide a more attractive,
enticing entrance to the beach.
K. Create a new civic space at the corner of Grand Avenue and State Street; energize the space
through conversion of the adjacent building into an attractive and active use.
L. Reconfigure a portion of Lincoln Street between Oak Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard to
create additional civic space in the Village in the form of a shared space or pedestrian plaza.
M. In coordination with the potential lowering of the tracks below street level, develop a central
green space through expansion of Rotary Park over the tracks.
April 2018 -6-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 76 of 321
'
c_
'----I
/
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
a. Set the tone for a 'Nalkable village with street oriented, pedestrian friendly buildings upon
entering the Village at I 5.
a. Create a mixed use square or public plaza at the entrance to_ the Village.
b. Provide parking at Village entry points that connect with local circulators (e.g., pedestrian
streets and paths, buses or bicycle infrastructure), to encourage people to park their cars and
wa+k-,
c. Increase the parking supply within the Village on city ovmed properties and on streets.
d. Make Grand Avenue a signature space by converting half the street into a pedestrian
promenade and creating a shared space or "festival street" between the railroad tracks and
Roosevelt Street.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
I.
m.
n.
Create a public plaza at the corner of Grand and State Street; formalize the space by providing
a new building as a backdrop to the civic plaza.
Create a formal entrance to the Coaster Station.
Provide parking structures for commuters and visitors to the Village. This frees land for
additional housing and commercial opportunities.
Tunnel under the freeway to connect Grand Avenue with streets to the east of the Interstate,
near City Hall.
Increase housing and business opportunities and provide a more connected street frontage ·
throughout the Village._
Improve beach users' m<perience through better access and close by amenities.
Encourage redevelopment of the Villag'e Faire into a street oriented center. r
Close a portion of Lincoln Street betv,reen Oak /wenue and Carlsbad Boulevard to create
additional civic space in the Village.
Trench the railroad in coordination with double tracking the line. This will allov,r for more
crossings across the tracks and better connect the Village to the beach.
Utilize alleys bet1Neen Carlsbad Village Drh,re and Oak Street to create an artist village.
The Barrio
Similar to the Village, key recommendations Opportunities that also have been identified for future
development ·,vithinto rejuvenate the Barrio.,_are described in the Barrio Illustrative Plan (See Figure 6,
!Sgy_Barrio Recommendations, highlights many of these, !l!ustratf·;e PfaR). The following key
recommendations correspond to the items identified in Figure 6which are also listed below:~
A. Create a shared space at Roosevelt Street and Walnut Avenue, a prominent intersection in
the Barrio.
B. Explore reconfiguring Tyler Street south of Oak Avenue into a "shared space" and from a
two-way to a one-way street.
C. Explore use of the railroad right of way for public parking while maintaining the Coastal Rail
Trail.
D. Add traffic circles and other, intersection improvements to calm traffic and improve
walkability.
E. Improve the Coastal Rail Trail entries at Tamarack Avenue and Oak Avenue.
April 2018 -7-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 77 of 321
I'
\._,_
/
'---
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
F. Develop protected bikeways (cycle tracks) that connect the Barrio with the Village and the
beach.
G. Provide, at a minimum, a pedestrian and bicycle crossing at Chestnut Avenue; if lowering the
tracks below street level does not proceed, pursue the completion of this particular crossing.
H. Lower the railroad tracks below street level to enable more crossings over the tracks and
better connect the Barrio to the beach; connect the Coastal Rail Trail with any railroad
crossings. I
a. Support trenching the railroad tracks in coordination with double tracking the system to
create a fully connected netv,rork of streets across the tracks and preserve the Coastal Rail
Trail connection.
b. Create a protected cycle track on Harding Street.
c. Pro'o'ide angled parking in the center of the street to provide additional supply while calming
the street vv<ithin the existing curb dimensions. -
d. Create "streets for everyone" by rebalancing them throughout the Barrio to have narrower
travel lanes and add street trees between parking spaces.
e. Add traffic circl.es to calm traffic and improve walkability.
f. Consistent >Nith the General Plan, alloi:,,, denser buildings along the Interstate, railroad; and
Tamarack Avenue (along the perimeter) to meet residential demand 'Nhile also protecting the
smaller lot nature of the· Barrio. The requirements outlined in the Edge District are based on
this objective. Barrio redevelopment should provide a mix of units and housing types to meet
density needs rather than single repeated buildings. Barrio redevelopment should provide a
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
mile of units and housing types to meet density needs rather than single repeated buildings.
Construct a roundabout at the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street to allov,r
vehicles to flov,' in and out of the neighborhood at managed speeds 'Nhile creating a gateway
into the Barrio and beach area.
Enable street oriented building along Tamarack by I 5 to creating a gate>Nay for the Barrio and
~
Ensure infill development >.vithin the Barrio is in keeping >1o1ith the current character of the
-BafFi.e.:.
Connect Magnolia Avenue to Anchor 'Nay >Nith a sidewalk and provide safe passage to
children heading to school.
I Consider senior housing near Pine Avenue Park, the Harding Community Center, and the
Senior Center. Senior housing often occurs near a community facility so that residents can
access daily needs v,ithin a short v,alking distance.
Complete Pine Avenue Park and Community Center, a center of activity in the Barrio, in
accordance with the Park Master Plan.
Mobility, Circulation, and Parking and Beautification
In accordance with the General Plan and the recommendations outlined in the Master Plan, the future
of the Village and Barrio is envisioned to be a walkable t!-faaR-environment. However, other modes of
transportation would be accommodated to benefit the bicyclist, motorist, rideshare user and transit
user as well. As envisioned by the Master Plan in Chapter 4, the existing circulation system would be
enhanced through a variety of street, parking, and pedestrian/bicycle and other potential mobility
improvements based not only on current but emerging and·future technologies as well. All mobility
recommendations are developed around guiding principles of establishing connections and
April 2018 -8-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 78 of 321
(
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
infrastructure for all modes of travel; embracing a variety of transportation options; and creating a
{{park once" strategy in the Village that enables and encourages visitors to park once and move around
the Village on foot, by bike, or other alternative mode of transportation. In Chapter 4, +!he Master
Plan recommends that existing streets be retrofitted with wider sidewalks, bike infrastructure, trees,
better lighting, and buried/relocated overhead utilities to improve walkability and appearance. Street
improvements would feature a balance of different modes of transportation, and include
infrastructure to support all roadway users, such as the addition of on-street parking through
restriping and curb cut closures, protected bike lanes (cycle tracks). or a pedestrian promenade along
Grand Avenue. The promenade would provide sufficient width to accommodate pedestrians,·as well
as outdoor dining and feta-i.l..public activitiesopportunities, in lieu of one-half of the current street.
Although not proposed as part of the Master Plan, the Master Plan acknowledges and integrates two
major transportation-related projects which may affect the Village and Barrio areas, and which would
improve connectivity with the planning area and its surroundings, a Master Plan objecti,..egoal. The
first is the proposal by the North County Transit District (NCTD} and SAN DAG to double-track the rail
line through the area. In addition to the plans to double-track the rail lines, the City and SAN DAG are
currently studying the feasibility of putting the rail lines in a below-street-level trench to reduce noise
and safety impacts, andimpacts and allow more linkage between areas currently separated by the rail
lines.
Transportation enhancements in local communities, which accompany the plans to widen 1-5 in the
northern part of the county, offer another opportunity to enhance mobility in the Master Plan area.
These enhancements would be funded by the California Department ofTransportation (Caltrans), and
could include "gateway" treatments, widened sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, and street trees. As
freeway design proceeds, the City would continue to work with Caltrans to improve east-west
connections across 1-5 for all modes of transportation (including pedestrians and cyclists), including
Carlsbad Village Drive, Chestnut Avenue, and Tamarack Avenue.
In addition to the mobility and circulation system improvements noted above, the Master Plan
proposes a "Mobility Plan.11Mobility and Beautification chapter concludes with a section entitled
"Implement Parking and Transportation Demand Strategies." This section is based on ~he 2017
Parking Management Plan for the Village, Barrio, and Beach Area (PMP), accepted by City Council in
September 2017. The PMP began with a comprehensive study capturing the existing parking
conditions in the Master Plan and adjacent beach areas, including parking occupancy and duration
data. Key recommendations and strategies from the PMP are incorporated into this Master Plan for
implementation. The PMP provides implementable short-term (by year 2020). medium-term (by year
2025). and long-term (by year 2035) strategies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
parking system and increase mobility within the Village and Barrio. The PMP was developed with the
following goals in mind:
• Make parking more convenient for community members, employees, and visitors;
• Promote more efficient use of existing parking;
• Support future parking needs and mobility options;
o Explore options to make the project area more inviting for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public
transit riders; and
• Support the vision outlined in the Master Plan.
April 2018 -9-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 79 of 321
/
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
Consistent with the PMP, the Master Plan recommends that the city implement a comprehensive
parking management program to strengthen and improve shared parking in the area and implement
other parking management and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to create a
more balanced and efficient parking system. TDM consists of programs, policies and actions that aim
to reduce reliance on solo-occupant vehicle use, in part by providing more options for getting around.
The goals, policies, standards, and programs identified in the Master Plan support the vision to more
fully transform the Village and Barrio into a vibrant, walkable community, supported by a mix of uses
and transit options. An important outcome will be to shift people from vehicle-focused travel, and
more use of other modes: walking, bicycling and transit.
Because transportation is constantly evolving, the purpose of this Mobility Plan is not to recommend
specific transportation or parking projects to implement. Instead, it is intended to provide an overall
framev.'ork and strategies for efficiently managing mobility in all its forms, and to implement changes
to the regulation of private development that are appropriate for the Village and Barrio's 1.valkable,
urban setting. The Mobility Plan identifies short and long term strategies to guide and manage parking
and mobility in general; strategies include:
• Creation of a Mobility Management District and Downtovm Mobility Commission. District
boundaries ·.vould mirror those of the Master Plan. Purposes of the Mobility Commission
could include overseeing, observing, and making recommendation on parking and mobility
issues and strategies 1Nithin the district. Creation of the district and commission ·.vould require
separate City action;
• Identify opportunities to maximize efficiency of mcisting parking and' improve mobility to and
around the Village and Barrio, such as with valet service, car or bike share and smart parking
technologies;
• Reduce parking standards for private development (Note: This strategy is addressed in the
Master Plan development standards);
• Improve "beach area" streets (those west of Carlsbad Boulevard) to benefit all beach users;
• Identify opportunities to partner with North County Transit District, \Vhether for the public
use of its current parking lots, or for future joint development projects and additional access
across the railroad right of way, and;
· • E">cpand the In Lieu Parking Fee Program's scope and area to (1) fund improvements that
enhance other public mobility options, such as shuttle services and 1,videned sidewalks, and
(2) encompass the.Village area west of the railroad tracks.
Development StandarelsLand Use
The Development StandardsLand Use section (Chapter 2) of the document ~can be divided into the
following mai_n parts: Universal StandardsMaster Plan Districts (District-Based Approach), allowable
+Land -1:1Uses1 Transect Districts Standards, Permitted Residential Density and Excess Dwelling Unit
Bank information, Area-wide and Supplemental District standards, and Design GuidelinesPermittec;J
Uses and Use Standards, Parking Program and Requirements, and Sign Standards. They are preceded
by a section that Clcplains the regulatory framevwrk and outlines the permitting and approval process.
~ Master Plan Districts. The Master Plan presents a district-based zoning approach to guide the
form and location of development within the Master Plan area. In a district-based zoning
approach, each district has a unique vision and the desired activities and building forms dictate
April 2018 -10-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 80 of 321
/
'·
April 2018
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
what is allowed and what is not allowed: To do this, the Master Plan divides the Village and Barrio
into eight different districts, each described briefly below and depicted in Figure 7, Districts:
o The Village Center District (VC) encompasses the core of the Village and includes a mix of
commercial, attached residential, and mixed-use building types. This district intends
buildings to be generally attached and built on or near the front property line, creating,
throughout most of the district, a continuous commercial street frontage (often with
residences or offices above) to provide destinations and workplaces in a walkable
environment that is centered around the main destinations of the Carlsbad Village
Station, State Street, Grand Avenue, and Carlsbad Villa'ge Drive. Within the Coastal Zone,
ground floor commercial uses will primarily cater to visitors. The Village Center District
generally continues well-established land use patterns but emphasizes preserving a
comm.ercial core. A portion of the Village Center District encompasses the railroad
corridor, which includes the Carlsbad Village Station, large parking lots, the historic Santa
Fe Train Depot, and Rotary Park.
o The Village General District (VG) provides an opportunity to expand the mix of
commercial and residential uses into a broader geographic area in the northern part of
the Village, roughly from Roosevelt Street east to Jefferson Street. Buildings may be
attached or detached, and located near the front property line, or allow for an area for
either small courtyards, outdoor dining or open space, and/or additional landscaping.
Residential and commercial uses may exist side-by-side or in a mixed-use format. In
addition, development standards serve to transition the area to adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
\
o The Hospitality District {HOSP) provides a transition between the beach and the heart of
the Village. The area currently contains mixed-use buildings, dense residential buildings,
and a number of large and expansive uses, including a private school, church, lodging,
and a retirement community. The area is contained entirely within the Coastal Zone and
provides an opportunity for visitor-serving and hospitality uses serving visitors and
residents alike, with ground floor commercial uses primarily catering to visitors. While
buildings are intended to be mostly attached and built on or near the front property line
to create a continuous street frontage and a seamless walkable environment, along part
of Carlsbad Boulevard, much of the district has a greater building setback requirement
to help maintain a more open feel as well as access and views toward the coastline.
Portions of the district, such as the Army and Navy Academy, may retain a more campus-
like setting.
o The Freeway Commercial District (FC) consists of traveler services normally associated
' with urban freeway interchanges. Uses include lodging, restaurants, retail, and gas ~
stations. Residential units are also included in this district. Existing development within
this district has taken on a more suburban layout with larger surface parking lots and open
space. Going forward, redevelopment within this area should be designed to provide a
welcoming presence along Carlsbad Village Drive as it is a gateway to the Master Plan
area.
-e--The Pine-Tyler Mixed-Use District (PT) is a distinct area of transition between the more
compact Village Center District and established multi-and single-family neighborhoods in
',
-11-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 81 of 321
\
/
/
,,,
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
the Barrio. The district contains residential, commercial, and office uses. On the west side
ofTyler Street. these uses mix with light industrial uses. The industrial nature and eclectic
mix of existing buildings provides a unique opportunity for redevelopment with uses such
as incubator and/or start-up businesses, live/work units for artists and others, breweries,
and dance studios.
-e--The Barrio Perimeter District (BP) is residential in nature and includes the properties
within the Barrio that are located adjacent to 1-5, Jefferson Elementary School, and the
railroad corridor. The Barrio Perimeter District contains a mix of residential uses, including
relatively dense, attached housing. Buildings should be carefully positioned along the
Interstate in order to reduce noise and air quality impacts for inhabitants.
-e--The Barrio Center District (BC) is residential in nature and -is intended to protect and
enhance the historic Barrio residential neighborhood, which contains a number of smaller
homes and duplexes and some multi-family structures. While a range of residential types
is allowed, the permitted density is less than that of the surrounding Barrio Perimeter
District. Buildings may be attached or detached and may be set behind a small courtyard
and/or contain a porch or stoop; lots typically have a private rear yard.
o The Village-Barrio Other District (VBO) includes several properties within the Master Plan
Boundary that are subject to the permitted, uses and standards of Title 21 (Zoning
Ordinance) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) and not the Village and Barrio Master
Plah. They are designated "Village-Barrio Other." These properties include the railroad
corridor south of Oak Avenue, Magee, Maxton Brown, and Pine Avenue Parks, and the
AT&T switching facility on Harding Street. These properties are subject to the Zoning
Ordinance for various reasons, including public or quasi-public ownership, land use and
adequacy of zoning standards. Their location, relationship, and/or importance to the
Village and Barrio neighborhoods, however, necessitates these properties be subject to
the Area-wide Design Guidelines and visionary components ofthe Master Plan, including
the streetscape improvement standards identified in Chapter 4, · Mobility and
Beautification.
• Land Uses. This section establishes the ' mix of land uses that reflect the intended vision of
each district. This section identifies permitted, conditionally permitted, accessory, right-of-
way, and prohibited uses. Many of these uses also are defined in Appendix A of the Master
Plan, as well as Chapter 21.04 ofthe CMC.
• Density, which refers to the number of dwelling units permitted per developable acre of
property, would apply to all Master Plan districts. Proposed densities are expressed as a range
(e .g., 28-35 units per acre) and are consistent with the General Plan and CMC Section
21.53.230.
• Excess·Dwellinq Unit Bank. This section clarifies that projects proposing dwelling units in some
districts require an allocation of excess dwelling units from the city's Excess Dwelling Unit
Bank. For projects proposing dwelling units in the Village Center (VC), Village General (VG).
Hospitality (HOSP), Freeway Commercial (FC), and Pine-Tyler Mixed-Use (P-T) districts, as well
as projects in the Barrio Perimeter (BP) and Barrio Center (BC) districts that propose densities
above the City's Growth Management Control Point, an allocation is necessary as these
April 2018 -12-. Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 82 of 321
,··
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
districts do not have residential densities assigned for Growth Management Program
compliance purposes.
_• _Uni,;ersa! Area-wide Standards would be applicable to al-I-projects in many or all ofw-it.1::1.i.A. the
Village and Barrio, regardless of Transect g9istrict location. These standards provide
requirements related to gro·.vth management and residential dgnsity information, site
planning, building placement and orientation, building elements, outdoor and right-of-way
uses, and parking. This section also identifies provisions for standards modifications, and
general development information.
Transect Supplemental Districts Standards would be applicable to each of the 5€-Ve-R--eight
proposedTransect g9istricts identified within the Master Plan area. These standards would
be applied according to the location of the proposed development and/or activity. The
standards would address building coverage, height, and setback, and other requirements
applicable to development.
• The seven Transect D.9.istricts are described briefly belov.r and depicted in Figures 7a and 7b,
Transect Dlstricts:
• Area-Wide Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines, described in further detail below, are
intended to implement and enhance the existing character within the Village and Barrio as
new development and property improvements occur.
April 2018
o ~Jeighborhood District (ND): The ~Jeighborhood District v,ould be primarily residential in
nature, and is intended to protect and enhance the historic and small scale of the Barrio
Neighborhood. Buildings may be attached or detached, and are set behind a small front
yard, which may contain a porch or stoop; lots typically have a private rear yard.
o fdge District (rn): The fdge District includes the properties within the Barrio that are
located adjacent to I 5, part of Tamarack Avenue, and the railroad corridor. The fdge
District ,,,.,ould contain a mile of building types and uses, including attached housing.
Buildings should be carefully positioned along I 5 in order to reduce noise pollution for
·inhabitants.
o Tyler Roosevelt District (TD): The Tyler Roosevelt District is intended to be a distinct area
of transition between the more compact Center and General Districts and the mostly
residential ~Jeighborhood District. The Tyler Roosevelt Street District 'Nould contain
boutique commercial uses as •Nell as a limited range of residential building types.
o General District (GD): The General District would contain the greatest mix of residential
and commercial uses 1Nith buildings typically limited to 35 inches in height in order to
transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. Buildings may be attached or detached,
and built near the front property line 1Nith either small dooryards or the ability to v,iden
sidei.valks and/or provide additional landscaping.
o Center District (CED): The Center District v,•ould contain milced use buildings, dense
residential building types, and •.vould be typically located near or adjacent to the Village
Core. Buildings Vo'Ould be mostly attached and built on or near the front propprty line to
create a continuous street fa9ade and a seamless v,ralkable environment.
o Core District (COD): The Core District v,rould include a mile of commercial, attached
residential, and mixed use building types. Buildings would typically be attached, and built
on or near the front property line, creating a continuous commercial street frontage to
-13-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 83 of 321
/ I
(_
,_
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-:01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
provide destinations and workplaces in a walkable urban environment that v,muld be
centered on the main destinations of the Carlsbad Village Station, State Street, Grand
Avenue, and Carlsbad Village Drive.
o Civic District (CD): The Civic District woufd contain property that '#ould be dedicated to
civic spaces, buildings and community uses. Due to their civic nature, greater design
flexibility i,vould be given to these sites, including additional height for vertical
architectural features. The design and construction of civic buildings should be of the
highest quality, to reflect the importance of these buildings within the community. ' .
The Permitted Residentia! Density section identifies _density ranges. These ranges are consistent '.Vith
the General Plan.
The Permitted Uses and Use Standards sections 'Nould provide standards for the various types of land
uses that 'Nould be permitted, conditional, accessoPy', right of way, or not permitted ',vithin the Master
Plan area, as described for each of the eight general land use categories (i.e., residential, lodging,
offices, retail, civic, civil support, education, other).
The Parking Program and Requirements would provide parking improvement standards and minimum
parking requirements by land use, as 1Nell as a list of options that reduce parking requirements or
allov,' them to be satisfied in ways other than strictly on site, such as through the parking in lieu fee
program.
The Sign Standards section of the Master Plan would provide standards that apply to all properties
'.vithin the Village and Barrio.
Design Guidelines
The design guidelines (see Chapter 2) are intended to implement and enhance the existing character
v,ithin the Village and Barrio as new development and property improvements occur. They generally
. would apply to all development except for those determined exempt in Section 6.3.2that which is
mcempt from a discretionary permit. The guidelines aim to improve the character of the Village and
Barrio while improving livability. Guidelines address niany components of buildinf.; style and
orientation, including site layout. parking and access, plazas and .open space, building massing and
form, roof forms, building-facades, and appurtenances. As mcpressed in the guidelines or other1parts
of the Master Plan, basic design principles to be utilized in the design revimv process for property
improvements and ne'.v construction in the Village and the Barrio 1Nould include the follmving:
• Architec·tural design and materials should emphasize quality.
• Development shall be of an appropriate scale.
• All development should have a strong relationship to the street.
• A strong emphasis should be placed on the design of ground floor facades.
• Parking is encour?ged to be visually subordinated.
• Landscaping and open areas should be important components of the architectural and site
design.
• Signage should be appropriate to the Village and Barrio character.
The design guidelines do not dictate a particular architectural style or comprise every possible strategy
for ach ieving high quality design but provide a minimum starting point for quality development.
Guidelines pertaining to site planning, including layout, parking, access, connectivity, landscaping, and
April 2.018 -14-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 84 of 321
\.
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
utilities, as well as building form and massing are provided to guide future development. Overall, the
Design Guidelines address many components of architectural detailing and building design, and
provide guidance to meeting the basic design principles for the following categories:
• · Architectural styles
I
• Site planning
• Building massing
• Roofs
• Building facades .
• Appurtenances
In addition to the specific guidelines identified above, the document provides suggestions for short
term and minor enhancements (e.g., landscaping, restriping parking lots, painting, and other n:iinor
site and building alterations).
Sign age
The standards set forth in this section of the Master Plan apply to all new signs, replacement signs or
modifications to existing signs within the Village and Barrio, unless otherwise exempt. The Master
Plan standards take precedence over the requirements of Chapter 21.41 (Sign Ordinance) of the CMC,
unless explicitly stated otherwise. The Master Plan provides a list of permitted and prohibited signs,
as well as standards for specific types of signs .
Master Plan Implementation
The Master Plan is intended to' guide the future development within the Village and Barrio areas of
the City, and help the City reach goals adopted in the General Plan . Assisting this effort are sections
on Implementation (Chapter 5) and Administration (Chapter 6).
The Implementation Chapter identifies the fiscal benefits of redevelopment, outlines potential
funding sources for public improvements, and provides an Implementation Action Matrix. The matrix,
applying mainly ,to public projects, groups the Master Plan's key project and program
recommendations into specific categories (e.g., regulatory programs, plans and studies; capital
improvements; parking management; transportation demand management; and railroad corridor),
and proposes an initial phasing plan and general implementation time frames. Phasing of Master Plan
public improvements helps identify what is most important to implement in the Village and Barrio
and also aids the city in developing its capital improvement program.
Administration of the Master Plan, as presented in Chapter 6, would be conducted through a permit
process, administered by the City PlannerL that establishes improvements and activities that.JU are.;
flt exempt from a discretionary permit, or (2) require a discretionary permit, such as a "minor
~site development plan" from the City Planner, or a "site development plan" or "conditional use
permitmajor permit" from the Planning Commission. Non-exempt projects, which include& most new
construction, would be subject to the design guidelines. Exempt projects, such as some additions a
new single family home and exterior improvements that do not intensify the use of a ?tructure, would
not be subject to the design guidelines. In additionconjunction with Chapter 6, the Master Plan
identifies in Chapter 2 both permitted_ and conditionally permitted uses. The City Planner would have
the responsibility of reviewing individual project applications for completeness; determining permit
April 2018 -15-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 85 of 321
/
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
requirements and type of review (e.g., if 9-Coastal Development Permit ~required); maintaining
project records; approving/denying of minor permits and variances; referring and providing
recommendations on certain permits to the City Planning Commission (and City Council, as
appropriate and explained below); processing appeals of City Planner and Planning Commission
determinations; and preparing associated documentation, such as public notices. Further, the City
Council would be the final decision-making authority only for matters appealed to it or for legislative
actions such as an amendment to the Master Plan, based upon a recommendation from the Planning
Commission.
All projects within the boundaries of the Master Plan would be subject to further review und~r the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as described further below. Depending on the permit,
environmental determinations would be made either by the City Planner, Planning Commission, or,
in the limited instances described above, by the City Council.
Portions of +!he Master Plan, together with the City's implementing ordinances, would serve as 9-f
and would implement the Local Coastal Program for the Village and Barrio areas of the Coastal Zone,
pursuant to the requirements of the California Coastal Act. The Master Plan would establish the
standards for all development within the Village and Barrio portions within the Coastal Zone. In order
for the Master Plan and Design Guidelinesdevelopment standards and other Master Plan provisions
to be effective within the Coastal Zone, Coastal Commission approval is required. Projects within the
Coastal Zone that are exempt from Coastal Development Permits, per Chapter 21.201 of the CMC,
may also be exempt from discretionary permit requirements. Non-exempt development on
properties within the Coastal Zone would require approval of a Coastal Development Permit.
CEQA Requirements for Subsequent Actions
The scope of this document is limited to those elements of the Master Plan where sufficient
information exists to allow an informed evaluation of potential impacts. In accordance with Section
15145 of the CEQA Guidelines, those aspects of the Master Plan (e.g., potential projects) for which
insufficient information exists are considered speculative and are not addressed in this Initial Study.
Each subsequent development action will be subject to its own project-specific CEQA review. Further
CEQA compliance shall not be required for development within the Master Plan unless the proposed
project meets one or more of the following conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162:
• The proposed project is not sufficiently discussed in the MND or represents a substantial
change from the actions addressed by the Master Plan MND, and the change would require
major revisions to the Master Plan MND due to new significant environmental impacts or a
I substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Master Plan MND.
• Substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project would be
undertaken that would require major revisions of the Master Plan MND to disclose new,
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts
identified in the Master Plan MND.
• There is new information of substantial importance not known at the time the Master Plan
MND was approved that shows any of the following:
o The project would ~ave any new significant effects not discussed in the Master Plan MND.
April 2018 -16-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 86 of 321
/
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
o There are impacts that were determined to be significant in the Master Plan MND that
will be substantially increased.
o There are additional mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be
feasible that would substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified
in the Master Plan MND, and the project proponent declines to adopt those measures or
alternatives.
o There are mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from I
those analyzed in the Master Plan MND that would substantially reduce one or more
significant impact~ and the project proponent declines to adopt those measures or
alternatives.
If subsequent environmental review is required, the City will prepare an Initial Study to determine the
appropriate form of review. It is intended that this MND will be used by the City to provide the
baseline and context for preparation of any required subsequent environmental documentation. Each
subsequent development action will be subject to its own project-specific CEQA review.
10. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Carlsbad is a coastal community located in northwest San Diego County, 35 miles north of downtown
San Diego. The City of Oceanside is located to the north, the City of Encinitas lies to the south, and the
cities of Vista and San Marcos as well as unincorporated areas of San Diego County are located to the
east. The Master Plan area is bordered by primarily residential uses and the Pacific Ocean on the west,
1-5 and primarily residential and commercial development on the east, and Buena Vista Lagoon and
mostly residential uses on the north, and southern portions of the City to the south. Development
south of the Master Plan area primarily includes ·residential development, as well as Agua Hedionda
lagoon and the Encina Power Station. Portions of both the Village and Barrio are located within the
statewide Coastal Zone (refer to Figure~ g 3 and 4 for Coastal Zone boundaries, Coastal Zone
B01:1n€iarics).
The Master Plan area currently contains a mix of residential and commercial uses, along with parks
and community facilities. The Village is located within the City's historic center and downtown. Land
uses within the Village include retail stores, offices, financial institutions, restaurants, visitor-serving
facilities, and residential uses. The Barrio neighborhood is adjacent to, and south of, the Village, and
is primarily characterized by small, single-family homes and multi-family housing near 1-5. Non-
residential uses in the Barrio are located primarily in its northwest corner along the railroad, Tyler and
Roosevelt streets. Non-residential uses include commercial and office buildings, religious facilities,
and light industrial and storage uses. There are also recreational and community facilities located
within the Barrio neighborhood, an elementary school, and several potential historic structures.
Automobile access to the Master Plan area is provided via Carlsbad Boulevard an.d 1-5. Rail access
provided by NCTD Coaster and Amtrak is available from the train station located in the Village. The
NCTD/ Amtrak rail line bisects the community, just west of State Street, separating the Barrio and Village
from the beach area. Crossings of the rail line exist in four locations within the Master Plan area : the
grade-separated crossing of Carlsbad Boulevard at the north end of the City; and at-grade crossings at
Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, and Tamarack Avenue. In a similar manner, 1-5 separates the
Village and Barrio from the neighborhoods east of 1-5 with crossings available at Carlsbad Village Drive,
Chestnut Avenue, and Tamarack Avenue within or adjacent to the Master Plan area.
April 2018 -17-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 87 of 321
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
11. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS . {i.e., permits, financing approval or participation
agreements): Coastal Commission approval and certification is required in order for the document to
be effective for areas within the Coastal Zone.
12. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION:
Development within both the Village and Barrio has been subject to the City's General Plan, adopted
in 1986, and comprehensively updated in 1994 and 2015. Future development within the Master Plan
area would be subject to the policies and regulations identified in the General Plan, and the following
analysis relies on the Environmental Impact Report {EIR) prepared for the General Plan and has
incorporated it by reference.
13. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
D Aesthetics D Greenhouse Gas Emissions
D Agriculture & Forestry Resources D Hazards/Hazardous Materials
D Air Quality D Hydrology/Water Quality
lg] Biological Resources D Land Use & Planning
lg] Cultural/Paleontological D Mineral Resources
Resources
D Geology /Soils Ix! Noise
D Population & Housing
D Public Services
D Recreation
D Transportation/Traffic
IXI D 61tilitie5 & Serviee £y5tem5
Tribal Cultural Resources
D Utilities & Service Systems.{gj.
MaRaatery FiRaiRg5 ef SigRifiEaREe
~ Mandatory Findings of Significance
14. PREPARATION: The Initial Study for the subject project was prepared by:·
~ ::--::------.. Lf -I I -I f5
-------Scott Donnell, Senior Planner Date
April 2018 -18-Initial Study
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 88 of 321
'-...
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
17. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors
as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based
on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"
entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier
Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, 'an
effect has been adequately analyz~d in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site~specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or ~ outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
April 2018 -20-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 90 of 321
'·
'-.
'·
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
9. Tribal consultation, if requested as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, must begin
prior to release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact
report for a project. Information provided through tribal consultation may inform the lead agency's
assessment as to whether tribal cultural resources are present, and the significance of any potential
impacts to such resources. Prior to beginning consultation, lead agencies may request information
from the Native American Heritage Commission regarding its Sacred Lands File, per Public Resources
Code sections 5097.9 and 5097.94, as well as the California Historical Resources Information System
administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation.
/
April 2018 -21-initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 91 of 321
,-
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
I. AESTHETICS Potentially Less than Less than
Significant Significant with Significant No
Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic D D ~ D vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock D D D ~ outcroppings, and historic buildir1gs within a
State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its D D ~ D
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and
glare, which would adversely affect day or D D ~ D
nighttime views in the area?
a) Less than Significant Impact. Scenic vistas within the Village and Barrio consist qf scenic corridors and
views to and from the coastline. A substantial adverse effect to scenic vistas could occur if development
within the Village and Barrio introduces physical features that are not characteristic of existing
development, obstructs an identified public scenic vista, impairs scenic views from other properties, or
has a substantial change to the natural landscape. Implementation of the Master Plan would involve
improvements and infill development within the existing Village and Barrio neighborhoods. Development
within the Master Plan area would serve to fill gaps in the existing Village and Barrio neighborhoods and
relieve pressure to develop in more scenic open space areas of the City. While densification of some areas
may occur in the form of new or expanded buildings or other improvements, all development within the
Master Plan area would be required to be consistent with the policies and development standards
identified in the Master Plan. Most new construction (excluding limited improvements, such as some
additions and single family home and minor exterior enhancements), also would be subject to the design
guidelines. These standards and guidelines provide desig~ criteria to property owners, merchants, and
others interested in development or property improvements within the Village and Barrio in order to
regulate the physical aspects of new development such as building massing, landscaping, signage, etc., as
well as reinforce the desired building forms and enhance the existing character of the community.
Additionally, the· proposed development standards and design guidelines would allolA.' access to coastal
views while preserving and improving the general visual character of the area and ensuring that
opportunities to enjoy scenic views are either preserved or enhanced. Thus, substantiai adverse effects
to scenic vistas and other scenic resources would be less than significant.
b) No Impact. No State-designated scenic highways are located within or adjacent to the Master Plan
area. Thus, implementation of the Master Plan would not impact scenic resources within the view shed
of a State-designated highway.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The Master Plan is proposed to guide future development within the
Village and Barrio. Development within the Master Plan area would not substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the Village and Barrio and surrounding areas, since the majority of new
development would occur within previously developed areas and substantial changes to land uses and
building design within these areas are not proposed. Individual development projects would be subject to
development and planning review under the proposed Master Plan, and must therefore conform to
development standards and, for most new development, the design guidelines regarding aesthetic
qualities such as lighting, signage, landscaping, and building and roof formsheights and setbacks. The
April 2018 -22-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 92 of 321
,,--
/
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
)
Development development s&tandards proposed within the Master Plan, which are consistent with the
City's General Plan, would regulate physical aspects of development such as building coverage, height and
setbacks; signage; and landscape parking and open spacehardscape requirements. The development
standards and design guidelines would serve to implement and enhance the existing character within the
Village and B-arrio as new development and property improvements occur, and address many components
of site layout, building massing, roof form, building facades, and appurtenances. All Village and Barrio
development projects would be required to be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies, goals,
and action programs and other relevant land use documents such as the Local Coastal Program, CMC, and
Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with the Master Plan and General Plan would ensure that future
development would enhance and unify the existing visual quality of built environments within the Master
Plan area and would ensure that adverse effects to the visual character or quality of the Master Plan area
and its surroundings would be less than significant.
d) less than Significant Impact. The primary sources of exterior lighting in an urban setting are typically
associated with street lighting, parking lot lighting, building illumination through signage and other
lighting, security lighting, and landscape lighting. Depending upon the location of the light source and its
proximity to adjacent light-sensitive uses, light introduction has the potential to be a nuisance, thus
affecting adjacent areas and diminishing the vjew of the clear night sky. Light spillage is typically defined
as unwanted illumination from light fixtures on adjacent properties. Perceived glare is the unwanted and
potentially objectionable result from looking directly into a light source of a luminary. New development
within the Master Plan area would introduce new sources of light and contribute to existing conditions of
light and glare; however, development would occur within areas that are already devel9ped, where
moderate light and glare already exist, and would not be out of character within the urban environment.
Moreover, most new development would be subject to Design Guideline provisions addressing light and
glare through properly .. designed and placed fixtures that feature downcast or low cut-off fixtures.
Therefore, impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant.
II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST Less than
RESOURCES~ Potentially Significant with Less than No Significant Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Would the projec;t: ! Incorporated
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to D D D ~ the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural D D D ~ use, or a Williamson Act contract?
April 2018 -23-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 93 of 321
'·
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
fl. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST Less than
RESOURCES~ Potentially Significant with Less than No Significant Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Would the project: Incorporated
fl_lAvelve etl:leF sl:laAges iA tl:le eieistiAg
eAViF9AA'leAt,N,1Ai6A, Eh:le te tl:leiF lesatieA 9F
Aatl:lFe, 691:llel FeSl:llt iA 69AVeFsieA el: FaFmlaAEl
te AeA agFirnltl:lFal l:lse eF seAveFsieA effeFest j
laAd te ADA fernst l:lse?
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause D D D ~ rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)l, or
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526). or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g)l?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of D D D J:8:lQ forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland : D D D J:8:lQ
to_ non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
* In determining whether impacts .to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 (LESA) prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to
forest resources are significant environmental effects. lead agencies may r.efer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
a-QE) No Impact. The Master Plan encompasses an urbanized area that is designated for commercial,
open space,,·public, residential, transportation corridor, hospitality, i,1illage, and visitor commercial uses.
The Mastel p'lan would primarily involve infill development within existing developed areas and would
not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
or other farmland to non-agricultural uses. The Master Plan would not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts as there are no agricultural or forestry uses within the Master
Plan area. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural and forestry resources are anticipated.
c-d} No Impact. As described above, the Master Plan area is urbanized and implementation of the plan
would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land or land dedicated to timberland production into
non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts to forestry resources are anticipated.
e} No Impact. Refer to II.a through 11.d.
April 2018 . -24-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 94 of 321
\
\.
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
Ill. AIR QUALITY_: Potentially Less than Less than
Significant Significant with Significant No
Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact lncorporat~d Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of D D ~ D the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air D D ~ D
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state an:ibient air quality D D ~ D
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial D D ~ D pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a D D ~ D substantial number of people?
* Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
a) less than Significant Impact. The Master Plan area is located in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) under
the jurisdiction of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD}. The SDAPCD develops and
administers local guidelines and regulations for stationary air pollutant sources within the SDAB, and also
develops plans and programs to meet attainment requirements for both National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The SDAPCD and SAN DAG are
responsible for formulating and implementing the clean air plan for attainment and maintenance of
ambient air quality standards for the SDAB. An area is designated as "in attainment" when it is compliant
with the NAAQS and/or CAAQS, as set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA} or the
California Air Resources Board (CARB). These standards identify the maximum level of a given air pollutant
that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or the public welfare. The
criteria pollutants of primary concern that are considered in an air quality assessment include ozone (03),
nitrogen dioxide (N02), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxiae (S02), particulate matter (PM10, and PM2.sl.
lead and toxic air contaminants. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOxl. are
precursors to the formation of ground-level 03.
As of December 2016, the SDAB is in attainment for all criteria pollutants under the NAAQS, with the
exception of 03 (8-Hour) and PM10, which is listed as unclassifiable. The SDAB currently has a
nonattainment designation for 03 and particulate matter, PM10 and PM2.s under the CAAQS. It is currently
in attainment under CAAQS for CO, N021 S02, lead and sulfates. The SDAB is currently classified as a
marginal nonattainment area for the federal g hour standard for ozone (03.) and a nonattainment area for
the state standard for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns (PMw), particulate matter less
than or equal to 2.S microns (PM;.,;), and the 1 hour and g hours standards for Q3.7 The SDAPCD's plans
and control measures designed to attain the federal and state air quality standards for those criteria air
pollutants for which the SDAB is in nonattainment are outlined in the San Diego County Regional Air
Quality Strategy (RAQS}. The RAQS relies on information from CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and
area source emissions and growth projections, respectively, to project future emissions and determine
the strategies and regulatory controls necessary to reduce emissions. The RAQS, which was adopted by
April 2018 -25-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 95 of 321
/
,_
/
Project Name : VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
the SDAPCD in 1992, is updated on a triennial basis with the most recent revision prepared in December
2016.
The SDAPCD has also developed the SDAB's input into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) which is
required under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for pollutants that are designated as being in
nonattainment of national air quality standards for the air basin. The SIP relies on the same information
from SANDAG to develop emission inventories and emission control strategies that are included in the
attainment plan for the air ~asin.
To determine consistency with the RAQS, compliance with all applicable SDAPCD rules and regulations;
compliance with all proposed or adopted control measures; and consistency with the growth forecasts
utilized in preparation of the RAQS, (based on regional population projections prepared by SAN DAG) must
be demonstrated. As _ described in Section 3.2 of the Recirculated Portions of the General Plan EIR,
development allowed under the General Plan, which includes the Master Plan area, would result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the General Plan region is in
nonattainment. Although the goals and policies of the General Plan and other recommended measures
would reduce the net increase in emissions for which the SDAB is in nonattainment status, it is not possible
at this time to state with certainty that these measures would result in no net increase in nonattainment
poUutant emissions. The General Plan is considered to be in conflict VJith the RAQS because it will allow
development in excess of the growth projections on which the R/\QS is currently based. Although this
conflict could be eliminated by updating the growth projections in the next triennial update of the RAQS,
it is considered_ a significant and unavoidable impact because updating the R/\QS is iuithin the jurisdiction
and control of the SD/\PCD, and the City cannot assure the timing and implementation of updates to the
~
Although the Master Plan is within the scope of development that was anticipated in'Carlsbad's General
Plan and the SANDAG growth projections used to develop the RAQS and SIP, ~implementation of the
proposed Master Plan would facilitate development within the City that would allow additional residential
units and com'mercial/office/light industrial space by 2035 buildout over existing conditions as well as in
e)ccess of that assumed for the current version of the RAQS. This additional development would contribute
to the conflict with the RAQS identified in the General Plan EIR.
Although future development under the proposed Master Plan would contribute to the significant I
cumulative impact associated with implementation of the RAQS, this contribution would not trigger the
need for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project because the Findings
of Fact associated with the General Plan EIR provide coverage for subsequent'proje~ts consistent with the
General Plan. Section 15152(f)(1) of CEQA Guidelines states, "Where a Lead Agency determines that a
cumulative effect has been adequately addressed in the prior EIR, that effect is not treated as significant
for purposes of a later EIR or negative declaration." On September 22, 2015, the Carlsbad City Council
adopted Resolution No. 2015-242 which certified the Final EIR for General Plan and adopted Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The
Findings of Fact concluded that buildout under the General Plan would result in cumulative, unavoidable
significant impacts related to implementation of the RAQS, despite the goals and policies of the General
Plan and other recommended mitigation measures (incorporated by reference herein) that would reduce
the net increase in emissions for which the SDAB is in nonatt?inment status. H?wever, the Findings of Fact
contain overriding considerations, which establish that the environmental, economic, social, and other
benefits of the General Plan, as stated more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, outweigh
April 2018 -26-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 96 of 321
,..-·
'--.
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
any remaining significant adverse impact of the General Plan associated with impacts to air quality.
Therefore, related impacts associated with the proposed project need not be considered significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact. As described in Ill.a, above, the SDAB is currently classified as a marginal
nonattainment area for the federal 8-hour standard for 0 3 as well as a nonattainment area for the state
standard for PM10 and PM2.s, and the 1-hour and 8-hours standards for 03. The APCD operates a network
of ambient air monitoring stations throughout San Diego County. Due to its proximity to Carlsbad with
similar geographic and climatic characteristics, the Del Mar -Mira Costa College monitoring station
concentrations of 8-hour and 1-hour 03 are considered most representative of 0 3 in Carlsbad. The
Escondido -East Valley Parkway monitoring station is the nearest location where PM101 PM2.s, N02, and
CO concentrations are monitored. The El Cajon -Redwood Avenue monitoring station is the nearest
location where S02 concentrations are monitored. Data available for these monitoring sites from 2011
· _ through 2015 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded are presented in Table 1. As
shown, air quality within the region was in compliance with both CAAQS and NAAQS for N021 CO, and 502
during this monitoring period.
Table 1-Freguency of Air Quality Standard Violations, Number of Days Exceeding Standard
Monitoring Site Year State 03 State 03 Federal 03 State PM10* Federal PM2.s* (1-Hour) (8-Hour) {8-Hour)
Del Mar-Mira Costa 2011 0 1 0 ----
College 2012 0 2 2 ----
2013 Q Q 0 ----
2014 1 5 2 ----
2015 1 2 1 ----
Escondido -East 2011 . O{O) 0(0) -----Valley Parkway 2012 ---O{O) 3.1(1) ---
2013 ---6.0{1) 1.1{1) ---
2014 ---O{O) 1.0{1) --
2015 ---O{O) 0(0) ---* As of 2014. measurements of PM10 and PM2.s are collected every 6 days and daily. respectively. The number of days exceeding
standards is a mathematical estimate of the number of days concentrations would have exceeded the standard on an annual
basis. had every day been monitored. The numbers in parentheses are the ~easured number of samples that exceeded the
standard.
Future development and improvement projects occurring within the Master Plan area would result in
temporary increases in air pollutant and dust emissions during grading and construction, primarily
generated from construction equipment diesel exhaust, soil disturbance, and construction worker and
heavy duty truck trips. Fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.s) emissions would primarily result from grading and
site preparation activities. Emission of other criteria air pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and
carbon monoxide (CO) would primarily result from the use of construction equipment and motor vehicles.
Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures, Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Program (SWPPP) requirements,-afl-El. Best Management Practices (BMPs), and when
applicable, the California Green Building Standards Code, that would reduce fugitive dust emissions and
other criteria pollutant emissions during construction. Future projects would be subject to SDAPCD
Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control, which requires that projects take steps to restrict visible emissions of future
dust beyond property lines. Compliance with Rule 55 would limit fugitive dust that may be generated
during grading and construction activities.
April 2018 -27-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 97 of 321
/
'-.
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
Operational activities of future projects would generate emission of other criteria pollutants, including 02,
N02, CO, S02, PM10, and PM2.s through sources such as vehicular traffic, heating, and landscaping. Future
projects within the Master Plan would fall within the net new operational emissions identified in Section
3.2 (Table 3.2-10) of the Recirculated Portions of the General Plan EIR, which were estimated based on
the net change in criteria pollutant emissions between development of land uses without and with the
General Plan. Due to the increase in anticipated average daily traffic and growth in area source emissions
as a result of future development under the General Plan, emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.s
were determined to exceed the SDAPCD's project-level, daily thresholds. While the measures, goals and
policies identified in the City1s General Plan, Climate Action Plan, SWPPP requirements, and the Green
Building Code, as well as the adopted mitigation measures for air quality impacts in the General Plan EIR,
provide a framework for reducing project-level impacts associated with construction and operational
emissions, impacts due to increased emissions from future development were determined to be
significant and unavoidable in the Findings of Fact adopted for the General Plan EIR. However, the Findings
of Fact contain overriding considerations, which establish that the environmental, economic, social, and
other benefits of the General Plan, as stated more fully in the. Statement of Overriding Considerations,
outweigh any remaining significant adverse impact of the General Plan associated with impacts to air
quality. Thus, as discussed in Issue Ill.a, the contribution from development under the proposed Master
Plan need not be considered significant purswant to Section 15152(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines.
c) Less than Significant Impact. As described in 111.b, above,, the SDAB is currently a marginalin
nonattainment ~for the federal 8-hour standard for 03 as well as a-nonattainment afea-for the state
standard for PM1o and PM2.s, and the 1-hour and 8-hour5 standards for 03. The General Plan EIR identified
significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on air quality resulting from buildout of the General Plan,
which includes the Master Plan area. Buildout of the General Plan would result in operational emissions
of VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.s that would exceed SDAPCD project-level, daily thresholds. Accordingly, the .
General Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in VOC and NOx (precursors of 02),
for which the SDAB is in nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS, as well as for PM10 and PM2.s, for
which the SDAB is in nonattainment under the CAAQS. Conformance with the measures, goals and policies
of the General Plan, the Climate Action Plan, the city's SWPPP requirements, and the Green Building
Standards Code, as well as implementation of the adopted mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR,
would reduce the General Plan's net increase in emissions for which the SDAB is in nonattainmelit status.
However, in the absence of specific information regarding the size, location, timing, and other
characteristics of future development allowed under the General Plan, it is not possible at this time to
quantify that these measures would result in no net increase in nonattainment pollutant emissions.
Therefore, the Findings of Fact for the General Plan EIR concluded that the impacts due to increased
emissions from future development were significant and unavoidable. However, the Findings of Fact
contain overriding consider~tions, which establish that the environmental, economic, social, and other
benefits of the General Plan, as stated more fully in the Statem~nt of Overri\:ling Considerations, outweigh
any remaining significant adverse impact of the General Plan associated with impacts to air quality. Thus,
as discussed in Issue Ill.a, the contribution from development under the proposed Master Plan need not
be considered significant pursuant to Section 15152(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. ··
d) less than Significant Impact. In addition to the impacts from criteria pollutants described in Ill.a
through 111.b, above, impacts also may include emissions of pollutants identified by the state and federal
governments as toxic air contaminants (TACs) or hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). TACs are generated by
a number of sources, including stationary sources such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion sources,
and laboratories; mobile sources such as automobiles; and area sources such as landfills. The primary TAC
of concern, as identified by the CARB, is diesel engine exhaust particulate matter .. Certain land uses are
April 2018 -28-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 98 of 321
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
more susceptible to the adverse health effects of TACs, including residences, schools, hospitals, resident
care facilities, child care centers, playgrounds, athletic facilities, or other facilities that may house
individuals with health conditions that would be severely impacted by changes'in air quality.
The General Plan EIR analyzed the potential for future projects tc:i result in exposure of sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant concentrations. Implementation of the General Plan would result in an increase
in criteria pollutant emissions, which could potentially result in increased susceptibility of sensitive
receptors to adverse health effects. The EIR concluded that long-term exposure of sensitive receptors to
substantial concentrations of construction-related TACs is not anticipated to occur during construction of
projects within the City, which would include the Master Plan area. Construction-related impacts were
determined to be less than significant, and thus, also less than significant for the Master Plan.
No new stationary sources are proposed within the General Plan area that have not been previously
operating within the City and impacts to sensitive receptors from new or modified stationary sources from
implementation of the General Plan have been assessed as less than significant. Although the SDAB is
currently in nonattainment for state ozone and particulate matter thresholds, the background
concentrations of these pollutants are generally low, and the SDAB is increasingly improving at a
consistent rate. Thus, health risks associated with regional pollutant emissions are expected to decrease
over buildout of the General Plan, and development under the General Plan is not expected to expose
sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of cr.iteria air pollutants.
Conformance with the goals and policies of the proposed General Plan, the Climate Action Plan, the city's
SWPPP requirements and Green Building Standards Code provisions, as well as implementation of the
adopted mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR, would reduce the exposure of sensitive receP,tors
to substantial pollutant concentrations. However, as noted in the Recirculated Portions of the General
Plan EIR Section 3.2, due to the absence of site-specific information regarding the TAC generation' for
individual projects implemented under the General Plan (required to perform a health risk assessment to
determine ~otential air quality effects to sensitive receptors), exposure of sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations is assessed as significant. Because of the inability to define specific
mitigation measures for potential TAC impacts, the Findings of Fact for the General Plan EIR concluded
that these impacts would be significant and unavoidable. However, the Findings of Fact contain overriding
considerations, which establish that the environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the
General Plan, as stated more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, outweigh any remaining
significant adverse impact of the proposed General Plan associated with impact to air quality. Thus, as
discussed in Issue Ill.a, the contribution from development under the proposed Master Plan need not be
considered significant pursuant to Section 15152(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines.
e) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of future projects within the Master Plan area could
generate odors from the operation of construction vehicles and.lgr equipment exhaust from volatile
organic compounds, ammonia, CO2, hydrogen sulfide, methane, alcohols, disulfides, dusts or other
pollutants. Such exposure would be in trace amounts, localized in the immediate area, and would
generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. GMoreover, odors
produced during construction would be short-term, and would not result in a long-term odorous impact
to the surrounding area. Development within the Master Plan area would be required to comply with all
local, state, and federal regulations and permit requirements related tci odor control. Thus, impacts
associated with odors during construction would be less than significant.
April 2018 -29-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 99 of 321
/
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Less than · Less than
Significant Significant with Significant No
Mitigation Impact .
Would the project: Impact lncorp_orated Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either C
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional D ~ D D
plans, policies, or regulations, or by California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and -Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local D ~ D D or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including but not D ~ D D limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife I
species or with established native resident or D D D ~
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use '
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree D D D ~
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisi9ns of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community D D D ~ Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. While the vast majority of the
Master Plan area is currently developed and does not support important' biological resources, the
northern area of the Master Plan is adjacent to the Buena Vista Lagoon. The Buena Vista Lagoon includes
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
area is currently developed as part of Maxton Brown Park and adjacent private property improvements
along the north side of Laguna Drive. Any development of this area could have indirect impacts related to
human activity, decreased water quality and altered hydrology, elevated noise and dust levels, light
intrusion, and the introduction of invasive wildlife or plant species.
Future development adjacent to the lagoon under the Master Plan would be required to comply with the
City's General Plan goals and policies related to preserving and protecting significant biological resources
(Goal 4-G.3 and Policies 4-P.9 and 4-P.19). The Supplemental District Standards for the Village Center
(Section 2.7.1 of the Master Plan) also specify that development within the two parcels in the Village
Center District that border Buena Vista Lagoon is required . to comply with the Carlsbad Habitat
April 2018 -30-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 100 of 321
/
/
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
Management Plan and other applicable requirements, including thos'e related to slope protection and
coastal access.
In accordance with Policy 4-P-19 of the General Plan, the following mitigation measure shall apply to
future projects within the Master Plan, as applicable.
Mitigation Measure BI0-1: Prior to approval of any development located within or adjacent to sensitive
biological resources identified on Figure 4-2 of the General Plan, a biological resource assessment shall be
prepared to determine potential impacts to sensitive biological resources. If impacts are identified, the
biological assessment shall identify,'and the project shall implement, mea'sures to reduce project impacts
consistent with: (1) the City's Guidelines for Biological Studies and Riparian and Wetland Buffers;
(2) General Plan Policies 4-P.9, 4-P.19, and 4-P.64; and {3) the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-1, would reduce potential impacts to sensitive species to less
than significant.
b) less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. As discussed in IV.a,
development at the northern end of the Master Plan area could indirectly affect the Buena Vista lagoon
which contains riparian habitat and wetlands regulated by the CDFW. Indirect impacts could result from
elevated dust or increased sediment loads in runoff from construction activities. Indirect impacts could
also result from permanent alterations to hydrology upstream of habitats, including increased runoff,
sediment9tion, or pollutant loads, and increased human activity, which could result in trampling and
disturbance. If wetlands subject within the jurisdiction of the CDFW could be potentially impacted by a
future project, development of the project could not occur until a Streambed Alteration Agreement is
obtained from CDFW.
As a sensitive biological resource, implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-1 would reduce potential
impacts to riparian habitat and wetlands by requiring impacts be mitigated. In addition, future
development impacting wetlands within the jurisdiction of the CDFW would be required to obtain a
Stream bed Alteration Agreement (SAA) under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. As a
condition of issuing an SAA, the CDFW would, require compensation for project impacts to wetlands and
riparian habitat.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-1, would reduce potential impacts to wetlands and riparian
habitat within the jurisdiction ofthe CDFW to less than significant.
c) less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. As discussed in IV.a,
development at the northern end of the Master Plan area could indirectly affect the Buena Vista Lagoon
which contains riparian habitat and wetlands regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). Indirect impacts could result from elevated dust or increased sediment loads in runoff from
construction activities. Indirect impacts could also result from permanent alterations to hydrology
upstream of habitats, including increased runoff, sedimentation, or pollutant loads, and increased human
· activity, which could result in trampling and disturbance.
As a sensitive biological resource, implementation .of Mitigation Measure BI0-1 would reduce potential
impacts to riparian habitat and wetlands by requiring impacts be mitigated. In addition, future
development impacting wetlands within the jurisdiction of the USACE would be required to obtain a
Section 404 permit from the USACE and a 401 Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board
April 2018 -31-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 101 of 321
/--
\
/
'-
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
(RWQCB) under federal Clean Water Act. As a condition of issuing those approvals, the USACE and RWQCB
would require compensation for project impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-1, would reduce pot€mtial impacts to wetlai;ids and riparian
habitat within the jurisdiction of the USACE to less than significant.
d) No Impact. The Master Plan area does not contain large blocks of open space or undeveloped areas
that would serve as wildlife corridors or nursery sites. Development within the Master Plan area would
primarily involve redevelopment of or new development within existing developed areas. Therefore,
implementation of the Master Plan is not anticipated to interfere substantially with migratory fish or
wildlife movement or established migratory wildlife corridors, or to impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites. N9 impact would occur.
e) No Impact. The City has developed a set of guidelines to aid in the implementation of the HMP,
including the Guidelines for Biological Studies, Guidelines for Preserve Management, Guidelines for
Habitat Creation and Restoration, and Guidelines for Riparian Wetland Buffers. The Master Plan, which
implements and is consistent with the General Plan, is consistent with these documents, and future
projects and improvements conducted pursuant to the Master Plan would be required to be consistent
with these documents, as applicable. Therefore, conflicts with the provisions of the City1s policies
protecting biological resources are not anticipated and no impact would occur.
f) No Impact. The City's "Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad11 was
adopted by the Carlsbad City Council in November 2004. The HMP outlines specific conservation,
management, facility siting, land use, and other measures to be implemented by the City to preserve and
protect sensitive biological resources and habitat within the City, while also allowing for growth and
development as anticipated under the General Plan. All future development projects would be required
to comply with the conditions of the HMP, including compliance with the established mitigation ~atios
and avoidance and minimization measures for special-status species and sensitive vegetation. As shown
in Figure 3.3-1 of the General Plan EIR, the Master Plan area is not located within an existing or proposed
hard line preserve area, nor are any of the City's individual preserves (e.g., ecological reserves, City-or
privately-owned preserves, or project-related preserves) located within the Master Plan area. Therefore,
the Master Plan would not interfere with the implementation of the HMP, and no impact would occur.
V. CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL Less than
RESOURCES Potentially Significant with Less than No Significant Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Would the proj~ct: Incorporated
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined D D ['.gJ D
in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource D ['.gJ D D
pursuant to §15064.5?
s) Ga1:1se a s1:113staAt:ial aElveFse sl=laAge iA t:l=le
sigAifiEaAEe Sf a tFil3al El:llt1:1Fal FeSSl:IFEe as g ~ g g
ElefiAeEl iA P1:1131is Rese1:1Fses GeEle ~:rn:;q:;i
fit.d_Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique D ['.gJ D D
geologic feature?
April 2018 -32-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 102 of 321
'-s---
v.
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL
Potentially less than less than RESOURCES Significant Significant with Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
\Nould the project: Incorporated
e}_g_}_Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of fefffia+-dedicated D D ~ D
cemeteries?
a) Less than Significant Impact. As described in General Plan EIR Section 3.7, Historical, Archaeological
and Paleontological Resources, there are several historic resources located within the Master Plan area
that have been listed in or determined eligible for listing in the national and California registers as
individual historic resources. Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot, located at 400 Carlsbad Village Drive, is a historic
landmark listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The California Office of Historic
Preservation has listed as an historic landmark Frazier's Well (Alt Karlsbad) at 2802 Carlsbad Boulevard.
The Magee House, located at 25~ Beech Street, and currently home to the City's Historical Society
Museum, has been identified as a historic site by the San Diego Archaeological Center. A total of six other
properties within the Master Plan area are eligible for listing in the San Diego, Register of Historic
Resources, California Register of Historic Resources, or National Register of Historic Places, including the
following:
• 2978 Carlsbad Boulevard (Queen Anne Victorian, 1887; NRHP-eligible)
• 400 Elm Avenue (Carlsbad Village Drive) (Carpenter Gothic, 1887; NRHP-eligible)
• 3309 Roosevelt Street (Vernacular, 1918; NRHP-eligible)
• 3329 Roosevelt Street (B/C Spanish, 1923; NRHP-eligible)
• 3080 Lincoln Street (Monterey, 1925; potential California Historical Landmark)
• 2956 State Street (Spanish Eclectic, pre-1925; potential California Historical Landmark)
The Village and the Barrio neighborhoods are considered potential historic resource areas by the City. The
Village is the historic downtown of the City, known for specialty shops,'clothing stores, and restaurants,
and is home to buildings that consist of New England-style architecture. The Barrio is the first
neighborhood established in Carlsbad in the 1920s, with several locally recognized historic buildings,
businesses, and sites. In addition, numerous other sites within the Master Plan area are considered by the
City, the Save Our Heritage Organization, and/or the Carlsbad Historical Society as containing significant
features in the local architectural and historic growth of the community. These include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
St. Michael's Episcopal Church, 2775 Carlsbad Boulevard (1894)
St. Patrick's Church (Heritage Hall), Magee Park, 2650 Garfield Street (1926)
Red Apple Inn/ Army Navy Academy, 2585 Carlsbad Boulevard (1927)
Carlsbad Mineral Springs Hotel/Carlsbad-By-the-Sea, 2855 Carlsbad Boulevard (1930)
Twin Inns/Ocean House, 2978 Carlsbad Boulevard (1887)
Cohn House/Norte, 3003 Carlsbad Boulevard (1929)
Gage House/Monterey Condominiums, 3080 Lincoln Street (1934)
Killian Building, 29_00 State Street (1920s)
South Coast Land Company/Garcia's Barbershop, 2956 State Street (Circa 1914)
Los Diego Hotel/Caldo Pomodoro Restaurant, 2907 State Street (1925)
Carlsbad Theatre, 2822 State Street (1926-27)
Barrio Museum, 3304 Roosevelt Street (1943)
April 2018 -33-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 103 of 321
i-
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
• Ramirez House, 3309 Roosevelt Street (1918)
• Mission Santiago, 3329 Roosevelt Street (Circa 1923)
• Gaus House, 3442 Roosevelt Street (1929)
The Master Plan identifies historic preservation as an important element in the protection of valued
historic buildings and smaller historic assets such as older single-family homes, as well as protection and
enhancement of the existing character of the area. The Master Plan supports the City's existing historic
preservation efforts, and future use of state and federal funding to preserve and encourage the
restoration of historic buildings. The Master Plan recommends that the City, among other things, develop
an implementation· program to encourage the voluntary rehabilitation and preservation of qualified
historic resources in the Master Plan area, formalize a local historical marker/plaque program, and allow
additional uses for qualified historic properties and structures. 1,,vork 1Nith its l=listoric Preservation
Commission and/or Carlsbad l=listorical Society to identify and set preservation standards for historic
buildings in the Village and Barrio . Recommendations such as establishing a civic green instead of parking
lots around the historic Twin Inns property would enhance the historic character of the building without
' jeopardizing its historic status.
Alt~ough implementation of the proposed Master Plan may r~sult in actions that could adversely affect
historic resources, future projects and improvements would be required to be consistent with the General
Plan goals and policies requiring the protection and preservation of such resources (Goals 7-G.1 and 7-G.2,
Policies 7-P.2, 7-P.5, and 7-P.6). Compliance with these goals and policies would help to minimize or avoid
impacts to historical resources. The Master Plan provides further protection where future projects could
potentially impact designated or potential historic resources. Section 2.6.7 of the Master Plan, which
describes the procedures for modification of Area-Wide Standards identified in the Master Plan, notes in
Item B.5 that modifications to development standards are allowed in order to protect or accommodate a
designated or potential historic resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Section 6.3.2 of
the Master Plan, which lists improvements or activities that are exempt from discretionary permits issued
pursuant to the Master Plan, notes in Item C.3 that a project that is otherwise exempt from discretionary
review, but that has the potential to result in significant adverse effects on environmental resources such
as a designated or potential historic resource, would be subject to a minor site development plan permit.
In addition, historic resources in the City are subject to the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Title 22), which includes criteria for including resources in the City's historic resources
inventory, historic site and landmark designation procedures, and historic district designation procedures.
The Historic Preservation Ordinance also requires permits to work on a historic resource,· historic
landmark, or within historic districts, and requires that historic resources are kept in good repair while
conforming to the requirements of the California Historical Building Code. Only resources listed on the
national or state historic resource registers are currently required to comply with the City's Historic
Preservation Ordinance. For any other potential historic resources, compliance with the ordinance is
voluntary,
The City of Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural. and Paleontological Resources Guidelines (dated ±99-GSeptember
2017) are also in place to help protect historic resources in the City. The guidelines establish standards of
performance for resource investigation and evaluation of significance, ana a method. of preserving
identified resources. An architectural history sensitivity model is provided to indicate areas of high,
moderate, or low sensitivity and aid the city in making"informed decisions about proposed land uses. 8
list of preferred treatment options and mitigation measures is provided to address potential impacts to
eligible cultural resources. Compliance with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Carlsbad Tribal,
Cultural. and Paleontological Resources Guidelines, as well as implementation of the applicable General
April 2018 -34-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 104 of 321
r
\
/ __
/
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
Plan goals and policies, would ensure that impacts to historic resources would be less than significant with
mitigation measures incorporated.
b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. The Master Plan is located
within an area that is culturally significant to two Native American tribes known to have occupied the
area: the Luisefios and the Dieguefios (Kumeyaay). While the potential exists for buried historic or
prehistoric archaeological resources to be discovered during future development and improvement
activities within the Master Plan area, the probabilitythat grading, excavation, or other ground disturbing
activities would impact undocumented buried archaeological resources is moderately low, due to the
intense land development that has occurred in the area. Future development projects within the Master
Plan area would be required to implement the applicable General Plan goals and policies pertaining to
archaeological resources, including Policy 7-P.8, which requires monitoring during ground disturbing
activities in previously undisturbed areas or areas with known archaeological resources, and Policy 7-P.9,
which ensures the proper treatment of cultural resources discovered during construction. Future
development projects would be reviewed pursuant to the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological
Resources Guidelines (dated September 2017). which provides general methods and standards of analysis
for resource evaluation; an archaeological sensitivity model indicating areas of high, moderate, or low
sensitivity; and a list of preferred treatment options and mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potential
impacts to cultural resources.
Jn accordance with Policies 7-P.7, 7-P.8 and 7-P.9 of the General Plan, as well as the guidance provided in
the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines, the following mitigation measure
shall apply to future projects within the Master Plan, as applicable.
Mitigation Measure ARCH-1: Prior to approval of any project which may involve ground disturbance in
areas whic~ have been previously undisturbed or where historic or prehistoric archaeological resources
are known to exist, a cultural resource assessment shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist to
determine the potential for significant archaeological resou rces to occur. Any field survey or work shall
be conducted by the archaeologist with a Native American monitor present. If significant cultural
resources are observed or suspected to occur beneath the surface, the assessment shall identify
mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. Assessment and survey procedures, and +!featment of
any cultural resources discovered during site grading shall comply with the ~Carlsbad Tribal, CulturalL
and Paleontofogical Resource~ Guidelines. Determination of the significance of the cultural resource(s)
and development and implementation of any data recoveri,r program appropriate treatment measures
and procedures shall be conducted by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with interested Native
American tribes. All Native American human remains and associated grave goods shall be returned to
their most likely descendent and repatriated. The final disposition of tribal cultural resources artifacts not
directly associated with Native American graves shall be negotiated during consultation with interested
tribes in accordance with the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural and Paleontofogical Resources Guidelines; if the
artifact is not accepted by Native American tribes, it sh.all be offered to an institution staffed ,by qualified
professionals, as may be determined by the City Planner. Artifacts include material recovered from all
phases of ·,•,mrk, including the initial survey, testing, indmcing, data recovery, and monitoring. Prior to
occupancy, a cultural resource monitoring report identifying all materials recovered shall be submitted to
the South Coast Information Center with a copy to the City Planner.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure ARCH-1 would reduce potential impacts to archaeological
resources to less than significant.
April 2018 -35-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 105 of 321
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
e) Less #=JsR S.ifiRijiEBRt lmt3sst w.i#=J .nAft.igetfeR Mess1:1Fe5 !Rserpersted-. Tribal cultural resources are
sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural 1,rnlue to a California
Native American tribe that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California
Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in
subdivision (k) of Public Resources Code Section 5020.1. As discussed in V.a, the Master Plan area does
contain historic resources. However, these resources are structures which are not considered of cultural
value to California Native American tribes.
As discussed in V.b, the Master Plan area is located 1.vithin an area that is culturally significant to tvJO
Native American tribes knmvn to have occupied the area: the Luisenos and -the Dieguenos (Kumeyaay).
As a result, future development pursuant to the Master Plan 'A1ill be required to implement Mitigation
Measure ARCH 01. In addition, future development projects 1.vithin the Master Plan area v.rould be
required to implement the applicable General Plan goals and policies pertaining to archaeological
resources, including Policies 7 P.8 and 7 P.9. The City has a standing tribal consultation request pursuant
to Assembly Bill 52 with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians (SLR). Accordingly, the City contacted
SLR regarding the project on January 21, 2016. The Native American consultation process began January
25, 2016, and is ongoing.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure ARCH 1 would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural
resources to less than significant.
\
df) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. Paleontological resources are
the remains and/or traces of prehistoric plant and animal life, exclusive of human remains.
Implementation of the proposed Master Plan would not directly result in physical construction that could
impact paleontological resources. However, ground-disturbing activities associated with future
development and redevelopment within the Master Plan area could result in direct or indirect impacts to
paleontological resources through the accidental destruction or disturbance of paleontological resources.
i
The majority of the anticipated development and improvement projects would involve redevelopment e-f
or new development within existing developed areas. This greatly reduces the potential for encountering
intact paleontological resources. Individual projects proposed within the Master Plan area would be
required to be consistent with the applicable General Plan policies to minimize or avoid impacts to
paleontological resources (Policies 7-P.7, 7-P.8, 7-P.9, and 7-P.10). Future development projects would be
analyzed per the general methods and standards of analysis provided in the Carlsbad Tribal. Cultural, and
Paleontological Resources Guidelines. The Guidelines provide a paleontological sensitivity model
indicating the areas where geologic formations are likely to yield paleontological resources.
In a'ccordance with Policy 7-P.8 of the General Plan, implementation of following mitigation measure shall
apply to future projects within the Master Plan, as applicable.
Mitigation Measure PALE0-1: Prior to approval of any project which may involve ground disturbance in
areas which have a moderate to high potential for paleontological resources, a paleontological resource
assessment shall be conducted. to determine the potential for significant paleontological resources to
0€€l::l-fbe impacted will be evaluated. If significant paleontological resources could be impacted, a Principal
Paleontologist shall be retained to prepare a Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to address
the following information, as applicable and appropriate, and to conduct mitigation monitoring:
April 2018 -36-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 106 of 321
/
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
• The level of monitoring (spot checks, part time or full time), protocols and authorization for work
stoppages, and safety procedures;
• The need for Contractor Awareness Training for all earthmoving personnel for any projects where
a monitor will not be present full time;
• A research design listing the research questions and the data requirements for those questions;
• The level and type of ass·istance from the contractor needed by the paleontologist to take bulk
samples and place them into a safe area for processing;
• The methods for fossil collection, fossil preparation, fossil identification, stratigraphic profiles, and
cu ration;
• The types of progress reports that will be provided to the project proponent and City (weekly or
monthly);
• The schedule for reporting;
• A recommendation for the updating of the paleontology sensitivity model, which takes intG
consideration the presence or absence of paleontological resources, the amount of ground
disturbance, and the potential for future discoveries; and
.. The identity of the financially-responsible party.
Mitigation monitoring will occur in accordance with the Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan,
and specimens of significant fossils, all paleontological data, and a copy of the final report shall be curated
at the San Diego Natural History Museum.mccavation in the area suspected to contain paleontological
resources shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. If significant resources are encountered, they
shall be recovered and conveyed to an appropriate repository.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure PALE0-1, would reduce potential impacts to paleontological
resources to less than significant.
e!!) less than Significant Impact. Human remains, particularly those interred outside formal cemeteries,
could be disturbed during grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities associated with future
development or redevelopment projects within the Master Plan area. In accordance with Health and
Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code 5097.98, if any human remains are
discovered during future development or improvement activities, all work would be halted, in the vicinity
of the discovery, the appropriate authorities would be notified, and standard procedures for the
respectful handling of human remains would be adhered to. Therefore, impacts associated with the
disturbance of human remains would be less than significant.
April 2018 -37-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 107 of 321
/
/
I /
/.
I
I
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Less than Less than
Significant Significant with Significant No
Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporated
a) Expose·people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued
by the State Geologist for the area or D D ~ D
based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? D D ~ D
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including D D ~ D liquefaction?
iv. Landslides? D D ~ D
b} Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of D D ~ D topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in D D ~ D
on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d} Be located on expansive-soils, as defined in
Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building D D ~ D Code (2007}, creating substantial risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of ade·quately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers D D D ~
are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
a.i) Less thari Significant Impact. No known active, potentially active, or inactive faults traverse the
Master Plan area, nor is it located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (City General Plan &
Climate Action Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, certified September 22, 2015). The Newport-
Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault, located approximately four miles offshore of the western edge of the
Master Plan are.a, is the closest known active fault. While the potential for on-site rnpture ca·nnot be
completely discounted (e.g., unmapped faults could conceivably underlie the Master Plan area), the
likelihood for such an occurrence is considered low due to the absence of known faulting within or
adjacent to the area. Therefore, impacts related to fault rupture from implementation of the proposed
Master Plan would be less than significant.
a.ii) Less than Significant Impact. The Master Plan area is located in seismically active southern California
and is likely to be subjected to moderate to strong seismic ground shaking. Seismic shaking could be
generated by events on any number of known active and potentially active faults in the region, including
the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault (offshore), as well as the Coronado Bank, La Nacion, Elsinore,
Agua Caliente, and San Jacinto fault zones. An earthquake along any of these known active or potentially
active fault zones could result in severe ground shaking, and consequently cause injury and/or property
April 2018 -38-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 108 of 321
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
damage within the Master Plan area. This rnuld potentially result in significant impacts to future
development projects within the Village and Barrio, depending on factors such as event duration, motion
frequency, and underlying soil/geologic conditions. The Master Plan would allow for additional
development within the Village and Barrio, which could expose people and property to strong seismic
ground shaking. Individual project designs would incorporate measures to accommodate seismic loading,
pursuant to the applicable California State University Seismic Safety Requirements, as well as existing
guidelines such as the California Building Code (CBC; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2). The
· CBC provides appropriate measures to accommodate seismic loading parameters in California. Based on
the incorporation of applicable measures into development project design and construction, impacts
associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
a.iii) less than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the phenomenon that occurs during severe ground
shaking whereby soils reduce greatly in strength and temporarily behave similarly to a fluid rather than a
solid. Severe or extended liquefaction can result in significant effects to surface and subsurface facilities
through the loss of support and/or foundation integrity. Liquefaction is restricted to certain geologic and
hydro logic environments, primarily recently deposited sand and silt in areas with high groundwater levels.
Certain areas of the Master Plan, as well as the City in general, have a higher risk of liquefaction due to
the presence of hydrophytic soils that are often saturated or characteristic of wetlands (e.g., Agua
Hedionda and Buena Vista Lagoons). The proposed Master Plan would allow for additional development
in areas that may be at risk for liquefaction; however, new buildings and structures would be constructed
in compliance with the City's Building Codes and Regulations (Municipal Code Title 18), which adopts the
~2016 Edition of the CBC, Volumes 1 and 2. Risks from liquefaction would be analyzed as part of the
development review process and potential dangers from liquefaction would be addressed as required by
the CBC, including Section 1610, Soil Lateral Loads, which requires design that resists lateral soil loads.
Potential design considerations could include removal or re-compaction of liquefiable soils, in site ground
densification, ground modification and improvement, deep foundations, reinforced shallow foundations,
and reinforced structures to resist deformation during liquefaction. Compliance with the CBC and
implementation ofthe proposed Master Plan would result in less than significant impacts to people and
structures from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction
a.iv) less than Significant Impact. The Master Plan does not include any areas identified as being
susceptible to landslides and the overall risk of landslides is low (City General Plan & Climate Action Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report, certified September 22, 2015). Moreover, no blasting. or other
activities that could result in rock falls or trigger landslides or slope instability are anticipated to be
required for future development projects within the Master Plan area. Given the absence of active faults
and the relatively level topography in the area, the potential for .seismically induced landslides is low and
impacts related to landslides would be less than significant.
b} less than Significant Impact. Construction of new projects and improvements within the Master Plan
area could result in exposed soil via construction activities such as ground disturbance, earthwork
excavation, and removal of unsuitable soil materials. These activities would result in temporary impacts
to the local topography and soils. Potential sedimentation and erosion impacts would be reduced to less
than significant levels with the implementation of erosion and sedimentation control measures to
minimize on-site erosion and off-site transport of eroded materials in compliance with NPDES permit
requirements. Control measures would include applifable BMPs (per the City's BMP Design Manual), such
as covering stockpiled excavated materials to reduce potential off-site sediment transport and regu[ar
inspection and maintenance of all sediment catchment facilities to ensure proper function and
effectiveness. Compliance with NPDES permit requirements as well as City standards for sedimentation
April 2018 -39-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 109 of 321
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA.16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
and erosion control BMPs and other applicable City regulations, codes, and ordinances, would ensure that
construction impacts from future development projects would be less than significant.
c) less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Items VI.a.iii and VI.a.iv, the Village and Barrio are not
located within an area prone to landslides or liquefaction. Although implementation of the proposed
Master Plan could result in development on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or may become
unstable, future development would be required to comply with the City's Grading Ordinance (Municipal
Code Chapter 15.16), which requires a geotechnical investigation as part of the grading permit application
· process that would identify potential hazards and provide recommendations consistent with City
standards. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
d) less than Significant Impact. Although implementation of the proposed Master Plan could result in
development on an expansive soil, future development would be required to comply with the City's
Grading Ordinance (Mu'nicipal Code Chapter 15.16), which requ-ires a geotechnical investigation as part of
the grading permit application process that would identify potential hazards and provide
recommendations consistent with City standards. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
e) No Impact. The Master Plan area is within the City's Sewer Service Area, where wastewater collection,
treatment, and disposal service is provided to customers. No septic tank systems are anticipated to be
proposed within the Master Plan area; therefore, no impact related to the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Potentially Less than Less than
Significant Significant with Significant No
Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a D D ~ D
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purposes of D D ~ D reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? )
a) Less than Significant Impact. Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions
on Earth as a whole, including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global
temperatures are moderated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases, including water vapor, carbon
dioxide (CO2), .methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), ozone (03), and certain hydro-fluorocarbons. These
gases, known as greenhouse gases (GHGs), allow solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth's atmosphere,
but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth's atmosphere. GHGs are emitted by
both natural processes and human activities. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the
Earth's temperature. Emissions of GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are thought to be
responsible for the enhancement of the greenhouse effect and contribute to what is termed "global
warming," the trend of warming of the Earth's climate from anthropogenic activities. Global climate
change impacts are by nature cumulative; direct impacts cannot be evaluated because the impacts
themselves are global rather than localized impacts.
California Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g) 'defines GHGs to include the following compounds:
CO2, CH4, N20, 0 3, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). As individual GHGs have varying heat-trapping properties and atmospheric
April 2018 -40-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 110 of 321
/
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
lifetimes, GHG emissions are converted to carbon dioxide equivalent (C02e) units for comparison. The
C02e is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions because it normalizes various GHG
emissions to a consistent measure.1 The most common GHGs related to the project are those primarily
related to energy usage: CO2, CH4, and N20.
The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP), dated September 2015, that is designed to reduce the City's
GHG emissions in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, and streamline environmental
review of future development projects in the City. The CAP includes goals, policies, and actions for the
City to reduce GHG emissions and combat global climate change, and also includes a local GHG emissions
inventory, forecasts for future GHG emissions, and a comprehensive strategy to manage and reduce GHG
emissions through 2035. The city's CAP contains a baseline inventory of GHG emissions for 2005, an
updated basel'ine inventory for 2011, a projection of emissions to 2035 (corresponding to the General
Plan horizon year), a calculation of the city's targets based on a reduction from the 2005 baseline, and
emission reductions with implementation of the CAP. The city emitted a total of 630,310 metric tons (MT)
C02e in 2005 and 705,744 MT C02e in 2011. Accounting for future population and economic growth,
including within the Master Plan area, the city projects GHG emissions of 1,007,473 MT C02e in 2035. The
CAP set a target to achieve a 15 percent reduction from the 2005 baseline by 2020 based on the
recommendation by the CARB. The CAP also includes a target to reduce emissions below the 2005 baseline
by 49 percent by 2035. Therefore, the city must implement strategies that reduce emissions to
535,763 MT C02e in 2020 and 321,458 MT C02e in 2035.
The CAP outlines actions for the City to achieve its proportional share of state GHG emissions reductions
by 2020 and 2030. In addition, there are a number of GQther City policies and ordinances pertaining to
GHGs that would help reduce emissions, include the Sustainable Energy Master Plan, Carlsbad Building
Code Section 18.18 (Uniform Solar Energy Code), and Carlsbad Building Code Section 18.30 (California
Energy Code). The Sustainable Energy Master Plan, dated December 2008, provides a report of potential
renewable energy sources, and merasures to reduce power consumption, as well as an evaluation of
energy efficiency and reduction measures. Carlsbad Building Code Section 18.18 adopts the Uniform Solar
Energy Code, ~2015 Edition, as a baseline solar energy code for the City. This building code applies to
the erection, installation, alteration, repair, replacement, addition to, use, or maintenance of solar
systems. Carlsbad Building Code Section 18.30 adopts the California Energy Code, ~2016 Edition, as a
baseline energy code for the City. This building code requires new residential units to include provisions
specifically designed to allow the later installation of solar energy systems.
Future development under the proposed Master Plan would result in an increase in energy consumption
and generation of GHG emissions from mobile, stationary, and area sources. Federal, state, and local
regulations, applicable General Plan policies, and associated reduction measures in the CAP would serve
to reduce associated impacts. Future development would be required to comply with Title 24 energy
performance standards and the proposed General Plan energy conservation policies and actions, including
Policy 9-P.2, which promotes energy conservation throughout all municipal operations, and the use of
alternative transportation to reduce energy consumption; Policy 9-P.8, which promotes energy efficiency
through green building construction and building retrofits; Policy 9-P.10, which promotes energy
conservation through reductions in artificial cooling, heating and lighting energy use; and Policy 9-P.1_2,
1 The effect each GHG has on climate change is measured as a combination of the volume of its emissions, and its global warming
potential. The global warming potential is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere, and is expressed
as a function of how much warming would be caused by the same mass of CO2• For instance, CH4 has a global warming potential
of 21, meaning that 1 gram of CH4 traps the same amount of heat as 21 grams of CO2. N20 has a global warming potential
of 310.
April 2018 -41-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 111 of 321
., --
'-
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
which directs the city to explore renewabie energy resources and infrastructure. Despite the overall
increase in future energy use, the state's current and future energy code and City's policies regarding
energy use would ensure energy efficient designs in new development and encourage energy efficiency
upgrades in existing development, both of which would minimize wasteful, inefficient energy
consumption.
Consistent 1.vith the General Plan, the Master Plan indicates that the California Construction Codes
(Building, Energy, and Green codes) are the reference documents for the building standards applicable to
all buildings to be constructed renovated, or rehabilitated 1.vithin the Village and Barrio. The Master Plan
permits modifications to the established development standards, if they would enable are necessary for ·
development of a project that toprovides a "significant public benefit." Significant public benefits include
projects that exceed minimum Climate Action Plan consistency requirements, exceed local energy
efficiency requirements and/or renewable energy requirements, and implement other important actions
that would qualify for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification or comparable
green building rating, since green building serves to reduce GHG emissions. Lighting standards guidelines
established in the Master Plan call for the use of energy-efficient lighting and adaptive lighting controls in
order to conserve energy. Overall, the Master Plan encourages improvements to maximize the efficiency
of all transportation modes and provide alternatives to the traditional automobile.
In addition to state and federal actions and General Plan policies and actions to reduce GHG emissions,
the following CAP GHG reduction measures are designed to enable the City to achieve its GHG reduction
target for 2035 by promoting:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Residential, commercial, and industrial photovoltaic systems
Building cogeneration
Single-family, multi-family, and commercial efficiency retrofits
Commercial commissioning
California Green Building Standards (CALGreenj building code
Solar water heater/heat pump installation
Efficiency lighting standards
Increased zero-emissions vehicle travel
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Citywide renewable projects
Water delivery and conservation
General Plan EIR Chapter 3.4, Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change, provides emissions
forecasts for the City as a whole. As indicated in the analysis, implementation of General Plan policies and
associated reduction measures in the CAP would meet all GHG emissions targets through 2035 and overall
GHG emissions within the City, including the Master Plan area . Thus, impacts related to project-related
GHG emissions would be less than significant.
b) less than Significant Impact. The Master Plan implements and is consistent with the City's General
~ Future development and improvement projects occurring pursuant to the Master Plan would be
required to be consistent with the General Plan goals and policies aimed at reducing citywide GHG
emissions, as well as goals, policies, and actions provided in the City's CAP. The goals and policies related
to sustainability and multi-modal transportation objectives within the Master Plan, General Plan, and CAP
complement the SAN DAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS),
which serves as the regional implementation strategy for carrying out SB 375, California's state planning
priorities (AB 857 adopted in 2002), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and regional
April 2018 -42-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 112 of 321
/
,_
/
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 1~-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
GHG targets. The CAP demonstrates that. with implementation of applicable General Plan goals and
policies, coupled with state and federal actions, and execution of CAP measures and actions, the city will
reduce GHG emissions in alignment with state goals established by Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32,
and maintain a trajectory to meet its proportional share of the 2050 state target identified in Executive
Order S-3-05. As described in response Vll(a) above, the Master Plan is consistent with applicable General
Plan goals and policies, and includes an overall vision and standards and guidelines that are consistent
with the adopted CAP. Therefore, future development projects and improvements within the Master Plan
area, by nature, would result in reduced VMT and associated GHG emissions, which achieve the
overarching goals of local, regional, and state plans to reduce GHG emissions. As such, the proposed
Master Plan would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of GHGs. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
VIIL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS Less than
MATERIALS Potentially Significant with Less than No Significant Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Would the project: Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine D D [SJ D transport, use, or disposal of _hazardous
materials?
b} Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions D D [SJ D
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, D D [SJ D substances, ·or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section D D [SJ D 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or
environment?
e) For a project within an airport land use plan,
or where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public D D D [SJ use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety D D D [SJ hazard for people residing or working in the
project arect?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency D D [SJ D response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
April 2018 -43-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 113 of 321
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS Less than
MATERIALS Potentially Significant with Less than No Significant Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Would the project: Incorporated
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wild lands are adjacent D D ~ D
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
a) Less than Significant Impact. Future development pursuant to the Master Plan could result in hazards
to people or the envirnnment resulting from routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
during construction and operation. During construction of future development, hazardous substances
used to maintain and operate construction equipment (e.g., fuel, lulxicants, adhesives, solvents, and
asphalt) would be present in the Master Plan area .. The use or generation of such construction-related
hazardous materials could potentially result in significant impacts through accidental discharge associated
with use, storage, operation, and maintenance activities. The transport, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials would be conducted in accordance with applicable federal and state laws. In addition, proposed
development within the Master Plan area would be required to obtain coverage under a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit. The Construction Ge".eral
Permit requires that SWPPPs are implemented to address the discharge of contaminants (including
construction-related hazardous materials) and implementation of appropriate BMPs. While specific BMPs
would be determined during the SWPPP process based on project-specific characteristics (e.g., equipment
types, etc.), they would include standard industry measures and guidelines contained in the NPDES
Construction General Permit text. Based on implementation of appropriate BMPs to provide conformance
with the NPDES Construction General Permit, potential impacts associated with construction-related
hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Non-construction related use of hazardous materials within the Village and Barrio neighborhoods would
typically be associated with light industrial, retail/office, commercial, residential, medical, and
recreational uses. New development could include land uses that require the routine use, transport, and
disposal of hazardous materials and waste. The increase in local population and employment could re!>ult
in the increased use of hazardous household, commercial, and industrial materials, as well as a cumuia'tive
increase in exposure to risk associated with a,ccidental release of hazardous materials into the
environment. As noted above, federal and state regulations require adherence to specific guidelines
regarding the use, transportation, disposal, and accidental release of hazardous materials, which include
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Emergency Planning.and Community Right-to-Know
Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, California Health and Safety Code, California Code of
Regulations Titles 22 and 27, Senate Bill 1889, and the Consolidated Fire Code. The City would continue
to maintain permitting requirements, as administered by the County of San Diego's Department of
Environmental Health requirements, for all land uses that handle, store, or generate hazardous waste.
Disclosure laws would be enforced by the City to identify business users and the materials they handle to
facilitate notification of appropriate agencies in the event of a violation. Implementation of the
appropriate federal, state, and local regulations and policies, in combination with the City's ongoing public
education and risk identification efforts, would ensure that safe conditions are maintained within the
Master Plan area. Thus, impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials would be less than significant.
April 2018 -44-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 114 of 321
'---
/
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
. b) less than Significant Impact. As described in VIII.a, above, future development pursuant to the Master
Plan would involve the use, transportation, disposal, and storage of hazardous materials that could result
in upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Future development could occur within sites that have been previously contaminated by hazardous
substances. The County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division
is the designated Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for San Diego County and is required to
implement the unified hazardous waste and hazardous materials management and regulatory program
for the county with the help of other local agencies such as the City. The risk ·of upset and accident
conditions would be managed and reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of CUPA
programs, as well as conformance with other applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
c) less than Significant Impact. There is one public elementary school and four private schools located
within the Master Plan area or within one-quarter mile of the Master Plan area, including the following:
• Jefferson Elementary School (located at 3743 Jefferson StreetL south of and adjacent towi-tJ::H.fl. the
Master Plan area)
• Carlsbad Montessori Center (located at 740 Pine Avenue within the Master Plan area)
• Casa Montessori de Carlsbad (located at 3470 Madison Street within the Master Plan area)
• Carlsbad Army and Navy Academy (located at 2605 Carlsbad Boulevard within the Master Plan
area)
• St. Patrick's Catholic School (located at 3820 Pio Pico Drive, approximately 0.1 mile west of the
Master Plan area)
No new schools are recommended as part of the Master Plan, nor are changes to existing land uses
proposed such that the potential for hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within the vicinity of these schools would substantially increase. While future development
pursuant to the Master Plan would involve the use, transportation, disposal, and storage of hazardous
materials that could result in emissions and/or handling of hazardous materials within the vicinity of the
schools, these conditions would be managed and reduced to less than significant levels through
conformance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, described in VIII.a and Vlll.b, above.
d) less than Significant Impact. As described in Chapter 3.6, Hazard.ous Materials, Airport Safety, and
Wildfires of the General Plan EIR, there are several sites within the Master Plan area that are included on
one or more of the lists of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 or that need further investigation. The primary reason for listing is soil and groundwater
contamination; redevelopment within these areas could potentially pose a significant hazard to the public
or the environment should contaminants be encountered. Future development within the Master Plan
area would be subject to General Plan Policy 6-P.23, which requires regulation of development on sites
with known soil and groundwater contamination to ensure the safety of construction personnel, future
occupants, and the environment. Per General Plan Policy 6-P.24, hazardous materials emergency incident
response and coordination with applicable agencies, would be required for new development projects.
Therefore, potential hazards to the public or environment due to the location of Master Plan area future
development on hazardous materials sites would be less than significant.
e) No Impact. McClellan-Palomar Airport is located approximately 3.2 miles southeast of the Master Plan
area. The Village and Barrio neighborhoods are not located within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
(ALUCP) Airport Safety Zones, Avigation Easement Areas, or the Airport Overflight Notification Area for
April 2018 -45-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 115 of 321
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14_-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
the McClellan-Palomar Airport, nor would the Master Plan result in an airport-related safety hazard for
people residing or working in the area. Thus, no impact would occur.
f) No Impact. No private airstrips are located within the vicinity of the Master Plan area. Therefore, the
Master Plan would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area. No impact
would occur.
g) less than Significant Impact. The proposed Master Plan would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with the City's adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The
City has .adopted the Carlsbad Emergency-Operations Plan, which addresses the City's planned response
to emergency situations. While new development and population growth within the Master Plan area
would result in an increase in demand for emergency services, which could affect emergency plan
implementation, the City has plans in place to address emergency situations such that emergency-related
impacts would be less than significant.
h) less than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of future projects within the Master Plan
area are not likely to expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving
wild land fires, as the area is primarily developed and the risk for wild land fires to occur is low. Therefore1
impacts related to wildland fires would be less than significant.
IK HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Less than Less than
Significant Significant with Significant No
Mitigation Impact Would the project: lrripact lncoq~oJated Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste D D [gJ D discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete ground~ater supplies
or interfere substantially with grour.id water
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local ground water table level {i.e., the D D [gJ D
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or D D [gJ D river, in a manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-
site? ' d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the flow rate D D [gJ D
or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a
manner, which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
April 2018 -46-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 116 of 321
/'.
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Less than Less than
Significant Significant with Significant No
Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or D D !Zl D
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water D D !Zl D quality? ;
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard D D D !Zl Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood delineation map?
h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area
structures, which would impede or redirect D D D !Zl
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving D D D !Zl flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? D D !Zl D
a) less than Significant Impact. Future development and improvements proposed within the Master Plan
area have the potential to result in water quality and waste discharge requirement violations. All projects
implemented under the proposed Master Plan would be required by law to comply with all federal, state,
and local water quality regulations. Applicable regulations include, but are not limited to, the federal Clean
Water Act, Division 7 of the California Water Code (Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act), specific basin plan
objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for San Diego Basin11 (WQCP), the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Permit (MS4
Permit) issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the City's Standard Urban
Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP) and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP),
and the Carlsbad Grading and Drainage Ordinance. The San Diego RWQCB is responsible for regulating
stormwater discharges and maintaining the quality of water resources within the County, including the
Master Plan area. Construction activities, storm drain systems, and point-source discharges associated
with individual projects within t~e Master Plan area would be required to obtain coverage under a NPDES
permit, per Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. All projects would be required to meet, at a minimum,
standard storm water requirements to reduce the volume of runoff from impervious surfaces and increase
the amount of natural filtration of pollutants from on-site stormwater. Standard requirements include the
following low impact development (LID) measures identified in General Plan EIR Section 3.8, Hydrology
and Flooding/Water Quality:
• Drain a portion of impervious areas into pervious areas, if any.
• Design and construct pervious areas, if any, to effectively receive and infiltrate runoff from
impervious areas, taking into account soil conditions, slope, and other pertinent factors.
• Construct a portion of paved areas with low traffic and appropriate soil conditions with permeable
surfaces. ·
April 2018 -47-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 117 of 321
/
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
For each new project that would disturb one or more acres of land, create greater than 5,000 square feet
of impervious surfaces, or otherwise pose a threat to stormwater quality, a SWPPP would be required to
be prepared pursuant to the requirements in the City's Storm Water Standards Manual and in compliance -
with the Carlsbad Grading and Drainage Ordinance. The SWPPP would include a program of BMPs to
provide stormwater runoff, erosion and sediment control and reduce potential impacts to water quality
that may result from -e::onstruction activities. Typical construction BMPs include the following, as identified
in General Plan EIR Section 3.8:
• Minimizing disturbed areas. Clearing of land is limited to-that which will be actively under
construction in the near term; )'lew land disturbance during the rainy season is minimized; and
disturbance to sensitive areas or areas that would not be affected by construction is minimized.
i, Stabilizing disturbed areas. Temporary stabilization of disturbed soils is provided whenever active
c~nstruction is not occurring on a portion of the site, and permanent stabilization is provided by
finish grading and permanent landscaping.
• Protecting slopes and channels. Outside of the approved _grading plan area, disturbance of
natural channels is avoided; slopes and crossings are stabilized; and increases in runoff velocity
caused by the project is managed to avoid erosion to slopes and channels.
• Controlling the site perimeter. Upstream runoff is diverted around _or safely conveyed through
the project and is kept free of excessive sediment and other constituents.
• Controlling internal erosion. Sediment-laden waters from disturbed, active areas within the site
are detained.
Non-point source surface water from impervious surfaces within the Master Plan area may contain
contaminants or increased sediment loads that would increase pollution within the locatstorm drain
system. Compliance with the applicable federal, state, and local water quality regulations would ensure
that impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant.
b) less Than Significant Impact. Groundwater consists of water within underground aquifers that is
recharged from the land surface. The rate of groundwater recharge is affected by the permeability of the
ground surface. Changes in the amount of impervious surfaces within the Master Plan area are not
anticipated to substantially reduce groundwater recharge since development within the Master Plan area -
would primarily include redevelopment of existing developed areas. Future development and
improvements within the Master Plan area could increase demands for water; however, this increase in
water demand is not anticipated to impact local groundwater supplies, since the Carlsbad Municipal
Water District (CMWD}, which services the Master Plan area and the majority of the City, does not
currently utilize local groundwater or surface water supplies. Consistent with the conclusions identified in
General Plan EIR, groundwater impacts relative to implementation of the Master Plan would be less than
signifitant.
c-d) Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Master Plan would not involve the direct
alteration of the course of a stream, river or other drainage pattern such that substantial erosion, siltation,
or flooding would occur. Future development and improvements within the Master Plan area could
impact existing drainage and result in hydromodification effects through increases in impervious surfaces
and runoff volumes into the local water system. Each future development project would be subject to the
April 2018 -48-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 118 of 321
I
\
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
erosion and runoff control provisions contained in the City's SUSMP and . Grading and Drainage
Ordinances, including the preparation of a SWPPP for all applicable construction activities. Projects also
would be required to comply With the flood damage and prevention measures in Chapter 21.110 of the
City's Municipal Code. These measures would restrict development in areas of special flood hazards
(e.g., near waterways/water bodies such as Buena Vista Lagoon) and control erosion, thus serving to limit
and control the alteration of existing drainage patterns. Adherence to local regulations would ensure that
watercourses and drainage patterns wquld not be altered in a manner that would significantly increase
the rate or amount of runoff or erosion, or result in significant effects related to flooding. Thus, impacts
would be less than significant.
e-f) Less Than Significant Impact. Future development and improvements within the Master Plan area
could impact the existing drainage system. Each future development project would be subject to the City's
Grading and Drainage Ordinances and Storm Water Standards Manual to ensure compliance with NPDES
permit requirements, as well as other applicable federal and state stormwater regulations. As described
in IX.a, every construction activity with the potential to negatively affect water quality would be required
to prepare a SWPPP and implement standard stormwater requirements. Compliance with applicable
federal, state, and local regulations would ensure that runoff from future development within the Master
Plan area would not exceed_ the capacity of existing or planned storm drain systems or generate
substantial pollutant runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.
g-h) No Impact. As depicted in Figure 3.8-1 of the General Plan EIR, the northernmost portion of the
Master Plan area, including areas immediately adjacent to Buena Vista Lagoon, is located within a 100-
year flood hazard area designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Implementation of the Master Plan would not place new housing within a 100-year flood hazard area of
the Buena Vista Lagoon, nor would it place structures within floodplain areas that would impede or
redirect flood flows. The City's Floodplain Management Regulations restrict or prohibit land uses
considered unsafe in a floodplain. Future development projects would be reviewed by the City's Land
Development Engineering Division for flooding potential and analyzed to ensure that substantial changes
to drainage would not occur such that flood flows would be impeded or redirected. No impact would
occur.
i) No Impact. Dam inundation zones within the City are depicted in Figure 3.8-2 of the General Plan EIR.
The Master Plan area is not located within a dam inundation zone. No impact would occur. '
The city has prepared a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment which evaluated potential sea level rise
effects and describes a range of potential adaptation strategies that may be applied. The vulnerability .
assessment will be used to inform the development of adaptation policies in the comprehensive Local
Coastal Program update the city is now preparing. Once adopted, these policies would apply to future
projects within the Coastal Zone.
j) Less Than Significant Impact. A seiche is a large wave generated in an enclosed or semi-enclosed body
of water, often caused by ground-shaking associated with seismic activity. Potential effects from seiches
include flooding damage and related hazards in areas surrounding the water bodies. Tsuna_mis are large
ocean waves generated by fault displacement or major ground movement. The primary areas susceptible
to tsunamis are those near the ocean and along low-lying river channels. Tsunami risk areas within the
City are depicted in Figure 3.8-3 of the General Plan EIR. The high risk areas associated with seiches and
tsunami run-up are in the immediate vicinity of the Buena Vista Lagoon, as well as the Agua Hedionda and
Batiquitos Lagoons. Tsunami risk is also high along the coastline. Future development and improvement
April 2018 -49-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 119 of 321
,,-.
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
· Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
projects within the Master Plan area would be required to comply with the City's regulations pertaining
to coastal development (e.g., Municipal Code Chapters 21.110 and 21.204) and conduct appropriate
studies to address potential impacts related to flooding effects of tsunamis and/or seiches, as applicable.
Thus, impacts due to inundation from a seiche or tsunami would be less than significant .
. As noted in VI.a.iii, a.iv, and c, the Master Plan area is not located within an area prone to landsliding,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. As such, future development pursuant to the
Master Plan would not be located within the vicinity of slopes potentially capable of producing mudslides,
nor does the Master Plan directly propose housing, structures, or uses that would be subject to significant
risk of loss, injury, or death from mudflows. For these reasons, no impacts associated with mudflow would ·
occur.
x. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Less than Less than
Significant Significant with Significant No
Mitigation Impact
· Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? D D D ~
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, · D D [X1 D
local coa·stal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community D D D ~
conservation plan?
a) No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Master Plan would not physically divide an established
community. The Master Plan strives to improve connectivity between the Village and Barrio and adjacent
areas of the City and coast, and a goal of the document is to "establish better connectivity with the Village
and Barrio and between the two neighborhoods and their surroundings." New or improved cGonnections
between the beach and the center of the Village and the Barrio are proposed to be highlighted and
strengthened, 'A>'here currently there is a poor connection between the beach and commercial areas of
the Village. The Master Plan identifies potential options to maximize connectivity among the Village and
Barrio and to adjacent neighborhoods, including providing local roadway connections across the railroad
tracks for all modes of travel by trenching the tracks in coordination with the double tracking of the rail
line. The Master Plan also recommends tunneling under 1-5 to connect Grand Avenue in the Village with
the street network on the freeway's east side and ensuring planned Caltrans improvements to freeway
interchanges and crossings that serve the Village and Barrio occur. Recommended pedestrian and bicycle
enhancements unify the Village and Barrio and promote travel throughout these two neighborhoods.
These recommendations would serve to improve access and circulation within the community as opposed
to diviping it and provide a benefit to residents, visitors, and businesses. Thus, no division of an established
community would occur.
b} less than Significant Impact. The Master Plan provides guidance in interpreting City planning and
zoning requirements for properties within the Village and Barrio, as well as specific principles, standards,
regulations, and design guidelines that may be applied to proposed improvements within the Master Plan
area. These components of the Master Plan have been developed to be consistent with and
April 2018 -50-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 120 of 321
/_
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
complementary to the Gene ral Plan, the associated Local Coastal Plan (LCP), and the City's Zoning Code.
The consistency with the General Plan is further demonstrated in Table 2 below, which highlights many
of the various goals, policies, and other provisions of the General Plan with which the Master Plan
complies. The table is not meant to be exhaustive; instead, it provides a consistency analysis over a broad
section of General Plan Elements.
Future development within the Master Plan area would be required to be consistent with the General
Plan and Zoning Code, as applicable. Based on these considerations, conflicts with applicable plans and
regulations would be less than significant.
Table 2 -Demonstration of General Plan Consistency
, . General Plan Provision Provision detail Master Plan Consistency
This core value calls for, in part, As indicated in "+Re Plan" ERapl:eF ehRe
Village revitalization to capitalize Masl:eF Plan and speEifiEally ~section 1.4
·' ' on its potential as a place to live, of Chapter lA.., "+ime 1:o be a !:own," the
work, and play. Master Plan establishes a vision for the
This core value also calls for Village and Barrio that in part states the
Barrio rejuvenation through following:
"care, attention, and "Carlsbad's Village and Barrio are
investment." vibrant, safe and healthy neighborhoods
that:
• Serve as the historic heart of the
" city, honoring Carlsbad's Qast and
creating a strong sense of
community.
• Are connected in place and spirit,
yet retain their unigue
personalities.
• Embody the princiQles of smart
Community Vision Core Value-growth, with a mix of commercial
Neighborhood and residential land uses, a variety
Revitalization/Community Design, of hocrsing choices, walkable
and Livability neighborhoods and multiQle
transportation options.
• Attract high guality, sustainable
development that enhances vitality
and local character." ' The Master Plan implements the vision
through goals and policies, standards
and guidelines, and an implementation
~+Re Plan inEl!::!des and pFoviEles a
,,ision an El sl:andaFds 1:o Feesl:ablisR a
tFl::!e village eonsisl:ing Of botR 1:Re BaFFio
and tRe Village as one planning aFea
witR twe EeFes a downto1Nn
EommeFEial EOFe and a Eent:Fal BaFFie,
pFimaFil'i' Fesidential EOFe. +Re MasteF
Plan eontains eb1eeti1,ies ef Heating
grnal: sl:Feets, magnetie p!::!blie spaees,
malEimiceEl EOnneEtivit'y', impFOvee
,,.,,allEabilitV all in a manneF tRal: seelEs
April 2018 -51-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 121 of 321
' General Plan Provision .
,
Land Use Element
/
April 2018
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
Table 2 -Demonstration of General Plan Consistency
· Provisi<>n detail iVla~erPlan Consistency
ts wsteEt aREI eRAaREe tl=le aFea's
ERaFaEteF as grnwti:i SEEl:JFS.
Table 2-3 specifies residential Master Plan densities match those
densities. identified in the table. .,
Table 2-3 identifies intensity A FAR of 1.2 applies to properties with a
standards expressed as floor area land Lise designation of (/Village." This
ratio, or FAR. standa~d applies to the designation as a
whole, not as a development standard
applicable to each property. (/Village"
. properties have a range of low and high
intensities due to the mix of commercial
and residential uses and many older,
single-and two-story buildings. Master
Plan developments that may exceed the
FAR would likely promote land use
) efficiency, a diversity of uses, and a
pedestrian orientation, which are other
objectives of the Master Plan.
Policy 2-P.69 states, (/the Village The Master Plan replaces the existing
Master Plan and Design Manual is Village Master Plan and Design Manual
the guide for land use planning in a manner consistent with the General
and design in the Village. Plan.
Comprehensively update the
Village Master Plan and Design
Manual as necessary to
implement the goals and policies
of the General Plan."
Policy 2-P.75 states, (/address The key recommendations and
parking demand by finding strategies of the 2017 Parking
additional areas to provide Management Plan, 12re12ared for the
parking for the Villa&e and beach Village, Barrio, and adjacent beach area,
areas, and by developing creative are incor12orated into the Master Plan
parking management strategies, for imQlementation. They address items
such as shared parking, maximum such as Qarking time limits, Qarking
parking standards, (/smart" enforcement and ambassadors, shared
metering, utilizing on-street and leased Qarking, and (/curb lane
parking for re-use of existing management," or the efficient use of the
buildings, etc." street right-of-way for Qarking, bus and
loading zones, bicycle facilities, etc.
Providing additional QUblic Qarking,
whether through shared use of existing
12arking lots or develoQment of new
Qarking in the railroad right-of-way, is
also a comQonent of the Master Plan. A
Mssilit1f PlaR is a l~e'f Esm13sReRt shl=le
MasteF PlaR, f3FSViEliRg SRSFt aREl ls Ag
' teFm stFategies ts aEIEIFess mssility iR
tl=le Village aREl BaFFiS iR all ffiFffiS,
iREl!:JEiiRg mssilit1,1 sy a1:Jtsmssile a REI
tl=le Fes1:JltiRg Rees faF 13aFl~iRg. +l=lese
-52-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 122 of 321
. General Plan Provision
..
Mobility Element
/
April 2018
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
Table 2 -Demonstration of General Plan Consistency
Provision detail Master Plan Consistency
stFategies eall f:eF eAee1:1FagiAg SRaFeEI
13aFl,iAg, aEIEliAg SA StFeet 13aFl,iAg,
iAel1:1EliAg iA tRe seaeR aFea, aAEI 1:1siAg
t:eeRAeleg1• t:e, f:eF exarn13le, iEleAtiPy<
availasle 13aFl,iAg. +Re Mesility Pia A alse
FeeernrneAEls foFrnat:ieA et: a QevmtewA
Mesility GernrnissieA t:e eve.Fsee 13aFl,iAg
rnatteFs, s1:1eR as tRe 13eteAtial
irn13leFAeAtatieA et: time FestFieteEI eF
rneteFeEI 13aFl,iAg. MasteF PlaA
Elei.•ele13FAeAt staAElaFEls alle1oV eiEistiAg
Elevele13rneAt iA serne +FaAseet QistFiets
te ee1:1At aEljaeeAt eA stFeet 13aFl,iAg.
Policy 2-P.78 states (for the Master Plan recommendations focus on
Barrio), "focus revitalization Barrio streetscape improvements .
efforts on renovations and fa~ade through traffic calming, street trees and
improvements as well as pedestrian lighting, and bicycle facilities.
enhancing the physical The Plan maintains existing Barrio land
infrastructure of the community." use 12atterns and densities. Further, a
Master Plan goal, as stated in Cha12ter 1,
Section 1.5.1, is to 12romote the
rehabilitation and ada12tive re-use of
existing Barrio buildingsaElveeates f:eF
Ae',',' BaFFie stFeet 68AAeetieAS aAEI
eARaAeerneAts tRat ee1:1IEI ee Fealii!eEI
vo<itR FailFSaEI tFael, tFeAeRiAg aAEl I §1
\ViEleAiAg. +Re Pia A s1:1ggests SRSFt teFFA
13Fejeets te sea1:1til=y BaFFie alleys aAEI
eAee1:1Fage AeigRseFReeEI eleaA 1:113, s1:1eR
as a BaFFie 11Reek tRe Bleck" tFasR 13iek1:113
aa-y.
Goal 3-G.2 states, "improve The Master Plan advocates improved
connectivity for residents, visitors connectivity between the Village and
and businesses." Barrio through recommendations for
street trees, better alleys, improved
Goal 3-G.3 states, 11provide street lighting and wider sidewalks for
inviting streetscapes that pedestrians, traffic calming, and
encourage walking and promote improved bicycle facilities. Master Plan
livable streets." development standards also encourage
buildings to have a pedestrian
orientation. Further, the Master Plan
advocates for street connections that
' could be realized through trenching of
the railroad tracks; this would improve
connections between the planning area
and neighborhoods to the west, and vice
versa. The plan recommends the city
pursue Caltrans enhancements to 1-5
undercrossings as part of the North
Coast Corridor project that would
-53-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 123 of 321
General Plan Provision
r
Arts, History, Culture, and
Education Element
April 2018
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
Table 2 -Demonstration of General Plan Consistency
Provision detail Master Plan Consistency
improve connections between the
Village and Barrio and neighborhoods to
the east. In addition, the plan improves
connectivity through a number of
recommended community gathering
spaces, such as the Grand Avenue
Promenade, and improvements at and
near the intersection of Roosevelt Street
and Walnut Avenue in the Barrio.
Finally, the plan recommends the
extension of Grand Avenue underneath
1-5 as a further way to connect the plan
area with adjai;:ent parts of Carlsbad.
Policy 3-P.15 states, "Evaluate The Master Plan makes many
methods and transportation recommendations regarding
facility improvements to improvements to streets throughout the
promote biking, walking, safer Village and Barrio, thereby enhancing
street crossings, and attractive accessibility by all modes of travel.
' streetscapes. The City Council MasteF PlaA ,0.1313eAEliiE I, +FaAs13eFt=atieA
shall have the sole discretion to ChaQter 4, Mobility and Beautification,
approve any such road diet or includes numerous street sections,
vehicle traffic calming intersection imQrovement details, and a
improvements that would reduce bicycle network Qian detailing how these
vehicle capacity to or below a improvements could occur. However,
LOS D; this also applies to streets the Master Plan goal and Qolicies
where the vehicle is not subject ex12ressed in Section 1.5.2 clearly states
to the MM LOS standard as implementation of significant 12ublic.
specified in Table 3-1." imQrovements are to be QUblicly and
adeguately evaluatedstFeet 13laAs v,•e1:1ls
ee s1:1ejest te f:1:1Ftl=leF Fe•.•iev,• aAEl
aJ3J3FS\fal aAEl 69A5iserns iA ligl:lt eHJ:iis
13aFtis1:1laF GeAeFal PlaA 13elis>y<.
Historic Resources Goal 7-G.1 The Master Plan identifies historic
states, "recognize protect, preservation as an important element;
preserve, and enh,ance the city's the Master Plan recommends eAAaAciAg
diverse heritage."\ J:iisteFic foat1:1rns, imQlementing a
Qrogram to encourage voluntary
rehabilitation and Qreservation of
gualified historic resources 51:!EA as tl:le
gFSl:IA85 aFSl:IAS tl:le +WiA IAA5 131:1ilEliAg,
and identifying notable buildings with . informational markers .
Arts and Culture Goal 7-G.3 The Master Plan notes the significance
states, in part, "integrate the arts, public art plays in place-making; the
public art and art education as a Master Plan describes different types of
vital aspect of community life, public art and encourages its
with a wide range of facilities and incorporation into the Village and Barrio
public programs designed to streetscape and public places. The
engage the city's diverse Master Plan includes recommendations
and standards for new QUblic s12aces,
-54-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 124 of 321
c_l
I I .
I
!
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
Table 2 -Demonstration of General Plan Consistency
General Plan Provision Provision detail Master Plan Consistency
audiences as active participants that could serve as locations for art
and patrons." 12rograms, such as the Grand Avenue
Promenade.
Goal 9 states, "promote energy The Master Plan promotes compact,
efficiency and conservation in the urban growth in a walkable
community." environment. This is accomplished
through recommendations, standards,
Sustainability Element and strategies encouraging efficient use
of land and buildings, streets and
parking, buildings with a pedestrian-
orientation, and mobility improvements
that benefit all forms of access in the
Village and Barrio.
Goal 10-G.2 (Housing The Master Plan is consistent with
Opportunities) states, "new General Plan densities specified for the
housing developed with diversity Village and· Barrio. These densities
of types, prices, tenures, permit a variety of housing types at
densities, and locations, and in densities from 8 to ~35 units/acre.
sufficient quantity to meet the
Housing Element demand of anticipated city and
regional growth."
Policy 10-P.13 (Housing. Master Plan development standards
Opportunities) states, "encourage permit mixed use development in many
increased integration of housing +FaRseEt _g_&istricts iR tRe Village a Rel
with nonresidential development Baffi.e. +Aese staRElaFEls alse 13eFFflit a
where appropriate." 13aFkiRg reEluEtioR for Fflilceel use
Elevelo13FfleRt.
c) No Impact. The proposed Master Plan is intended to implement the City's General Plan and future
development within the Master Plan area would be required to be consistent with the applicable General
Plan policies designed to protect the environment. In addition, Mitigation Measure 810-1 would require
future development in the northern portion of the Master Plan area to be consistent with the City's HMP.
Thus, impacts on applicable plans and policies intended to protect the environment would not occur.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially Less than Less than
Significant Significant with Significant No
Mitigation Impact
Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future D D D ~ value to the region and the residents of the
State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site D D D ~ delineated on a local general plan, sp'ecific
plan, or other land use plan?
a-b) No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Master Plan would not result in significant impacts to
known mineral resources. No mineral resources of economic value have been identified within the Master
April 2018 -55-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 125 of 321
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
/ I . Plan area of the City. Carlsbad has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site.
Carlsbad is devoid of any non-renewable energy resources of economic value to the region and the
residents of the State. Mineral resources within the city are no longer being utilized and extracted as
exploitable natural resources. Therefore, no mineral resource impacts would occur as a result of any
project proposed within the Master Plan area.
XII. NOISE Potentially Less than Less than
Significant Significant with Significant No
Mitigation Impact
Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact
a) Exposure of perspns to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise D ~ D D
ordinance or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-D D ~ D
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above D D ~ D
levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity D D ~ D
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been '
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or D D D [8'.l public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people D D D [8'.l residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. There are two primary sources
of noise within the Master Plan area: noise generated by stationary noise sources (e.g., parks, schools,
and industrial and commercial uses) and noise generated by mobile sources (i.e., traffic and rail). Noise
levels from stationary noise sources are typically highly localized, and may vary depending on the time of
day, type of activity being performed, and other factors. Mobile noise sources include vehicular traffic on
freeways and local streets, which is dependent on vehicle speed, volume, flow, percentage of vehicle
types, and other factors, as well as rail activities such as freight trains. Development within the Master
Plan area would be subject to several local regulations pertaining to noise, including the City of Carlsbad
Noise Guidelines Manual,.CMC, and General Plan Noise Standards.
The City o'f Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual is primarily intended to address community noise issues
relate.ct to land use. The Noise Guidelines Manual does not address noise issues such as animal noise, noise
from parties and loud gatherings, motor vehicle noise or general nuisance noise. CMC Chapter 8.48
outlines regulations for limitation of hours for construction (i.e., the erection, demolition, alteration, or
repair of any building or structure or the grading or excavation of land) that creates disturbing, excessive,
April 2018 -56-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 126 of 321
./
\
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
or offensive noise. 'construction can occur Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Saturday
from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.; no work shall be conducted on Sundays and any federal holiday. CMC Chapter 8.48
also outlines exceptions that may be granted by the City for circumstances such as emergency repairs
required to protect the health and safety of the community.
Other CMC sections that regulate noise levels include Section 8.09.110, which outlines guidelines for
conducting sound and noise measurements of entertainment establishments; Section 21.34.090, which
specifies the maximum allowable exterior noise level of industrial uses; Section 21.31.080, Development
Standards, which regulates noise levels in the loading areas and docks of shopping centers; and Section
21.41.030, which states that no signs in the City shall make noise. Other noise restrictions can be found in
the CMC including conditions regarding noise that may be added for uses subject to minor conditional use
permits and conditional use permits (CMC Chapter 21.42}.
The General Plan includes several standards for noise, including community noise exposure criteria to
evaluate land use compatibility based on noise emanating from all sources (Table 3.10.2 of the General
Plan EIR}, as well as acceptable limits of noise for various land uses for both exterior and interior
environments from transportation noise sources. Table 3.10-2 of the General Plan EIR establishes
standards to guide the location of specific uses in noise-prone environments, while Table 3.10-3 provides
standards that development shall attain through noise attenuation measures. Policies 5-P.1 and 5-P.2 .
identify acceptable noise levels for various noise sensitive land uses and require a noise analysis with
appropriate noise attenuation for development in areas where the noise level may exceed the level
considered acceptable by the General Plan. Stationary noise associated with future development would
be subject to the General Plan Noise Element Land Use and Noise Compatibility Policies; implementation
of project design techniques to reduce the effects of stationary noise sources on adjacent noise sensitive
land uses (e.g., increased setbacks, placement of mechanical equipment, use of non-sensitive buildings
such as garages to shield noise-sensitive uses, etc.) would be encouraged.
The Master Plan development standards and design guidelines consider noise effects relative to site
planning and the placement of land uses within close proximity to existing and proposed noise sensitive
uses. Noise-sensitive land uses are those that may be subject to stress and/or interference from excessive
noise, and include residences, hotels/lodging, churches, educational facilities, playgrounds/parks, and
libraries. For areas such as the ~Barrio Perimeter District, which is located adjacent to 1-5 and portions
of Tamarack J\l1enue and the railroad corridor, the IV,laster Plan stipulates that buildings should be carefully
positioned along 1-5 in order to reduce noise effects to inhabitants. The Master Plan development
~tandards and design guidelines also address the placement of mechanical equipment and service areas,
and encourages that they be screened and placed away from adjacent residential uses to avoid creating
.a nuisance. "Good Neighbor" poiicies include plai::ement of noise-generating equipment
(e.g., refrigeration units, air conditioning equipment, and exhaust fans) away from residential uses and
use of noise-reducing screens or insulation (Master Plan Section 2.6.4). Within the Village Center District,
loading docks, service areas, repair yards, and noise and odor generating operations, and ground-
mounted mechanical equipment are not permitted within 20 feet of shared property lines (Master Plan
Section 2.7.1}, outdoor dining areas, and pedestrian areas 1.vhen possible. Based on these considerations,
stationary noise impacts would be less than significant.
While implementation of the proposed Master Plan would not directly result in new development within
the Village and Barrio neighborhoods, it would allow additional development that would generate noise
during construction. Future development and improvement projects would be required to comply with
the Noise Guidelines Manual, Noise Ordinance (CMC Chapter 8.48}, and General Plan Noise Element goals
April 2018 _57.: Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 127 of 321
/
'·
Project Name: VILLAGE AND__BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
and policies to reduce construction noise levels, including limits on the days and hours of construction
activities. Thus, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.
Long-term transportation (mobile) noise levels could exceed the City's standards for future noise-sensitive
receptors. As illustrated in Figure 5-2 of the General Plan, transportation noise levels associated with
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Boulevard, and 1-5 as well as the rail corridor would generate noise levels
which would exceed acceptable levels for many of the land uses expected to occur within the Master Plan.
Noise sensitive uses without appropriate noise attenuation would be impacted by transportation noise.
In accordance with Policies 5-P .1 and 5.P.2 of the General Plan, the following mitigation measure shall
apply to future projects within the Master Plan, as applicable. -
M itigation Measure NOl-1: A noise analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustician and noise
attenuation measures identified in the analysis shall be incorporated. The noise analysis shall include the
following:
• Representative, on-site day and night sound level measurement;
• Delineation of current (measured) and projected (Gene ral Plan or 10 years in future, whichever
horizon extends further out) noise contours;
• Identify noise levels with and without the proposed project, ranging from 55 to 75 A-weighted
decibels (dBA) (day-night averaged sound level [LoN]) within.the proposed development site; and
• If noise levels exceed the standards in Table 5-1 of the General Plan, include a description of noise
abatement measures to mitigate the noise to allowable levels for the proposed use.
I ., With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOl-1, transportation noise impacts on noise sensitive uses
within the Master Plan would be less than significant.
b) less than Significant Impact. Ground-borne vibration sources within the Master Plan area are
associated with construction, industrial operations, and transportation (roads and rail).
The General Plan EIR in Section 3.10 concluded that ground-borne vibration would not have a significant
impact on future development. The General Plan EIR indicated that Caltrans had studied the effects of
vibration from heavy vehicles traveling on roadways and trains on nearby sensitive land uses. In their
studies, Caltrans noted that heavy trucks, and quite frequently buses, generate the highest ground-borne
vibratiq_ns of normal traffic. Caltrans further noted that the highest traffic-generated vibrations are along
the freeways. Vibration measured on freeway shoulders (5 meters or 16 feet from the centerline of the
nearest lane) never exceeded 0.08 inches/second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV). This level coincides
with the maximum recommended "safe level" for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic buildings).
Similarly, Caltrans found that the 0.08 in/sec PPV level for vibration from trains occurs at a distance of
25 feet from the rails. Because sensitive la_nd uses were not anticipated to be sited within these distances,
the General Plan EIR concluded that ground-borne vibration impacts from roads or rail sources would be
less than significant.
The General Plan EIR also concluded that blasting or pile driving were the primary sources of ground-
borne vibration related to construction. Heavy construction machinery, such as bulldozers, heavy trucks,
April 2018 -58-Initial Study
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 128 of 321
/_
.I
"'"·
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
etc., typically produces negligible levels of ground-borne vibration beyond a distance of 25 feet (City
2015}. Construction within the Village and Barrio neighborhoods is not anticipated to require blasting or
pile driving. Thus, construction activities would not be expected to generate significant ground-borne
vibration.
The use of heavy equipment associated with certain commercial and light industrial operations can result
in elevated vibration levels. Per the General Plan EIR Section 3.10, equipment known to cause heavy
vibration would be situated at a distance of 25 feet or more from sensitive land uses. Furthermore, land
uses in the Village and Barrio and as proposed in the Master Plan are predominantly residential, office,
lodging, retail, and service. commercial in nature. Thus, g'round-borne vibration related to certain
commercial and light industrial uses would be less than significant.
c) Less than Significant Impact. Futwe development pursuant to the Master Plan could increase ambient
noise levels over current levels. The increase would be related to additional traffic on local roads as well
as stationary sources associated with future development. Increases in local traffic would not be expected
to substantially increase traffic noise along local roadways and existing land use pat'terns and land uses
would not change significantly under the Master Plan. Thus, increases in ambient noise levels would be
, less than significant.
d) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in XII.a and Xll.c, above, new development proposed ' .,
pursuant to the Master Plan is expected to generate construction noise effects above existing ambient
levels. However, compliance with the Noise Guidelines Manual, Noise Ordinance (CMC Chapter 8.48},
General Plan Noise Element goals and policies, and Master Plan development standards and design
guidelines would reduce potential short-term noise impacts to less than significant.
e) No Impact. McClellan-Palomar Airport is located approximately 3.2 miles southeast of the Master Plan
area. The Village and Barrio neighborhoods are not located within the ALUCP Airport Safety Zones,
Avigation Easement Areas, or the Airport Overflight Notification Area for the McClellan-Palomar Airport,
nor would the Master Plan result in an airport-related safety hazard for people residing or working in the
area. Thus, no impact would occur.
f) No Impact. No private airstrips are located within the vicinity of the Master Plan area. Therefore, the
Master Plan would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area. Thus, no impact
would occur.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Less than Less than
Significant Significant with Significant No
Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for D D !ZI D
example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of D D !ZI D
replacement housing elsewhere?
Anril 701 R -59-Initial Study
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 129 of 321
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Less than Less than
Significant Significant with Significant No
Mitigation Impact
Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact
c) Displace ·substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of D D ~ D
replacement housing elsewhere?
a) less than Significant Impact. As stated in the Master Plan, the projected population growth in the City,
along with the desirability of the Village and Barrio, are anticipated to create demand for hew housing in
the Village and Barrio. The Master Plan maintains already established density ranges in the Village and
Barrio and calls for the provision of a mix of units and housing types to meet density needs, \Nith an
emphasis on providing homes for all income groups. Development of new housing within the Village and
Barrio would not induce growth, but rather accommodate the needs of existing and future residents
anticipated in the General Plan, consistent with the General Plan Housing Element goals and policies.
Short-term, construction-related jobs would be generated during construction offuture development and
improvements. It is assumed that these jobs would come primarily from the local labor pool. Jobs
generated by operation of future businesses would be consistent with the job growth analyzed in the
General Plan.
The Master Plan area is served by existing streets, utility infrastructure, and service systems; upgrades
and retrofits to existing infrastructure would not induce growth, since the Master Plan would not extend
services or infrastructure to new areas or allow for the development of land that previously could not be
developed due to service constraints. Thus, the Master Plan would not induce substantial population
growth and impacts would be less than significant.
b-c) less than Significant Impact. The Master Plan indicates that redevelopment could occur throughout
the Barrio and Village, meaning that existing homes or buildings could be acquired in order to build larger
apartment or condominium buildings, as well as residences in a mixed use format. New construction could
provide a greater concentration of residential units in response to the demand for ownership and rental
housing in a compact, walkable area and at densities consistent with the General Plan. Although some
existing homes may be removed, this would not constitute substantial displacement of existing homes or
people, especially since it is anticipated that most of these homes would be replaced with housing at
similar or greater densities, increasing the overall housing stock within the Village and Barrio. Thus, the
displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing and people is not anticipated, and impacts would
be less than significant.
Aoril 2018 ; -60-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 130 of 321
/
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
, -necessarily require new construction or physically altering an existing facility. Physical planning and
community design practices encouraged in the General Plan (Goals 2-G.21, 2-G.22, and 6-G.4, and
Policies 2-P.58, 2-P.60, 6-P.30, and 6-P.32) woulc;I be implemented for future development within the
Master Plan area, to ensure that impacts related to police services are addressed and/or reduced. Thus,
impacts on police services would be less than significant.
a.iii) less than Significant Impact. The Master Plan area is served by Carlsbad Unified School District,
which encompasses nine elementary, three middle, and two high schools within the City. One elementary
school, Jefferson Elementary School (located at 3743 Jefferson Street) is located 'Nithin adjacent to the
Master Plan area and serves the residents of the Village and Barrio. In addition to the City public school,
several private schools also are located within or near the Master Plan area that serve local residents,
including the Army and Navy Academy, St Patrick's Catholic School, and two Montessori schools. The
. Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan requires that school capacity meet projected enrollment as
determined by the school district prior to projected occupancy of residential development. According to
the analysis provided in General Plan EIR Section 3.11, existing public school facilities are expected to
provide adequate capacity for buildout of the General Plan, including the Master Plan area. Furthermore,
new development would be required to pay school fees in accordance with State law. Thus, impacts
related to the provision of new schools would be less than significant.
a.iv) less than Significant Impact. Several existing parks and recreational facilities are located within the
Master Plan area. There are two community parks: Pine Avenue Park (7.7 acres, located at 3333 Harding
Street) and Magee House and Park (2.1 acres, located at 258 Beech Avenue). Pine Avenue Park is located
in the Barrio neighborhood adjacent to Chase Field and the Carlsbad Senior Center. Other parks and
facilities within the area include the Harding Community Center (located at 3096 Harding Street), tRe
Jefferson Elementar>y< School Field (located at 3743 Jefferson Street), and Maxton Brown Park (1 acre,
located at co'rner of Laguna Drive and State Street near Buena Vista Lagoon). Other passive recreational
opportunities are available within smaller green spaces within the Master Plan area, including Rotary Park
located at the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot. The Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan establishes a
performance standard for parks, requiring 3.0 acres of park land per 1,000 people. The Master Plan
recommends that more small green, civic or "shared" public spaces be provided within the Village and
Barrio; however, no new community parks or special use areas are proposed as part of the Master Plan.
Development of parkland proposed within the City is anticipated to result in an additional 443.9 acres of
parkland and a surplus within the City. Therefore, provision of parkland under the General Plan would
meet the standard of accommodating future residents. In addition, new development within the Master
Plan area would be required to pay development impact fees which would generate funds to help pay for
additional park and recreation facilities. Thus, impacts on parks and recreation from future development
within the Master Plan area would be less than 'significant.
a.v) less than Significant Impact. Two of the three City libraries are located within the vicinity of the
Master Plan area: Georgina Cole Library (located at 1250 Carlsbad Village Drive) and Carlsbad City Library
Learning Center (located at 3368 Eureka Place). The Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan establishes
a performance standard for library space equal to 800 square feet per 1,000 people. As stated in General
Plan EIR Section 3.11, the existing library space within. the three City libraries currently meets the City's
standard; however, buildout of the General Plan would require an additional 5,177 square feet of library
facility space. The provision of new library space is anticipated to be required over time as population
within the City increases. While future development within the Master Plan area would contribute to the
future need for additional library space, new development within the Master Plan area would be required
Aoril 2018 -62-Initial Study
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 132 of 321
~---
,-
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
to pay development impact fees which would generate funds to help pay for additional library space.
Therefore, impacts to library facilities would be less than significant.
XV; RECREATION Potentially Less tliaii . Less than
Significant Significant with Significant No
Mitigation Impact
Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that D D 0 D
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which D D D [gJ
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
a) Less than Significant Impact. Refer to XIV.a.iv, above.
b) No Impact. As stated in XIV.a.iv, above, while the Master Plan recommends that more passive
recreation spaces be provided within the Village and Barrio, no new community parks or special use areas
are proposed as part of the Master Plan. Thus, no physical changes from the expansion of existing, or
development of new, recreation facilities would occur.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially Less than Less than
Significant Significant with Significant No
Mitigation Impact
Would the project: Impact lncorpo_rated Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
poficy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and D D 0 D non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards D D D [gJ
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
I highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or D D D 0 a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
'-
Anril 7018 -63-Initial Study
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 133 of 321
/
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially Less than Less than
Significant Significant with Significant No
Mitigation Impact
Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or D D D [:gJ dangerous intersections) or incompatible
. uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D D D [:gJ
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding pt,1blic transit, bicycle, or D D [gJ D pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease
the performance or safety of such facilities?
a} Less than Significant Impact. The City's General Plan Mobility Element focuses on providing 11livable
streets" to improve mobility and connectivity for all users of the transportation system. The livable streets
concept recognizes that each street within the city is unique given its geographic setting, adjacent land
uses, and the desired use of that facility. As such, this element establishes a street typology appropriate
for the uniqueness of the street and surrounding land uses and identifies which modes of travel
(e.g., vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, transit) are accommodated on that street. Mobility Element Table 3-1
describes the city's livable street typologies and Figure 3-1 depicts the city's livable street system:
According to the street typology system, the primary function of Village and Barrio streets generally is to
move people throughout the area, providing access to businesses, residents, transit, and recreation.
Streets are to be desi'gned to safely accommodate all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for
,_ bicyclists and pedestrians, and for transit users within one-half mile of the Carlsbad Village Transit Center.
The General Plan Mobility Element utilizes a Multi-modal Level of Service (MM LOS) technique to evaluate
the ability of the roadways to accommodate all modes of transportation. Policy 3-P.4 establishes a
minimum level of service Dor better for each mode of travel for which the MM LOS standard is applicable
to each street type, as shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 of the General Plan.
General Plan street typologies within the Master Plan area consist of "Identity Streets," 11Village Streets",
"Neighborhood Connector Streets", 11Local/Neighborhood Streets", and 11School Streets". Carlsbad
Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive are Identity Streets. The majority of remaining streets in the Village
and Barrio are designated as Village Streets or Local/Neighborhood Streets. Near Jefferson Elementary
School and within the Master Plan area, a portion of Jefferson Street, Anchor 'Nay, and Hibiscus Circle are
is a School Streets. At the southern border of the Master Plan area at the railroad corridor, Tamarack
Avenue is a Neighborhood Connector Street. For all streets within the Master Plan area, the MMLOS
standard applies to the pedestrian and bicycle modes of travel. Levels of service for travelling by bicycle
or foot are based on an evaluation ofthe quality, friendliness, and (for bicycles) the amenities of facilities.
For streets within one~half mile of the Carlsbad Village Transit Center, the MMLOS standard applies to
transit. Transit levels of service are based on hours and frequency of service, amenities, and safety, among
others.
General Plan El~ Section 3.13 includes an analysis of transportation conditions at buildout of the land uses
included in the General Plan using MMLOS. Overall, the General Plan EIR concluded that the impacts of
future development within the City would exceed the capacity of certain roadways for certain modes of
travel. The EIR concluded that significant vehicular impacts would occur on specific segments of the
following roadways: Palomar Airport Roaq, La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real. It also identified
April 2018 -64-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 134 of 321
/
"'--
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
significant impacts on 1-5 and SR-78. In evaluating the ability of roadways to accommodate pedestrians,
the General Plan EIR found that Carlsbad Boulevard between La Costa Avenue and Tamarack Avenue does
not currently provide an acceptable MMLOS for pedestrian transportation. On streets evaluated for
bicycle MMLOS, one segment of Carlsbad Boulevard (between Poinsettia Avenue and Palomar Airport
Road), does not currently provide acceptable level of service. The General Plan EIR concluded, however,
that implementation of General Plan policies would improve infrastructure in these areas such that
impacts to pedestrian and bicycle levels of service would be less than significant. The General Plan EIR
determined that all streets evaluated for transit would be able to meet the transit MM LOS standard at
buildout under the General Plan.
Although the General Plan included a number of goals and policies designed to accommodate all forms of
transportation within the City, the EIR determined that these goals and policies, together with
implementation of feasible mitigation measures, would not be sufficient to reduce all of ,he anticipated
transportation impacts to below a level of significance. Thus, the EIR concluded that transportation
impacts associated with buildout under the General Plan would be significant and unavoidable.
J
As the Master Plan would not change the underlying General Plan land use designations, future
development pursuant to the proposed Master Plan would not increase the four forms of transportation
beyond that assumed in the traffic analysis included in the General Plan EIR. Nevertheless, future
development within the Master Plan area would contribute to the inadequate LOS anticipated on city
roadways. Vehicular trips generated by future development within the Master Plan would, to varying
degrees, contribute to the inadequate LOS projected for Palomar Airport Road, La Costa Avenue and El
Camino Real as well as 1-5 and SR-78. While development under the Master Plan would contribute
vehicular trips, the emphasis plac~d on encouraging pedestrian and bicycle forms of transportation within
the Master Plan area would_ be expected. to r~duce the number of vehicle trips generated by future
development by providing viable options to the private automobile within the Master Plan area.
• As stated in Chapter 5 of the General Plan EIR, traffic impacts identified in the EIR are considered
cumulative in nature because the analysis is projected to the year 2035 and includes regional growth. As
a result, the impact of the Master Plan on traffic need not be considered significant. Section 15152(f)(l)
of CEQA Guidelines states ... "Where a Lead Agency determines that a cumulative effect has been·
adequately addressed in the prior EIR, that effect is not treated as significant for purposes of a later EIR
or negative declaration." As discussed earlier, the Master Plan would be consistent with the General Plan
land use designations. Furthermore, the land use and traffic assumptions upon which the traffic analysis
was completed' for the General Plan EIR were based have not changed substantially since the analysis was
completed. Therefore, the Master Plan would not conflict with the City's General Plan and impacts would
be less than significant.
b) No Impact. In 2009, the congestion management agency (SANDAG) employed an "opt out" option
defined in Assembly Bill (AB) .2419. The congestion management program is no longer relevant to
development in the City of Carlsbad. Thus, no impact would occur.
c) No Impact. As discussed in Vlll.e,and f, the Master Plan does not lie within an ALUCP Airport Safety
Zone, Avigation Easement Area, or the Airport Overflight Notification Area. Thus, development pursuant
to the Master Plan would have no impact on airport operations.
d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements would be designed and constructed to City standards;
'--J and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. Further, the Master Plan promotes lowering of the
Aoril 2018 -65-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 135 of 321
/
'-
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
railroad below street level and in a trench, which would eliminate safety concerns associated with the
present at-grade railroad crossings in and near the Village and Barrio. As contained in the errata to the
Planning Commission staff report, the Master Plan also recognizes the need to maintain certain features
for safety reasons while the tracks remain in their current at-grade configuration, such as curbs and
medians near the railroad crossings to provide channelization to discourage motorists from circumventirig
gate arms and careful placement of street trees to not reduce visibility of warning devices or approaching
trains. Thus, no impact would occur.
e) No Impact. Master Plan recommendations have been developed in coordination with the Carlsbad Fire
Department. Projects based on those recommendations and other circulation improvements that may be
implemented in the future would be designed and constructed to City standards. Therefore,
improvements would,not result in inadequate emergency access. Thus, no impact would occur.
f) less than Significant Impact. The Master Plan includes a number of features and policies designed to
implement the General Plan goals and policies intended to facilitate alternate forms of transportation
including transit, pedestrian and bicycle. The Master Plan Mobility and Beautification .fl-l-a-Rchapter, for
example, emphasizes the importance of encouraging a walkable community through improved street '-. lighting, street trees, and wider sidewalks. To promote bicycle use, the Master Plan recommends
enhancements to the bikeway network including buffered ~bike -i-a-Re-5boxes" and sharrows, cycle tracks,
bicycle parking and a bicycle boulevard along Chestnut Avenueon street neighborhood greenways. This
network is intended to build on the Bikeway Master Plan adopted by the City in 2009. In addition, access
within the Master Plan area is conducive to transit use, and Master Plan objectives seek to further improve
access by all means. The Carlsbad Village train station is served by AMTRAK and NCTD and bus service in
the Village is provided by NCTD. Thus, the impact of the Master Plan on alternate forms of transportation
would be less than significant.
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the (:!reject cause a substantial adverse
change in the.significance of a tribal cultural Potentiallll Less than Less than resource, defined in Public Resources Code Significant with No Significant Significant section 21074 as either a site, feature, (:!lace, Mitigation Impact Impact Impact
cultural landscaQe that is geograi:1hically: defined Incorporated
in terms of the size and sco(:!e of the landscai:1e,
sacred Qlace, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local D 0 D D register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.l{k), or
bl A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and SUQQOrted by substantial
evidence, to be significant QUrsuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (cl of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In armlying D 0 D D the criteria set forth in subdivision {cl of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American I
tribe.
/\nril ?n1 .Q -66-, Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 136 of 321
\
'-.
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
a) less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. AB 52, effective July 1, 2015,
introduced the Tribal cultural resource as a class of environmental resource with additional considerations
relating to Native American consultation required during the CEQA process. Tribal cultural resources are
sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California
Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in
subdivision (kl of Public Resources Code Section 5020.1.
As discussed in V.b, the Master Plan area is located within an area that is culturally significant to two
Native American tribes known to have occupied the area: the Luiseno and the Diegueno (Kumeyaay). As
a result, future development pursuant to the Master Plan will be required to implement Mitigation
Measure ARCH-1. In addition, future development projects within the Master Plan area would be required
to implement the applicable General Plan goals and policies pertaining to archaeological resources,
including Policies 7-P.8 and 7-P.9 and would be subject to procedures of the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and
Paleontological Resources Guidelines. Implementation of Mitigation Measure ARCH-1 would reduce
potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant.
b) less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. At the time of publication of the
Draft MND for public review, the City had a standing tribal consultation request pursuant to AB 52 with
· the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians (SLR). Accordingly, the City contacted SLR regarding the project
on January 21. 2016. The Native American consultation process began January 25. 2016 and has been
ongoing. The SLR has responded that the area is culturally significant. In response, the City has added a
new Master Plan policy to Land Use and Community Character Goal 1.5.1 E ("Recognize and support the
historical roots of the Village and Barrio") requiring compliance with the Carlsbad Tribal. Cultural. and
Paleontological Resources Guidelines. The added policy, contained in the errata to the Planning
Commission staff report, states "comply with the Carlsbad Tribal. Cultural, and Paleontological
Resources." The addition of this policy and reference to the guidelines in mitigation measure ARCH-1 will
conclude consultation with SLR.
As noted in Item V.b and XVII.a, future development within the Master Plan area has the potential to
result in impacts to tribal cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure ARCH-1. in addition
to implementation of applicable General Plan goals and policies pertaining to archaeological resources
and the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological . Resources Guidelines, would reduce potential
impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant.
:X\Ll+.-XVI 11. UTILITIES AND SERVICE Less than
SYSTEMS Potentially Significant with Less than No Significant Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Would the projei:t: Incorporated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality D D rgJ D
Control Board?
b); Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the D D rgJ D
construction of which would cause
significant environmental effects?
Ll.nril?n1R -67-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 137 of 321
/
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 .
..
X\£1.h.XVII I. UTILITIES AND SERVICE Less than
SYSTEMS Potentially Significant with Less than
Significant Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Would the project: Incorporated .•
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of D D ~ D
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements D D ~ D and resoyrces, or are new' or expanded
entitlements needed? _
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate 0 D ~ D capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the D D ~ D
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid D D ~ D
waste?
a) Less than Significant Impact. The City provides sewer collection services within the Master Plan area.
Wastewater is delivered to the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility, operated by the Encina
Wastewater Authority, for treatment and recycling. The Encina Water Pollution Control Facility currently
treats approximately 22 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater and has a design capacity of
40.51 MGD. Future development within the Master Plan area would generate additional wastewater that
would require increases in treatment over current levels. As described in the General Plan Final EIR
Section 3.12, Public Utilities and Infrastructure, the City's current capacity rights for wastewater
treatment at the Encina treatment facility total approximately 10.26 MGD. Other jurisdictions have
capacity rights1to the remaining Encina Water Pollution Control Facility treatmen't capacity. The Carlsbad
Sewer Master Plan (2012) projected future city wastewater flows in 2035 to be approximately 10.0 MGD,
based on growth estimates prepared prior to the current General Plan's adoption in September 2015. In
addition, the Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA) 2040 Master Plan estimates that ·at buildout of the
service area (based on jurisdictions' general plans in place before the City of Carlsbad adopted its current
General Plan), 39.4 MGD of the buildout flows are projected to be treated at the EWPCF, which is less
than the current capacity of the facility (40.51 MGD). There is sufficient existing capacity to handle current
and future wastewater flow. Further, on-going monitoring of wastewater flow volumes by EWA and the
Carlsbad Municipal Water District indicate a downward or flat trend in wastewater flow volumes for all
member agencies in the .service area. The EWA 2040 Master Plan also identifies property south of the
Encina treatment facility where the facility could be expanded to accommodate additional capacity. The
City would continue to coordinate with the local wastewater districts to ensure that new development
would not exceed the capacity of wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities. Development fees
would be paid by new development to fund necessary increases to the facilities and ensure that new
wastewater facilities are constructed to meet performan:e standards and allow for future maint1nance.
I\ ......... :, '"')f"\1 Q -68-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 138 of 321
,_ -
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
Therefore, wastewater treatment requirements would not be exceeded, and impacts would be less than
significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Urban water management plans, recycled water management plans, and
water master plans have been prepared by the water and wastewater services providers within the City
to assess current and future demands. Vl(ater for the Master Plan area· is provided by the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District {CMWD). The CMWD's WW---2015 Urban Water Management Plan, dated June
~2016, states that the CMWD has no current or planned future water supply projects other than
possible expansions to the recycled 1.vater supply plans to expand its recycled water distribution system
and build a direct connection to existing desalinated water infrastructure; these expansions would
mitigate fortheincrease local water supply reliability and offset projected water demand and demand for
1,vastewater facilities. The CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project is currently being implemented, with
construction of multiple pipeline segments and the Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility expansion to
increase local production of recycled water underway (CMWD 2016). In addition, the Carlsbad
Desalination Plant is operational and is projected to provide an additional 50 MGD of potable water to
the County's water supply, of which 10,000 acre feet has been proposed to be utilized/purchased for
utilization throughout Carlsbadis projected to provide CMWD approximately 2,500 acre-feet per year of
additional desalinated seawater via the planned direct connection to be blended into treated water
already purchased from the San Diego County Water Authority. According to the CMWD 2012 Water
Master Plan, dated November 2011, the citywide demand for water at General Plan buildout {2035) is
conservatively estimated to be 22.8 MGD.
Future development within the Master Plan area could generate additional demand for water and
wastewater services and result in the need for expansion of existing facilities. New projects would be
required to implement efforts to conserve water and increase use of recycled water, as applicable, as well
as demonstrate consistency with General Plan goals and policies pertaining to sustainability and
infrastructure. Any future water infrastructure projects necessary to expand water or wastewater facilities
would be required to conduct environmental review pursuant to CEQA prior to approval. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
c) Less than Significant Impact. Development within the Master Plan area would primarily include
redevelopment of existing developed areas that would generate increased storm water flows. Increased
storm water could result in the need for new infrastructure to treat and convey storm water to prevent
flooding and adverse water quality effects. New infrastructure and storm water facilities would be
developed within existing public right-of-way or within the development footprint of storm water
generating uses. Projects that would disturb greater than one acre of land or create more than
5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces, or .otherwise pose a threat to stormwater quality, would be
subject to post-construction priority development project requirements in the Carlsbad Storm Water
Standards Manual; a SWPPP would be required. Compliance with the City's regulations and ordinances
for grading, drainage, and stormwater would ensure that the capacity of the existing storm drain systems
would not be exceeded, and that new and/or retrofitted facilities would be provided, as necessary.
Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Less than Significant Impact. Water for the Master Plan area is provided by CMWD. The CMWD's 2012
Water Master Plan, dated November 2011 and based on (1) approved land uses within the City; (2) the
City's Growth Management Plan; and (3) SANDAG growth projections, conservatively estimates the
citywide demand for water at General Plan buildout (2035) to be 22.8 MGD. This represents an increase
of 3.7 MGD over the existing average daily demand of 19.1 MGD. CMWD would continue to purchase
l\~,;1 'l(11Q -69-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 139 of 321
'
/
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
XVffl-:XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Less than
SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant with Less than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Impact
Would the project: Incorporated
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or D [:gJ D D
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does tlie project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a D D [:gJ D project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects?)
c) Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause the substantial D D D [:gJ adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
a) less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. As discussed in Section IV, Biological
Resoprces, above, future development and improvements adjacent to Buena Vista Lagoon could
potentially impact sensitive biological resources within the lagoon. Impacts to unknown buried cultural
resources also could occur during construction of future projects throughout the Master Plan area. The
potential to degrade environmen1a1 quality would be reduced to below a level of significance through
implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0 -1 identified in Section IV and Mitigation Measure ARCH-1
identified in Section V, Cultural Resources. See Sections IVL-aoo V, and XVII for further discussion of these
issue areas.
b} less than Significant Impact. Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual project effects
that, when considered together or in concert with other projects, combine to result in a significant impact
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15355}. The proposed Master Plan implements and is consistent with the City's
General Plan and land use designations. As stated in Chapter 5 of the Recirculated portions of the General
Plan EIR, air quality, transportation, noise, and GHG emissions impacts identified in the EIR are considered
cumulatively significant in nature because the analysis is projected to the year 2035 and includes regional
growth. Cumulative effects on land use character, water quality, biological resources, hazardous
materials, and historical resources were all identified as being less than cumulatively considerable. Section
15152(f}(1} of CEQA Guidelines states "Where a Lead Agency determines that a cumulative effect has
been adequately addressed in the prior EIR, that effect is not treated as significant for purposes of a later
EIR or negative declaration." The Master Plan adheres to all other land use plans and policies with
jurisdiction in the project area, and feasible mitigation measures, including those identified in the General
/\ ....... :1 ,n1 Q -71-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 141 of 321
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO. MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA i6-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
Plan EIR (and incorporated by reference herein), will apply as appropriate to future development in the
Master Plan area. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
c) No Impact. The proposed Master Plan does not propose environmental effects which would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Adherence to regulatory codes,
ordinances, regulations, standards, and guidelines, in conjunction with Mitigation Measure NOl-1 would
ensure that construction and operation of future development and improvement projects within the
Village and Barrio would not r_esult in substantial adverse direct or indirect effects on humans.
~xx. LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure BI0-1: Prior to approval of any development located within or adjacent to sensitive
biological resources identified on Figure 4-2 of the General Plan, a ~iological resource assessment shall be
prepared to determine potential impacts to sensitive biological resources. If impacts are identified, the
biologic;al assessment shall identify, and the project shall implement, measures to reduce project impacts
consistent with: (1) the City's Guidelines for Biological Studies and Riparian and Wetland Buffers;
(2) General Plan Policies 4-P.9, 4-P.19, 4-P.64; and (3) the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
Mitigation Measure ARCH-1: Prior to approval of any discretionary project which may involve ground
disturbance in areas which have been previously undisturbed or where historic or prehistoric
archaeological resources are known to exist, a cultural resource assessment shall be conducted ~-
qualified archaeologist to determine the potential for significant archaeological resources to occur. Any
field survey or work shall be conducted by the archaeologist with a Native American monitor present. If
sign ificant cultural resources are observed or suspected to occur be·neath the surface, the assessment
shall identify mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. Assessment and survey procedures, and
+!reatment of ai:iy cultural resources discovered during site gradingL shall comply with the ~Carlsbad
Tribal. Cultural, and Paleontological Resource~ Guidelines, as applicable. Determination of the significance
of the cultural resource(s) and development and implementation of any data recovery program
appropriate treatment measures and procedures shall be conducted by the qualified archaeologist in
consultation with interested Native American tribes. All Native American human remains and associ~ted
grave goods shall be returned to their most likely descendent and repatriated. The final disposition of
tribal cultural resourcesartifacts not directly associated with Native American graves shall be negotiated
during consultation with interested tribes in accordance with the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural and
paleontological Resources Guidelines; if the artifact is not accepted by Native American tribes, it shall be
offered to an institution staffed by qualified professionals, as may be determined by the City Planner.
Artifacts include material recovered from all phases ofi.vork, including the initial suri,ey, testing, indmcing,
data recovery, and monitoring. Prior to occupancy, a cultural resource mpnitoring report identifying all
materials recovered shall be submitted to the South Coast Information Center with a copy to the City
Planner.
Mitigation Measure PALE0-1: Prior to approval of any project which may involve ground disturbance in
areas which have a moderate to high potential for paleontological resources, a paleontological resource
assessment shall be conducted to determine the potential for significant paleontological resources to
S€8:lfbe impacted will be evaluated. If significant paleontological resources could be impacted, a Principal
Paleontologist shall be retained to prepare a Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to address
the following information, as applicable and appropriate, and to conduct mitigation monitoring:
Llnril ,n1g -72-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 142 of 321
-· I
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
• The level of monitoring (spot checks, part time or full time). protocols and authorization for work
stoppages, and safety procedures;
• The need for Contractor Awareness Training for all earthmoving personnel for any projects where
a monitor will not be present full time;
• A research design listing the research questions and the data requirements for those questions;
• The level and type of assistance from the contractor needed by the paleontologist to take bulk
samples and place them into a safe area fo r processing;
• The methods for fossil collection, fossil preparation. fossil identification, stratigraphic profiles, and
cu ration;
• l The types of progress reports that will be provided to the project proponent and City (weekly or
monthly);
• The schedule for reporting;
• A recommendation for the updating of the paleontology sensitivity model, which takes into
consideration the presence or absence of paleontological resources, the amount of ground
disturbance, and the potential for future discoveries; and
• The identity ofthe financially-responsible party.
Mitigation monitoring will occur in accordance with the Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan,
and specimens of significant fossils, all paleontological data, and a copy of the final report shall be curated
at the San Diego Natural History Museum.eiccavation in the area suspected to contain paleontological
resources shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. If significant resources are encountered, they
shall be recovered and conveyed to an appropriate repositorv.
Mitigation Measure NOl-1: A noise analysis shall be prepared . by a qualified acoustician and noise
attenuation measures identified in the analysis shall be incorporated. The noise analysis shall include the
following:
I
• Representative, on-site day and night sound level measurement;
• Delineation of current (measured) and projected (General Plan or 10 years in future, whichever
horizon extends further out) noise contours;
• Identify noise levels with and without the proposed project, ranging from 55 to 75 A-weighted
decibels (dBA) (day-night averaged sound level [LoN]) within the proposed development site; and
• If noise levels exceed the standards in Table 5-1 of the Gene ral Plan, include a description of noise
abatement measures to mitigate the noise to allowable levels for the proposed use.
Anril 7018 -73-Initial Study July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 143 of 321
/
\.,
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
XXI. EARLIER ANALYSES
,·
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one dr
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should ider,itify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within th1=
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
XXII. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad
Planning Division located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, or online as indicated.
1. General Plan & Climate Action Plan Final Environmental Impact Report {SCH #2011011004), City of
Carlsbad Planning Division, certified September 22, 2015.
2. Recirculated Portions of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad General
Plan Update, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, March 2015.
3. Draft General Plan & Draft Climate Action Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of Carlsbad
Planning Division, March 2014.
4. . Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Carlsbad General Plan Update
and Climate Action Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, dated July 18, 2015, and approved
September 22, 2015, as part of City Council Resolution 2015-242.
5. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, approved September 22, 2015.
6. Carlsbad Climate Action Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, approved September 22, 2015.
7. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, City of Carlsbad rPlanning Division, 1996 as amended.
8. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC}, Title 18 Building Codes and Regulations, City of Carlsbad
Building Division, as updated.
9. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, as
updated.
10. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad {HMP), City of Carlsbad
Planning Division, final approval dated November 2004.
-74-Initial Study
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 144 of 321
Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
,r lnitbl <;tr rrlv
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 146 of 321
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 154 of 321
(
' '-
-
\
' '---
Appendix A
Draft IS/MND Figures (replaced by
figures in Final IS/MND)
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 155 of 321
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
;'
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 165 of 321
/
\ /
(
Appendix B
Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 166 of 321
~r, /~
Appendix B -Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Prqgram
{_ Cit:/ ~f
Carlsbad
PROJECT NAME: Village and Barrio Master Plan
PROJECT NO: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
APPROVAL DATE/RESOULTION NUMBER(S): TBD
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure
has been complied with and ·implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6).
[ V> C ~ ~ ~ ·B ~ MC ~ ~ ·E ·E E a ~
B Bt: C: ]E I ~ ·-·-"' :!:: q:: QJ "' § c:c. o ·.:'ii E ~ ~~ 6i ~.§ ~ MITIGATION MEASURE
BI0-1 Prior to approval of any development located within or adjacent to
sensitive biological resources identified on Figure 4-2 of the General
Plan, a biological resource assessment shall be prepared to
determine potential impacts to sensitive biological resources. If
impacts are identified, the biological assessment shall identify, and
the project shall implement, measures to reduce project impacts
consistent with: (1) the City's Guidelines for Biological Studies and
Riparian and Wetland Buffers; (2) General Plan Policies 4-P.9, 4-
P.19, 4-P.64; and (3) the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
Project PLN,
ARCH-1 Prior to approval of any project which may involve ground I Project
disturbance in areas which have been previously undisturbed or
where historic or prehistoric archaeological resources are known to
exist, a cultural resource assessment shall be conducted by a
qualified archaeologist to determine the potential for significant
Explanation of Headings
Type= Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept.= Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans= When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation= When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
ENG
PLN,
ENG
Legend
PLN Planning Division
ENG Land Development Engineering Division
BLDG Building Division
Page 1 of 5
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 167 of 321
I , / \ / I,
PROJECT NAME: Village and Barrio Mast._ . Ian
PROJECT NUMBER: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
MITIGATION MEASURE
archaeological resources to occur. Any field survey or work shall be
conducted by the archaeologist with a Native. American monitor
present. If significant cultural resources are observed or suspected
to occur beneath the surface, the assessment shall identify
mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. Assessment and
survey procedures, and treatment of any cultural resources
discovered during site grading shall comply with the Carlsbad
Tribal, Ct,1ltural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines.
· Determination of the significance of the cultural resource(s) and
develppment and implementation of any appropriate treatment
measures shall be conducted by the qualified archaeologist in
consultation with interested Native American tribes. All Native
American human remains and associated grave goods shall be
returned to their most likely descendent and repatriated. The final
disposition of tribal cultural resources not directly associated with
Native American graves shall be negotiated during consultation
with interested tribes in accordance with the Carlsbad Tribal,
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Guidelines. Prior to
occupancy, a cultural resource monitoring report identifying all
materials recovered shall be submitted to the South Coast
Information Center with a copy to the City Planner.
PALE0-1 I Prior to approval of any project which · may involve ground I Project
disturbance in areas which have a moderate to high potential for
paleontological resources, the potential for significant
paleontological resources 'to be. impacted will be evaluated. If
significant paleontological resources could be impacted, a
Principal Paleontologist shall be retained to prepare a
Appendix B -Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
QJ C. ~
bD ·2
. .§
C: 0 :!E
+' bD C: C: QJ ·;: E .s t:: ·-"' C: C. 0 QJ ;;EC
PLN,
ENG
"' C: "' ii:
C: 0
C:
== 0 .c: V)
C:
j
C:
-0 QJ w E I;: QJ ·;:: C. w E >-
~ "' E &
Page 2 of 5
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 168 of 321
,( ' / /\ / ' I
I PROJECT NAME: Village and Barrio Maste. ,-Ian
PROJECT NUMBER: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
MITIGATION MEASURE
Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to address the
following information, as applicable and appropriate, and to
conduct mitigation monitoring:
• The level of monitor.ing (spot checks, part time or full
time), protocols and authorization for work stoppages,
and safety procedures;
• The need for Contractor Awareness Training for all
earthmoving personnel for any projects where a
monitor will not be present full time;
• A research design listing the research questions and
the data 'requirements for those questions;
• The level and type of assistance from the contractor
needed by the paleontologist to take bulk samples
and place them into a safe area for processing;
• The methods for fossil _collection, fossil preparation,
fossil identification, stratigraphic · profiles, and
cu ration;
•
•
•
•
The types of progress reports that will be provided to
the project proponent and City (weekly or monthly);
The schedule for reporting;
A recommendation for the updating of the
paleontology sensitivity model, which takes into
consideration . the presence or absence C?,f ·
paleontological resources, the amount of ground
disturbance, and the potential for future discoveries;
and
The identity of the financic!lly-responsible party .
Appendix B -Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
QI a. ~
bl) C: •;:
0 .'!:: C: 0 2
.... bl) C: C: QJ ·;: E .s t ·-<ll C: a. 0 QJ 2C
VI C: <ll C:
C: 0
C: :: 0 ..c: Ill
C: :8 ~ C:
"C QJ
QI E t;: QJ
'i: c.. ., E > -
i <ll E &
Page 3 of 5
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 169 of 321
" -' \ 1·1 \
PROJECT NAME: Village and Barrio MastL ,an
PROJECT NUMBER: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
MITIGATION MEASURE
NOl-1
Mitigation monitoring will occur in accordance with the
Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, and specimens of
significant fossils, all paleontological data, and a copy of the final
report shall be curated at the San Diego Natural History Museum.
A noise analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustician and I Project
noise attenuation measures identified in the analysis shall be
incorporated. The noise analysis shall include the following:
• Representative, on-site day and night sound level
measurement;
• Delineation of current (measured) and projected (General
Plan or 10 years in future, whichever horizon extends
further out) noise contours;
• Identify noise levels with and without the proposed
project, ranging from 55 to 75 A-weighted decibels (dBA)
(day-night averaged sound level [Ldn]) within the
proposed development site; and
• If noise levels exceed the standards in Table 5-1 of the
General Plan, include a description of noise abatement
measures to mitigate the noise to allowable levels for the
proposed use.
Appendix B -Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
w Q. ~
Oil s:: ·.: 0 .... ·2 ·o 2
Oil 1: s:: ·w ·.: E _.g t: s:: 111 0 Q.
2~
PLN,
ENG,
BLDG
VI s:: !11 ci: s:: 0 s:: :: 0 .s:: Ill
s:: 0 -~
1:
-0 w w E <;: w ·;: ii w E > -
~ ro E w c::
Page 4 of 5
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 170 of 321
Appendix C
Responses to Comments
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 171 of 321
( '
SCH# ZP1 $02105G
COMMENTS
Document D.etalls Raport
State· Cle!irlngho·use·oata Ba1;1<11
/'n,ject TIile. llillage and eartlo Master Plan
Land.Agency Carlsbad, City of
Type MND Mltlsated flogatlve Declarallon
Dsscrlpf!on Proposed is a ,nester plan for !he cllY'Hlawntown (VIiiage) and tlaa ~o~therly adjacent Barrio. Thv
VJllago·and Barrio are tooaled al·!he r\orthwesturn edge of .U,e city. The planning.area. ls mostli•
developed: a portion Is In Iha Coastal Zona. Plan acloptton would require several discretionary
approvals, The proposod master plan consists of a vision plan, a rogulallng code, deslg_n guldelines,
and an appendix. The plan proposes no devolopmanl, !Jut !he Vlsian portion tdenUfle• a n umbar of
ideas and objective, Uiat could be implemented upon further and separate analysis and approval. The
proposal would replace !ho c.urrent VIilage Master Pl,m and Design M~nuaJ and Iha gane,al zoning
districts ,ind standards now appllcabla in the Ba,rio,.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Scoll Donnall
Agonoy Clly or Carlsba~
Phone 7GO·G02-461 B
emu/I
Addn,ss Planning. Department
1$35 Faradai• Avenue
City Carlsbad
Project Location
Cau,:1()1 San Dlegp
City Carlsbad
Rog/on
/,.at/ Long 33' O' 33• N I 1'17' 20' 55'' W
Cross S.Jreqts 1-5, CliirJsbacl VIiiage Drive
Paree/No.
Township 12s
Proximity to:
Highways 76
Airports
Range 4,5W
Rallw•>•s NP11h County Transit Dist.
Waterways Buena Vlsl~ Lagoon, PaOiflo Ocean
Schools · Carlsbad USO Schools
Fa,c
Stato CA z;p 92008-7314
SecUon 1.,6 Base SB
Land Use Moslly commeri:,l~l 1l!ld resldenllal. Zoning ~nd General Plan designation retrect the same,
Pro}act /ssu4's Air Quanty; Archeealagfc-Hlstorlc; Blol~gical Resources; Nols~: l,~w~1· Capacity; Tl'lllflo/Olro.ulalloo:
Landuse; Cumulalive Effects.
Reviewing ReGources·Agency; Department of Bo;atlng and Waterways; California Coastal Commlsaion;
AgMt:/es Department of Fish and Wlldlffe, Region· 5; Depa11mant of Fish and Wildlife, Marine Region;
OeparJmenl of Parks and Recreation; San Francisco Bay Conservation .and DeyeJQpmenl Commission!
Department of Waler Resources; Californle Hl_ghw~y Patrol: Csltrans, Dlslrlcl 1-'l; Air Resou,c.,s Bo~rd;
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Native Amcricarr Herilage Opmmlssion; PUbfio
Utilities Commlsslon; State Lands Commission
Pa-te Race/vod · 021'1212016 · Start of Rov[eW 02/12/2016 End of Review 03/14/201.6
Nol~: etanks in datri fields result from·)nsufficlent fAformalion provtdod by lead agency.
/I \ .\
RESPONSES
RTC-2
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 173 of 321
/ '
Scott Donne!!, Clly ofCarJsbad
Page_:2 of2
March 4, 2016
COMMENTS
lancisc,aped median island'' r;mcl addltlon of "street tress of a consistent type s1nd dimension". Thjs sort of
change can potentially Impact safety at.a rail crossing. RaJE;ed medians and curbs provide channellzaticm
that may discourage motwists from clrcurnveoti_ng gate rmns at a rail crossln9. Street trees near a railroad
crossing can potentially reduce vlsibillty of warning devices or approaching trains.
CPUC staff strongly supports'continued -consideration of a trench ror the railroad tracKs. The constru_c!lon
of a trench would be cons[slenl with the CPUC's stated policy on reducing the number of at~grade
crossings, while also suppori;ing tha plan's goals to maximize connaclivlly in the area.
CPUC staff ls available to <liseuss potential modification of the at-grade cmssings. If you have any
questions. please contact Kevin Schumacher at.{416)·310-9807.
Sincerely,
i<;;;,-,o;~~'.'~c,-
Ken Chiang, P.E.
Utilities Engineer
Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch
Safety and Enforcernerit DMslon ·
Callfornla Public Utilities Commission
CC: Slate-Clearinghouse
Do.n FlllppJ, NCTD
/
0
/ I , \
RESPONSES
RTC-4
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 175 of 321
1-
SCH# 201t021056
COMMENTS
Document Details Report
St.atlil Clearinghouse Data Base1
Proj~tt'Tllle VIiiage and l>erJ10 Master Plan
/.coadA9e~cy CJll'lsbad, Clly of
Type MND Miligaled Negative Declaratior.
Poscripilon Propo$ed Is a master plan for U1e cil);s downtown (Village) and Ille southerly adJ,acent Barrio. ·n,e
VIiiage and Sarria arf:l loc~l~d at the northweslern od!l~ of the oily. The plannln9 i,.r<>a is.mos!ly
developed: a portion. is In lhe Coaslal.Z.one, Plan·adoplion wo~ld require several discretlMa1y
approvals. ThD proposed master plan conoli;ls of a vision pl~ri. a ,,,gulatlng codo; deslgri guid.al1nes,
and an appendix. The plan proposes no development, !,ut the vision portion ldenllfies a o umber of
Idea• and objectlvsa \hal could ba lmplernenlad upon rui:t11er and separate analyslG and ~pproval. The>
proposal would replace the current Village Maslet Plan and Design Manual and lhe genera! zoning
districts and standards now applicable In the Barrio.
Lead Agency Contact
Name .Scoll Donnell
Agency Cily of Carlsbad
Phone 760-602-4618
email
Addl"1ss Pl.,nnlng Depart.merit
1635 Faraday Avenu.e
City Carlsbad
Project Location
Count)' San Dlego
City Carlsbad
Region
Ctoss Streets ·t-5, Cmlsbad Village Drive
Lat I Long 33' 9' 33'1.N Ii 17' 20' 65" W
Parcel No ..
Township 12S Range 4,~W
Proxlmlty to:
Nnrlh Counly Transit DlsL
Buena Visla t.agoon; PaclfioOcean
F~x
State CA Zip l,2{)0~·7314
Saar/on 1.e· 13~s.e SB
Highw~ys 78
Airports
Railways
VVaten"11ays
Schools
Land Use
Carlsbad USD SchooJ$
Moslly commeroial and residential. Zoning and Genera[ Plan designation relfecl tna ~,ame,
Ptojoct Issues Air Quality; Archaeologic•Hlotoric; Biological Resources; Noise; Sewer Capaclli•: Traffic/Clrculali1>f!;
Landuse; Cumulative Eflecls
Reviewing · 1,0sourc;oas Agency; Department of Boatino, and Wa,tei1•iays: California Co;istal Comml~slon;
Agpnc/cs 11oparlmenl of Fish and Wlldllfe, Rag.Jon 5; D.eparuneat of Fish anci Wildlife, Marine Region:
Deparunent of Parks and Recieation; San Francisco Bay Conservallon and Developmenl commlsslom
Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Callrans, Districl 1' 'I; Air Resources Boar<l;·
Regional Waler Quality Conlrol Board, Region ll; Nallvs Ame,ican Harilsge Commission: P.ublic
Utilities Commission: Slo1te Lands Commission
Date flaco/ved 02/16/20W Start of Rev/tlw 02116120113 E.nr:f cf RBViOW 03/H:i/2016
·']1 / \
RESPONSES
RTC-6
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 177 of 321
-, -
COMMENTS
From: John Bailey (mailto:jbailey@tblglaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 8:47 AM
To: Scott Donnell
Cc: Jason King; Austin Silva; Kathi LaCroix
Subject: Village & Barrio Nov. 2015 Master Plan I Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (12/12/15)
Scott,
I have completed my initial review of the approximately 75 page "Notice of Completion
& Environmental Document Transmittal" dated February 12, .2016 ("Environmental
Declaration") relating to the proposed November 2015 Village & Barrio Master Plan
("lVIaster Plan").
While the Environmental Declaration appears to cover many of the required general
statutory issues in a somewhat "boilerplate" manner, it does not specifically address, in
any meaningful way, the potentially significant negative effects relating to transportation,
traffic, parking, noise, air quality, and quality of life issues that could result from the
"reduced" parking standards proposed in the Master Plan as raised in my December 22,
2015, letter addressed to you, Austin Silva and Jason King, a copy of which is attached.
In fact, unless I am missing something, there is not one mention of any potentially
significant negative impacts that could be caused by the "reduced parking standards"
cunently proposed as amendments to the Carlsbad :Municipal Code as set forth in Part 2
of the Master Plan.
Although Table 1 ("Demonstration of General Plan Consistency") pages 40 thru 44 of
the Envil'onmental Declaration vaguely touches upon these issues, the overall' document
itself essentially summarily concludes, without any real discussion or analysis, that there
will not be any significant negative impacts by these proposed reduced parldng standards
on the Village and Barrio communities.
I still strongly feel that before any of these proposed "substandard" parking reductions
are adopted by the Master Plan, some actual parking studies ofother beach cities
sunounding Carlsbad as well as the Village and Barrio residential neighborhoods
themselves need to be conducted to assess the tme and foreseeable environmental impacts
(positive or negative) on the Village and Barrio as suggested in my December 22nd
correspondence.
Somehow I received the impression at and after the community meetings held in
December 2015 that on-street parking studies were in process and/or going to be conducted
in the Barrio and Village residential neighborhoods. It was my belief that these studies
would be used to assess the cmTent parking demands so an actual evaluation could be
made as to the realistic impact these proposed "reduced" parking standards would have on
the community. From my reading of the Environmental Declaration I obviously had the
wrong impression and/ot· understanding.
At this point in time I strongly believe that city staff and their consultants need to delete
/T
01
\
RESPONSES
The commenter suggests that the "reduced" parking standards
proposed in the November 2015 Master Plan draft may have potential
negative impacts relating to transportation, traffic, parking, noise, air
quality and quality of life issues. It is suggested that t he Draft Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration {IS/MND) circulated for public
review in early 2016 does not meaningfully address these potential
impacts. Additionally, the commenter advises that the Master Plan
(November 2015 draft) propose no changes to parking requirements
until the completion of parking studies, including the analysis of
parking requirements of other beach cities surrounding Carlsbad .
Comments are contained in an email received during the public review
period for the Draft IS/MND and an attachment to t he email, a letter
dated December 22, 2015, that provides comments on the Master
Plan.
The IS/MND adequately analyzes t he potential environmental impacts
of the proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan. As noted in the IS/
MND, the proposed Master Plan would not increase residential
densities or substa ntially revise land use patterns, factors that could
intensify development, change t raffic patterns, or increase traffic.
Regarding air quality and t ransportation/traffic, the IS/MND concludes,
based on future development under the Master Plan, that there would
be "no impact" or "less t han significant impacts." Rega rding noise,
the environmental document concludes that transportation noise
associated with Ca rlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Boulevard, 1-5 an d the
rail corridor (as opposed t o parking noise) would exceed acceptable
levels for many of the land uses expected to occur within the Master
Plan and proposes appropriate mitigation.
"Quality of life" as cited by the commenter is broad and subjective
and does not require specific consideration under the California
Environmental Quality Act {CEQA). Further, analysis of parking
RTC-9
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 180 of 321
COMMENTS
-,
/ I \ \
RESPONSES
D1 adequacy is also not a CEQA requirement and, therefore, no analysis of
cont. the potential effects of "reduced parking standards" or a significance
determination regarding this issue is provided.
Parking is addressed in Item X(b) of the IS/MND in Table 2 (originally
Table 1 in the Draft IS/MND) as it relates to consistency of the Master
Plan with the General Plan provisions and policies. General Plan Policy
2-P.75 states, "address parking demand by finding additional areas to
provide parking for the Village and beach areas, and by develop·ing
creative parking management strategies, such as shared parking,
maximum parking standards, "smart" metering, utilizing on-street
parking for re-use of existing buildings, etc." The Master Plan is
consistent with this policy, as it allows for the provision of additional
public parking, including through shared use of existing parking lots
or development of new parking in the railroad right-of-way, and
emphasizes management of the overall parking system.
Comments address the November 2015 Master Plan draft parking
standards and the lack of a study to support the plan's parking
requirements overall. The January 2018 draft of the Master Plan
provides revised parking standards based on a comprehensive parking
study, prepared since circulation of the Draft IS/MND. The parking
study identified existing parking conditions in the Village, Barrio,
and nearby beach area and reviewed the parking requirements and
strategies of eight peer cities along California!s coast. This analysis
produced a Parking Management Plan (PMP) that the City Council
accepted in September 2017. Completion of the PMP was a key reason
to produce a third (January 2018) Master Plan draft. The accepted PMP
and related information are available on the city's website, http://
www.carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/planning/parl<ing_study.asp.
The Village and Barrio Master Plan parking standards and strategies
are based on the accepted PMP. The Master Plan would implement
the parking management recommendations provided in the PMP and
would encourage adequate and efficient parking to maintain access to
the business district, residential areas, and coastal zorie.
Revisions to the IS that describe the PMP and highlight its goals and
key recommendations and strategies as they relate to the Master
Plan are included in the Final IS/MND. The PMP documented existing
parking supply within the Village and Barrio and adjacent beach areas.
A key finding of the PMP as stated on page 6 of the document is "the
RTC-10
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 181 of 321
/ ,,,I
COMMENTS RESPONSES
D1 [parking] study did reveal that the current and future parking supply is
cont. adequate to meet demand if the parking system, as part of the larger
transportation system, is actively managed." Annual parking surveys
are an example of active management and are a Master Plan policy
(see Policy 1.5.2 8.9 on page 1-15) and implementation action (see
Table 5-1 under "parking management.") Further, the PMP on page 98
recommends "implement the parking requirements stated in.the Draft
Village and Barrio Master Plan." This reference is to the April 2016 draft
of the Master Plan. Parking requirements in the January 2018 draft of
the Village and Barrio Master Plan are similar to those in the April 2016
draft.
In addition, the parking study analyzed the parking requirements and
strategies of eight peer cities along California's coast -Dana Point,
Encinitas, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Monterey, San Clemente,
San Luis Obispo, and Santa Monica. The intent of conducting the peer
city reviews was to (1).identify strategies that similar cities are using;
(2) determine whether they are appropriate for the city; and (3) if they
are appropriate, decide how they can potentially be adapted to meet
the needs of the Village, Barrio, and beach areas. Comparing parking
requirements among the eight cities and Carlsbad also was part of
the peer city review. The PMP reported "the parking requirements
for residential and hotel developments in the City of Carlsbad are
comparable to the other peer cities. However, the City of Carlsbad
requires more parking for commercial and office land uses than some -
peer cities do." City of Carlsbad parking requirements used in the
comparison included those from the April 2016 Master Plan draft. See
"Best Management Practices -Peer City Review," beginning on PMP
page 48.
Finally, some key differences between the November 2015 Master Plan
draft upon which the comments were based and the January 2018
Master Plan draft are summarized below:
RTC-11
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 182 of 321
I
COMMENTS
/-,-\
·01
cont. Standard
Parking for one and
two-family dwellings
Guest parking for
multiple-family
dwellings in the ·
Barrio area
Converting use
On-street parking
RESPONSES
November 2015 draft
Two spaces per
dwelling
No guest parking
requirement
If infeasible due to
on-site constraints,
parking need not
be added for use
conversions, even
if the new use has
a greater parking
requirement
Permitted in some
districts to count
toward parking
requirements
/ '\
January 2018 draft
Two spaces per
dwelling in a garage
Guest parking
required at rates
equal to those in the
Zoning Ordinance (BP
and BC districts only)
Conversions to uses
with greater parking
requirernents must
provide 50 percent of
the additional parking
need either on-site or
through other means,
such as in lieu parking
fees
Not permitted
anywhere to count
toward parking
requirements,
although a parking
credit may be realized
(except in the BP and
BC districts) for the
creation of on-street
spaces
RTC-12
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 183 of 321
11 t.L
{
-{
1 ,,,_-r I
COMMENTS
any proposed code revisions to the current parking standards from the proposed Master
Plan until these studies arc actually completed. Any mitigated negative declaration needs to
realistically address the potentially significant negative impacts these proposed reduced
parking standards will have on the street parking, nois.c, tmffic congestion, air quality nnd
the overall quality of life for the residents ofthe Barrio and Village communities.
It would be greatly appreciated if you would please immediately pass on this email
together with a copy of my attached 12/22/15, Jetter to the "State Clearing House" in
Sacramento where );Ou filed the Environmental Declaration as well as to the Coastal
Commission and any othei· City, State or Federal governmental body or agency who must
review or approve the Environmental Declaration. Thank yon in advance for your
anticipated courtesy and cooperation in this regard.
At your earliest opportunity would yon also please let me know when you anticipate
publishing and distributing the proposed final draft of the Master Plan for further public
comment and Planning Commission review and approval.
Thanks again,
John
,."""PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS AND FIRl\<I NAME.*"'*
John Bailey
The Dailey Legal Group
25014 Las Drisas South, Suite B
Murl'icia, CA 92562
(951) 304-75GG Office
(951) 304-7571 l,'ax
jh:1iJc,@thlglaw.co111
CONFIDENl'lALll'Y NOTICE: The informntlon contained in this electronic mnH mcm1gc is confidential iuforinatlon intended only for the use
of the imli'ridual or entity to whom it is intended to be. directed, The sender of this message is n Member ol' the State Bar ol' Culifornl111 nnd Hs
contents may bcpri"ilcgcd from tlisclo11ure under the Attome~· Client 11rlvilcgc, the Attorney Workrmduct P1frilcgc, the Right of Privacy
contained ht the Cnlirornin Couslitution1 and other fights and J)l'ivitcgcs that preclude disclosure of confitlcutin1 informallon. The information in
1his message may also be pl'otcctcd by the.Electronic Communkntiom Privacy Act, 18 lJSC Sections 2510-2521. If the reader of this message ls not
the intcndctl recipient, you arc hereby notified thnt any disscmiuation, distribution or copying of this commuuication is striclly prohibilctl. If you
trnvc received this commuuic111ion in c1.Tor1 please inunetliatcly uolify the sender by return c-mnil 01• .it the lclcphonc number nbm·c and delete the
original message.
D-2
D-3
RESPONSES
This comment requests the city forward the email (containing these
comments) and its attachment to the State Clearinghouse, the
Coastal Commission, and any other government agency that must
review or approve the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. It
is not appropriate to send the email and attachment to the State
Clearinghouse as it is responsible only for distributing environmental
documents to state agencies, departments, boards, and commissions
for review and comment. Further, no agency except for the city must
review or approve the environmental document. The city forwarded
the commenter's email and attachment to the Coastal Commission on
March 2, 2016. The Coastal Commission will also receive a copy of both
as part of the Local Coastal Program Amendment packet submitted to
the Commission following an approval of the Village and Barrio Master
Plan by the City Council.
The city released the third draft of the Village and Barrio Master Plan
in January 2018. The commenter received an email notification of the
plan's release.
RTC-13
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 184 of 321
/ "
COMMENTS
THE BAILEY I,EGA.L GROUP
:/SOJA t.as Br-isas Road Soulh. Suite 8
Murrieta. California 925$2
iclephone: (951) 304·7S~G·
F~c,;n1il0: (951) 301;7$71,.
Seott Donuell, SeniOI" Planner
City of Carlsbad
Community and &onomic Development
1635 Fnraday Avenue
Cal'lsbad, CA 9200&-7314
Austin Silva, AICP. Associate Planner
City of Carlsbad Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
Cll.ri\;bad, CA 9200&-7314
Jaso.a King
Dover Kohl & Par(Jlers
157, Sunse( Drive
Cami Gables, FL 33143
December 22, 2-015
Re: Cad~bad Zoning/Village.& Ban-io Master Plan
Pucific Wiitd Project (SDI' !5-18j
Doar Scott, Austi11 and Jason:
Via 1,;r1u1il 1111d U.S. mai.l
Yiu ~mail nud U.S. ma.ll
Vi11,email and U.S. mail
As.all ofyou already lmow,·.my wifoand l !1aveownecla home in tlle.l3arrio since February 2010,
anti have an interest. in ·1he issues raised concerning the above itfcrcnccd malten,.
Dt1ring October through early November 2015, I cotlll)leted an investig,idon and rnview of lhc
relevant inthmiatio11 an tJie hi'story, co11ditiom,, status, future p[a1is and visions fm·t11e Barri.oMd Village that
were referenced in =d/or ava.ilaWc on tl1~ City's website, includiug bu( uo.t limitlld to, tl11~; (1) ''B.urrio
Carl~buu C.;m,muni'ay Cohesion Report dated June 20'0~, lntorsiatc 5 North Coa8t Co.i:ridor Pioject"; (2)
"Corls~11d Communicy Vision/Novemb~r 2009"; (3) U1.e 2/26/13 "City (>f Carlsbad-AgemJa Bit['! and aU
,·elated exhibits and l'lanning Commission.minu!es, etc.; (4) the "l..:md Use Concepts, Jan11ary20l 2" for the
City; nn.d (5) the 12/4/14 "Ground Work Toward a Village and na,·rio Master Plan ... " issued by Dovei:, Koltl
& Partnel's.
I J1ave now rend !hough H11a roughly 250 page d1't{ft of the Novembel' 201:S, "Village and Barrio
Mn$1Cr Plan" ("l'lau") lhnt was made public in or around the second we~k ofNovcmhcr20!5. I alsonttendcd
some public forums and community mcctiJ1gs on December I~. 16. a,1d 17 wln1ro Suott, membC\t'S ofDover,
Kohl & J>1utnl!l'S nnd/or vtl1er consultants ptescnrcc;f rhe Pllln and rcs1,ondcd to some questions I and other
commun ily mcmbcrS lmd concerning ce1tal>1 llSpCcts of the I' !(!ll.
·/ I , \
RESPONSES
RTC-14
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 185 of 321
COMMENTS
Pt.gc2
December 22, 2015
As l mcntion.cd ,i! th~sc December20 I.5 connnmiiry utectings, there ar1rn,'fl\\1tnmin arensofco.Morn
1.havo r\lgarding lhc draft Plnn !hat we oeed w address rnlnting 10: a) reduced pm·king requirem~nls tor new
devel(1pments; b) the P;1cific Wind· Project viewed in light.of the Plr111 aml some idel!S rcg(!r!lb~g pede$lriu11
nnd hicycfo Mccss points; ,u1d c) the projects !hut will' b(> ud<lccl 10 the "Mlnor .Review Pcrmil" fh!ll o:qly
require the review nnd .approval of the City Plnnncr.
Although the above conccrn-5 were touched upon in the cmnmunity fomms, tllere wits r11ally l\O
oppmtun ily to address tlic.,e is~11cs i o dcpib. Therefore I will discuHs lhc~c issut:s and concerns in more detail
below 1md then pr<wide you with my comm-0nl~, $uggestiuns nnd recomn1Qndalions 1·cgarding the draft Plan.
PARKING Rll!QUIRE.MENTS
A • .Existing And Futtu•c Need,~.
Prdiminarily; as mentioned by Scou n couple' of times-al !ho community .nwcti11gs, this is 11 "long
te1m" plan and will probably not be rc-visi.led again for 20 or rnor" yenrs. FOi' that reu~Qtl nlonei it-i.i-
1,.~rremely impnn~;H thnt we ge\. it. right aml not ropl ica!c. the same misluka1 of n<!igl1bmi11g: beuth ,;:i:ties.
The draft Plan docs not mention or discuss in any meaningful wny the g<:llerally accepted premis.e
that Southeni California l'csiclcnts nre ~li!I, by necessity, c~r·dtp1mdcnt und sclcl<:irn utUizc mass transit for
everyday lrnvcl. Th ore is a notation in the Plan that through 2008 to 20 l 2 " .. , 85% of w1wke1·,o l 6+ get to work
by car ... " and ~pend " ... 28.6 minutes travel time tc, work ... '' (See Pinn Part I, pg. 1.13} without any real
dis~m;sion or projections on whether or not (],is tre.nd will increase. doorcnse or stay the s11mo.
In fact, in 2008-2009 l.:$5 thnn 4% of the San IJicgo-Carlsbad~nn Marc\)S· WOJ'k fut'Ce! use<l public
transportation 10 get I<> work (Goo~le: Public Trnnsportation l lsagc Among U.S. Workers; 2008 and 2009
October20 l 0. V S C<..'llsus Bureau, page 6). As of2013, about 4.1 % ofS1111 Diego's working populalfon used
the pub Ii c Tmnsi l System [ seeAndrcw Kcalt~ (ht1 ri:flwww.voiccofsu11,liego.org/author/aadrewi<cnt1s/ Augu3t
6, 2013).
·rn 201:3, there was an estlmntcd population in the entire \12008 zip cod.e for C11rlslmd of about ;2;6,5'.lCi.
In 2013, the "mode oftransportulion to work ln Zip Code92008" was: 11) 79.2% drovcrn cnr alone; b) 6.0%
carpooled; c}0.3%.11mtorcyck:; und d) 8.9% work~<! othc,m~. Only 2.6% lot,ktl1cbus(0.8%) or trninfsubway
(1.8%) fscc 0(ioµI~ senrch: "'l21l08 zip code derniled pl'ofile dty diila.oom" pg. 20). ln "ihcr w<1rds, 85.5%
ofCru-.lsbnd's populati11n in 92008 utilize privntcvehklcs ormotorcyctcs to get to work versus 2.6% who use
1,ub.lic. Lransit.
My overall illlpressio11 ,,•as ·•hal nune cifthe retained co11sultnnts thai ,vorked wilh the City to draft
tl1c Plan who attended these ncccrnber 2015, public forums do not dispute the general aecuro.ey of the ;i.l)ove
population tigurcs ancl/or the percentages of rn~idcms who commute with private vehiclei, versus those who
us'3 mass transit.
It is In)' un,forstanding· thnl the BatTio, as ofDocember '5, 2012.,akeady.lmd about J ,212 ox:isling.
residential dwelling unit~ Md thatnumbe,r coutd potc1ltfally increase by aoothcr759units uodc,rlhe 2/26/Li
"City of Carlsbad-Agenda B.ill" npprovcd by lh<' Ci1y Council (See. Exhtbit 8, pg. 159 ltcm A, p11r. 3 to
'2126113 Agenda Bill).
/ I '
RESPONSES
RTC-15
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 186 of 321
('·
Page3
December22, 2015
COMMENTS
Assuming Lhut ubout one-1l1ird. (252} of llie total (75Q) projccr.cd un1ts are one-b~clroom, am!
two-thi'rds (S07) C(1nsist of two plL1s-bed,Qllm uni ls, the parking needs under the ei,:isthle\ cod<: (2 I .4•1.020
Table A) woLtld rcyuirc 1,392 resident a11cl 190 visitor(l ,582 Lotnl) additional parki11.g.spiicos to adequately
accormnod.ite the e,~pc.clcJ need ,md dcnHmd, Untl.cr tile drnfl ·r1an's new prnJ)QSCd code sirttclurc. tl1crc
would be 1i'o rcq11ircd visitor parking. and 011!y 1,013 tollll on-sit·e re,sidcnt parking.spaces required to serve.
demand. Un fortllnatcly, thcresidcntfal street parking in the Harrie is already taxed to its llmils. The addition
of another potc11ti1ll 7S9 units wilhout rc.:iuiri11gdcvek1pers lo provide sufficient "on-site" resft!emand visitor
purking will 1101 only re11der lhc street plll'king in lhe ;mm completely i11Udcqwuc fo ~~rve !he residents, but
Lmmanag..:nblc as wel!.
It 1s 1101 believed !hat th,rnurrenl commuter percentages in the ViJIRge ~ll<I Barifo ar-e aoy dlffere111
from the 85% nv1.m1ge throughout the re.~t of tit¢. 92008 zip code; J101· is there fill)' indication tb,it the~e
percentages will change in any significant way over thr., next couple of decades. Furlltem1ore with tJ1e
expected addition c,f lln(>lher 759 units in the Barrio alom, ihere is cli1tarly not 011fy a present but a future need.
lo at least mainra.in (no\: red11ce1 the current resident aml vi~itor pa1·ldng space requirements for ne,'I
development.~ in th.;, Village om! Barrio. Merely beca1Js~ Dov.,,, Kohl & i>nit.,crs and/or t.he tither city
001ls:ulmnts may ha.vc inks.ire to in,Juccor iucentivi7.c developers to build in tile Village and Bnrrio does not
me,m parking wHI oot be need~d to ~orve the r~sidcnts who will Md do llw in these 11cw and cxistl:ng
,Jcvc.lopmcnts.
I fimily b~lieve U1c drafl Plan's proposed "Mobill.ty Managemcnt.Di~l,ict" shoµlrl lie the entity
desigMled to 1·eviow these population movements on an ongoing bnsfa. l'f and whcnihesere.~ideut comnnner·
trends realign to mCAningfolly shift the :now lopsided balance from privute vohicles to m~$1< 't<ilnsll, Ille
Village :ind Barrio parking standards can be revi~i,ed and reduced \lr modJfled accordi11g lo clsp"ctc.d need.
However. r~rnnw ond the foreseen hie foturc, all now dcvclopm~nts should b1: designu(t ,md t:on,truclt:d to
accommodate tile actual projected parki11g need!' for e,1ch project.
J3. QJ;pwin11/, Parking Problems And Concems.
Particularly troublesome is one of the premises (>fthe l'hm that, "Pa~king should he manag~d mid
leveraged throughout the Village and Barrio, and not necessarily solved for each indfvidual pai:cel or
business" (Plan Part I. item 4, pg. 2.3}. Although this statement indirectly acknowlctlg,cs thaJ parking is 11
concern .in lhe eonim1111ity, th" Plan essentially dismisses the concern and instead levernges lh~ issue (ls o
1·eas<.,i1 lo implement code l'cvisfom; 10 encoumge future devclnpmen~ with liLtle or no reg,1l'd to,. rlie negutlvo
impacls suC'h s11bsrnndarddosign req11iremen.tsforthesenew dovclopment$ will impos~ upon thecurre11l'and
llr11rrc residents and business owners i11 the VH!nge and llarrio comumn!ties. ·
In fact, I recall' that about 70% of aU the people who attended lhc December 20.15 COJJllll\1oity
meetings affirmed that the lack of parking is a growing cOlle{lrn for lhe residents and business owMrs in the
VH!age and Bal'rio. However. inswu<l of establishing policies that will ~low down or prevent rhe problems
ti-om gelting warne, the Plan actually proposes new development ~tand::mls thnt will only worsen tll<l"already
difficultslreet parking.shortages thrnughout the entire area etnd, in particular, 1he Barrio and the residential
ncighburhoC1ds that surround the downtown Village.
It appears to be ~omcwhnl disi11gcnum1, to propose the establishment of a "Mob'ility .M~·nugement
Distriol" le, oversee ond manage pnrking wben the overall recommend~lio.ns in the l'lan ;ire. t11 ma~rially
./ I' \
RESPONSES
RTC-16
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 187 of 321
/
COMMENTS
Pagc4
December 22, 20 15
reduce the "on $ite" parking spac<i rcquirnmen!s below wha! ·fo nctunlly needed t<J adequnt-0ly serye new
dcvc,Jopments; which iu tum will crcnt~ 'Ill area wid<: scarcity of street parking which i,-nlr,eady h1adequate
to· serve nnd satisfy cun-ent demand. n i~ analogous tn starting a forest fire at the sumc: time you es'tabrish 11
fae distri!!t to mnimge !ho area. l l11fortuni1tcly by llw tinm the district is orgnnlr.ed am:! rnµdy lo ~omntcnce
its work the forc,L has already been dccilnfltcd.
We can understand your desire for th~ Plan not ll) focus or1 solving parking problems·'' ... for each
individual pnrcel or busin~ss." However, Ilic pnrking space reductions proposed in lh~ draft J>lnll will do .
nothing but irrevc,·sibly extend the severity nflhe current residential street purllingshorl.uges throughout the
entire Village nnd Bnn·io neighborhoods.
Tho policies· suggested in tho Pinn on tuis issue nppenr t<> n,ako no sense whats,m,ver 1ml~s PD!J of
the underlying gonls is to really create ~lrocf parking s1Joi1ages $0 !hat the Mobility Management DJstricl
would have ti basis to install street parking mc,lers lo establish and generate another reveu11C.$,lrcam by·
implementing" ... parking time limit~, prichig orolhe1· regulations based 011di:monstrnted need." (PIA~, P;m
I Jtem I bullet poim 5, pg, 2.50). Irr.fact, based up11n r1 few Cllmments made by some ,,f1he c,111s11.ltan1s at
ll1e Decembor fontrns. I wns le.rt with the impr.c~sion lhnr.thc ccinsultunts bollove lh~t requiring paid parkinf;
is sometbinglhat W(lUld be very beneficiul to the city.
A$i<l~ from any potentially unc)ellr agendas, iL.is obvious ·1ha( the Plan is proposing subst.imlard
parkingl'"quireme11ts in the Vitlagc and Barrioon[yto ir1.ccnlivizedcvclopers to come iu and bufld (See.Pinn,
llem 3, pg, 3 .5 thru Item I, pg. 3.6). Although J have raised thi~ issue with Scoti and Jason a cot1ple of limes,
neither of you have l'cally pointed to anything in the Plan tlmt provides some other cxplanllfion fol' the$c
reduced development standards 1mder the code other than to k>wer <fovclo1imcnl cost:; •
.Gw11 ussuming such incentives ure acl:ll.ally needed (which !hey are not} fonlevelopers lo build in
this highly uesirablcbcnch community. there are certainly beltermolhods [i.e., roducc<l permit foes, properly
taxes, capital 11111,rovcmont costs, increased huildiog heights, etc.) to encourage sucb fullu'e development
other than jusr simply reducing constmctioa and des.ign· standards 10 lower development costs.
lo tiler, the 'Pinn actually states that: ''l'arking below grade or in stniclures slwuld l1e encouraged on
commercial or lnrger nlsidclllial projects but should be screenc<l from street fronh1.ges with liner building,~
or habl!ablefirsttfoor~pacc" (See Plan, Part3 It.cm 3, pg. 7.11 ). "A nr:.w senior housingcomplcxonHnrding
Street· fs an excellent cxampk: of htiw cnmpact development can fit in with the surrnun<ling lower density
neighborhood. Parking is located offtlic s.treet,,the three story building does nottower ov,,r lts ne.ighbor~,
Md the facade present~ a well proportioned 'fat:e' to Ilic ~lreet"' (Seo l'lan, Part l ltcm 2, pg. J .S). Although
the Plan .in essence acknowledges th~ benefitsofnewdcvelopmcntslrn.ving tbefrrcsidcnt and visitor purking
needs me1 "on site," tho Plan appears to place d ... veloper~' interests. above the communities· concerns
regarding the long term negative impacts ofbuUding new projects wit!l inadequate parking to meet expected.
need and demand.
To motivate dcve!up•.irs in these bigh.de11;:i1yareris 10 build we c'ould~onsider increasin:gtbeexisting
height and floor limitatfoas fi.1r new structures to maxin1izc.uensity and 1ils1lreq\liroadequatc "on-site"he!ow
grade nr first level resident 11nd visit.or parking. This approach to m.ccting on-site parking needs wiJ.I create
d~velopments that still fit inr.o tbc growingneighbOl'hOod and at tbcsum~ time minimize th~ ncg11\ive impacts
upon !he street parking uround tl1c a~w proje.cL It would also provide developers with the ability to buil.d tho
/ ' '\ '\ i ' '
RESPONSES
RTC-17
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 188 of 321
/
I "
PageS
Deomubc::1·.22, 2015
COMMENTS
maximuii, tunounl of units pcrm.iitcd, .on .each ·si!~ which im::r<1ases thii .return .on their inve~tmen"t. ·nus
approach to fotu1·c· dcvelopmoru .and long term planning ccrtain·ly des·eNc·~ more considcmtkm an~ nludy.
It i~ co111m<mly aoknowfo<lgud that almo~I cv~ry S1.1urhem California beach cily has slgr1ificall1.
park ingshortages and issues tn their core downtown and Stlrmumlingresid~ntinl communities near 1l1e·beaoh.
In fact. the Ci.!y ofOccansidu is now grapp)ingwith II significant lack of.parking In re$ldcJ1tial neighhorh.oods
near the beach l>ecansc of coustal homos 1l1at have been tumed ir1to condomin iyms. "Residcnts"iiild~onJll city
officials s0y those projec:ts 11re inundating beach communili~~ with v.ehioles parked on the street because they
don't provide. cnoug!i r,urkln[I witliin the dcvclopmc111.'' (Sc" Sun Diego Llnion-Tribunc Gov & Polltics
9/9/15, "Cily looks to tightc1l coastal parking rules").
Even t.h~ rndghboring ci!y·of Vista has ,ignilicm1l.pnrklug is~uu&thul ore. h~coming pmgressiV:oly
worse because of now developm~nts. ln fact "V,sltt lms hired consulting fitm Walker .Parking at a cost of
nearly$50,000, t,) review the parking o::quirements oft he cur-dependent city" .•• "Compared to neighboring
North Counly cities Vi5ta generally demands more ])arking for apartmontancl co11dc, complexes. For example
dewk,pcrs must pro.,ido 2.33 pttrking spols per one-bedroom upnruncnt in Vi$1Ll, bui the s:lmcd"veiopme.nt
ln Cm'lsbacl would call for rnughly 1.8 parking spots per onc-bodl'(mm apanmcnt." (Sec San J)ic110
Union~Tribur1c Local I 2/2/ 15,. "ViHtn Rethinking t•arking Rcquircmcr1ts''l,
'tbo city of Carlsbad .ilrcady ha~ one of the lmv.ist (J .75) one-hcdroorii per unJI parking space:
rcquj~ement in Sa11 Dieg,o County, y~l the <lrnft Plan propcisc.s to wc.luc" tho Village. and Barrio lo one (l)
parking space per one-bedroom unit"(scc Pflln Part 2 Code, pg. 6.43 }. Such a substantial rcdi,ction lrt an area
already overburdened as it is will. without a11y doubt, have sigJ1ificn111 mid long-lasting ueg~tivc impucts on-
the Vi!lngc and Darrio.
C. Bl.lute Nei:,ative lmpacts.
'-·
(
To truly appreciute tllc potc11tial street parking problems llmt will nrise under !he u<0w l'lnn, a
qualified consultant needs to examiuc the slrcet parking problems that now exist in :ti1e cure downtown and
surrounding.residentinh;ommunities near the beach front thi, city of Sau Dlego, north to San Clemente. 111e
current problems nnd issues which those -local commuo.il:ies arc now deal1ng wi\h will also foll upon
Carlsbad. !11111! likeiihood tho~c snmc problems will probnbly he even greater ill Carlsbad because the -.,
recomnicnclcd mlttced parktng standard,, in the draft Pla11 will he siguilicantiy below tile cmnml. code
starnlarils in those surrounding. cities. This Jm,c clearly needs lo \>est11died forther before any Qfthe parking
sta11d:-irds $Cl forth in 1he draft Plan ore finalized and appr(wcd by the, PlaMini: Commi~~imi nnd Cily
Council.
A gcrod e;rnmi,le oftl,e renl·potcntial impact of these saggested Plan cede.changes is.tile.proposed
"Pacific Winu Project (SDP 15-18)" ("Project"} which was submitted to tho City ·Planning Depar.tn1enJ
a1·01111d rbe end of August20.l 5. Th is Projccl cum:mtfy culls fm·thc City to vacate Md iibandon Hurdiog Street
and Carol Place between Magnolia .A venue :md Jefferson Street fot the development of'; (a) 11 C(llilplelcly
gated 11:f.fordablc housifig projecr; t b) consislink\ of approximately 5 three-story buil<lings with 120 apartment
units; and fc) .:nlling for 210 parking spaocs whon the current M11ni,;ipul Code·requircs 255.
Att.ichci.Hi: a ''Sample of.J:.ocal Minimum Parking Rcquire1r1<i11t~" ("~arking Summary") which I
pr.:p~rcd that summarizes the general minimurn pnrki11g requirements forn ,lmHnr 120 unit(JO <,uc-bcdro,,m,
I\ /
RESPONSES
\ I
RTC-18
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 189 of 321
,/ '
COMMENTS
Poge6
December 22, .2015
30 two-hetlroom and 60 tliree-bcdroum) projecr in Ca1·l~h1;d: u.n.der.the exi.sling.11odes. llncl !fraf~ Plmumd
compares llm111 to ~ome oilier surrounding; be«ch citie.s. As can be seen by the n!t•aclicd PuJ'kf11g Surnnuuy,
rho diffenmce between the new code revisi(ms under tl1e Plar. lo reduce the parking space requirements in·
comparison to th~. current. stundards ~ci m other surro11ncli11g uiri.es will he .sigijitlcan(. Based uptln these
co111parablc11umhcrs il is easily foreseeable and undeniable thatihe pr.orlused parking reductions in lhel'lan
will have serious 11cgative .impncts on the availability of rcside11tial meet parking in Lhe Villag,; 3nd Barrio
an::l which alrendy is inadequaro to meet cu1·rni!'l demmtds.
J beliol'c th~ art!a•spccific standards mOcctcd in lhe Parkiup; Summ!II)' now used fo ih.e City of San
Diogo, particularly lt>r llic bc~ch nrnu, deserve SMtc study und consideration before any ·final dc<iisim11 is
mnde on the reduced standards now p1·01>oscd in the 'Plan.
ln fact,.:iS )'<)U can sec by Ille nltachcd Parking Summary., ii'the new Code revisions propose<l under
the Plan are implemented, Carlsbad will, without a doubt, have the lowcstpcnmit parkingspncerequk.eu1e11t
of any bench city in San Diego County. The negative effoct of such a low sltmdard, in light orwhul ls Inking
pfoc., ln the sum:nmdingcommunitks, urenoton)y forese~~ble butobviou~. lcu1111utgc1: how any.rc11soni1bl¢
p<:r.1011 W<luld wat1t ro bring such problems a11d issues ¢.II their <:ommuu!ly, wlilr.:h will directly nffect Ihe
quaUty oflifo t\f nil of Carlsbw.l's rcsidert!s nnd ()[lsiocss llwncrs . ._
f'urthcrmon:, the l'lau appe.ars to cliininatc completely (he cumintly required garage and covered car
space sfondnrds for all single fomilY and multifamily units established under 21.44.020, Tllb)e A of lhe
Municipal Cude. Instead, the draft Pinn simply allows ''t.1ndem parking" wilh no rcquu·cd garages or covered
car spaces (See Phm, Pmt2 -Code pgs. 6.43 -6.411). ! ~cc oo re.usoJlablc or rational basi.~ :;et forth iu the Plan
indicuting any reasons why garages 11nd cover.id car spaces s)1011fd he eliminalcd for new residential
developments i11 ·1hc ViHnge and Barrio, other than!(, red nee dcwlopn1cnt cosls,
Tl is acknowledged llml !'ttcific Wrnd, as :m uffi,rdable ho11sing P~qjecl', ma;y be Clltitlcd to .tho
pnssibly lower required parking space sta11dard ofapproxln'latcly 21 O spaces under Munioipil.l Code ~cctooi1
2 I .81'.i.090 T:-1bte E. However. there is no discernible ·lilctual basis or reiisu11s set out in the Plan which
presents any rea~onahlcjustification for the bla11kcl reduction of all parking standards for new developments
in the Village nnd Barrio other than to motivate developers to build substandard structures at U1e eiqlen~e of
local busiMss owDcrs and residents being forced to endure the longstcnn negativa consequences t>f s11ch
substandurd dcvelopmcnt.s.
Iu fact, Carlsbad's-statutory sehM1c ofcodos and onlimtnccs as.set forth :old/or rcferen,lj)d inClmpl:iw
21.86 oflhc Munieip11l Code appc"rs 10 be.more than 11dequate to ;i:imulate b.uirders to d,;welop,affiixduhlc.
housing in these communities. The Plan howevc1· propc,~cs lo reduce tJie parking rcquir.:ments fo1• all new
developments be I.ow even those standards alrea.<ly established for affordable housing with no reasonah!c
explannlion or justification.
The Pacific Wi11d Projecl "is at or m,ar the imcrs~clii:m of Tamarack A.v~nuo .:J.lld Je(fers1.111 Street,
which is lbeonly mai11 access poiul offTrunarack Avenue i.nto the Barrio from th~ stmth. Although omu;an
also acct:ss the Barrio from the south off Tamarack ouro Hibiscus/Anchor \V3.y, that aeces~ point actually
feeds inco Jefferson Street.
It does 1101 take ;l.'t1Cemeooous.;1.utouutofforesightto undo,rstnnd and appreciate the adve)·se impact ·
/ I\ ./ \
RESPONSES
RTC-19
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 190 of 321
/ '
COMMENTS
Page.7
December 22. 2015
these reduced J>arking standnr<ls will have on the ava.ilability of street parking on fofforson Sti:ect and 't.hc
orhe,· Btreets around th« Pacific Wind Project ifth:e dcvr.,Jopcds rmly r<:quircd lo instnll, uodenhe dra'fl Plan,
.1(,5 residentfol (NO visitor) parking spaces to service 12.fJ rcs)deutfal unks;90 of wliioh will be two amt
thrce-be<lroo111 units .•
. ln thnttl1e Pl)cill;:· \Vind l'J"ojoot is proposed to bea "gated" community,11ny dllcficieri1 patkiog (wlJich
there will b~) wittriu the Project Bite wilr n.u,n·J I ly force Ilic P:iciOo Wiml rusideuts and visiHin; t6 pnrk 1111
the surrounding streets outside the Prcijcct, which streets are already c1vo1·burdc1led.
ibis evc1·growi11g umwailabililY of;resh!elltial street parking in the vrnnge arrd .Barl'i<) wiU nntumll:,,
effect the overall <le,irabilily ond walk-ab.ilily ·of these nclghborhootls. If the prop,,sed bui \cling Codo
rcvisin11~ fo1· 1he Cily of Carlsbad 11s sN forth in the drnft Plan go -into effect, lit~ Villug.: nnd Bnl'do
residential parki,1g shortag~, will beoom<e 111suffemble nod irrevcrsibl!.'.
ACCESS, PEDESTRlAN ANO HlCYCLE JSSUl\!S
D. r•acitio \Vi.rid Project. f\c,cess;~nd Walk-Abilii:)!
The overnl! vision and objective of the <lmt'tPlan ls lo make tho ViHuge & 13artio communhies more
open, welcoming 12nd "walk-able." The draft Plan specifically references thePacifk Wind Pr(ij~ct nrea and
mcntionssomc .&enernl.critcrion fornny tiltm·e developn.\cnl plan that, as you can see, realigns Hntd ing Street
to cs~•.mtially a6ut the 5 Freeway lo circle the Project and to reconnect it with Magnolia Avenue and Curol
Place (See, Plan, (>art I Item 6, pg. 2.19).
The current Pncific Wind pln11, however, calls ·for the dcvelopm~nt of a "gated ~om1rn1ohy" nnd the
va~ation and nl>nmlrn1mc11! ofl-larding Street a.rtd Carol_ Place wiUuio "now" rcplacemcnl slrccts. Ba$ed llJWll
mr pa.st conversations with Austin, J bcllcvc City staff is currcn'tly rnccptivo Jo the po$s[bilily .of vacating
Harding St~eel but wants to rotuin Cnrot Place a&·a ·public street.
We, as s11rrounding propt'lrly ownm·s· (}fthisne\'v proposed. Pacific Wlud d1:vcl1>pment, haveoonc<;:ms
and objections to any proposal calling tor the City to essentially provide n gili of public Jnndfslrcels waoy
developer for a p1·ivalc "gated ·community.'' ·
Furtlit:nnorc, I am not coiwi~ced that Pacific Wind's currently propos,,tJ Vl((:OliQJJ ofHardiug Strs,et
nndlor Carol Pince meets the general requirements of Par! 3 of the Streets and Highways Code Scctio~1~.~3zo
ct. seq.;,1or tho "Summary Vacatiou" ofthos"' streets under Part 4 oflhe Streets and Highways Code.Scc1io11s
8330 ,eL seq., withoutrequiri11g ·1he dedication and const1·uct"io11 of"nc.w" rcnHgt1cd streets as 1l'lc011m1ended
in Part I ttcm 6 on page 2: 19 a,f the Plan_
I have had a recent bot brief telephone conversation with Todd ·Cottle; who is the Dovetori,r
"contact" for the P.rojectconccrnin.g Lhe matter. During.our cmwersatim1, Mr. CotHe indicated torne1hnt tho
currenlly proposed plan for ·the Pacific Wincl l'rojcc! is uot fin:1lize<l. IVlr. CotUe Md I agreed lo stay in
contact 11nd lurtlier discuss our is~uos concerning the .Project as it progrcS1lCS.
At this point; howeve1~ we beJfovc die Meralf 11eigl1borhood v,iould be better scrvl)d hy the developer
subm.tt1iug ln lhe Cit)/ proposed amcndme11ts to the :Pacific Wind plun which. are mot<:: co11s,ste11t with the
( I\ \
RESPONSES
RTC-20
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 191 of 321
."
COMMENTS
PageS
. December 22, 2015
concept$ ·set forth ill •J1ij draft l'lan, Aud do not require the abanctonmcnl of uny public strecis witlwnl· ll
reaHgnmcnl, de,dication at1d development of new rcplnc,:inentstrects .. Tl1n1 wny the Paci.fie Wind Project-will
not only blend better intoowrc>.isti11g 11eigl1b9rllood, bul it w.iII nlso insure the11ccessrbility and walk-ability
ofllw an,n by surroundi11p, neigh hors a.~ well a~ tb~ general public.
E. Sidew~lk and Bicvcle P,,SS(l@S.
OI1e of the "Key Rocomnicudations" under lhe Pinn is to, "ConncctMnguo:tia Avenue to Anchor Wuy
with t, sidewalk. and provide safo pns$ng.., w childnrn heading to schoo-1." (l'fou, l'art l, Item (l(j), pg. 2.6.)
While this nppe<1rs lo be an cxcollcnt idea, it does not seem prncticn.l i11 that any now pedestrfa11 access from
Magnol.ia to Anchor Vl"a':f will n';quiro tl1c exercise. of' eminent domafo. This c.-iuld b,t a costly and tiil).~
consuming pl'Ocess. I would suggc~t !'hat thes" types of !IOI\' pudb~tr/nn 11ccc~s poi1\ls ~l1ould sruy lbo'u~,cci
on improving e.xisting right~ of way.
l'or oxrunplc, I would sugg,cst these passage ways should illclude conm;ctions off ofVi11age drive
1rntl mher publioly clcdicf1ted slreelll to the bikc/pedcstrillll ''Couslul Ri.iil Trail" thnt. run.i along the lrnln uacks
next lO th~ Ban•io. lhcsc additional aocc.ss points W.(iuld truly c.nhance the walk-ability of thr: overall an,a
and make it more accessible lo !he .Barrio co1mnu1iity. Please give lhis i.s~uc somdilrthor consideration u.nd
specHicalJy identity all potC'ntinl existing public access poin!s thatappenrfaasibI~m1d costcffoctive lo i.nsui.ll
as soon as the finul Plan is ullirnately approved. -
MINOR RIWIEW Pl!:RMlT
F . .Qommtmjtv Concems · •. Li1ck Of Accom,tnbffity
Another troublesome "issue Is !he 1:ecommendntlon lo add"Ncw construction ofhuilding.(s) regardless
of use, up ro lS,000 square foe, i.n si7.c, new huildJugs wilh .2-10 dwelling units, nnd/or ... Changes In
pemi-itrcd Jnnd uses which result in site chimge,<;, increased lrnffic, or incrcnsed parkh1g requirements ... " 19
the liot of ''Minor Improvements" tlmt anlJI require the app1'QVRI oftheCily Planner (Plau P,1rl 2, 1"'1n 2 (a),
pg. 5.6). Although we recognize the desire and potential need of City Staff and interestcd dwelopers to
-expedite the permitting process, it shoutd not be a1 lhe expense of stilling or muting the concerns of
community members nor should i-t increase the time a11d expense to have lhose concern$ hcnrd or reviewed.
I J.111for th~ c11rrnnt Municipal Code •.. tho final decisions to uJ1imntely approve, rejnct or 1miclil'y
development pemiits foils upon lhe Cily Council. for the most part. tho City Council und 1he Cade has
delegated a lot of that uuihority a11d rcspousibjl.jty to the::. Planning Commission. Generally speaking, the
appoititcd. Commissioners ate ,csidcnts of our .neighborhoods and have some Cl(pcrience or background in
dovclopme11l a11d/9r cc,nrniunity issm:s and are nt least indirectly accountable to Ille community.they serve.
Commfss"io11crs arc expected-to be unbln.~ed, i1.1dcpcndcn1, knowlodgcablo and open minded to .0111
only ihc projccL being pn:,s,:nlcd bu1 also to lhe cvnccrus of those rlJSidents who will be nffocted by the
prnposcd new dew!opments. lf a conimuuity member has an issue with a particular development, he or she_
can express those c-oncerns directly lo lhe Commissione,·s; who for all jlrncticul purposes arc an extcusion
of the City Council wbo appointed them to serve in their steHJ. If a resident believes his/ber issues were .not
ndcquntcly addressed by the Planniug.Conimission, then he/she can paylbe$l,000plu~ fee and file an appe11I
to the-City Council for review (Plun Parl. 2, Item 5, pg. 5.1).
/ I\ \
RESPONSES
(
. J
RTC-21
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 192 of 321
.(
COMMENTS
.Page9
l)ccember 22, 2015
Tho lnclu~i_9-n oftl11" abov<c> items lo the list of "Minor lmpravcinenls" seems to empower the Glty
Planner to t,cconic tho final arbhrat11t· and ovcric<:Jr ofa potcntiully sig11if1rum1 nutl'lbcr of new projects fo the
Village and Barrio without any input from the Planning Commis,;ion. These Adminisl.rmlve (icciS!olls can
be reviewed by lhc Plnnning Commissfononly it'!he concerned c<H11111,mity member pays th() :lil.,000 plus
tee to have thehsua reviewed by the Plo,1ning C'.,on11nission (rfon Part 2, ltem $, -pg. S.7).
These additional items, on th<lir focc, would appear to cover a .~ubshmUal amount -of all new
development in the Village and Barrio that now follij tmdcr the din,cl rcspon~il1ility uf the Pl~nniag-
Commission. Many parcels (witl1out assemblage) in the Village and 13;iJTio are rnoslly ~m~l!er lot~. With
residential denshy set nt 3() units per acre and a limit of up to 15,000 squurc feet ior 1111 Mw c.on~ttuction ··
(1·esiden1fal or commercial), it would oppoor th::t a nuijorl!y ol' all 11ew .rrojcc1s in the Barrio antl Village
could he adrninistrativoly determined an<l/orappl'Ovcd by the City PltmMrand his stoffwillwul Rny,,ver~igllt
or 1eview by ·U1e Planni11g Commissio1nmlcss an appc1,l i$ filed.
'fhe PJamiins Commission's lirnctlon, purpose and rcspon~IbiHty is, 1m1ong tHher things, to oversee
the fut1rrc development nf our City. That primary ·rcspousibtlity sllotdd not be ilolcgijt,:d to 1111 A1hntnlstr1l.im•
or his/horsrnff who wo!'ks Ve1y closely every day with developers to review and npp1·-0vcp1'0poscd building
!)Inns for 1-ecommcndation lr>theCommissiou; which planner, from n practical standpoint, essentially has 1m
accountabinty-wh:usoevor to the residents in the conmumi!y.
The City J>larner's primary responsibility is to review plnm;; consi'der conununi\y oomments or
c<>ncerus regarding proposed new developments; to insure the plans are in confommncc with the Muoicipnl
Code and 11,fosl\<r Plan·; and to then provide the Plannin~ Commission wilh arect>mmended course of action.
It is the Planniog Commissk111's responsibility to review, Impartially consider aod\veigh all the information
pr.:sentcd by 111c Plnnncr,. Develuper and Community M~mbe1·:; 011 !be propostd project and then dooidc
whether or not ii should be approved, mnd[ficll or n,iccted.
The Plan's suggested additions to the list for Minor lmprovcmeu.L, uot only seem to usui:11. tl1e
Commission's powers ru1d responsibilities, but it also adding another layer of s11.bstantive and pmcedurat
hurdles that are not necessary and could hiwe a chilling effect on communil)• input.
'111e Corrummity deserves·to huve an impartinl Pla1111ing Commission, in u public fornm, :make l111nl
dcciskins 011 all significant new developments that will impact their neighbQrltoods. Dclegoting sucl.1
dcci~ion-mnking rcspnrisibiliry lo !be City Planner creates a real possihil.ity of-" disenfranchising the
commn11ity mombcriand in particulllrthc Barrio residents from any true participation in the process itself:
Requiring only an administrative non-public review ttnd approval process for significant projects and theu ·
forcing upon residents II timo consuming 1111d costly review procedure to !hi: Planning Commission and City
Council will, in a sl1ort period of lime, stifle all mca11iug;ful community input.
The procedumI htyer the l'lnll is ;.dding_ to.the process by including these items lo d1P list of Minor
lmprnvemcnts -crentos additional lime and cx.pense that will be incurred by residents being forced·tq appeal:
any "fim1l" administrative decision to the l'lauai11g Commission at a c11sl of $1,000 plus and then to. C&tY
Council fur another$! ,000 plus foo. 1 run sure you would agree lhal most residents in the Village and Barrio
conm11111itles do not ha\•c tl1e tim.: nor financialresources to gc, tln·ough such a costly anti 'timc,.consumiog
process.
/ I"
RESPONSES
RTC-22
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 193 of 321
/
Page10
bccember22, 2015
COMMENTS
Any propostid delegation of the Planning Commissinn's decisiou-mnkins nutl1Clrity for n pole.lltinUy
slgrtificunl majority of all new chivcfopmenl in the Vtllagc nod Batr,o lo an irisulntcd 1\dministralor tlrn.thll$
no cITcctive nccountability 10 '£he c-ommunity is neither needed t1or Is it in the best inter<,stof1h1Z:prc$-Ol'.\t 11url
f\J!llre residents ofYilll!gc and r~arrio. '
Within a few sli(1r1 y,curs th(;; oumulatiye impact (positive ot negative) of llicse "udminislrativn''
JlCrmits will he sui>stantinl a11d pernmnent. To 11)' and strike 11 bu lance. bclween tJ11:,cou11n11ulties intcrc~tsaml
1he r:i:pcdllcd process I would propose that these two items be rev bed to stute as follow$ in tho Pinn:
~~• "New construction ofbuildiog{s) regnnllcss ot'(1s~, up!o 4.,000 syuarc feet ·io siw, uew
huildings with 2-4 dwelling units, and/or ... *''* Changes in .pcrmilled land use~ which rc$ult in slight cir mino1· clmngcs of:less (hun I 0%
in site location, lncrcnsed traffic, or .increased pnrking .re<1uiremenlij ... "
The above suggcs(Cd revisions would .slill enable cily staff to admf11h;t1111iwly ei,:pcdite . most
cummurcial and· residential crmsm1clio11 for csserrlially all snmll busim1si~s and indivldmd rcsidentiul
propeny owncrS 1)n sma.Jlcr pr,,jccts und still rcs~rve lo the Pli1t111in~ Commission the review and dccisioa
mal<lng authority on nil other new p.rojoots in ·!he Village and Barrio.
Ot'coursc, lo the extent the Pianning Commission hn~ a1rcady rev'iewctl and approved a project at1d
~om.c subse,Ju~nt issues or com:~rns arise o.fli:r the pennk~ an1 issued, U1eu tile Commission cou Id d1>legate·
furore follow up, corrections or remedies to the City Planner and hi~ staff to decide and implement
udmini'strativcJy. -It is not acceptable, however, to turn over !be entir<> process or\ a potentially significant
major.ity of 1111 ncw projects in tJ1e ViHage aud Ba.rrfo· to Uu~ City Planner.
While it 1J1ay be impurtnnt to streumlfi1c'thc ·pcrminlng process for -<lcvelopers oftesidt11ltial ~ml
commercial projects 1l1cre must be a balrmce between the i111',;,r,1,1s of alrthe.stakrih()fdcrs (de,,elopc,$,.
community and city) iovol\•ed. Accordingl}•, before these proposer) new items are added 'Co tl1c IlsL of"Minor
Improve!llents"us drafted in the l'lau, a study should be conducted to dete1TI1iae how much of th~ new
constnrctioa will actuany foll under Ille Minor improvement cutego.ry. lf it is ,t substantial majority .as
bdiewd tJum these items should be ddeted or revised as suggested above to strike a halu11cc between
e:i.pedioncy of the process 011d whal i~ in the best interest of all t.lle ~takeholders.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS A.ND Irn.COI\IMI{N:OAT[ONS.
G. Comments and Observatkms.
Gcuernlly I real iy like theovemll visions andpedestria11/ bicyC:!1: iHendly concepts set out.intlte.Plan.
T juM do not believe we should compromise building sL1.ndards that do not rc:illy support or strengt11e1\
implcmenlationofthe stated "visfons" mid n1 factacrualty negatively aff'11lt tl1e long term us~. ,mj.oyment and
quality of life of our ncighborlm0tl just to incentivizc dcvclop.,rs to "in-fill'' om· commuuiiy with denser
housing (IJ1d commercial developmc11t.
As indicated above, these proposed compromisedstnndards will certainly crealtla long tcrmscD.n)lty
of street parking thro11ghout ihe Vill11gt> MdBanfo, These pr11.[)l)SCcl reduced stand~rds will qtdckly.depl.e,,;
all available street parking $1lpp1y an.d at U1esame time increase dcm.(md because JltlW J.,N)opmenls will .be
/ I , '
RESPONSES
RTC-23
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 194 of 321
f
COMMENTS
.Page 11
December 22, 2015
designed with inadequule parking to serve all visitors, rcsidc111s rmd busines,; c,wncrs i1nhe Village pl)d
Oarrio Md in portict1lar the 85% who commute cvc,y day.
The Plan itsclfactunl!y acknowlc,lgcs: n) ThenceJ ·tq "lncrea~e the parking supp ly wit:tiia tl11l vilh1ge
on city-owned parcels and properties as well ,is on streets" (l'l!lll ltem 1 {d) pg. 2.4).; and b} T11at "While
walkubility is aeommunily goal, th.:: Master Plan must accommodate motorists as it improves mobility in the.
Village und Barrio by other mc1111s .... Surprisingly, the addition of parking spaces ci1u lmve !l1t: unexpected
benefit of enhancing biking and walking by r~moving coJJllicfs, slowing 1rnmc, aihl pro,iding u buffer."
(Plan l',1r( 1. Item .S, pg. 2.53), The substandard building .::od~ revl$ion~ propos1;d in the Pinn ure in direct
C(.lT!Jlict with these stated. obji:,cth•es nnd findings.
Although the P[n11 111~011otcs lhal no 11ctm\l parkingsh1dies have been coutlucted " ... \\·~!/( ofC<trlsbaJ
Bmile,1ard and cast of Madison ::ltrc~t. or in the Barrio" (Pl;m, itom 4, pg. 2.S2), 1.he Plan still proposc,s 10
amend or rep Ince l11c Municipal Code ·to reduce by appro1rimately 35% tile !Na) number of parking spaces
rcqt1ired for new residential developments in the VHlage und Ba1Tio, (Scc·Ptan, Part 2 • Code pgs. 6.43 •
6.44}, fa fact., the new Plan proposes to oliminnte completely the .25 to .JO "spaco per cucll unit'' of visitor
(Wking srat:;:s Ihm arc now required fur all reskle111l11I unirn under currc1Ji Municipal Coc!o Section
21.44.020. Tnble A.
Common senso wou.ld seem 10 diclatcthatCarlsbad, Iil,c Vistnaml Oceanside, sl1ould a~tually study
the pa,ki11g iss11es in the rosidc1Llinl atdll$ surrounding lb.i downtown VJJlage area !ls w"II us the Bardo
l1elwee11 7 p.m. in the ewning through 5 a.m. in the morning, before the Municipal Code~ are actuatly
amended or revised to reduce the parking standards for a11y uew r~sidential developments.
Fu.rlhemiorc., tl1" prop,is~t! :i.nclusfon of; n) new con$tnic(km ofbuilding(s) r~gurdfos59fus.c, up !U
15,000 squaro: feel in size; b) new buildings with 2-10 dwelling units; und/or c) clmng~s in pcnlli1tc(I foJJd
uses which result in site changes, increased traffic, or increased parking r·equirunients to the list of1'Mlnor
Improvements" really needs to be studied further and probably deleted, revised or amended u~ diSQ!JS$ed
above. Alrht,ugh these new items mny expedite the pcmrining process for new developments in thelVillagc
nnd Bal'rio, it docs so at the risk of suffocating C(lmmunity input and sigt1ificanUy increases the tilllll and
expense> lo h!lvc those concerns heard and reviewed; with no accountabllity by the City. !'farmer to the
commm1 i1y he/sho serves.
MOl'dmportant, tho addition of these items to I.he li$t of "Minor Improvement~" appears to be the
functional cqu ivalent nf thel'lnnning Commissioners simply abdicating responsibility for one of the primm)'
duties for which the Commfosion~r$ were! appointed to can)' Ol\t (i.e., 10 make impartial finul dccisious·on
all new development~ in tlic City) on a majority ofal! new development in the Village and B1irrio.
H. ,Sugitesti011s And Roo9rnmendations.
ln light of the above. l make the following sugge~tions and recommenclations rcgardJng the Plnn:
J) Ao actual ~mdy of commuter trends in the Village nnd Barrio needs to be conduct~d befoi-.Hh1m•
is m1y fcductinn made ii1 the p:1rking s!widard~.for new C<Jnstructicn. We need to be ~ure that all new
devcl-opmenL~ 01·c designed ancl ·constructed to accomm()d;11cthc next.20-yearprojectcd parking nccdscfaJI
residents and in patticular th~ 85% of the commuting po1mlation whc, will resid" iiumd around the Barrio
/
I I"
RESPONSES
/ \
RTC-24
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 195 of 321
(
COMMENTS
Page 12
.Deccmbct 22, 2015
nnd Village communitfos,
2) Any code i-cvisioris should aciunlly set forth. a stutcd policy that Nquircs all large multitlmlily.
1·esidcntfal (5 ornmre units) to be dcsignetl witfi all parking: "On sitci; below grade; ia strucmres; an:ct/.or 01,
first t1oor space; and screened from stTeet view to mc"t nil on-site resident and visitor pnrking aeeds for such
development." TJ,e revisions should nlso.probably includa an mx:ommodatiou that allows an increase in the
hcigJ1t. and/or 11oor limitations so density targets und goals cnn be met by developers. The~c increases in
hci~ht. nnd noor limitn!ions slmuitl be ~ufficieol u., incentil'ize and enable devekJpe.rs to maximiw density
and incroa,e rheit rclurn on investment.
3) Amendments to the Jlaciflo Wfod plans ~re needed to make the Prn_jeottnoro c011~iste11t wl!h tlie
c.oncepts :<et forth in tho draft Plan (Plan, P11rl J, llem 6 pg. 2.19). To the cxte.nl there is an nbandoum,ml of
any publi<: streets, it must.include a rcalignmem~ dedicllt.ion nnd deveiopment of new repfaccmontstrccts to
insure Ille overall accessibility and walk-ahi[ity ofthe anr.a by surrounding ncighborn as well as the i.wncnll
public,
4) Identify an the potential imdexfoting publio tight of way ac,;ies~ points to c11mwc1. th~ Barrio with
the "Coasrnl Rail Trail" th11t nms along the trnin tracl<s wl1icl1 would be the mosl fcasilile (wilho.utemimmt
domain) and cMl.effectlve locations lo install additional. pedestl'ian and bicycle paths as soon M the final
Plan is ultimately mpproved.
5) A qualified co1isultant needs to· examine tile sti:eet parking proble1ns.·lh11t now exist: in the core
clowntmvn and su,·nJunding residential communities fo,· all tl1e cities on the beach fmm San D.iego to San
Clcmeutc. w~ should evaluate those problems aud issues in beach citfos with pnrkiug standards tlrnt ar.i:,
similar to Corlsbad"s to understand whut to expect nnd how. we cau mitigate tho negative impacts. l.11 foc.t
those problpms nnd issues will iu nil JikellI)ood be even greater in Carlsbad because the recommended
red11ccd parking standards in the clraftPJa11 archclow tile current code standards now set in those surrounding
cities. Accor<li1Jgly thisi,sue clearly 11ceds tu be studied furUier before the parklngstnndards set forth iu the
dmft Plan arc acnmUy fimtlized 11nd approved by ci1e Planning Commissioi1 and City Counc.i.l.
6) Study and consideration should be given to adopting the Oity·ofSan .Dfogo's ''area.speeit1c''
pai-l<iog sta11d:1rds in Carlsbad as the p1-Ptbrnblc formula in calculating resident and visitor parking
requirclllcnts for tlie. VillagCl nud Barrio.
7) C~rlshad, like Vi~tn aniOcennside, needs to actually study the pm•kirig issues in tlic rcsicleurful
areas surrounclin.g thedowmown Village as well astbe Ban'io between 7 p.in. in the.evening through 5 n.m.
··in the morning (w1ien 1·esidentil1Jdem1md is at its peak) befqrc any action is !nke11 to reduce the parking
requirements for auy new deve1opmmts under the codes. 1 believe d~mand is higher dUflng the l/VCning
hours because 85% oftbe .residents arc more !han likely working commuters;
S) There needs l<J be some identifiuble rensonablc 11ml rntional factual basis set forth in the Ptan· tp
indicate the ~piNific ri::11sons why 1hc .currently required gnmg,es a11d covereJ car spaces slwuld bu eliminated
for all new residential d~ve.lopmcnts in lhe Vill;ige and Barrio, other thu11 to rcd11ce dcvetop111cm ·Costs. If
there arc no legitimate re:1sl)ns.oreiq1lnnation.s, othcrlhatt to reclucedcvelopmentcosts, Umn the·cuntnl code
slandnrds should remain in plocc for the Village nud Ba1,rio.
;-
/ I\ / \
RESPONSES
RTC-25
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 196 of 321
.,
( "
Page 14
December.22, 2015
COMMENTS
C&C Developm<lnt Co. !,LC {via email only)
AlttJ, Todd Cottle
l;'la.r1·io N()lghbors (via email only)
('
I I\ / \
RESPONSES ·,
RTC-27
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 198 of 321
/
I
COMMENTS
Smupto of Locul /.\'Jh1im11m .l~arkio.g R~1ulremc111s
Below is 11. tal,le lislin(!. some locar bench dties' general minimum p~rking requh·ements for muili-fomily
housing. th,it also r,.,forenccs the; Mtrnicipal Code sectio11 under which tlte r..:quircmenls arc c~rablished. !'or
compariso1\ purpo.sc~, the requir<;d off-street pa,·king spaces, iuclmling guc~I parking, w,1s cahmlaterl for a
hypol:heLical 120 unit dcvclopmc.:nl consi~linii of; 30 one bedroom units, 30 two bedroom ~.1llls, and 60 lhrec
bcdr<1om units. Thi:: municipalities are I isled from the lowc*t average rcqvfl·cd spaces per unit to dw hig!rnst,
Minimum Required Parkintt Spaces per Unit Hypothetical 12-0 Unit
Multi-Family Developments (by Unit Type, b,welopmcul
Guest for ;lll lJnits). _____ • __ ··-------"l'olal Spaces Per
U!.!L__ 2BR 3 BR Gyest ___ ,, ____ .fil!lWQL ,_l!l\iL __ ·-
.Occnnside !S 2 4. l plus20%of
31~1103 lolal units 250 2.(}ll
Carl$blld 15 2 2 .25/unit 255 2.12
21.44.020
T!lbleA
Sol.:u,a Bii,1<:h l.5 2 2 .25111.11it 255 2.l2 11.n:oto
San Clemente l.5 2 2.S 0.333/unil 295 2.<15
J 7 .61LO$ll '.rabtc
Bm:initas 2 2 2.5 .25/uuit 300 2.5
35.54.030
San Piogo
142.0:>25
Table J42.05C'
a) Basic 1.5 2.0 2.25 220% of total off 28.8 2.4
bJTl'Bnsirllow street parking rcqnii:cd
.income' 1.25' l.iS 2.U .. 252 2.1
c) l3¢acb/schQol
impact l.75 2.25 Z.5 344 2.7
'P1-oposc<1 o ... drt l\lfaster l'l:m
I ·l;S 1.5 .().. l6S 1.37
Note: All .of the above tire mer.ery the number of rc<111iced parlting s11aces. 1'lliS list does nol include the
ndditkrn,11 regulatif>lls cities impose su~h ns rcqufring 1hnt at leasl vne space per ttnil b~ covel'ed, etc.
' Smr Di~go Code requires more parking for dc-velopments !hat are" ... al least partially
witl1i11 a de.,ignntccl beach impact mea . .," and tran~ir/uffordable housing areas so all three
caku.lations nrc provided._
;. San Dio,:go Code nllows soll\e nexihility for CQmmon: area/visitor: parking tel increase.or
dccre.ose bnsed on the urea affoctcd by th.e d,;ve!opmei1t.
' "De11el<>p11w1tt qui11il'ying for both .1n--0dm:ed pnrking n1tfo (/Mnsit 1rre11 oJ· Vi/ry low
i11come p11rking ratio) and an iorreasct:I parltiog ratio· (Pat•king lm11act <ll'ea) sli!JIJ ilfso· uso
tlfe basic p111'1:1lng ratio." (l?ootnotc 1 for Table.. 142 .. 0SC)
/ r, /
RESPONSES
RTC-28
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 199 of 321
~-,
Scott Donnell, City of Carlsbad
Page 2 of 2
March 4,. 2016
COMMENTS
L · landscaped median island" and addition of "street trees of a consistent type and dimension". This sort of
change can potentially impact safety at a rail crossing. Raised medians and curbs provide channelization
that may discourage motorists from circumventing gate arms at a rail crossing. Street trees near a railroad
crossing can potentially reduce visibility of warning devices or approaching trains.
[
CPUC ietaff strongly supports continued consideration of a trench for the railroad track.s. The construction
: of a trench would be consistent with the CPUC's stated policy on reducing the number of at-grade
crossings, while also supporting the plan's goals to maximize connectivity in the area.
CPUC staff is available to discuss potential modification of the at-grade crossings. If you have any
questions, please contact Kevin Schumacher at (415) 310-9807.
Sincere~'.-
-l=:~;:.; -~ ,:(• .//.~'::::!~-,;-
Ken Chiang, P.E.
Utilities Engineer
Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch
Safety and Enforcement Division
California Public Utilities Commission
CC: State Clearinghouse
Don Filippi, NCTD
fl. t, "',{\IV".
[Le'-' v,, • ;;!:, \,,.<.)""-'0"' ~~ (,I' 0 \:, · ""'. 5"' '-/
~
E-1
cont.
E-2
RESPONSES
,,-'\
I
Finally, the errata also propose adding text to the last paragraph on
page 4-18. This paragraph is part of the discussion in Section 4.3.10
on festival streets/shared space streets. As amended, this paragraph
would state (added text is underlined):
An advantage of this street type is its flexibility; if it is desired to
temporarily close the street for a festival or an evening event,
the resultant space is devoid of curbs and trip hazards and can be
given over 100% to people. During community engagement, this
concept was discussed as a possibility for Grand Avenue between
Roosevelt Street and the railroad tracks. Maintaining the curbs
and raised medians near the railroad crossing on Grand Avenue,
however, would be necessary to provide channelization that may
discourage motorists from circumventing gate arms at the crossing.
An adopted City Council goal for FY 2017-2018 is to lower the
railroad tracks in a trench through the Village and Barrio. Strategies
to implement this.goal include developing a project funding plan and
initiating preliminary engineering and environmental review. Strategies
are supported by the "Carlsbad Village Double Track-Railroad Trench
Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study," completed by
the city and San Diego Association of Governments·(sANDAG) in 2017.
Further, key recommendations (Sections 1.6.1 and 1.6.2) and a policy
(1.5.3 A.4) of the January 2018 draft of the Master Plan also advocate
for lowering the railroad tracks in a t rench. These efforts all support
the California Public Utilities Commission stated policy on reducing the
num.ber of at-grade crossings.
RTC-30
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 201 of 321
f
11 ~
SANDAG
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101-423 /
(619) 699-1900
Fax (619) 699-1905
sandag.org
MEMBF.R AGENQES
Citic-so(
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Coronado
De/Mar
EIC<1ja11
Encinitas
f.SCO/ldido
lmperiaf Dear.:/1
La Mesa
Lemon Grove
Naliona/City
Oceilnside
Poway
San Di1tgo
San Marcos
Santee
Solana Beach
Vista
and
County of Son Diego
ADVISORY MEMBERS
Imperial County
01/ifornia Department
of Tr,mspartutian
Mefrapafitan
Transit System
North County
Transi1 Dist1icL
Unit"'ed States
Department of Defense
San Diego
Unified Part District
San Dir.go County
Water Authority
Southern Californ{a
Tribal Chairmen's Association
Mexico
COMMENTS
March 11, 2016
Mr. Scott Donnell
Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Donnell:
File Number 3300300
SUBJECT: Vi llage and Barrio Masfar Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Village and Barrio Master
Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Our comments are based on
policies included in San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) and
are submitted from a regional perspective emphasizing the need.for land use,
transportation coordination. and implementation of smart growth and
sustainable development principles. The Regional Plan sets forth a multimodal
approach to meeting the region's transportation needs. Therefore, the
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) recommends the following
issues be addressed:
Rail Corridor
The Regional Plan calls for double tracking nearly all of the Los Angeles-
Sao Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor, including the corridor in the City of
Carlsbad (City), by 2035. While the City, SANDAG, and the North County
Transit District continue to work to complete the railroad trench feasibility
analysis, there are short-term improvements that can address the City's
concerns, such as safety and noise impacts. SANDAG suggests that a site
vi.sibility easement be implemented along the inner west rail curve at
Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive. This would allow pedestrians to
have a clear view of approaching trains. Other alternatives for the City to
consider include quiet zones and at-grade crossing improvements (e.g., grade
separations and pedestrian under/over crossings).
Other Considerations
A key goal of the Regional Plan is to focus growth in smart growth
opportunity areas. The proposed project is Jncated within an Existing/Planned
Town Center identified on the Smart Growth Concept Map (CB-1). We
encourage, where appropriate, consideration of the following tools in
evaluating this project based on these SANDAG publications (which can be
found on our website at sandag.org/igr):
:~
F-1
./ )
RESPONSES
The suggestion of a short-term improvement of a visibility easement
along the inner west rail curve at Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village
Drive would involve trimming brush in areas owned by NCTD. This
area is not maintained by the city. While the city is willing to open
discussions with NCTD on this matter, the city does not control the.
conditions on NCTD property.
The possibility of quiet zones and pedestrian under/over crossings
also is identified in this letter. While these might address the issue
of noise and, to a limited extent, pedestrian safety, they fall short of
fully addressing the need for comprehensive safety, neighborhood
connectivity, coastal access and environmental improvements.
The January 2018 draft ofthe Master Plan addresses connectivity along
the rail corridor with the following policies identified in Section 1.5.3.A
(Connectivity):
4. Restore pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular connections across
the rail line via below or above-grcrde crossings or, preferably, as a
result of lowering the railroad-tracks below street level.
RTC-31
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 202 of 321
L
'·
COMMENTS
• Designing for Smart Growth, Creating Great Places in the San Diego Region
• Planning and Designing for Pedestrians, Model Guidelines for the San Diego Region
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Village and Barrio Master Plan MND. If you have
any questions, p.lease contact me at (619) 699-1943 or via email at susan.baldwin@sandag.org.
Sincerely,
?)Uf~p,i~
SUSAN B. BALDWIN, AICP
Senior Regional Planner
SBA/KH E/kcu
2
I\ / \
RESPONSES
F-1 5. Provide, at a minimum, a pedestrian and bicycle crossing at
cont. Chestnut Avenue; if lowering of the railroad tracks below street
level does not proceed, pursue the completion of this particular
crossing.
As noted in these policies and as emphasized in the key
recommendations for the Village and Barrio provided in Sections
1.6.1 and 1.6.2 of the January 2018 draft of the Master Plan, the
city is pursuing trenching as _the best approach to provide safe and
efficient rail crossings; however, as the above policies note, the
January 2018 draft of the Master Plan does not exclude the possibility
of other options, if warranted. Comments from the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) staff (identified in letter E) support
continued consideration of a trench for the railroad tracks, noting that
construction of a trench would be consistent with the CPUC's state
policy on reducing the number of at-grade crossings, while supporting
the-Master Plan's goals to maximize connectivity in the area.
F-2 This comment references the San Diego Association of Government's
(SANDAG) San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) and
its key goal of focusing growth in smart growth opportunity areas.
The Village and Barrio Master Plan encompasses an area designated
on SANDAG's Smart Growth Concept Map as "CB-1, Existing/Planned
Town Center." The comment encourages, where appropriate,
consideration of two smart growth publications on SANDAG's website:
Designing for Smart Growth, Creating Great Places in the San Diego
Region; and, Planning and Designing for Pedestrians, Model Guidelines
for the San Diego Region.
City staff has reviewed both publications. As they are today, the Village
and Barrio neighborhoods already exhibit many of the characteristics
identified in the publications as desirable, such as a walkable street
grid, compact development, and a mix of uses. Further, the Village
and Barrio Master Plan incorporates many of the recommendations
and guidelines of both publications to enhance the qualities of
each neighborhood. These enhancements take the form of Master
Plan recommendations to improve sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and
pedestrian lighting; provide mobility options to the car; and maintain
the existing commercial and residential mix of uses and residential
densities.
Staff also notes the Regional Plan is cited in the January 2018 draft
of the Master Plan Section 1.7 (Laws, Policies and Other Influences),
page 1-28.
RTC-32
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 203 of 321
tr
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Bob Ladwig
Scott Donnell
COMMENTS
teri11@cox net; lolasdeli@sbcatobal net; Robert Wilkinson
VIiiage/Barrio Master Plan Initial study
Friday, March 11, 2016 2:50:38 PM
r1 \
RESPONSES
------~-------------------------
http'//www carlsbadca gov/civjcax/filebank/blobd load aspx7BloblP=30099
Scott
I do have 1 comment on the initial study. There is one item in the Initial Study (on page 5 under The
Barrio item c.} This item provides for angled parking in the center of the street to provide additional
supply while calming the street within the existing curb dimensions. All along I was not very
convinced this was a goo.d idea and now Ofie has indicated she is against this design conc;ept. I now
support and join with Ofle and ask that this concept be eliminated.
We have previously submitted written comments on suggestions to calm the wide streets in the
Barrio and ask that our earlie1· ideas be incorporated into the plan. We would like to see bulbouts at
intersections and possibly mid block as a way to calm the traffic and to provide pedestrians a safer
way to cross the street. We also suggested to provide landscaping, lighting and wider sidewalks plus
defined cross walks. We submitted a graphic showing the location of defined cross walks plus we
submitted some graphics for a demonstration project on Walnut between Roosevelt and Madison.
Thank you for considering our suggestions.
Bob
Robert C. Ladwig
President
Ladwig Design Group, Inc.
2234 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ph: (760) 438-3182 Fax: (760) 438-0173
G-1 This comment refers to a key Barrio recommendation from the
November 2015 and April 2016 drafts of the Village and Barrio Master
Plan, identified in the Draft Initial Study, This recommendation stated,
"consider angled parking in the center of streets south of Carlsbad
Village Drive to provide additional supply while calming the street
within the existing curb dimensions." Since this recommendation has
been deleted from the January 2018 draft of the Village and Barrio
Master Plan, it has also been deleted from the Final Initial Study,
RTC-33
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 204 of 321
·,
·[
(I ·,,
COMMENTS
il..•\]J;J~j~C(LI.JF()JtNlc) ... .!"1\LJf~UUihl..SJJ~T.L::JH,\'NSP()Jt'l.4'1'J1'JtiAGfi$C"Y -----. --~Ulllf.tl\'.tl.Jr..~.l\~~JJ.W.C
OIWARTIVIEN'f OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT II
PLANNING l)JVJSION
<llllOTAYLORSTRl!H, M.S. '2<W SAN DlcGO, (',•\ <J21 Ul
PHONE lf,19J r;~B-r,%0 r:Ax (f) 1 ~J'l r,ss-qz99 n ·v 711
I',farcll 16, 2016
Mr. Scott Do.nnell
City of Carlsbad
·1635 Faraday A~·emw
Carlsbad, CA 9200S-73.l 4
Dem' Mr. Do;mell:
St•.,·iuw' 1fr'uu~Tr1.
Nd/1 .wn.' ll'ctlrl'.I
11-SD-5
l'M VAR-
Village anclBim.io Mastel' Plan
MND I SCH#20l<l02l056
The Califo.mia DepartmeutofTransp01:tation (Caltrans) wceive<l a copy ofthe Prall lnithll
Study/Mitigated Negalive Declaratlon for the prop(lsed Village and Ban·io Mw,ter Pfa11 loc1rtccl
near lnterstat<c 5. (1-5). Caltt:m1s has the lbUowi:ng comments:
Potcntlally the vision -Of the mas(el' plan identifies a nmnbei: of prnposed development id,rns that
could impact slate fooilities, bL1t. does not co11tnln specific detail. Any future project ~peoific
development tbat m~y impact state facilities should be appropriately nnnlyzed ,il th~t time_.
lfyou have any questions, pleu~e contuct-lCimbcrly Dodson, ofthcCul~:uns Development
Rcvio'.v Bt·anch, ut {6 l 9} 688-2510 or by e-mail sent to kimbc,rJy.dodson@dot.ca.gov.
Silr//-
JACOB ~ONG, Chlof
Development Review Bra1,ch
"Pl'im'ile !'( ,W{li'< ,\'IIS/r1bn1hk•, lrlCt-WYHCd muf clflt·/&JJ IJ'llll.i"/101'/tj//;.ltJ ~;',l,rt{l//1
.tu 1'J1/:w1(.'l' (.'a//Jilruill :~ l'L\flmltriy am/ JiwJf,llliv"
(11
RESPONSES
H-1 This comment requests that concepts presented in the Village and
Barrio Master Plan that may impact state facilities, such as Interstate
5, be appropriately analyzed when considered for construction. Such
development could include, for example, the Master Plan proposal to
extend Grand Avenue underneath the freeway.
In reply, the goals and policies found in January 2018 draft of the Master
Plan Section 1.5.2.C (Mobility and Parking) acknowledge the need for
adequate and public evaluation of significant projects presented in
the Master Plan as well as the need to perform necessary technical
and environmental studies and obtain all necessary approval actions
and permits. Furthennore, policies in Section 1.5.3.A (Connectivity)
recommend coordination with Caltrans on freeway improvements,
including the widening of Interstate 5 (North Coast Corridor Project),
to evaluate projects that could both potentially improve and hinder
access between the Village and Barrio, the freeway, and neighborhoods
to the east. As indicated in the Initial Study under the heading "CEQA
Requirements for Subsequent Actions," each subsequent development
action would be subject to its own project-specific CEQA review.
RTC-34
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 205 of 321
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
'26
27
28
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment -GPA 16-01, is set forth and attached in
Exhibit "2A" (changes to the General Plan text) and Exhibit "GPA 16-01" (changes to the General Plan Land
Use Map), both dated April 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS, Zone Code Amendment -ZCA 16-01 and Zone Change -ZC 16-01, are set forth and
attached in the draft City Council Ordinance, Exhibit "28," dated April 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Master Plan -MP 14-01 is set forth and attached in the draft City Council
Ordinance, Exhibit "2C," dated April 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment -LCPA 14-01 is set forth and
attc!ched in Exhibit "2D" (amendments to the Local Coastal Program text and LCP Segment Boundaries),
Exhibit "LCPA 14-01" (amendments to the Local Coastal Program land use map), Exhibit "Village and Barrio
Master Plan LCP Segment Changes," and previously mentioned Exhibit 1128" (containing ZCA 16-01 and ZC
16-01); note that the zoning applied to the area within the Coastal Zone depicted on Exhibit 11ZCA/ZC 16-
01" constitutes the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Zoning Map), all dated April 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS, all exhibits are on file in the Planning Division and attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, LCPA 14-01 was previously circulated for the state-mandated six-week review from
February 26, 2016 to April 8, 2016; however, due to project changes, including release of a new draft of
the Village and Barrio Master Plan and merger of the Village Review and a portion of the Mello II Local
Coastal Program segments, LCPA 14-01 has been recirculated for additional review; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the release of the Village and Barrio Master Plan in January 2018, staff
made revisions to the master plan that are provided in 1errata; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on April 18, 2018, May 2, 2018, and May 16, 2018, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, the errata are presented in four separate errata sheets dated April 18, May 2, and May
16 to correspond with the meeting at which they were presented and/or discussed; the third and fourth
errata sheets are both dated May 16; the Fourth Errata Sheet contains changes to reflect Planning
PC RESO NO. 7294 -2-July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 207 of 321
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Commission-directed revisions to the draft Village and Barrio Master Plan made at that meeting; errata
are attached as Exhibits "2E-1" to "2E-4;" and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all per:;ons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the General
Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, Zone Change, Master Plan, and Local Coastal Program
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, prior to the Planning Commission hearin~, the city planner posted on the Village
and Barrio Master Plan website (www.carlsbadca.gov/villagebarrio) a table and maps identifying all
properties within the boundaries of the Master Plan and relevant land use information for each
property, including existing and proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use ·
designations, zoning, and land use districts; and
WHEREAS, the table and maps are on file in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by
reference.
that:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad
1.
2.
The above recitations are true and correct; and
The state-mandated six-week review peri()d for the LCPA 14-01 first occurred February
26, 2016 to April 8, 2016; no comments were received in response to this first LCPA notice; LCPA 14-01
was recirculated for public review beginning April 6, 2018; public review will end on May 18, 2018, and
any comments received will be considered by the City Planner and presented to the City Council; and
3.
4.
The Village Master Plan and Design Manual is recommended for repeal; and
Based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS
APPROVAL of GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01-VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER
PLAN, and the errata dated April 18, 2018, May 2, 2018, and May 16, 2018, based on the following
findings:
PC RESO NO. 7294 -3-July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 208 of 321
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Findings:
General Plan Amendment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
GPA 16-01, as well as related applications ZCA 16-01, ZC 16-01, MP 14-01, and LCPA 14-01, are
the actions necessary to implement the Carlsbad Community Vision, as stated in the Introduction
and Vision Chapter of the General Plan. In particular, the Community Vision's Core Value of
Neighborhood Revitalization, Community Design, and Livability calls for revitalizing the Village and
rejuvenating the Barrio.
Land Use and Community Design Element Policy 2-P. 78 states (for the Barrio), "focus revitalization
efforts on renovations and fac;:ade improvements as well as enhancing the physical infrastructure
of the community." Master Plan recommendations focus on Barrio streetscape improvements
through traffic calming, street trees and pedestrian lighting, and bicycle facilities. The Master Plan
maintains existing Barrio larrd use patterns and densities. Further, a Master Plan goal, as stated in
Chapter 1, Section 1.5.1, is to promote the rehabilitation and adaptive re-use of existing Barrio
buildings.
Mobility Element goals 3-G.2 and 3-G.3 state "improve connectivity for residents, visitors and
businesses" and "provide inviting streetscapes that encourage walking and promote livable
streets," respectively. Consistent with these goals, the Master Plan advocates improved
connectivity between the Village and Barrio through recommendations for street trees, better
alleys, improved street lighting and wider sidewalks for pedestrians, traffic calming, and improved
bicycle facilities. Master Plan development standards also encourage buildings to have a
pedestrian orientation. Further, the Master Plan advocates for street connections that could be
realized through trenching of the railroad tracks and through 1-5 North Coast Corridor Project
improvements. In addition, the plan improves connectivity through a number of recommended
community gathering spaces, such as the Grand Avenue Promenade, and improvements at and
near the intersection of Roosevelt Street and Walnut Avenue in the Barrio.
Sustainability Element Goal 9-G.3 states, "promote energy efficiency and conservation in the
community." The Master Plan promotes compact, urban growth in a walkable environment. This
is acrnmplished through recommendations, standards, a-nd strategies encouraging efficient use
of land and buildings, streets and parking, buildings with a pedestrian-orientation, and mobility
improvements that benefit all forms of access in the Village and Barrio.
Housing Element Goal 10-G.2 (Housing Opportunities) states, "new housi~g 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 Master Plan is consistent with General Plan
densities specified for the Village and Barrio. These densities permit a variety of housing types at
densities from 8 to 35 units/acre.
Housing Element Policy 10-P.13 (Housing Opportunities) states, "encourage increased integration
of housing with nonresidential development where appropriate." Master Plan development
standards permit mixed use development in many districts.
PC RESO NO. 7294 -4-July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 209 of 321
1
2
3
4
5
6
Zone Code Amendment/Zone Change
7.
8.
ZCA 16-01 and ZC 16-01 reflect sound principles of good planning in that they make necessary and
logical changes to the text and map of the Zoning Ordinance to reflect MP 14-01 in a manner that
is consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program.
ZCA 16-01 and ZC 16-01 are not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or
general welfare in that changes are limited to revisions that recognize MP 14-01; further, revisions
to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.35 streamline and improve application of requirements by
deferring to MP 14-01 for many applicable requirements.
7 Village and Barrio Master Plan
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9.
10.
11.
12.
MP 14-01, which replaces the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, is consistent with Land Use
and Community Design Element Policy 2-P.69, which states in part, "comprehensively update the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual as necessary to implement the goals and policies of the
General Plan."
MP 14-01 provides guidance in fnterpreting City planning and zoning requirements for properties
within the Village and Barrio, as well as specific principles, standards, regulations, and design
guidelines that may be applied to proposed improvements within the Master Plan area. These
components of the Master Plan have been developed to be consistent with and complementary
to the General Plan, the Local Coastal Plan, and the City's Zoning Code. -Permit and processing
requirements, for example, are similar to those throughout the rest of Carlsbad and, consistent
with the General Plan standards and guidelines, are proposed to enhance the character of the
Village and Barrio.
MP 14-01 contains parking standards and strategies that are consistent with the Carlsbad Village,
Barrio, and Beach Area Parking Study Parking Management Plan, accepted by the City Council in
September 2017.
As both the Local Coastal Program land use plan and implementation program for properties
within the Village and Barrio Master Plan boundaries, MP 14-01 effectively establishes a vision,
goals, policies, and standards for the area that advance and implement Coastal Act objectives for
public access and visitor-serving uses in a clear, effective manner.
Local Coastal Program Amendment
13.
14.
15.
LCPA 14-01 is required to bring the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program into consistency with ZCA 16-
01/ZC 16-01 and MP 16-01.
LCPA 14-01 meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the
Coastal Act and all applicable policies of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being amended
by this amendment, in that the amendments ensure consistency with the Carlsbad Zoning
Ordinance and do not conflict with any coastal zone regulations, land use designations or policies,
with which development must comply.
LCPA 14-01 reflects sound principles of good planning in that the merging of a portion of the Mello
II segment with the Village Area segment ensures consistent application of the Local Coastal
Program in the Coastal Zone portion of the Village and Barrio Master Plan.
PC RESO NO. 7294 -5-July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 210 of 321
EXHIBIT "2A"
April 18, 2018
acceptable. In the Barrio, the minimum parcel size included in the sites inventory for lower and
moderate income housing is 0.16 acre, except for the Harding Street Neighbors, LP parcels described
below, and the average is 0.44 acre.
3. On page 10-59, Table 10-28, "Land Use Designations and Affordability," {1) add rows describing
"Village-Barrio" in the "above moderate" and "extremely low, very low, and low income"
categories and {2} modify existing rows describing "Village {V}" as follows:
GENERAL PLAN LAND IMPLEMENTING RESIDENTIAL GROWTH APPROPRIATE
USE DESIGNATION ZONING DENSITY MANAGEMENT INCOME LEVELS
DISTRICT RANGE CONTROL
{MINIMUM POINT DENISTY
AND (DU/AC)
MAXIMUM)
(DU/AC)
Village-Barrio (V-B) V-B BC District: 8-11.5 Above
15 Moderate
Village (V) Village-V-R V-B District S 9: n/a5 Moderate
Barrio (V-Bl ~HOSP,
PT,VG
Districts: 18-23
Village-Barrio (V-B) V-B BP District: 23-25 Extremely Low,
30 Very-Low, Low
Village {V) Village-V-R V-B Districts l 4: n/a5 Extremely Low,
Barrio (V-B) ~FC,VC: Very-Low, Low
28-35
4. On page 10-59, following Table 10-28, amend the first paragraph as follows:
The General Plan's R-30 and Village Village-Barrio designations accommodate lower incomes. The R-
30 designation requires a minimum of 23 units per acre and permits up to 30 units per acre. When a
density bonus is applied to the R-30 designation, the maximum density can potentially reach 40 units
per acre (at a maximum density bonus of 35 percent under state density bonus law). Additionally, the
city's ordinances allow for density increases that exceed state density bonus law, as illustrated by the
Tavarua Senior Apartments shown in Table 10-27.
5. On page 10-77, under the "Subsidies" section (beginning on the previous page), amend the first
full paragraph as follows:
As discussed with developers during a 2011 developer forum held as part of the General Plan and
Housing Element update process, development above 23-25 units per acre would typically necessitate
subterranean parking, which substantially increases the average subsidy required to make the units
affordable to lower-income households. The cost savings from economies of scale for housing
production do not usually break even until the density is substantially increased to beyond 30 units per
acre. To expand the capacity for additional development, at appropriate locations, the city permits
development in the Village at up to 35 units per acre and within the R-30 land use designation and BP
4
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 215 of 321
EXHIBIT "2A"
April 18, 2018
District of the Village and Barrio Master Plan density bonuses/increases can be granted to allow
densities above 30 units per acre.
6. On page 10-79, under the "Land Use Controls" section (beginning on the previous page}, amend
the first full paragraph and the second paragraph as follows:
Carlsbad's Land Use and Community Design Element establishes six residential designations (excluding
the Village-Barrio designation) ranging in density from 1.0 dwelling unit per acre to 30.0 dwelling units
per acre (Table 10-33). The R-30 land use designation was added to the General Plan in February 2013
and allows up to 30 dwelling units per acre.
In the Village and Barrio, a separate land use designation applies (V Village V-B Village-Barrio). This
designation permits both residential and non-residential uses. Depending on the district within the
Village and Barrio, the minimum and maximum density densities-is-are 8-15 units per acre (BC District).
18-23 units per acre {districts 5 9HOSP, PT, and VG Districts), 23-30 units per acre (BP District) or 28-35
units per acre {districts 1 4FC and VC Districts) and the maximum density permitted is 23 or 35 units per
acre, respectively.
7. On page 10-79, amend Table 10-33, "Land Use Designations and Implementing Zones," by
modifying the existing row describing "V-Village" as follows:
LAND USE DESIGNATION ALLOWED DENSITY GMCP (DU/AC) IMPLEMENTING
(DU/AC) ZONE
\I Village V-B Village Dist. 1 4: 28 35 Dist. 5 9: BC District: V-RV-B •
Barrio 18 23 max BC District: 8-11.5; BP
15; PT, HOSP, VG Districts: District: 25;
18-23; BP District: 23-30; PT, HOSP, VG,
FC, VC Districts: 28-35 FC, VC Districts:
n/a2
8. On page 10-84, under the "Mitigating Opportunities" section, amend the first paragraph as
follows:
The capacity (number of units) for each site appropriate for lower and moderate income housing
identified in the sites inventory in Section 10.3 assumes development will take place at the minimum
density of the density range or at the minimum density specified5• Therefore, and except for properties
designated "V Village," in the PT, HOSP, VG, FC, and VC Districts of the Village and Barrio Master Plan
(see Table 10-33). none of the sites require the use of excess dwelling units to accommodate the RHNA.
In the VillageVillage and Barrio Master Plan districts identified above, since all residential development
requires an allocation of excess dwelling units, the city has specifically reserved 759 excess units (as of
July 2016) for this purpose. As a result, the Growth Management Plan and GMCP density do not serve
as constraints to development.
9. On page 10-89, under the "Alternative Housing" section, amend the second paragraph as
follows:
5
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 216 of 321
EXHIBIT "2A"
April 18, 2018
To implement Program 3.13 in the 2005-2010 Housing Element and expand housing opportunities for
extremely-low-income households, in September 2012 the City Council approved an amendment to the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual to conditionally permit and establish standards for "managed
living units" in certain districts of the Village area. A managed living unit is designed and intended for
transient occupancy of daily, weekly or longer tenancy or permanent residency, providing sleeping or
living facilities for one or two persons, in which a full bathroom and a partial-kitchen are provided. The
Village and Barrio Master Plan, which replaced the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, maintains
the same standards for managed living units and expands the area where they are conditionally
permitted.
10. On page 10-92, amend footnote 8 of Table 10-36, "Basic Residential Development Standards," as
follows:
8 In the Village Review (V R) Village-Barrio (V-B) Zone, development standards vary by district.
Additionally, the City Council may modify standards on a case-by-case basis, in order to facilitate
affordable housing or promote "green building" (e.g., LEED certification) design to enable a significant
public benefit, such as exceeding minimum energy efficiency, renewable energy, and/or Climate Action
Plan (CAP) consistency requirements.
11. On page 10-93, under the "Parking" section, amend the first paragraph as follows:
Parking requirements in Carlsbad vary depending on housing type and anticipated parking needs (Table
10-37). The city's parking standards are the same as or lower than many communities in the San Diego
region and therefore do not serve to constrain residential development.7 Furthermore, the city has a
demonstrated history of making concessions (i.e. reduced parking requirements) in order to facilitate
affordable housing development. The city has also approved reduced parking standards arid increased
densities to foster redevelopment in the Village. For example, in portions of the Village, as per the
Village and Barrio Master Plan outside the Coastal Zone, one parking space is required for studio and
one bedroom units and twe-one and a half spaces are required for two or more bedroom units; there is
no requirement for guest pa rking and no distinction between rental and ownership units.
12. On page 10-93, amend the title of Table 10-37 as follows:
TABLE 10-37: PARKING REQUIREMENTS (OUTSIDE THE VILLAGE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
BOUNDARIES)
13. On pages 10-118, under "Program 2.4: Energy Conservation," amend the second and fourth
bullet points as follows:
• In the Village, encourage energy conservation and higher density development by the
modification of development standards (e.g. parking standards, building setbacks, height, and
increased density) as necessary to:
Enable developments to exceed minimum energy efficiency, renewable energy and/or
minimum CAP consistency req ui rements~ for silver level or higher LEED
(Leadersh~ergy and Environm enta~Design) Certification, or a comparable green
6
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 217 of 321
. EXHIBIT "2A"
April 18, 2018
building rating, and to maintain the financial feasibility of the development with such
certification.
Achieve densities at or above the minimum required if the applicant can provide
acceptable evidence that application of the development standards precludes
development at such densities.
• Encourage infill development in urbanized areas, particularly in the Village and Barrio, through
implementation of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual Village and Barrio Master Planaf\4
the allowed density ranges in the Barrio.
14. On page 10-121, under "Program 3.2: Excess Dwelling Units," amend the second paragraph as
follows:
Based on analysis conducted in Section 10.4 (Constraints and Mitigating Opportunities), the city can
accommodate its 2010-2020 RHNA without the need to utilize excess dwelling units (except for
properties in certain districts of the Village and Ba rrio Master Plandesignated "V Village") to
accommodate the RHNA at each household income level. In the Village, since all residential
development requires an allocation of excess dwelling units, the city has specifically reserved 759 excess
units (as of July 2016) for this purpose.
7
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 218 of 321
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, AND
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO REVISE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE, INCLUDING THE ZONING MAP, TO RECOGNIZE
AND IMPLEMENT THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN, WHICH WOULD
REGULATE DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE FOR THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO,
AN APPROXIMATELY 350-ACRE AREA GENERALLY WEST OF INTERSTATE 5
AND BETWEEN LAGUNA DRIVE AND TAMARACK AVENUE IN THE CITY'S
NORTHWEST QUADRANT AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
CASE NO.: ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/LCPA 14-01 (DEV08014)
EXHIBIT 112B"
April 18, 2018
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Zoning Code is the implementing ordinance of the Carlsbad Local
Coastal Program, and therefore, an amendment to the Zoning Code also constitutes an amendment to
the Local Coastal Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Planner has prepared a Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 16-01, Zone Change
ZC 16-01, and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 14-01 pursuant to Section 21.52.020 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Section 30514 of the Public Resources Code, and Section 13551 of California
Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 5 to revise various sections of the Zoning Ordinance, including
the zoning map; and
WHEREAS, the recommended amendments are necessary to recognize and implement the
Village and Barrio Master Plan (MP 14-01), which establishes the land use classifications, development
standards, procedures and guidelines for that unique area of the city within the Master Plan's
boundaries and which replaces the Village Master Plan and Design Manual; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Coastal Commission Regulations, a six-week public review
period for LCPA 14-01 occurred from February 26, 2016 to April 18, 2016; however, due to project
changes, LCPA 14-01 was recirculated for additional review from April 6, 2018 to May 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2018, May 2, 2018 and May 16, 2018, the Planning Commission held a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/LCPA 14-01; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 7294
recommending to the City Council that ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/LCPA 14-01 be approved; and
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 220 of 321
EXHIBIT "28"
WHEREAS, prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the City Planner posted on the Village
and Barrio Master Plan website (www.carlsbadca.gov/villagebarrio) a table and maps identifying all
properties within the boundaries of the Master Plan and relevant land us'e information for each
property, including existing and proposed General Plan land use designations, zoning, and land use
districts; and
WHEREAS, the table and maps are on file in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by
reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the ___ day of ____ _, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council considered all factors, including written
public comments, if any, related to ZCA 16-02/ZC 16-01/LCPA 14-01.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California,
ordains as follows that:
1. The above recitations are true and cbrrect.
2. The findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 7294 shall also constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council.
3. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.05.010 is amended to read as follows:
In order to classify, regulate, restrict and segregate the uses of land and buildings, to regulate and
restrict the height and bulk of buildings, to regulate the area of yards and other open spaces about
buildings, and to regulate the density of population, thirty-six classes of zones and overlay zones are
established by this title to be known as follows:
C-1-Neighborhood Commercial Zone
C-2-General Commercial Zone
C-F-Community Facilities Zone
C-L-Local Shopping Center Zone
C-M-Heavy Commercial-Limited Industrial Zone
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 221 of 321
CR-A/OS-Cannon_Road-Agricultural/Open Space Zone
C-T-Commercial Tourist Zone
E-A-Exclusive Agricultural Zone
L-C-limited Control Zone
M-lndustrial Zone
0-0ffice Zone
0-S-Open Space Zone
P-C-Planned Community Zone
P-M-Planned Industrial Zone
P-U-Public Utility Zone
R-1-0ne-Family Residential Zone
R-2-Two-Family Residential Zone
R-3-Multiple-Family Residential Zone
R-A-Residential Agricultural Zone
R-E-Residential Estate Zone
R-P-Residential-Professional Zone
R-T-Residential Tourist Zone
R-W-Residential Waterway Zone
RD-M-Residential Density-Multiple Zone
RMHP-Residential Mobile Home Park
T-C-Transportation Corridor Zone
V-8-Village-Barrio Zone
BAO-Beach Area Overlay Zone
Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone
Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone
Coastal Resource Overlay Zone Mello I LCP Segment
C/V-SO-Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone
F-P-Floodplain Overlay Zone
H-0-Hospital Overlay Zone
Q-Qualified Development Overlay Zone
S-P-Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone
EXHIBIT "28"
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 222 of 321
EXHIBIT "28"
4. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.05.020 (4) is amended to read as follows:
(4). The V-B, P-U and P-C zones have special conditions for their application and shall
be considered as more restrictive than other zones.
5. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.05.030, the zoning map, is amended as shown on
Exhibit "ZCA/ZC 16-01" dated April 18, 2018, and attached hereto.
6. Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.35 (V-R Village Review Zone) is amended to read
as follows:
Chapter 21.35
V-B VILLAGE-BARRIO ZONE
Sections:
21.35.010 Intent and purpose.
21.35.020 Incorporation of Village and Barrio Master Plan by reference.
21.35.030 Land affected by this chapter.
21.35.040 Village and Barrio Master Plan and the Carlsbad Municipal Code compliance.
21.35.050 General regulations. ·
21.35.060 Permitted uses.
21.35.070 Permit required.
21.35.080 Findings of fact.
21.35.090 Amendments to the Village and Barrio Master Plan.
21.35.010 Intent and purpose.
The village-barrio zone is intended to establish land use classifications, development standards,
procedures and guidelines for that unique area of the city described in the Village and Barrio Master
Plan and designated "V-B, Village-Barrio" on the zoning map.
21.35.020 Incorporation of the Village and Barrio Master Plan by reference.
The Village and Barrio Master Plan, as adopted by City Council Ordinance CS-XXX on XXXX, 2018, and
as approved and certified by the California Coastal Commission on XXXX, XXXX, is hereby adopted by
reference and incorporated into this chapter.
21.35.030 Land affected by this chapter.
This chapter shall apply only to lands located within the boundaries of the Village and Barrio Master
Plan and zoned "V-B, Village-Barrio" on the zoning map.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 223 of 321
EXHIBIT "28"
21.35.040 Compliance with the Village and Barrio Master Plan and the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Projects developed pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the provisions of the Village and Barrio
Master Plan, and all applicable provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including but not limited to
those provisions of Titles 18, 19, 20 and 21.
21.35.050 General regulations.
Except as otherwise provided by the Village and Barrio Master Plan, the regulations of this title which
apply to uses generally or generally to all zoning classifications shall apply to property and uses in this
zone.
21.35.060 Permitted uses.
The development standards of the Village and Barrio Master Plan, including the permitted uses table,
shall identify the permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses in the V-B zone. Any use
not identified in the permitted uses table is not permitted unless the city planner determines that
such use falls within the vision and intent of the Master Plan district in which it is proposed and is
substantially similar to an allowed use in the district. Further, the city planner shall not find that a use
substantially similar to an expressly prohibited use is permitted in any district.
21.35.070 Permit required.
Unless specifically exempt from a discretionary permit pursuant to the Village and Barrio Master Plan
and Section 21.201.060, no building permit or other entitlement shall be issued for any development
or use in the V-B zone unless there is a valid site development plan, conditional use permit, coastal
development permit or other discretionary permit as required by the Village and Barrio Master Plan
and as approved for the property.
21.35.080 Findings of fact.
No determination or decision shall be made pursuant to this chapter unless the decision-making
authority finds, in addition to any other findings otherwise required for the project, that the project is
consistent with the general plan, this code, as applicable, the Village and Barrio Master Plan, and the
Local Coastal Program, as applicable.
21.35.090 Amendments to the Village and Barrio Master Plan.
Amendments to the Village and Barrio Master Plan shall be deemed to be amendments to this
chapter; provided, however, that such amendments are processed and noticed in a manner which
meets the requirements of Chapter 21.52 of this code and are approved and adopted by city council
ordinance.
7. Carlsbad Municipal Code5ections 21.41.010 B. and C. are amended to read as follows:
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 224 of 321
EXHIBIT "28"
B. Properties and uses in the village-barrio (V-B) zone are regulated first by the
sign standards of the Village and Barrio Master Plan, and then, to the extent not covered by said
master plan, by the provisions of this chapter.
C. Signs on city property, both within the V-8 zone and other zones, are controlled
by other provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, not by this chapter.
8. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.41.090 is amended to read as follows:
A. The following sign restrictions apply to properties in the coastal zone except the
Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Village-Barrio segments. If there is a conflict between the coastal zone sign
standards of this section and any regulations of this chapter, the standards of this section shall prevail.
Otherwise, within the coastal zone, the sign regulations of this chapter shall apply.
1. Each business or establishment shall be entitled to one fa~ade sign.
2. Each shopping complex shall have only one directory sign which shall not
exceed fifteen feet in height, including mounding.
3. Monument sign height including mounding shall not exceed eight feet and shall
apply where three or fewer commercial establishments exist on a parcel.
4. Tall freestanding and roof signs shall not be allowed.
5. Off-premises signs shall not be allowed.
9. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.44.020 Table A regarding number of off-street
parking spaces required for "financial institutions and professional offices," is amended to read as
follows:
Financial institutions Medical Office 1 space/200 square feet of gross floor area
and professional offices Financial institutions 1 space/250 square feet of gross floor area
Other office uses 1 space/250 square feet of gross floor area
Office uses within 300 1 space/300 square feet of gross floor area
feet of the boundary of
the village-barrio zone
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 225 of 321
EXHIBIT "28"
10. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.45.040 Table A and footnote 8 are amended
to read as follows:
Legend:
P = Permitted.
Table A
Permitted Residential Uses
{#) Number within parentheses= Permitted only in certain circumstances.
X = Not permitted.
Zone Residential Use
One-Family Dwelling or Twin-Home on Small Condominium Project Lots (one unit per lot)
R-1 (1) or (4) One-family dwellings -(3) or (4)
Two-family dwellings -(1) or (4)
Multiple-family dwellings -(4)
R-2 p One-family or two-family dwellings -P
'
Multiple-family dwellings -(2) or (4)
R-3 p p
RD-M p p
R-W X p
R-P (5) (6)
RMHP p p
P-C (7) (7)
V-B (8) {8)
Accessory {9) {9) Uses
Notes:
(1) Permitted when the project site is contiguous to a higher intensity land use designation or zone, or an existing project
of comparable or higher density.
(2) Permitted when the proposed project site is contiguous to a lot or lots zone R-3, R-T, R-P, C-1, C-2, C-M or M, but in no
case shall the project site consist of more than one lot nor be more than ninety feet in width, whichever is less.
(3) Permitted when developed as two or more detached units on one lot.
(4) Permitted when the project site contains sensitive biological resources as identified in the Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan. In the case of a condominium project, attached or detached units may be permitted when the site
contains sensitive biological resources.
(5) Permitted when the R-P zone implements the RMH land use designation.
(6) Permitted when the R-P zone implements the RMH or RH land use designations.
(7) Permitted uses shall be consistent with the master plan.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 226 of 321
(8) Refer to the Village and Barrio Master Plan for permitted uses.
(9) Refer to Table F for permitted accessory uses.
EXHIBIT "2B"
11. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.53.140 is amended by deleting subsection (k).
12. That the use chart in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.83.040 and footnote 4 are
amended to read as follows:
"P" indicates that the use is permitted in the zone.
11LDCP" indicates that the use is permitted subject to approval of a large family day care permit, processed in accordance
with Section 21.83.050 of this chapter.
uMCUP" indicates that the use is permitted subject to approval of a minor conditional use permit (process one)
processed in accordance with Chapter 21.42 of this title.
"CUP" indicates that the use is permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit (process two) processed in
accordance with Chapter 21.42 of this title.
11X" indicates that the use is prohibited in the zone.
Small Family Day Care Large Family Day Care
Home (8 or fewer Home (14 or fewer
Zoning children) children) Child Day Care Center
R-A, R-E, E-A p LDCP (1) X
R-1 p LDCP (1) X
R-2 p LDCP (1) X
R-3, RD-M, R-P p LDCP (1) MCUP(2)(3)
R-T, R-W, RMHP p LDCP (1) X
0 X X MCUP(2)(3)
H-0 X X P(2)
C-F X X MCUP(2)(3)
C-1, C-2, C-L X X P(2)
P-M, C-M X X CUP(S)
M, P-U, 0-S, L-C, T-C, C-T X X X
V-8, P-C (4) LDCP (1)(4) (2)(3)(4)
Notes:
(1) Permitted only when the large family day care home is located on a lot occupied by a detached, single-family dwelling,
subject to the provisions of Section 21.83.050 of this chapter.
(2) Permitted subject to the provisions of Section 21.83.080 of this chapter.
(3) Child day care centers are allowed as a permitted use (no conditional use permit or minor conditional use permit
required) within existing buildings on developed church or school sites, subject to the provisions of
Section 21.83.080 of this chapter.
(4) Permitted subject to the standards of the controlling document (Village and Barrio Master Plan or designated master
plan).
(5) Permitted subject to the provisions of Sections 21.83.060 and 21.83.080 of this chapter.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 227 of 321
EXHIBIT "28"
13. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.84.040 Table A and footnote 3 are amended
to read as follows:
Table A
Zones Where Housing for Senior Citizens Is Permitted
Zone Housing for Senior Citizens
R-3 MSDP/SDP1
R-P MSDP/SDP1, 2
R-T MSDP/SDP1
R-W MSDP/SDP1
RD-M MSDP/SDP1
V-8 See note 3, below
P-C See note 3, below
Note: Housing for senior citizens is prohibited in
those zones not indicated.
Notes:
Housing for senior citizens with four units or less shall be subject to the approval of a minor site development plan,
and housing for senior citizens with five units or more shall be subject to the approval of a site development plan.
The city may approve a minor site development plan or site development plan for housing for senior citizens on
property in the R-P zone where the general plan applicable to such property permits residential uses.
3 May be permitted subject to the standards of the controlling document (i.e., in V-B zone -Village and Barrio Master
Plan, and in P-C zone -applicable master plan) and the provisions of this chapter.
14. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.201.080 Cl.a.iii is amended to read as follows:
iii. Projects that require a minor site development plan, minor conditional use permit, or
minor variance, pursuant to the Village and Barrio Master Plan.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES LOCATED OUTSIDE THE
COASTAL ZONE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption; and the City Clerk shall
certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause the full text of the ordinance or a summary of the
ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to be published at least once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 228 of 321
EXHIBIT "28"
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE COASTAL
ZONE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption or upon Coastal Commission
approval of LCPA 14-01, whichever occurs later; and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
ordinance and cause the full text of the ordinance or a summary of the ordinance prepared by the City
Attorney to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad
within fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the __ _
day of , 2018, and thereafter
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the ___ day of _________ , 2018, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
CELIA A. BREWER, City Attorney
MATT HALL, Mayor
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk
(SEAL)
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 229 of 321
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, REPEALING THE VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL
AND APPROVING THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN, MP 14-01,
WHICH WOULD REGULATE DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE FOR THE VILLAGE
AND BARRIO, AN APPROXIMATELY 350-ACRE AREA GENERALLY WEST OF
INTERSTATE 5 AND BETWEEN LAGUNA DRIVE AND TAMARACK AVENUE IN
THE CITY'S NORTHWEST QUADRANT AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME:
CASE NO.:
VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
MP 14-01 (DEV08014)
EXHIBIT "2C"
April 18, 2018
WHEREAS, MP 14-01 constitutes a request for a Master Plan as (1) shown on Exhibit "MP 14-
01" dated April 18, 2018, and attached hereto and (2) contained in the Village and Barrio Master
Plan on file in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the release of the Village and Barrio Master Plan in January 2018,
staff made revisions to the master plan that are provided in errata; and
WHEREAS, for properties in the Coastal Zone, portions of MP 14-01, in combination with
other city ordinances, also serve as the Local Coastal Program for the Village and Barrio; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2018, May 2, 2018, and May 16, 2018, the Carlsbad Planning
Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider MP 14-01 and adopted Planning
Commission Resolution No. 7294 recommending the repeal of the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual and the approval of MP 14-01; and
WHEREAS, prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the City Planner posted on the Village
and Barrio Master Plan website (www.carlsbadca.gov/villagebarrio) a table and maps identifying all
properties within the boundaries of the Master Plan and relevant land use information for each
property, including existing and proposed General Plan land use designations, zoning, and land use
districts; and
. I
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 231 of 321
EXHIBIT "2C"
WHEREAS, the table and maps are on file in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by
reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the ___ day of ____ _, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council considered all factors, including written
public comments, if any, related to MP 14-01.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California,
ordains as follows that:
1. The above recitations are true and correct.
2. The findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 7294 shall also constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council.
3. The Village Master Plan and Design Manual is repealed.
4. MP 14-01, on file in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by reference, is
approved and replaces the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. MP 14-01 shall establish the land
use vision, goals, policies, standards, guidelines, permitted and prohibited uses, and other provisions
for the use and development of all property within the boundaries of MP 14-01, and all development
within the plan area shall conform to its provisions.
5. MP 14-01 replaces the general zoning regulations applicable to those portions outside
the boundaries ofthe Village Master Plan and Design Manual and within the boundaries of MP 14-01.
6. The approval of MP 14-01 includes errata dated April 18, 2018, May 2, 2018, and May
16, 2018, and any subsequent modifications, revisions, or additions approved by the City Council.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 232 of 321
EXHIBIT "2C"
7. Upon the effective date, MP 14-01 shall apply to development applications not yet
approved by the City of Carlsbad.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES LOCATED OUTSIDE THE
COASTAL ZONE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption; and the City Clerk shall
certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause the full text of the ordinance or a summary of the
ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to be published at least once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE COASTAL
· ZONE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption or upon Coastal Commission
approval of LCPA 14-01, whichever occurs later; and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
ordinance and cause the full text of the ordinance or a summary of the ordinance prepared by the City
Attorney to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad
within fifteen days after its adoption.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 233 of 321
EXHIBIT "2C"
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the Carlsbad City Coundl on the __ _
day of ____ , 2018, and thereafter
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the ___ day of _______ ~ 2018, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
CELIA A. BREWER, City Attorney
MATI HALL, Mayor
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk
(SEAL)
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 234 of 321
Village and Barrio Master Plan
Local Coastal Program Amendment -LCPA 14-01
Text changes to Local Coastal Program
Exhibit "2D"
April 18, 2018
(Strikethrough indicates text to be deleted and underline indicates text to be added.}
I. Proposed changes to Chapter I (Introduction}, Section D:
D. History
The City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program consists of ~six geographic segments: the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon LCP segment comprised of (all acreage figures are approximate) 1,100 acres;
the Carlsbad Mello I segment with 2,000 acres; the Carlsbad Mello II segment with ~5,250
acres; the West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties segment with 200 acres; the East Batiquitos
Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment with 1,000 acres, and the Village-Barrio segment with 150 acres.
The Village-Barrio segment has its own land use plan and implementation program and is not
However, since the City assurned perrnit authority for the Village /\rea Redeveloprnent segment
in Decernber of 1988 it will not be included in this document. See Exhibit 1-1, on page 5, for
segment locations.
Pursuant to the Public Resources Code Sections 30170 and 30171, the Coastal Commission was
required to prepare and approve an LCP for identified portions of the City. This resulted in the
two LCP segments known as the Mello I and Mello II segments (State legislator Henry Mello
sponsored the legislation which created sections 30170 and 30171). The Mello I and II LCPs were
approved by the Coastal Commission in September 1980 and June 1981, respectively. The Agua
Hedionda land use plan was prepared by the City and approved by the Coastal-Commission on
July 1, 1982.
Preparation of the Mello I, Mello II and Agua Hedionda segments resulted in a number of issues
and conflicts between the City and Commission over the years. These segments cover a good
portion of the city's coastal zone and contain substantial amounts of undeveloped property.
Among those issues which surfaced in the preparation of the LCPs were preservation of
agricultural lands, protection of steep sloping hillsides and erosion control. The City found the
policies of the certified J\llello I and II segments regarding preservation of a~riculture and steep
sloping hillsides to be unacceptable. Following the certification of Mello I and II, the City pursued
negotiations with the Commission through a City Council-formed special committee comprised of
Commission staff and City officials to resolve issues. In September of 1984 the Governor signed
Assembly Bill 3744 (effective January 1, 1985) which eliminated provisions for an "agricultural
subsidy program" in Carlsbad's coastal zone.
' In the summer of 1985, the City submitted two amendment requests to the Commission and, in
October 1985, the Commission certified amendments 1-85 -and 2-85 to the Mello I and II
segments . These major amendments to the LCP involved changes to the agricultural preservation,
steep slope and housing protection policies of the Mello I and II segments. After certification of
these amendments, the City adopted the Mello I and II LCP segments and began the process of
preparing documents for "effective" certification of the entire LCP.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 236 of 321
Exhibit "20"
April 18, 2018
The West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties segment was certified in 1985 along with a
coastal development permit for a project comprising the majority of the uplands within that
segment. The master plan (Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park) associated with this project
served as the LCP implementing ordinances.
The Village-Barrio segment resulted from the combination of the former Village Area segment
and an adjacent portion of the Mello II segment. Furthermore. +!he plan area of the Village Area
segment (previously titled "Village Area Redevelopment" segment) was itself formerly part of the
Mello II segment. In August 1984, the Commission approved the segmentation of this 100 acre
area from the remainder of the Mello II LCP segment and, at the same time, approved the
submitted land use plan for the area. In March of 1988, the Commission approved the
Implementation Program for the Village Area Redevelopment segment. The City assumed permit
authority for this segment on December 14, 1988. In November 2009, the title of this segment
was changed to the "Village Area" segment due to the imminent (July 2010) expiration of the
Village Redevelopment Plan; however, the boundaries and policies affecting this segment afe
were unchanged.
In {insert month, year}, the Commission approved the Village and Barrio Master Plan, expanded
the boundaries of the former Village Area segment to include the adjacent Barrio neighborhood
and changed its name to Village-Barrio segment. Since the Coastal Zone portion of the'Barrio was
in the Mello II segment, master plan approval included the transfer of this area from the Mello II
segment to the Village-Barrio segment. Additionally, several small properties within the
boundaries of the master plan were also transferred from the Mello II segment to the Village-
Barrio segment. By so doing, all Coastal Zone portions of the master plan are part of the same
segment. The Village and Barrio Master Plan serves as both the land use plan and implementation
program for the Village-Barrio segment.
The East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment is comprised of a portion of the original
Mello I area and an area annexed {1985) to Carlsbad in and around Batiquitos Lagoon. An area of
the segment known as Green Valley, south of the lagoon, the lagoon and the immediate north
shore were previously part of the County of San Diego LCP (uncertified). All of this property, at
the time of LCP preparation, was in one ownership (Hunt) and was the subject of the Pacific Rim
master plan covering the lagoon and north shore uplands. The segment was certified by the
Commission (land use and master plan as implementing ordinances) in March of 1988.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 237 of 321
ERRATA SHEET FOR AGENDA ITEM #1
EXHIBIT "2E-1"
C cityof
Carlsbad
Memorandum
April 18, 2018
To:
From:
Via
Re:
Planning Commission
Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
Don Neu, City Planner
Errata Sheet for Agenda Item #1-GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-
01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014}-VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
Staff is recomm'ending that the Planning Commission include the following revisions to the
Village and Barrio Master Plan (January 2018, Public Review Draft). Strikethrough indicates text
· to be deleted and underline indicates text to be added.
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
n/a n/a Under "Planning Commission," change "Velyn Anerson" to 'Velyn
Anderson."
CHAPTER 1 -INTRODUCTION
1-2 Section 1.3.1; Change overall Village and Barrio acreage from 325 to 350.
Overall Description
and Master Plan
Boundary
1-3 Figure 1-1, Master Revise the Coastal Zone boundary as shown in attached Exhibit 1. This
Plan Area, and affects multiple figures throughout the Master Plan. Revisions are the
other figures result of the California Coastal Commission's ongoing work with local
showing the Coastal jurisdictions to make minor adjustments that refine the boundary,
Zone boundary originally established in 1977, in a manner consistent with California
Coastal Act Section 30103(b).
1-5 Section 1.3.2, Change Village acreage from 210 to 215 acres.
Village
1-6 Section 1.3.3, Change Barrio acreage from 120 to 135.
Barrio
1-11 Policy 1.5.1.A.2 Change "Village core" to Village Center"
Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8560 fax
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 242 of 321
Errata sheet for Agenda item #1
April 18, 2018
Page 2
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
1-13 Section 1.5.1, Land Under Goal E., "Recognize and support the historical roots of the Village
Use and and Barrio," add new Policy 3, to read as follows:
Community "Comply with the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological
Character Resources Guidelines."
1-14 Section 1.5.2, Under Goal A, regarding supporting increased alternative modes of
Mobility and transportation, revise the note applying to Policy 9 as follows:
Parking (Note: this objective .QQ.!lfy_complements Objective q,1.2 Policy
1.5.4.A.2).
1-15 Section 1.5.2, Under Goal B, Policy 8, change Goal cross-reference as follows:
Mobility and ... (See also Goal -2-d 1.5.2.A)
Parking
1-18 Section 1.5.3, Change section number from 1.5.3 to 1.5.4.
Placemaking
1-19 Section 1.5.3, Change section number from 1.5.3 to 1.5.4.
Placemaking
CHAPTER 2 -LAND USE
, 2-5 Section 2.3, Land Remove standards regarding non-conforming lots, structures and uses
Uses from Section 2.3.1, Allowable Land Uses, and place them under a new ·
and separate section and heading as follows:
2.3.2 Non-conforming Lots, Structures and Uses
Non-conforming lots, structures and uses within the Village and
Barrio Master Plan area .shall be subject to a1;mlicable Qrovisions
within ChaQter 21.48 of the CMC.
2-5 Section 2.3, Land Remove standards regarding a development site that spans multiple
Uses districts (last paragraph on page 2-5) from Section 2.3.1, Allowable Land
Uses, and place them under a new and separate section and heading as
follows:
2.3.3 DeveloQment Site SQanning MultiQle Districts
A develoQment site that SQans multiQle districts shall be subject to
aQQroval of a site develoQment Qian, which shall establish the
develoQment standards for the site in a manner most consistent
with the underlying districts' standards. Any use that is Qermitted
or conditionally-Qermitted over a QOrtion of such a site shall be
Qermitted or conditionally-Qermitted anywhere on the site.
2-6 Table 2-1, -Under the "Residential" category, revise "Mixed-use" as follows:
Permitted Uses Mixed-use (see section 6.3.6 for decision making authority subject to
the uses Qermitted in this table)
2-7 Table 2-1, Under the "Civic" category, add "Mobility Hub" as a conditionally
Permitted Uses permitted use in the VC, Village Center, District.
2-9 Figure 2-2, Use Revise Figure 2-2 as shown in attached Exhibit 2 to better identify the
restrictions area in which certain uses are not permitted on the ground floor.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 243 of 321
Errata sheet for Agenda item #1
April 18, 2018
Page 3
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
2-20 Section 2.6.5 8.4, .Revise the fourth standard regarding signs as follows:
Sidewalk Cafes 1. No signs, including signs prohibited by CMC Section 21.41.030
21.51.030, or objects that would distract or impair motorists,
shall be attached or displayed on any part of the sidewalk cafe.
2-22 Table 2-3, Parking Under the 11residential" category, revise the parking standard for studio
Requirements and one bedroom units as follows:
Studio and one bedroom One space per unit. For condominiums,
units the si;:1ace must be covered.
2-23 Table 2-3; Parking Under the "lodging" category, remove 11mixed-use" and its parking
Requirements requirement and insert it under the "residential" category to follow
11managed living unit."
2-24 Table 2-3, Parking Under the 11other'' category:
Requirements ·1.
'
Delete 11cinema" and its parking requirement.
2. Indent 11curb cafe or sidewalk cafe" and 11outdoor display" so it
is clearer that these uses fall und~r the 11right of way uses"
heading.
2-27, Table 2-4, Parking Add the subheading "available to non-residential uses" at the top of the
2-28 Options table on each page as provided on page 2-26.
2-37 Section 2.7.1 A., Amend 2.7.1 A.1. as follows:
Setbacks A. Setbacks
1. Front/Corner: Minimum ofO feet; maximum of 5 feet to
building (at the ground floor). Additional depth permitted
where area includes a plaza, courtyard, or outdoor dining.
2-37 Section 2.7.1 E., Amend 2.7.1 E.1. a. as follows:
Open Space 1. Public Space
a. 500 square foot minimum plaza (exclusive of right of way)
with street furnishing, landscaping, accent trees, and lighting
shall be provided at each corner located at the following
intersections: Carlsbad Village Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard,
Carlsbad Village Drive and State Street, State Street and
. Grand Avenue, and Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding
Street. No vehicle access aisles or parking is permitted in this
area. This area shall also remain unobstructed to the sk'i
excei;:1t for limited i;:1rotrusions that contribute to building
architecture or street vibranc'i, such as awnings,
architectural features, ui;:1i;:1er floor balconies, and other non-
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 244 of 321
Errata sheet for Agenda item #1
April 18, 2018
Page 4
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
habitable SQace. Not more than 50 sguare feet of such
Qrotrusions shall Qroject over the reguired Qlaza area.
2-39 Section 2.7.1 G., Amend 2.7.1 G. as follows:
Building Height G. BUILDING HEIGHT
1. Maximum 45 feet and 4 stories
2. Ground floor plate height: 14 feet. This height shall be
measured from the finished floor to the toQ Qlate of the
ground floor or, where there is no "Qlate", to the bottom of
the floor structure of the second floor.
3. If a 4-story building is proposed:
a. A maximum of 30 percent of the fourth story street
facing fa~ade can have a 0-foot setback (as measured
from QroQerty line). The remaining 70 percent shall be
set back a minimum of 10 feet {as measured from
QroQerty line).
b. The total square footage of enclosed occupiable fourth
floor space shall not exceed 80 percent of the third-
floor footprint.
2-42 Section 2.7.1 J., Amend 2.7.1 J.1 as follows:
Railroad Corridor The primary use of the railroad corridor shall be for transportation
facilities and improvements that provide rail and transit services
and support facilities, as determined by NCTD. Accordingly, land
uses in the railroad corridor in each transect district are subject to
CMC Chapter 21.100, Transportation Corridor.
2-49 Section 2.7.3 A., A. Setbacks Setbacks 1. Parcels along Carlsbad Boulevard between Beech Avenue
and Carlsbad Village Drive:
a. Front: Minimum of O feet; maximum of 5 feet to
building (at the ground floor). Additional depth
permitted where one or more of the following are
provided: Plaza, courtyard, outdoor dining, enhanced
pedestrian connection, or landscaping.
b. Side: 0 feet
C. Rear: 0 feet
2-50 Section 2.7 .3 E Amend 2.7.3 E.2.a. as follows:
2. Public Space
a. 500 square foot minimum plaza {exclusive of right of way)
with street furnishing, landscaping, accent trees, and
lighting shall be provided at the intersection of Carlsbad
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 245 of 321
Errata sheet for Agenda item #1
April 18, 2018
Page 5
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
Village Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard. No vehicle access
aisles or Qarking is Qermitted in this area. This area shall
also remain unobstructed to the sky exceQt for limited
Qrotrusions that contribute to building architecture or
street vibrancy, such as awnings, architectural features,
UQQer floor balconies, and other non-habitable SQace. Not
more than 50 sguare feet of such Qrotrusions shall Qroject
over the reguired Qlaza area.
2-52 Section 2.7.3 G., Amend 2.7.3 G. as follows:
Building Height G. BUILDING HEIGHT
1. Maximum 45 feet and 4 stories
2. Ground floor plate height for buildings fronting Carlsbad
Boulevard: 14 feet. This height shall be measured from the
finished floor to the toQ Qlate of the ground floor or, where
there is no "Qlate", to the bottom of the floor structure of
the second floor.
3. If a 4-story building is proposed:
a. Parcels along Carlsbad Boulevard between Beech
Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive: A maximum of 30
percent of the fourth story street facing fa<;:ade can
have a 0-foot setback {as measured from QroQerty
line). The remaining 70 percent shall be set back a
minimum of 10 feet (as measured from QroQerty line).
b. All other Qarcels: A maximum of 30 Qercent of the
fourth storv street facing fac;ade can have a minimum
10-foot setback {as measured from QroQerty line). The
remaining 70 Qercent shall be set back a minimum of
15 feet {as measured from QroQerty line).
_c._The total square footage of enclosed occupiable fourth
floor space shall not exceed 80 percent of the third-
floor footprint.
2-57 Section 2.7.4 G., Amend 2.7.4 G. as follows:
Building Height G. BUILDING HEIGHT
1. Maximum 45 feet and 4 stories
2. If a 4-story bu ilding is proposed:
a. A maximum of 30 percent of the fourth story street
facing fa<;:ade can2 have a minimum G 10 foot setback
{as measured from QroQerty line). The remaining 70
percent shall be set back a minimum of .W15 feet (as
measured from QroQerty line). '
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 246 of 321
Errata sheet for Agenda item #1
April 18, 2018
Page 6
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
b. The total square footage of enclosed occupiable fourth
floor space shall not exceed 80 percent of the third-
floor footprint.
2-61 Section 2.7.5 G., Amend 2.7.5 G.2 as follows:
Building Height G. Building Height
2. Minimum ground floor plate height for commercial and ground
floor mixed-use: 12 feet. This height shall be measured from the
finished floor to the toQ Qlate of the ground floor or, where there
is no "Qlate", to the bottom of the floor structure of the second
floor.
2-61 Section 2.7.5, Amend this graphic to show a 12 ft., instead of 14 ft., minimum
Minimum Ground dimension.
Floor Plate Height
graphic
2-71 Section 2.8.1, Intent Revise the section reference in the last line of the second paragraph
from Section 5.3 .1 to Section 6.3.2.
CHAPTER 4-MOBILITY AND BEAUTIFICATION
4-2 Section 4.2, Revise the last paragraph on page 4-2 as follows:
Maximize Two initiatives are at play that can dramatically change the division
Connectivity of the community in the future. The first is the pla,n by NCTD and
SAN DAG to double-track the rail line; the second i~ the opportunity
to enhance street connections between the study area and the
eastern neighborhoods and provide attractive entry features,
"gateways," as a result of the proposed 1-5 enhancements Qlanned
as Qart of freeway widening {North Coast Corridor Project}.
4-5 Section 4.2, Amend the last paragraph on page 4-5 as follows:
Maximize Given its prominence and activity level, Grand Avenue could be
Connectivity connected under 1-5 as part of the overall North Coast Corridor
.P_f}roject to create an important connection for resident's east of
' the interstate. It would also provide at a minimum bike,
· pedestrian, emergency vehicle, and transit/parking shuttle access
. from the east side of the interstate to the beach, Village and
Barrio. Consideration of this underQass should occur as Qart of
discussions on a Qotential city hall exQansion or connectivity
imQacts to the Village and Barrio resulting from, for examQle,
' future imQrovements to the freeway and the l-5LSR 78
interchange.
4-14 Section 4.3.8, Add a fifth recommendation on page 4-14 as follows:
Provide Shade
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 247 of 321
Errata sheet for Agenda item #1
April 18, 2018
Page 7
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
5. Near railroad crossings, street tree i::1lacement must be carefully
considered to ensure trees do not reduce visibility of warning
devices or ai::1i::1roaching trains.
4-18 Section 4.3.10, Amend the last paragraph on page 4-18 as follows:
Festival An advantage of this street type is its flexibility; if it is desired to
Streets/Sha red temporarily close the street for a festival or an evening event, the
Space Streets resultant space is devoid of curbs and trip hazards and can be
given over 100% to people. During community engagement, this
concept was discussed as a possibility for Grand Avenue between
Roosevelt Street and the railroad tracks. Maintaining the curbs and
raised medians near the railroad crossing on Grand Avenue,
however, would be necessary to i::1rovide channelization to
discourage motorists from circumventing gate arms at the
crossing.
4-30 Section 4.3 .11 C., Revise the text on page 4-30 to clarify the median would remain as
Carlsbad Village follows:
Drive (Interstate 5 Proposed conditions would improve pedestrian facilities by
to Carlsbad extending the curb toward the centerline by approximately five
Boulevard)-Street feet and six inches to create a total sidewalk width of fourteen feet
Cross Section 3 and six inches on both sides, allowing for enhanced pedestrian
mobility, landscaping, and amenities such as street furniture.
Bicycle lanes would be replaced with sharrow markings to facilitate
the pedestrian enhancements. Right-of-way width, vehicle lanes
and the turn lane and median would remain the same. However,
removal of bicycle lanes should not take place until adequate
replacement bicycle facilities are provided on Oak Avenue, the
street parallel to and south of Carlsbad Village Drive. Such
adequate facilities are proposed on Oak Avenue.
4-56 Figure 4-32, Bicycle Revise the map to show an existing Class Ill Bike Route on Laguna Drive
Facilities between Jefferson and State streets.
4-63 Section 4.5.2, To the bulleted list on page 4-63, revise the last item as follows: -Managing Parking
and Increasing • Support the vision outlined lD_ef the Master Plan
Mobility
4-64 Section 4.5.2, To the bulleted list, add an additional item at the list's erid as follows:
Managing Parking • Transi::1ortation Demand Management and Increasing
Mobility
4-72 Section 4.5.2 E, In-At the second bullet point, amend the first sentence to read as follows:
Lieu Fees Allow funds to pay for parking program improvements -Amend
the policies related to the in-lieu fee program to allow the
collected funds to support shared i::1ublic parking and leased
i::1ublic parking that the city will broker.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 248 of 321
Errata sheet for Agenda item #1
April 18, 2018
Page 8
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
CHAPTER 6 -ADMINISTRATION
,
6-1 Section 6.2.1, Local Amend the paragraph as follows:
Coastal Program For properties within the Coastal Zone (shown in Figure 2-1), the
goals and policies in Chapter 1, the use and development
standards in Chapters 2 and 3, a-AG the administrative processes
of Chapter 6, and the definitions in Armendix A of this Master
Plan, together with CMC Chapters 15.12 -Stormwater
Management and Discharge Control, and 15.16 -Grading and
Erosion Control, as well as those provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance not superseded herein, shall constitute the Local
Coastal Program for the Village and Barrio.
6-2 Section 6.3, Permit Amend the first bulleted item as follows:
Requirements
1. The vision and objectives for the Village and Barrio as a
whole as described in Chapter 1-Introduction and Vision;
and
6-3 Section 6.3.2, Amend 6.3.2 A. and 6.3.2 A.1 as follows:
Exempt Projects A. The following improvements and activities are exempt from a
discretionary permit except as provided in Section §_§.3.2.C.
below:
1. One single-family detached dwelling (however, compliance
with Section 2.8.3, Residential Design Guidelines, 4e5igA
guidelines shall be required; additionally, a minor coastal
development permit shall be required if located in the
Coastal Zone);
6-4 Section 6.3.3, Correct paragraph numbering and a section subheading as follows:
to Permit Types A. Minor Site Development Plan
6-5 A, L The following improvements require ...
[renumber 1-8 to a-h]
.g., 2. All minor site development plans ...
B. Site Development Plan
A, L The following improvements require ...
[renumber 1-2 to a-b]
.g., 2. All site development plans ...
C. Minor Conditional Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit
[renumber A-D to 1-4]
D. Coastal Development Permit
A, L_Unless exempt, and e*cept as provided in paragraphs 8
and G shh.is section Section 6.3.2 B., all development
within the Coastal Zone of the Village and Barrio Master
Plan shall be subject to issuance of a minor coastal
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 249 of 321
Errata sheet for Agenda item #1
April 18, 2018
Page 9
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
development permit or coastal development permit in
accordance with the provisions of CMC Chapter 21.201.
-Eh 2. In addition to the decision-making authority ...
[renumber 1-2 to a-b]
6-6 Section 6.5, Amend the first sentence to read as follows:
Amendments Amendments to the Village and Barrio Master Plan shall be
processed in accordance with the provisions of CMC Chapter~
21.35 and 21.52.
APPENDIX A-DEFINITIONS
A-2 Dwellings Under the Dwelling category, delete the definitions of "Managed Living
Units" and "Mixed-Use;" relocate the definition of "Live/Work Unit" to
be after the definition of "Light Industrial."
A-3 Mixed-Use Dwelling Amend the definition as follows:
Mixed-Use DwelliRg: A building or portion thereof, designed for
occupancy by one or more families living independently of each
other, and containing one or more dwelling units in addition to
non-residential space (typically office, retail or other commercial
space). The non-residential space is typically located on the
ground floor.
APPENDIX C -FUNDING SOURCES
C-4 C.1.1, National Insert between third paragraph and "Environmental Justice"
Programs: Federal subheading, a new subheading and introductory paragraph, as follows:
Government D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc~ (EPAl
EPA's mission is to Qrotect human health and the environment.
Where and how we build communities has a major imQact on the
environment and on Qublic health. Many: EPA Qrograms are aimed
at helQing tribal, state, and local governments SUQQOrt activities
that build more sustainable communities and Qrotect human
health and the environment.
C-11 C.2.7, California Delete second paragraph (beginning at "Governor's Homeless
Department of Initiative") and third paragraph (beginning at "HOME Investment
Housing and Partnership Program"), and replace with the following:
Community A[tordable Housing and Sustainable Communities [AHSCl
Development (HCD) Program: AHSC e_rovides grants and affordable housing loans for
infill, transit-oriented develoQment, infrastructure activities.
Projects will demonstrate how they: SUQQOrt reduction of
' greenhouse gas emissions by: increasing accessibility: of housing,
emQloy:ment centers and key: destinations via low-carbon
transQortation OQtions resulting in fewer vehicle miles travelled.
Sue_e_ortive Housing Multi[amil'I.. Housing Program [SHMHPl:
SHMHP funds may: be used for new construction, rehabilitation,
acguisition and rehabilitation, or conversion of nonresidential
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 250 of 321
Errata sheet for Agenda item #1
April 18, 2018
Page 10
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
structures. Priority: Qoints are given to 1;1rojects using sustainable
building methods SQecified in state regulations. SHMHP funds are
for 1;1ermanent financing only:. Eligible costs include facilities for
child care, after-school care, and social service facilities integrally:
linked to the restricted housing units. Develo1;1ment costs may:
include real 1;1ro1;1erty: acguisition, refinancing to retain affordable
rents. necessar:y: on-site and off-site im1;1rovements. reasonable
fees and consulting costs, and ca1;1italized reserves.
Veterans Housing_ and Homelessness Prevention Prog_ram [VHHPl:
VHHP makes long-term loans for develo1;1ment or Qreservation of
rental housing for very: low-and low-income veterans and their
families. Funds are made available to s1;1onsors who are for-Qrofit
-or non1;1rofit cor1;1orations and 1;1ublic agencies. Availability: of
funds is announced annually: through a Notice of Funding
Availability:.
APPENDIX D -CHRONOLOGY
D-1 n/a Delete "D.1" from the heading
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 251 of 321
TAMARACK AV
LAG
U
N
A
D
R
CHINQUAPIN AV
MAGNOLIAAV
GRAND AV
HARDING STBASS
W
O
O
D
A
V
CYPRESSAV
STATE STOAK AV
CHRISTIANSEN WY
PINE AV
BEECH AV
PALM AV HIGHLAND DRHIBISCUSCR
CYNT
H
I
A
L
N
KNO
W
L
E
S
A
VBUENAVISTACRPACIFIC AV
CHESTNUT AV
WALNUT AVWASHINGTON STADAMS STDAVISAVHOME AV
PIOPICODRTYLER STROOSEVELT STLINCOLN STMAPLE AV MADISON STGARFIELD STACACIA AV ELMWOOD STJUNIPER AV
HEMLOCK AV
REDWOOD AV
STRATFORDLN
LINMAR LNEUREKAPLNAUTICAL DROCEAN STJEFFERSON STANCHORWYVILLAGEDR BUEN
A
P
L
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRMOU
N
T
AIN
VIE
W
DR
GARFIELD STCARLSBAD BLCARLSBAD BLCARLSBAD VILLAGE DR!"^
BP
VG
HOSP
HOSP
VC
FC
PT
BC
VBO
VBO
VBO
VBO
DISTRICTS
Village Center (VC)
Village General (VG)
Hospitality (HOSP)
Freeway Commercial (FC)
Pine-Tyler Mixed-use (PT)
Barrio Perimeter (BP)
Barrio Center (BC)
Village-Barrio Other (VBO)
Village and Barrio Master Plan Area
Coastal Zone Boundary
Railroad
Path: J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0011557_18\Errata_Exhibit2 - Patch.mxd0 500 1,000250Feet FErrata Exhibit 2Figure 2-2,
MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 2-9
Use Restrictions Map LAND USECHAPTER 2USE RESTRICTIONS (See Table 2-1)
Boundary of area in which certain usesare not permitted on the ground floor.
Boundary of area in which automobileservice and light industrial uses areconditionally permitted.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 253 of 321
SECOND ERRATA SHEET FOR AGENDA ITEM #1
EXHIBIT "2E-2
C cityof
Carlsbad
Memorandum
May 2, 2018
To:
From:
Via
Re:
Planning Commission
Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
Don Neu, City Planner
Second Errata Sheet for Agenda Item #1-GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP
14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCAlG-01 {DEV08014)-VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER
PLAN
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission include the following revisions to the
Village and Barrio Master Plan (January 2018 Public Review Draft). Strikethro1::1gh indicates text
to be deleted and underline indicates text to be added.
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
CHAPTER 4 -MOBILITY AND BEAUTIFICATION
4-3 Section 4.2, Add the following paragraph to accompany the three pictures that
Maximize depict railroad crossing options at and below street level at Carlsbad
Connectivity Village Drive:
Additionallt, lowering the rail line creates an oi;mortunitt for a central
green SQace between Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue that
links both sides of the track. As Qictured in this section, exQansion of
Rota!}'. Park eastward and over the tracks would result in a broad QUblic
area comQlemented and anchored bt the historic rail deQot. Potential
re-routing of the Coastal Rail Trail to the allet west of State Street {or
QOSsiblt as Qart of the central green as the Qictures dei;1ict) and new
i;1edestrian and bictcle crossings on Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand
Avenue would also enhance area connectivitt. Section 4.4.12 further
discusses relocation of the Coastal Rail Trail.
4-8 Section 4.3.2, Make Amend Section 4.3.2.3 as follows:
Carlsbad Accessible Consider intersection, street lighting, and sidewalk improvements that
provide accessible paths of travel from residential areas to important
destinations in and near the Village and Barrio destiRatioRs, such as the
Senior Center, Pine Avenue Park, the Post Office, aA4 businesses that
Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760°602-8560 fax
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 254 of 321
Second errata sheet for agenda item #1
May 2, 2018
Page 2
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
provide neighborhood goods and services, and City Hall and the Cole
Library.
4-10 Section 4.3.4, Allow Revise this section as follows:
on-street Parking in On-street parking buffers pedestrians from moving cars and calms Suitable Locations traffic by forcing drivers to stay alert. Parallel parking is the ideal
arrangement, because it keeps streets narrow. Diagonal parking is
acceptable on some shopping streets to provide more parking, as long
as the extra curb-to-curb width is not achieved at the expense of
sidewalk width. Angled on-street parking can also be used to retrofit
existing streets to provide additional parking for the Village and Barrio
within the existing curb-to-curb dimension. This has already been
accomplished, for example, along the west side of Madison Street
between Carlsbad Village Drive and Oak Avenue. In addition, back-in
angled 12arking can enhance sight-lines between drivers and bicyclists
and 12rovide other safety benefits. Areas that will allow for diagonal
parking will be developed at a later time. Parking strategies are
discussed in further detail in Section 4.5.
4-19 Settion 4.3.11, Amend the last paragraph on page 4-19 as follows:
' Street Design This section outlines potential street improvements to create great
streets within the Village and Barrio. See Figure 4-2 for street cross
section and plan locations. It is also 12ro12osed in conjunction with
Section 4.3.12, Intersection Design, and Section 4.4, Enhance the Bike
Network. This latter section 12rovides further detail regarding the many
bicycle facilities shown on the sections and Qlans and discussed in the
accom12anying text. An overall Bicycle Facilities ma12 {Figure 4-32) is also
12rovided. Further, and in regard to all im12rovements 12resented, note
the descriQtions, sections and Qlans are conce12tual only and subject to
further evaluation and refinement as 12rojects enter the design
engineering and Qermitting Qhases.
4-21 Section 4.3.11, Revise the second to the last paragraph of Section 4.3.11 A. (Grand
Street Design Avenue: The Grand Promenade-Street Cross Section 1) as follows:
Proposed conditions would convert the southern half of the right-of-
way to an enhanced pedestrian zone and two-way cycle track. The
resulting broad thirty-two-foot sidewalk would accommodate
additional landscaping, outdoor dining, street furnishings, and an ample
pedestrian walkway. Exce12t at intersections, alleys, and driveways, t+he
proposed two-way cycle track would be physically separated from
motor traffic and distinct from the sidewalk. Cycle tracks are an
exclusive bicycle facility that combines the user experience of a
separated path with the on-street infrastructure of a conventional
bicycle lane.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 255 of 321
Second errata sheet for agenda item #1
May 2, 2018
Page 3
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
4-23 Figure 4-4, Grand Amend the figure to show sharrows in both travel lanes.
Avenue Proposed
Conditions A
Figure 4-5, Grand Amend the figure to show sharrows in the travel lane.
Avenue Proposed
Conditions B
4-26 Figure 4-7, West In the text accompanying this figure, insert the following sentence
Carlsbad Village before the last sentence:
Drive, Proposed To increase mobility OQtions, small 12arking s12aces for neighborhood Condition electric vehicles {NEV) could be added as well. i
4-32· Figure 4-13, Oak Revise graphics to show two to three foot long angled stripes within the
Avenue: Proposed bike lane and adjacent to the parking lane. These stripes will indicate to
Conditions A-bicyclists to ride a safe distance away from car doors.
' Striping
4-33 Figure 4-14, Oak Amend the figure to show sharrows in both travel lanes.
Avenue: Proposed
Conditions B
4-34 Section 4.3.11 E. Amend the fourth paragraph as follows:
State Street-Street I
Cross Section 5 Proposed conditions would provide pedestrian improvements by
widening both sidewalks to twelve feet to accommodate street trees,
furnishings, and an ample pedestrian walkway. Bulb-outs could also be
added to expand opportunities for outdoor dining, or additional
landscaping and public art. Bicycle mobility would be enhanced through
the provision of sharrows. Shared lane markings, or "sharrows," are
road markings used to indicate a shared lane environment for bicycles
and automobiles~ and to Among other benefits, shared lane markings
reinforce the legitimacy of bicycle traffic on the street, reeommend
proper bieydist positioning, and may be eonfigl:lred to offer direetional
and ·.vayfinding g1:1idanee. Both vehicular travel lanes would be reduced
to ten feet in width and parallel parking lanes would remain at eight
feet in width.
4-36 Figure 4-16, State Revise the top graphic {the street section} to show bicyclists behind or
Street, Proposed ahead of the car and slightly off-center of the lane.
Condition
4-43 Figure 4-23, Tyler Revise the figure to show a sharrow in each travel lane.
Street: Proposed
Conditions C
4-44 Section 4.3.11 J. Revise the first sentence of the third paragraph under this section as
Harding Street {and fol!ows:
streets with more Proposed conditions are illustrated for two locations along Harding than 48' between Street, as figures 4-2, 4-25 4--ll, and 4,26 442-indicate. ,
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 256 of 321
Second errata sheet for agenda item #1
May 2, 2018
Page4
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
curbs) -Street
Cross Section 8
4-44 Section 4.3.11 J. Add the following paragraph to the bottom of the page:
Harding Sreet (and An interim im1:1rovement {not illustrated) is also 1:1ro1:1osed that would streets with more slow vehicle s1:1eeds and im1:1rove bicycling through restri1:1ing of the than 48' between
curbs) -Street existing street section shown in Figure 4-24. The generous, 14-foot
wide travel lanes currently in 1:1lace could be reduced to ten feet, the Cross Section 8 1:1arking lane widths decreased from eight feet to seven feet, and the
bike lane widths also decreased from six feet to five feet. Through these
reductions, three-foot wide buffers could be added on either side of
both bike lanes, 1:1roviding a buffer between bicyclists, moving vehicles
and 1:1arked cars.
4-45 Figure 4-25, Amend the figure to show sharrows in both travel lanes.
Harding Street:
Proposed
Conditions A (along
Pine Avenue Park ...
4-46 Figure 4-26, Amend the figure to show sharrows in both travel lanes.
Harding Street:
Proposed
Conditions B (North
of Pine Avenue) '
4-49 Section 4.3.12, Revise t_he introduction by adding the following sentence to the end of
Intersection Design the paragraph:
As with the street sections and Qlans Qresented in Section 4.3.12, the
intersection tyQes Qresented are conce1:1tual and subject to further
evaluation and refinement as street imQrovement Qrojects enter the
design engineering and Qermitting Qhase.
4-49 Section 4.3.12, Revise the third paragraph under Section 4.3.12 A. as follows:
Intersection Design Vehicle lane width reduction and in some cases travel lane removal are
recommended changes within the Village and Barrio street corridors.
These road diet improvements provide different ways to address
vehicular circulation and can include neighborhood traffic circles afl-G
or ro1,mdabouts at intersections. The traffic circle treatment will be
possible at several locations within the Barrio and is dependent on the
preferred mobility treatment options along each street corridor.
' 4-50 Section 4.3.12, Revise Section 4.3.12 A., Figures 4-28, 4-29, and 4-30, in addition to
to Intersection Design any individual figure comments below, so that they depict bike lanes,
4-52 crosswalks, and other markings and improvements according to city
standards. As an example, bike lanes and cycle tracks approaching
intersections should be shown to terminate approximately 50 to 200-
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 257 of 321
Second errata sheet for agenda item #1
.May 2, 2018
Page 5
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
feet from the intersections so it is clear bicyclists may merge into
traffic lanes to safely continue through intersections.
4-50 Section 4.3.12, Revise Section 4.3.12 A., Intersection Type A by adding a second
Intersection Design paragraph as follows:
This exhibit is illustrative of how a 4-way stoQ would be stri1;1ed to
1;1rovide maximum safety for Qedestrians. This assumes that a 4-way
stoQ is warranted by traffic volumes and assignment of who has right
of way.
4-51 Section 4.3.12, Revise Section 4.3 .12 A, Intersection Type B, by adding the following
Intersection Design sentence to the end of the paragraph:
In addition, this exhibit assumes that a 4-way stoQ is warranted by
traffic volumes and assignment of who has right of way.
4-52 Section 4.3.12, 1. Revise Section 4.3.12 A., Intersection Type C, so that the first
Intersection Design, sentence of the paragraph states: "There are several
and Figure 4-30, intersections within the Barrio that could include neighborhood
Intersection Type C traffic circles or roundabouts depending on the individual street
corridor mobility improvements."
2. Revise Figure 4-30, including its caption, to identify a
"neighborhood traffic circle" instead of a "roundabout."
4-53 Section 4.3.12, Revise the fourth bullet point of Section 4.3.12 B. to read as follows:
Intersection Use all-way stops only if they meet engineering warrants if traffiE Designs Ealrning de>riEes are infeasible or too Eost1,1,.
4-54 Figure 4-31, Traffic 1. Revise the legend as follows:
Calming Treatments A. ProQosed Shared Space Intersection
B. ProQosed Traffic Circle
C. Pro1;1osed AEk=J. Bulb-Out
D. Existing Neighborhood Traffic Circle Roundabout.
2. Revise the figure caption as follows: Figure 4-31, Barrio Traffic
Calming Treatments.
4-55 Section 4.4, Revise the third paragraph as follows:
Enhance the Bicycle Existing and proposed bicycle network facilities are illustrated in Figure Network 4-32, Bicycle Facilities, and described as defined by Caltrans. Street
design recommendations contained in Section 4.3, Create Livable
Streets, and s1;1ecifically subsections 4.3.11 and 4.3.12, incorporate
bicycle facility recommendations in context with other right-of-way
improvements. Descriptions of specific improvements and types of
bicycle·facilities are provided below.
I .
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 258 of 321
Second errata sheet for agenda item #1
May 2, 2018
Page 6
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
Section 4.4, 1. Revise the Class Ill Bike Route graphic to show the bicyclists
Enhance the Bicycle riding in line with the sharrow.
Network 2. Revise the Class IV Cycle Track graphic to emphasize the cycle
track and the bicyclist using it.
4-57 Section 4.4.2, Class Amend the paragraph to read as foilows:
II Lanes
Class II bikeways are bike lanes established along streets and are
defined by pavement striping and signage to delineate a portion of a
roadway for bicycle travel. Bike lanes are one-way facilities, typically
striped adjacent to motor traffic travelling in the same direction.
Contraflow bike lanes can be provided on one-way streets for bicyclists
travelling in the opposite direction. A buffered bike lane, as depicted in
Figure 4-19 for Carlsbad Boulevard, provides greater separation from an
adjacent traffic lane and/or between the bike lane and on-street
parking by using chevron or diagonal markings. Greater separation can
be especially useful on streets with higher motor traffic speeds or
volumes. The placement of chevron or diagonal ma rkings, whether
adjacent to travel andLor parking lanes, reguires evaluation of relative
hazards of both the volumes and speeds of the moving vehicles and the
characteristics of the parked car {turnover, for example). This
evaluation, together with engineering judgment, will guide the
placement and size of buffers.
4-57 Section 4.4.3, Class Revise the title and text of this section as follows:
Ill routes
4.4.3 Class Ill Routes and Sharrows
Class Ill bikeways, or bike'routes, designate a preferred route for
bicyclists on streets shared with motor traffic not served by dedicated
bikeways to provide continuity to the bikeway network. Bike routes are
generally not appropriate for roadways with higher motor traffic speeds
or volumes. Bike routes are established by placing bike route signs and
optional shared roadway markings (sharrow2_} along roadways.
Shared lane markings, or "sharrows," are road markings used to
indicate a shared lane environment for bicY'.cles and automobiles.
Sharrows are found on Carlsbad Village Drive adjacent to Interstate 5
and on Laguna Drive. Sharrows are also depicted on manY'. plans and
sections in Section 4.3.11, including figures 4-11, 4-16, and 4-17. Among
other benefits, these shared lane markings reinforce the legitimacY'. of
bicY'.cle traffic on the street, recommend proper bicY'.clist positioning,
and maY'. be configured to offer directional and waY'.finding guidance.
Sharrows are recommended, for example, on streets proposed for CY'.cle
tracks {Grand Avenue, Oak Avenue, and Harding Street) to clarifY'. that
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 259 of 321
Second errata sheet for agenda item #1
May 2, 2018
Page 7
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
desQite the 12resence of the cycle tracks, bicyclists may continue to ride
in the streets.
A liberal applkation of sharrows throughout the Village and Barrio
neighborhoods is recommended will ee a·1313lieEI iR eFEleF to emphasize
the notion that these neighborhoods are bicycle friendly. On some
busier routes, sharrows can receive a green or black 'backing' to make
them stand out on the road more. Sharrows can also be painted in a
larger size so that they take up more of the road to make them stand
out more. For example, if sharrows are installed on Carlsbad Village
Drive after cycle tracks are installed on Grand Avenue and Oak Avenue,
these should include a green treatment in order to make them stand
out more. Shared routes may be used more by confident riders who
prefer not to ride on cycle tracks that tend to cater to more timid and
slower riders.
4-57 Section 4.4.4, Revise this section as follows:
Bicycle Boulevard A Bicycle Boulevard is a shared roadway intended to prioritize bicycle
travel for people of all ages and abilities. Bicycle Boulevards are
typically sited on streets without large truck or transit vehicles, and
where traffic volumes and speeds are already low, or can be further
reduced through use of traffic calming to minimize vehicular use of and
SQeed through these streets.
4-58 Section 4.4.5, Cycle Revise the text discussion as follows:
Track
A Class IV separated bikeway, often referred to as a cycle track or
protected bike lane, is for the exclusive use of bicycles, physically
separated from motor traffic with a vertical feature. The separation
may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts,
inflexible barriers, or on-street parking. Separated bikeways can
provide for one-way or two-way travel. By providing physical
J separation from motor traffic, Class IV bikeways can reduce the level of
stress, improve comfort for more types of bicyclists, and contribute to
an increase in bicycle volumes and mode share.
[new paragraph] Cycle tracks have been built throughout the United
States and much guidance is .. available for their QroQer design. One local
example of a two-way Class IV seQarated bikeway 13ath iR NeFth Ceunty
would be the strip of the Coastal Rail Trail that extends between
Carlsbad and Oceanside along the Coast Highway. Both one-way and
two-way cycle tracks can be installed as appropriate in order to create
more accessible bikeways. Specifically, as shown in figures 4-4, 4-14, 4-
25, and 4-26, cycle tracks should be implemented on Harding Street,
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 260 of 321
Second errata sheet for agenda item #1
May 2, 2018
Page 8
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
Oak Avenue, and Grand Avenue in order to provide safe and accessible
places for interested but concerned bicyclists to ride.
Cycle tracks will need to be clearly marked, clearly visible, and signalized
' {with bicycle-signals) where ai;:rnroQriate to ensure that both cyclists
and motorists are aware of each other. Dashed cycle track markings
across alleyways and driveways, for examQle, as shown in figures 4-4
and 4-26 for Grand Avenue and Harding Street, resQectively, are a
recommended method to increase awareness at QOtential conflict
Qoints.
Additionally, as facilities Qhysically seQarated from the roadways,
Qrotected bike lanes are intended for casual bicyclists and are not likely
to be used by seasoned bicyclists. Therefore, it is imQortant to add ;
sharrows to roadways adjacent to cycle tracks to clarifv bicyclists may
continue to use the street. Cycle track imQlementation should be
accomQanied by an education camQaign as well to alert both bicyclists
and motorists that continued use of the street by bicyclists is
atceQtable.
4-58 Section 4.4.6, Amend the first sentence of the first paragraph to read as follows:
Creating Safer The vast majority of bicycle-motorist collisions occur at intersections, Intersections alleys and driveways, marking them as an important design
. consideration in creating bicycle infrastructure.
\.,
4-61 Section 4.4.12, Amend the second paragraph as follows:
Coastal Rail Trail Improvements to the Coastal Rail Trail are recommended at the entry Improvements points to the Class I portion of the trail at Tamarack and Oak Avenues.
At Tamarack Avenue1 providing a crossing to enable bicyclists and
pedestrians to cross the street is recommended. The crossing would
also enable turning movements across Tamarack Avenue such that
southbound bicyclists on the Coastal Rail Trail could turn left {east) on
Tamarack Avenue and eastbound bicyclists on the street could turn left
{north) onto the trail. Due to the trail's Qroximity to the railroad, and
since the cross may reguire modifications to the street median,
imQrovements would reguire coordination with and aQQroval by NTCD.
At Oak Avenue, enhancements are recommended to improve the
transition from the Class I Trail to Oak Avenue. These improvements
would include signs and sharrows to alert both motorists and bicyclists
to each other's presence.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 261 of 321
Second errata sheet for agenda item #1
May 2, 2018
Page 9
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
4-61 Section 4.4.12, The third paragraph describes bicycle infrastructure improvements
Coastal Rail Trail recommended for the State Street and Carlsbad Boulevard roundabout.
Improvements Supplement this text description with graphics (e.g., pictures and/or
plans) to illustrate the recommended changes.
4-61 Section 4.4.12, Revise the last paragraph on the page as follows:
Coastal Rail Trail Routing of the Coastal Rail Trail along the alley would also require Improvements coordination with NCTD and would likely J.i.ke result in the loss of public
parking, particularly along the west side of State Street between
Carlsbad Village Drive and Oak Avenue. Coordination with NCTD would
be necessary in light of the possibility of railroad trenching, future
redevelopment, and the determination of how the rerouted Coastal
Rail Trail would connect with existing trail improvements in the vicinity
of the roundabout and on into Oceanside. Section 4.2 depicts how a
relocated Coastal Rail Trail could look with the railroad below street
level and with a Carlsbad Village Drive crossing. A central green space
over the lowered tracks also is depicted and suggests an alternative
alignment for the trail that is west of the alley.
4-66 Section 4.5.2, Under Section 4.5.2 A. on page 4-66, revise the Back-in Angled Parking
Managing Parking bullet point text to read as follows:
and Increasing Back-In Angled Parking-This type of parking, also known as reverse Mobility angle parking, requires the user to back into a parking space with the
rear of the vehicle in the opposite direction of travel. The back-in
angled parking strategy has been applied because of the safety
enhancements realized for users leaving a parking.space. A user can
easily see oncoming traffic (and bicyclists) and exit the parking space in
a much safer manner. Moreover, drivers and passengers exit toward
the sidewalk when the doors are open, which is safer for young
children. It is also safer to load packages into the trunk or rear of the
vehicle from the sidewalk than the street.
CHAPTER 5 -IMPLEMENTATION
5-1 5.1, Introduction Delete the fourth bullet point, "Roles and Responsibilities."
5-6 Section 5.5, Roles · Delete this section.
and Responsibilities
CHAPTER 6 -ADMINISTRATION
6-4 Section 6.3.3, Revise Sections 6.3.3 A. A.4, (Minor Site Development Plans) as follows :
Permit Types 4. Additions to existing structures which result in a cumulative increase
of the internal floor area flt-of 10 to 50 percent or more, up to a
maximum 5,000 sguare feet, whichever is less regaraless of SEJl:lare
footage, a As {2:) of more tl:iaA 2:,§QQ SEJl:lare feet a As l:ll3 to a
maiiiml:lm §,QQQ SEJl:lare feet, regaraless of tl:ie 13erEeAtage iAErease
of iAterAal floor area; ,
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 262 of 321
Second errata sheet for agenda item #1
May 2, 2018
Page 10
Page Section, Figure or Recommended change
# Table
6-4 Section 6.3.3, Revise Section 6.3.3 B.A.2 (Site Development Plans) as follows:
Permit Types Additions to existing structures which result in a cumulative increase of
the internal floor area of more than 5,000 square feet or 50 percent e-f
J:leeF aFea, FegaFElless eJ:tJie 13eFEeAtage iAEFease el: iAtemal J:leeF aFea.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 263 of 321
THIRD ERRATA SHEET FOR AGENDA ITEM #1
Memorandum
May 16, 2018
To: Planning Commission
From: Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
Via Don Neu, City Planner
EXHIBIT "2E-3"
C cityof
Carlsbad
Re: Third Errata Sheet for Agenda Item #1-GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP
14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014)-VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER
PLAN
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission include the following revisions to the Village
and Barrio Master Plan (January 2018, Public Review Draft) to incorporate decisions made by the
Planning Commission at the May 2, 2018 meeting. These revisions are in addition to those
presented in the first and second errata. In some cases, changes from the earlier errata are also
shown in the table below because they would be changed by this third errata or because they
provide context and the complete record of all errata changes recommended for a particular
section .
To differentiate the changes proposed by the three errata, please use the following key:
• Changes proposed by the first and second errata:
o Strikethrough indicates text proposed to be deleted
o Underline indicates text proposed to be added
• Changes proposed by the third errata:
o 9~H~bl@ stfiket~rn~g~ indicates text proposed to be deleted
o Double underline indicates· text proposed to be added
o Bold indicates text to be emphasized
o Underline and strikethrough indicates text proposed by the second errata but
recommended for deletion by the third errata
Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8560 fax July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 264 of 321
Third Errata Sheet for Agenda Item #1
May 16, 2018
Page 2
Page# Section, Figure
or Table
CHAPTER 2-LAND USE
2-6 Table 2-1,
Permitted Uses
2-8 Table 2-1,
Permitted Uses
2-9 Figure 2-2, Use
Restrictions Map
2-37 Section 2.7.1 E.,
Village Center
District Open
Space
Recommended change
Under the "Lodging" category, revise "Timeshare Project" as
follows:
Time Share Project (prohibited in combination with residential
uses in the same building or on the same lot}
Revise footnote two of Table 2-1 as follows:
2Not permitted on the ground floor street frontage as
identified in Figure 2-2.
Revise Figure 2-2 as shown in attached Exhibit 1 by amending
the use restrictions legend regarding ground floor uses as
follows:
Boundary of area in which certain uses are not permitted on
the ground floor street frontage.
Note: This change amends the first errata Exhibit 2.
Amend 2.7.1 E.1. a. as follows:
1. Public Space
a. A plaza. a minimum 500 square fflm feet or 7.5
percent of lot area. whichever is less Fl'li~iFl'lei~
~ (exclusive of right of way), with street
furnishing, landscaping, accent trees, and lighting"'
shall be provided at each corner located at the
following intersections: Carlsbad Village Drive and
Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad Village Drive and
State Street, State Street and Grand Avenue, and
Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street. No
vehicle access aisles or parking is permitted in this
area. This area shall also remain unobstructed to
the sky exceQt for limited Qrotrusions that
contribute to building architecture or street
vibrancy, such as awnings, architectural features,
UQQer floor balconies, and other non-habitable
SQace. Not more than 50 sguare feet of such
Qrotrusions shall Qroject over the reguired Qlaza
area.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 265 of 321
Third Errata Sheet for Agenda Item #1
May 16, 2018
Page4
2-40 Section 2.7 .1,
Village Center
Supplemental
District
Standards
2-52 Section 2.7.3,
Hospitality
District
Supplemental
District
Standards
I
2-71 Section 2.8,
Area-Wide
Design
Guidelines
1. Add new Section 2.7.11., Ground Floor Uses, as follows:
,. GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTAGE USES
1. New ground floor street frontage uses germitted
within the boundaries of the use restriction area
identified on Figure 2-2 shall occug:i more than one-
half of the habitable sgace develoged on the ground
floor and shall sgan at least 80 gercent of the
building frontage.
2. Ug to 20 gercent of a building frontage ma:i be used
for a lobb:i or entr:iWa:i to uses above or behind
ground floor street frontage uses.
2. Renumber existing Section 2.7.11., Good Neighbor, to 2.7.1
J.; and existing Section 2.7.1 J., Railroad Corridor, to 2.7.1 K.
1. Add new Section 2.7.3 I., Ground Floor Uses, as follows:
,. GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTAGE USES
1. New ground floor street frontage uses germitted
within the boundaries of the use restriction area
identified on Figure 2-2 shall occug~ more than one-
half of the habitable sgace develoged on the ground
floor and shall sgan at least 80 gercent of the
i building frontage.
2. Ug to 20 gercent of a building frontage ma~ be used
for a lobb~ or entr~wa~ to uses above or behind
ground floor street frontage uses.
2. Renumber existing Section 2.7.3 I., Master Site Plan, to
2.7.3 J.
Revise the second paragraph of Section 2.8.1, Intent, to read
as follows:
All development should align with the spiritand intent of the
design guidelines presented in this chapter. Designers and
developers should consider at a minimum ~e aware that
these guidelines are a ~it:ii~lH~ starting point for quality
development, and do not comprise every possible strategy for
achieving high quality design. Therefore, it is prudent that
designers use their own techniques for achieving authentic,
high quality design. The following guidelines apply to all new
and remodeled development within the entire Master Plan
Area unless exempt as determined by Section 6.3.2 .§..,3..d.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 267 of 321
Third Errata Sheet for Agenda Item #1
May 16, 2018
Page 5
CHAPTER 4-MOBILITY AND BEAUTIFICATION
4-21 Section 4.3.11 Amend the section by adding a new paragraph before the final
A., Grand paragraph as follows:
Avenue:The
Grand Additional!~. alternatives could be considered to maximize the
Promenade-gromenade's width. For examgle, the c~cle tracks in figures 4-
Street Cross 4 and 4-5, degicted below the level of the sidewalk, could also
Section 1 be raised flush with it, creating a single, level surface from the
store fronts to the landscaged median. In this configuration,
the c~cle track could remain distinct from the sidewalk
through the use of unigue gavers, brick banding, or other
differentiating means. Much like festival or shared sgace
streets discussed in the grevious section, the greater width
enabled b~ a single level gromenade would benefit sgecial
events while still retaining the segarate functions of a c~cle
track and sidewalk at all other times.
4-23 Figure 4-4, Do not amend the figure to show sharrows in both travel
Grand Avenue lanes, as recommended in the second errata.
Proposed
Conditions A
4-24 Figure 4-5, Do not amend the figure to show sharrows in the travel lane,
Grand Avenue as recommended in the second errata.
Proposed
Conditions B
4-30 Figure 4-11, Revise the figure to delete the sharrows shown. Revise the
Carlsbad Village paragFaph accompanying and above the figure by deleting the
Drive: Proposed following sentence:
Conditions, and 8i@;!@I@ lalcl@£ W€ltil€1 ti@ ~@~la@@€! ti;! £1cla~~€l\l;! ma~l~ilclf!£ t€l accompanying
text faeilitat@ ~@€1@:;t~ialcl @lcllclalcl@@m@lclt£.
4-33 Figure 4-14, Oak Do not amend the figure to shc;iw sharrows in both travel
Avenue: lanes, as recommended in the second errata.
Proposed
Conditions B
4-45 Figure 4-25, Do not amend the figure to show sharrows in both travel
Harding Street: lanes, as recommended in the second errata.
Proposed
Conditions A
(along Pine
Avenue Park)
4-46 Figure 4-26, Do {lOt amend the figure to show sharrows in both travel
Harding Street: lanes, as recommended in the second errata.
Proposed
Conditions B
(North of Pine
Avenue)
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 268 of 321
Third Errata Sheet for Agenda Item #1
May 16, 2018
Page 6
4-57 Section 4.4.3,
Class Ill routes
Revise the title and text of this section as follows:
4.4.3 Class Ill Routes and Sharrows
Class Ill bikeways, or bike routes, designate a preferred route
for bicyclists on streets shared with motor traffic not served by
dedicated bikeways to provide continuity to the bikeway
network. Bike routes are generally not appropriate for
roadways with higher motor traffic speeds or volumes. Bike
routes are established by placing bike route signs and optional
shared roadway markings (sharrow~) along roadways.
Shared lane markings, or "sharrows," are road markings used
to indicate a shared lane environment for bicl'.'.cles and
automobiles. Sharrows are found on CarlsbadVillage Drive
adjacent to Interstate 5 and on Laguna Drive. Sharrows are
also deQicted on manl'.'. Qlans and sections in Section 4.3.11,
including figures 4-±±, 4-16, and 4-17. Among other benefits,
these shared lane markings reinforce the legitimacl'.'. of bicl'.'.cle
traffic on the street, recommend QroQer bicl'.'.clist QOsitioning,
and mal'.'. be configured to offer directional and wal'.'.finding
guidance. 1;1::iaFrev,1s are reEeFf!Ff!eAEleEI, fer e~EaffiE!le, eA
streets E!FBE!eseEI fer E12•Ele traEks {GraAEI AveAl:le, Qal~ A1,1eRl:le,
a REI MaFEliAg 1;tFeet} te Elarif>i tl::iat Eles(:!ite tl::ie E!FeseAEe el: tl::ie
Eyde tFaEks, biEydists Ff!ay rnAtiAl:le te ride iR tl::ie streets.
A liberal application of sharrows throughout the Village and
Barrio neighborhoods is recommended will be applieEI iA erEler
to emphasize the notion that these neighborhoods are bicycle
friendly. On some busier routes, sharrows can receive a green
or black 'backing' to make them stand out on the road more.
Sharrows can also be painted in a larger size so that they take
up more of the road to make them stand out more.~
@lliH¥ll§ll@1 ih!;ie1r1c@il's e11c@ ii,iste1ll@el @i,i 6e1rlsl,rnel l1tille1g@ ~1cii1!@
e1ft@1c @•1,ed@ t1ce1@!,s iilF@ ii,iste1ll@€1 @i,t 61ce11,1el i!l~a'@i,tl;I@ e11,1el Gal~
."N@i,tl;I@, tl;i@s@ sl;i@1;1!el ii,igl1;1el@ a grn@i,i tr1se1tm1si,it ii,i @r€1@r t@
me1l,1s tl,i@m sta"'el @1;1t meJrn. Shared routes may be used more
by confident riders who prefer not to ride on cycle tracks that
tend to cater to more timid and slower riders.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 269 of 321
Third Errata Sheet for Agenda Item #1
May 16, 2018
Page 7
4-58 Section 4.4.5,
Cycle Track
,.~'
\
I
Revise the text discussion, as originally recommended by the
second errata, to delete the last paragraph as shown:
A Class IV separated bikeway, often referred to as a cycle track
or protected bike lane, is for the exclusive use of bicycles,
physically separated from motor traffic with a vertical feature.
The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade
separation, flexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on-street
parking. Separated bikeways can provide for one-way or two-
way travel. By providing physical separation from motor
traffic, Class IV bikeways can reduce the level of stress,
improve comfort for more types of bicyclists, and contribute
to an increase in bicycle volumes and mod.e share.
[new paragraph] Cycle tracks have been built throughout the
United States and much guidance is available for their 1:2ro1:2er
design. One local example of a two-way Class IV se1:2arated
bikeway path in North County would be the strip of the
Coastal Rail Trail that extends between Carlsbad and
Oceanside along the Coast Highway. Both one-way and two-
way cycle tracks can be installed as appropriate in order to
create more accessible bikeways. Specifically, as shown in
figures 4-4, 4-14, 4-25, and 4-26, cycle tracks should be
implemented on Harding Street, Oak Avenue, and Grand
Avenue in order to provide safe and accessible places for
interested but concerned bicyclists to ride.
Cycle tracks will need to be clearly marked, clearly visible, and
signalized (with bicycle-signals) where a1:21:2ro1:2riate to ensure
that both cyclists and motorists are aware of each other.
Dashed cycle track markings across alleyways and driveways,
for exam1:2le, as shown in figures 4-4 and 4-26 for Grand
Avenue and Harding Street, res1:2ectively, are a recommended
method to increase awareness at 1:2otential conflict QOints.
AElsitionally, as faeilities ~h1•sieallv se~arates t:rorn the
roaElwa1ts, ~roteeteEI 13il~e lanes are intenEleEI for easual
13iE'iElists an El are not lil~el1r to 13e .uses sv seasoneEI 13ie1i•elists.
+herefure, it is irn~ortant to aEIEI sharro1.vs to roas1,•,<a1•s
asjaeent to e1•ele trael~s to elarif:v 13iE1tElists rna1t Eontinue to
use the street. C1rele trael~ irn~lernentation shoulEI 13e
aeeorn~anies 131t an eElueation earn~aign as well to alert 130th
13ieyelists ans rnotorists that eontinueEI use of: the street S'J'
13ievelists is aeee~tasle.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 270 of 321
TAMARACK AV
LAG
U
N
A
D
R
CHINQUAPIN AV
MAGNOLIAAV
GRAND AV
HARDING STBASS
W
O
O
D
A
V
CYPRESSAV
STATE STOAK AV
CHRISTIANSEN WY
PINE AV
BEECH AV
PALM AV HIGHLAND DRHIBISCUSCR
CYNT
H
I
A
L
N
KNO
W
L
E
S
A
VBUENAVISTACRPACIFIC AV
CHESTNUT AV
WALNUT AVWASHINGTON STADAMS STDAVISAVHOME AV
PIOPICODRTYLER STROOSEVELT STLINCOLN STMAPLE AV MADISON STGARFIELD STACACIA AV ELMWOOD STJUNIPER AV
HEMLOCK AV
REDWOOD AV
STRATFORDLN
LINMAR LNEUREKAPLNAUTICAL DROCEAN STJEFFERSON STANCHORWYVILLAGEDR BUEN
A
P
L
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRMOU
N
T
AIN
VIE
W
DR
GARFIELD STCARLSBAD BLCARLSBAD BLCARLSBAD VILLAGE DR!"^
BP
VG
HOSP
HOSP
VC
FC
PT
BC
VBO
VBO
VBO
VBO
DISTRICTS
Village Center (VC)
Village General (VG)
Hospitality (HOSP)
Freeway Commercial (FC)
Pine-Tyler Mixed-use (PT)
Barrio Perimeter (BP)
Barrio Center (BC)
Village-Barrio Other (VBO)
Village and Barrio Master Plan Area
Coastal Zone Boundary
Railroad
Path: J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEconDev\Planning\RITM0011557_18\ThirdErrata_Exhibit1 - Patch.mxd0 500 1,000250Feet FThird Errata, Exhibit 1Figure 2-2,
MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 2-9
Use Restrictions Map LAND USECHAPTER 2USE RESTRICTIONS (See Table 2-1)
Boundary of area in which certain usesare not permitted on the ground floorstreet frontage.
Boundary of area in which automobileservice and light industrial uses areconditionally permitted.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 271 of 321
EXHIBIT "2E-4"
C cicyof
Carlsbad
May 16, 2018
FOURTH ERRATA SHEET FOR VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN -
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014)
On May 16, 2018, the Planning Commission recommended additional changes to the Village
and Barrio Master Plan. The table below contains changes prepared by staff to implement the
Commission's recommendations. The revisions are in addition to those produced in three prior
errata sheets for the April 18, May 2, and May 16, 2018, Planning Commission meetings.
In the table below, underline indicates text to be added.
Page# Section, Figure or Recommended change
Table
1-19 Section 1.5.3, Upder Goal B., revise Policy 7 as follows:
Placemaking (note: to
be renumbered to 7. As part of street improvements, consider new and
Section 1.5.4) enhanced entry and neighborhood features, whether
through landscaping, public art, specially-designed street
name signs, or other means, that identify the Village and
Barrio as unique places.
2-13 Section 2.6.1 C., Amend Section 2.6.1 C.4. as follows:
Property Line
walls/fences 3. Razor wire, barbed wire, cyclone and chain link fencing
(except as noted below), or other similar fences are
prohibited. Cyclone or chain link fencing existing as of the
Master Plan's adoption date is permitted to remain.
2-22 Table 2-3, Parking Under the "residential" category, revise the parking standard for
Requirements multiple-family units with two or more bedrooms as follows:
Units with two or more One and a half spaces per unit.
bedrooms (all districts For condominiums, one space
except BP and BC) must be covered. Tandem
parking is permitted.
Units with two or more Two spaces per unit. For
bedrooms (BP and BC condominiums, one space must
districts only) be covered. Tandem parking is
permitted.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 272 of 321
Fourth Errata Sheet for Village and Barrio Master Plan
May 16, 2018
Page 2
4-40 Section 4.3.11 H, Amend the section title and second paragraph in this section as
Barrio/Village follows:
Transition
G. Barrio/Village Transition and Barrio Identification
Similar improvements to Roosevelt and Madison Streets
south of Carlsbad Village Drive, along the one block stretch
to Oak Avenue, could serve to attractively demarcate the
transition from the Village to the Barrio. They should also
help facilitate pedestrian street crossings between
businesses as well as slow vehicles and can serve as Barrio
entryway statements with appropriate signs and /or public
art. Entrvway statements, such as small monument signs,
could tie into s~ecially-designed street name signs unigue to
the Barrio.
r
(
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 273 of 321
Exhibit 8
The City of Carlsbad Planning Division
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ltemNo. 0
Application complete date: N/A
P.C. AGENDA OF: April 18, 2018 Project Planner: Scott Donnell
Project Engineer: N/A
SUBJECT: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -
VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN -Request for a recommendation to adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
a recommendation to approve a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment,
Zone Change, Master Plan, and Local Coastal Program Amendment for the Village and
Barrio Master Plan. The request also includes a recommendation to repeal the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual. The Notice of Intent (NOi) to adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was published in the newspaper February 12, 2016, and sent to the State
Clearinghouse (SCH#2016021056) for a 30-day public review (February 16, 2016-March
16, 2016). The Village and Barrio are generally west of interstate 5 and between Laguna
Drive and Tamarack Avenue in the city's Northwest Quadrant and Local Facilities
Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7293 RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7294 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a General Plan
Amendment (GPA 16-01), Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 16-01), Zone Change (ZC 16-01), Master Plan (MP
14-01), and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 14-01), based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein, and RECOMMEND APPROVAL of errata dated April 18, 2018.
II. OVERVIEW
The Village and Barrio Master Plan (Master Plan) is a city-initiated proposal to provide the vision, goals
and policies, regulations, guidelines, and procedures for land use and development within the Village
and Barrio areas of the City. The document updates and replaces entirely the Carlsbad Village Master
Plan and Design Manual, adopted by the City in December 1995 and periodically amended since. The
document also provides for the first time a master plan and area-specific standards for the Barrio;
presently, the Barrio is regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. In both the Barrio and Village, the Master
Plan would not change overall land use patterns, revise current residential densities or significantly
modify building height and other development standards.
Core values of the Carlsbad Community Vision emphasize enhancing the city's small town feel and beach
community character and connectedness, increasing travel options through means other than the
automobile, and revitalizing its neighborhoods. Moreover, the Carlsbad Community Vision specifically
identifies the objectives of Village revitalization and Barrio rejuvenation. Consistent with the vision, a
fiscal year 2017-2018 City Council goal is to "enhance the health and vitality of the Village and Barrio,
two neighborhoods that represent the historic heart of Carlsbad ." In turn, the work plan for this goal
identifies strategies to improve public spaces and infrastructure, promote a vibrant mix of commercial
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 274 of 321
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 {DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO
MASTER PLAN
April 18, 2018
Pa e 2
and residential uses, and foster a greater sense of connectedness. Completing and approving the Village
and Barrio Master Plan is a work plan task.
Over forty percent of the Village and Barrio Master Plan area is in the Coastal Zone. If City Council
approves the Master Plan, it will not be effective in the Coastal Zone unless also approved by the
California Coastal Commission. As part of this action, the Coastal Commission will also consider
combining the present Village Area Local Coastal Program segment with a portion of the Mello II-Local
Coastal Program segment so the result is a single, unified segment corresponding with the area of the
Master Plan.
Project applications, including a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, Zone Change, and
Local Coastal Program Amendment, are necessary for Master Plan implementation. Another application,
a Municipal Code Amendment (MCA 16-01), is proposed and recommends only minor changes to
portions of the Municipal Code other than the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed revisions consist of replacing
references to the "Village Master Plan and Design Manual" and "Village Review Area" that will become
out of date with approval of the Village and Barrio Master Plan. As changes to Municipal Code chapters
besides the Zoning Ordinance are not in the Planning Commission's purview, MCA 16-01 would be acted
on by City Council.
The proposed master plan, previous drafts and other information are available for review on the project
website, www.carlsbadca.gov/villagebarrio.
Since its release this January, staff has made revisions to the Master Plan. The revisions are contained in
errata provided as Attachment 9.
Ill. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Master Plan has been developed in consultation with the Carlsbad community through an iterative
process that began in 2013. In September 2014, the city received significant public input during an
approximately two-week public charrette held in various locations in the Village and Barrio. The city
released the first and second drafts in November 2015 and April 2016, respectively. Based on extensive
public interest and input following the second draft's release, the city determined to prepare a third
draft.
Informed by the community's comments, the Planning Commission in October 2016 considered and
confirmed the items staff would revise or study for potential revision in the third draft. The list of these "
items, taken from Planning Commission Resolution 7207, and how the revised Master Plan addressed
them, is provided as Attachment 8 to this staff report.
Development of the third draft took place over much of 2017; the city released it for public review on
January 19, 2018. The Master Plan incorporates many of the community's recommendations for both
the vision and future development within the Village and Barrio as expressed over the plan's
development.
Notice of the Master Plan's development and meetings has included mailings to all Village and Barrio
property owners and tenants, postings on social media and the city's website, and outreach to various
city committees and local groups. The city has provided resources for Spanish speakers during much of
the plan's development and targeted Hispanic outreach occurred in both 2017 and 2018.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 275 of 321
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO
MASTER PLAN
April 18, 2018
Pa e 3
Master Plan Appendix D provides a chronology of the plan's development. The project website also
contains a brief timetable, videos and other past meeting information and additional resources.
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Proposed Master Plan
Organization
The Master Plan contains the implementation strategy, standards, and criteria for development within
the Village and Barrio, per the vision the document identifies. The Master Plan is divided into six chapters
and four appendices, as summarized below:
• Chapter 1 (Introduction) contains the overall vision, goals and policies, and key improvement
recommendations.
• Chapter 2 (Land Use) contains the regulatory requirements, such as the permitted uses,
development standards, and design guidelines.
• Chapter 3 (Signs) contains standards for design and placement of signs.
• Chapter 4 (Mobility and Beautification) outlines and discusses overall and conceptual
improvements to public areas, such as streets and sidewalks; a bicycle network plan; and
parking and transportation demand management strategies.
• Chapter 5 (Implementation) provides an implementation and phasing plan for Master Plan
public improvements as well as potential improvement funding sources.
• Chapter 6 (Administration) details Master Plan permit and review requirements and
administrative procedures for amendments to the Master Plan.
• The appendices provide supporting information, such as definitions, economic and
demographic data, additional information regarding funding sources, and a Master Plan
chronology.
For purposes of this staff report, the "Village" is that area with a present General Plan designation of "V"
(Village) and zoning of "V-R" (Village Review). All properties with this designation and zoning are also
within the boundaries of the existing Village Master Plan and Design M?nual, except for four properties
near Carlsbad Boulevard that are partially or wholly outside the existing plan but would be included in
the proposed plan. More discussion about them can be found in the "Existing and Proposed General Plan,
Zoning, and Land Use Districts" section below.
The "Barrio" is the area outside the Village Master Plan and Design Manual boundaries and generally
south of Oak Avenue to Tamarack Avenue and between Interstate 5 and the railroad corridor. The Barrio
area as contained in the proposed Master Plan excludes Jefferson Elementary School, adjacent
residential areas to the north, south, and west, and the commercial properties along Tamarack Avenue
between Interstate 5 and Jefferson Avenue. Please refer to Section 1.3.1 in the Master Plan on page 1-2
for additional discussion and accompanying Figure 1-1 for the Master Plan Area map.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 276 of 321
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014)-VILLAGE AND BARRIO
MASTER PLAN
April 18, 2018
Pa e4
As identified in Chapter 1 of the Master Plan, the vision for the Village and Barrio is as follows:
Carlsbad's Village and Barrio are vibrant, safe and healthy neighborhoods that:
• Serve as the historic heart of the city, honoring Carlsbad's past and creating a strong sense
of community.
• Are connected in place and spirit,yet retain their unique personalities.
• Embody the principles of smart growth, with a mix of commercial and residential land uses,
a variety of housing choices, walkable neighborhoods and multiple transportation options.
• Attract high quality, sustainable development that enhances vitality and local character.
To reinforce the vision, goals and policies have been established to guide public and private development
within the Village and Barrio. Each goal and policy links to one or more aspects of the Master Plan vision.
In turn, the plan's provisions, whether a development standard, permitted use or recommended
improvement, align with and support the goals and policies.
The goals and policies are identified in Chapter 1 of the Master Plan and fall into the following four
categories:
• Land use and community character;
• Mobility and parking;
• Connectivity; and
• Placemaking.
The Master Plan is intended to enhance future development of the Village and Barrio areas, particularly
relative to the street experience, public spaces, and through appropriate development standards and
guidelines. The Master Plan has several focuses, including maintaining and enhancing the Village as a
community focal point and the Barrio as predomi11antly residential area; promoting development that
protects and enhances the character of both neighborhoods yet provides enough flexibility and
opportunity for quality growth; creating "livable streets" that balance different modes of transportation;
creating magnetic public spaces; and maximizing connectivity within the planning area, with adjacent
neighborhoods, and with the beach.
Generally, the recommendations presented in the Master Plan for improvements to Village and Barrio
streets and properties are in a conceptual form only and are intended to be refined over time as future
project-specific development is planned by the private and public sectors. Implementation of the
recommendations also would be subject to further and separate review, analysis and approval. Examples
of these conceptual improvements include street, bicycle, and pedestrian enhancements to Grand
Avenue (the "Grand Avenue Promenade") and the west end of Carlsbad Village Drive. These and other
key recommendations are highlighted in Master Plan Section 1.6 (beginning on page 1-20) and discussed
elsewhere.
Furthermore, while the Master Plan is guided by the vision established through community input,
regulations, policies, studies and other,guidance have also influenced the preparation of this plan. These
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 277 of 321
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014}-VILLAGE AND BARRIO
MASTER PLAN
April 18, 2018
Pa e 5
other influences include, but are not limited to, the Carlsbad Community Vision, General Plan, Local
Coastal Program, Climate Action Plan, Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance and the 2017 Parking
Management Plan for the Village, Barrio, and Beach Area; a complete listing is contained in the Section
1.7 starting on page 1-24.
Existing and Proposed General Plan, Zoning, and Land Use Districts
To support the Master Plan, the underlying General Plan designations, zoning, and land use districts
currently in place within the Master Plan area would change. For example, the present Village (V)
designation and Village-Review (V-R) zoning now applied to the Village would be revised to include and
recognize the Barrio, resulting in a new proposed designption and zoning of V-B, Village-Barrio. The
Master Plan would establish new land use districts that would replace the existing districts of the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual. These new districts would also regulate land uses and replace existing
zoning currently in place in the Barrio.
Table 1 below compares existing and proposed land use districts in the Village as well as General Plan
designations, zoning, and density. Table 2 that follows provides similar information for the Barrio. The
tables also compare existing and proposed building heights, as this is a point of community interest.
Attachment 4 to this staff report maps the boundaries of the existing and proposed districts and
Attachments 5 and 6 show proposed district boundaries in relation to.existing General Plan designations
and zoning. In addition, more information on the existing and proposed districts is provided after the
tables below in the discussion on the Master Plan Land Use Chapter.
Table 1 -Existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual & Proposed Village and Barrio Master
Plan -basic land use comparison, including building height (Village)
Existing Proposed Land Existing Proposed Existing and Existing and
Land Use Use District General Plan General Plan Proposed Proposed
District and Zoning and Zoning Density Maximum
Building
Height
1-Village VC-Village V-Village V-B-Village-28-35 du/ac 45'
Center Center Barrio
V-R-Village
Review
2-0ffice vc V, V-R V-B 28-35 du/ac 45'
Support
3-Freeway FC-Freeway V V-R , . V-B 28-35 du/ac 45'
Commercial Commercial
Support
4-vc V, V-R V-B 28-35 du/ac 45'
Residential
Support
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 278 of 321
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO
MASTER PLAN
April 18, 2018
Pa e 6
Table 1 -Existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual & Proposed Village and Barrio Master
Plan -basic land use comparison, including building height (Village)
5-Hispanic PT-Pine-Tyler V, V-R V-B 18-23 du/ac 30' (existing),
Mixed-Use Mixed-Use 35' (proposed)
Support
6-Service PT V, V-R V-B 18-23 du/ac 35'
Commercial
Support
7-VG-Village V, V-R V-B 18-23 du/ac 35'
Residential General
Support
8-yG V, V-R V-B 18-23 du/ac 35'
Residential
Support
9-Tourism HOSP-V, V-R V-B 18-23 du/ac 45'
Support Hospitality
Notes:
• "V-B," Village-Barrio, is used for both the proposed General Plan designation and zoning .
• "du/ac" means dwelling units per acre .
Note that Table 1 identifies identical existing and proposed maximum building heights in all but one area,
the existing Hispanic Mixed-Use Support District/proposed Pine-Tyler Mixed-Use District. For this area, a
five-foot increase in the maximum height is recommended (from 30-feet to 35-feet) as all surrounding
permitted maximum heights are either 35-feet or 45-feet.
Unlike the Village, the Barrio is presently not divided into land use districts and instead has traditional
General Plan designations implemented by corresponding zoning. However, land use districts are
proposed. Table 2 below compares existing and proposed General Plan designations, zoning, density,
proposed districts, and existing and proposed building heights. Attachme'nt 4 maps the boundaries of the
proposed districts in the Barrio and Attachments 5 and 6 show proposed district boundaries in relation
to existing General Plan designations and zoning.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 279 of 321
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014)-VILLAGE AND BARRIO
MASTER PLAN
April 18, 2018
Pa e 7
Table 2 -Existing General Plan Designations and Zoning & Proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan -
basic land use comparison, including building height (Barrio)
Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Land Existing and Existing and
General Zoning General Plan Use District Proposed Proposed
Plan and Zoning Density Maximum Building
Height
R-15-R-3-Multi-V-B -Village-BC-Barrio 8-15 du/ac 35'
Residential Family Barrio Center
Residential;
RD-M-
Residential
Density-
Multiple
R-30-RD-M V-B BP -Barrio 23-30 du/ac 35'
Residential Perimeter
GC-C-2 -General V-B PT -Pine-Tyler 15 du/ac 35'
General Commercial Mixed-Use (existing)
Commercial
18-23 du/ac
(proposed)
Notes:
• "V-B," Village-Barrio, is used for both the proposed General Plan designation and zoning .
• For properties designated "GC," the density stated is the minimum density and is based on 25%
of the developable area.
• "du/ac" means dwelling units per acre .
Finally, portions of three properties and one entire property along or near Carlsbad Boulevard feature
the existing Village General Plan designation and zoning of "V" and "V-R" but are not within the
boundaries of the existing master plan. As part of the approved update to the General Plan in September
2015, this designation and zoning were applied because two of the properties were partially within the
plan boundaries and fully developed. The third and fourth properties were either partially within or
wholly outside the plan boundaries but together formed the site of an approved hotel now under
construction.
As these properties have the Village General Plan designation and zoning, the proposed Master Plan
would include them in its boundaries and place them within the Hospitality District, the district to which
each is adjacent. Table 3 provides details on the four properties' location, use, and existing and proposed
land use information.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 280 of 321
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014}-VILLAGE AND BARRIO
MASTER PLAN
April 18, 2018
Pa e 8
Table 3 -Existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual & Proposed Village and Barrio Master
Plan -basic land use comparison
Property Use/Address Existing Proposed Proposed Land Proposed
General Plan General Plan Use District Density
and Zoning and Zoning
('
Carlsbad by the Sea V-Village V-B -Village-HOSP-18-23 du/ac
Retirement Community, Barrio Hospitality
2855 Carlsbad Boulevard V-R -Village
Review
SpringHill Suites (two V, V-R V-B HOSP 18-23 du/ai:
properties, under
construction), 3136
Carlsbad Boulevard
Best Western Beach View V, V-R V-B HOSP 18-23 du/ac
Lodge, 3180 Carlsbad
Boulevard
Notes:
• "V-B," Village-Barrio, is used for both the proposed General Plan designation and zoning .
• "du/ac" means dwelling units per acre .
Master Plan Land Use Chapter
The Land Use section (Chapter 2} of the document is divided into the following main parts: Master Plan
Districts, Land Uses, Density and Excess Dwelling Unit Bank information, Area-wide and Supplemental
District star:idards, and Design Guidelines. Information on each of these is presented below.
• Master Plan Districts. The Master Plan presents a district-based zoning approach to guide the form
and location of development within the Master Plan area. In a district-based zoning approach, each
land use district has a unique vision and the desired activities and building forms dictate what is
allowed and what is not allowed. To do this, the Master Plan divides the Village and Barrio into eight
different districts. A description of each district, based on the descriptions contained in the Master
Plan, follows. Also included below is the current Village Master Plan Design Manual district or Barrio
General Plan land use designation and zoning that would be replaced. (Note that some existing
districts have the same name.)
o The Village Center District (VC) would replace the present District 1, Carlsbad Village Center;
District 2, Office Support; and District 4, Residential Support. The VC District encompasses
the core of the Village and includes a mix of commercial, attached residential, and mixed-
use building types. This district intends buildings to be generally attached and built on or
near the front property line, creating, throughout most of the district, a continuous
commercial street frontage (often with residences or offices above} to provide destinations
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 281 of 321
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) ....:VILLAGE AND BARRIO
MASTER PLAN
April 18, 2018
Pa e 9
and workplaces in a walkable environment that is centered around the main destinations of
the Carlsbad Village Station, State Street, Grand Avenue, and Carlsbad Village Drive. A
portion of this district, centered along Carlsbad Village Drive, is in the Coastal Zone.
o The Village General District (VG) would replace current districts 7 and 8 (Office Support and
Residential Support, respectively). The VG District provides an opportunity to expand the
mix of commercial and residential uses into a broader geographic area in the northern part
of the Village, roughly from Roosevelt Street east to Jefferson Street.
o The Hospitality District (HOSP) would . replace current District 9, Tourism Support. The
boundaries of both the existing and proposed districts are identical and encompass
properties along both sides of Carlsbad Boulevard. The proposed HOSP District provides a
transition between the beach and the heart of the Village. The area currently contains
mixed-use buildings, dense residential buildings, and a number of large and expansive uses,
including a private school, church, lodging, and a retirement community. The area is
contained entirely within the Coastal Zone and provides an opportunity for visitor-serving
and hospitality uses serving visitors and residents alike, with ground floor commercial uses
primarily catering to visitors.
o The Freeway Commercial District (FC) would replace the current District 3, Freeway
Commercial Support; both districts' boundaries are identical and extend from Interstate 5
west to the Hope Avenue alley just east of Harding Street. The FC District consists oftraveler
services normally associated with urban freeway interchanges. Uses include lodging,
restaurants, retail and gas stations. Residential units are also included in this district.
o The Pine-Tyler Mixed-Use District (PT) would take the place of current districts 5 and 6
(Service Commercial Support and Hispanic Mixed-Use Support, respectively). The PT District
is a distinct area of transition between the more compact Village Center District and
established multi-and single-family neighborhoods in the Barrio. The district contains
residential, commercial, and office uses in the vicinity of Roosevelt Avenue and Tyler Street
south of Oak Avenue. On the west side of Tyler Street, these uses mix with light industrial
uses. The PT District would also include two commercially-designated lots along the south
side of Walnut Avenue between Roosevelt Street and the alley to the east. These lots are
just outside the boundary of current District 5.
o The Barrio Perimeter District (BP) applies to the Barrio and would not replace any existing
district; instead, it would replace the existing residential high density General Plan land use
designation and zoning found along the perimeter of the Barrio. However, no change in
permitted densities would occur. The BP District is residential in nature and includes the
properties located adjacent to 1-5, Jefferson Elementary School, and the railroad corridor. A
portion is in the Coastal Zone.
o The Barrio Center District (BC) is residential in nature and is intended to protect and enhance
the historic Barrio residential neighborhood, which contains a number of smaller homes and
duplexes and s<:>me multi-family structures in the "core" of the Barrio. This core is roughly
bounded by Pine and Magnolia avenues and Harding and Roosevelt streets. As with the BP
District, it would not replace any existing district and instead would replace a residential
General Plan land use designation and zoning that permit medium densities. No change in
permitted density is proposed.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 282 of 321
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO
MASTER PLAN
April 18, 2018
Pa e 10
o The Village-Barrio Other District (VBO) includes public and quasi-public properties within the
Master Plan Boundary, including the railroad corridor south of Oak Avenue, Magee, Maxton
Brown, Pine Avenue parks, Chas~ Field, and the AT&T switching facility on Harding Street. As
a reflection of their use and ownership, VBO properties are subject to the permitted uses
and standards of the Zoning Ordinance and not the Village and Barrio Master Plan; however,
they would be subject to the Master Plan area-wide design guidelines. The VBO designation
is supplemented by a letter designation to further clarify its application. "VBO-P," for
example, applies to all three city parks and Chase Field in the Master Plan area. See Section
2. 7.8 on page 2-69 of the Master Plan for further details.
• Land Uses. This section establishes the mix of land uses that reflect the intended vision of each
district. A primary component of this section is Table 2-1, which identifies permitted, conditionally
permitted, accessory, right-of-way, and prohibited uses. This table, beginning on page 2-6, greatly
streamlines the permitted uses chart found in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Uses
listed in Table 2-1 are either defined in Appendix A of the Master Plan or in Chapter 21.04 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
• Density, which refers to the number of dwelling units permitted per developable acre of property,
would apply to all Master Plan districts. As noted in the tables above, proposed densities are
expressed as a range (e.g., 28-35 dwelling units per acre, or "du/ac") and are consistent with the
General Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Manual. 1
• Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. This section clarifies that projects proposing dwelling units in some
districts require an allocation of exc~ss dwelling units from the city's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. For
projects proposing dwelling units in the Village Center (VC), Village General (VG), Hospitality (HOSP),
Freeway Commercial (FC), and Pine-Tyler Mixed-Use (PT) districts, as well as projects in the Barrio
Perimeter (BP) and Barrio Center (BC) districts that propose densities above the City's Growth
Management Control Point, an allocation is necessary. VC, VG, HOSP, FC and PT district properties
do not have residential densities assigned for Growth Management Program compliance purposes.
• Area-Wide Standards would be applicable to projects in many or all of the Village and Barrio,
regardless of district. These standards provide requirements related to site planning, building
placement and orientation, building elements, outdoor and right-of-way uses, and parking. This
section also identifies provisions for standards modifications, and general development
information. Area-wide standards are supported by simple graphics.
Regarding outdoor and right-of-way uses, the Master Plan permits and updates the standards for
sidewalk cafes, outdoor displays, and outdoor dining on private property, all uses found in the
existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Further, the Master Plan also proposes to allow
curb cafes, which were previously permitted by a City Council pilot program that expired in 2016.
As proposed, curb cafes would be permitted in a la,rger area than allowed by the expired policy but
would continue to be defined as temporary structures and subject to removal if necessary due to
street maintenance or improvements or if necessary to ensure adequate public parking is
maintained.
• Supplemental District Standards would be applicable to each of the eight proposed districts. These
standards would be applied according to the location of the proposed development and/or activity.
The standards would address building coverage, height, and setback, and other requirements
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 283 of 321
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014)-VILLAGE AND BARRIO
MASTER PLAN
April 18, 2018
Pa e 11
applicable to development. Similar to the area-wide standards, the supplemental requirements also
are supported by simple graphics.
• Area-Wide Design Guidelines. The design guidelines, described in further detail below, are intended
to implemen! and enhance the existing character within the Village and Barrio as new development
and property improvements occur.
Design Guidelines
Near the end of Chapter 2, beginning on page 2-71, design guidelines are proposed. Generally, they
would apply to all development except for those determined exempt in Section 6.3.2 on page 6-3. The
guidelines aim to improve the character of the Village and Barrio while also improving livability.
Guidelines address many components of building style and orientation, including site layout, parking and
access, plazas and open space, building massing and form, roof forms, building fa<;ades, and
appurtenances.
The design guidelines proposed do not dictate a particular architectural style or comprise every possible.
strategy for achieving high quality design but provide a minimum starting point for quality development.
They also strive to foster authentic designs with straightforward and functional construction. And, unlike
the current Village Master Plan and Design Manual, the text of the proposed guidelines is supported by
Carlsbad-appropriate pictures to better convey the part of the guidelines' intent, IA(hich is "to implement
and enhance the existing character within_ the Village and Barrio as new development and property
improvements occur."
As stated in the Master Plan, all development should align with the spirit and intent of the design
guidelines. Designers and developers should be aware that these guidelines are a minimum starting point
for quality development, and do not comprise every possible strategy for achieving high quality design.
Therefore, it is prudent that designers use their own techniques for achieving authentic, high quality
design.
Sign Standards
The standards set forth in Chapter 3 of the Master Plan apply to all new signs, replacement signs or
modifications to existing signs within the Village and Barrio, unless otherwise exempt. The Master Plan
standards take precedence over the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance sign standards (Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 21.41), unless explicitly stated otherwise. The Master Plan provides a list of
permitted and prohibited signs, as well as standards for specific types of signs.
Preparation of Chapter 3 included a comprehensive review of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual
sign standards. These standards are in many cases uniquely tailored to the Village and include some sign
types (e.g., restaurant menu sign, yard sign) not explicitly permitted elsewhere in Carlsbad. Proposed
revisions to the existing sign standards maintain many of the unique provisions but also result in their
reorganization and simplification. In some cases, standardswere also revised to be more in line with the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, which has had the benefit of more frequent updating, often based
on case law.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 284 of 321
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014} -VILLAGE AND BARRIO
MASTER PLAN
April 18, 2018
Pa e 12
Mobility and Beautification
Consistent with the General Plan and the Master Plan vision, the future of the Village and Barrio is
envisioned to be a walkable environment. However, other modes of transportation would be
accommodated to benefit th~ bicyclist, motorist, rideshare user and transit user as well. As envisioned
by the Master Plan in Chapter 4, the existing circulation system would be enhanced through a variety of
street, parking, and pedestrian/bicycle and other potential mobility improvements based not only on
current but emerging and future technologies as well. All mobility recommendations are developed
around guiding principles of establishing connections and infrastructure for all modes of travel;
embracing a variety of transportation options; and creating a "park once" strategy in the Village that
enables and encourages visitors to park once and move around the Villag·e on foot, by bike, or other
alternative mode of transportation.
In Chapter 4, the Master Plan recommends that existing streets be retrofitted with wider sidewalks, bike
infrastructure, trees, better lighting, and buried/relocated overhead utilities to improve walkability and
appearance. Street improvements would feature a balance of different modes of transportation, and
include infrastructure to support all roadway users, such as the addition of on-street parking through
restriping and curb cut closures, protected bike lanes (cycle tracks}, or a pedestrian promenade along
Grand Avenue. Th~ Grand Avenue Promenade would provide sufficient width to accommodate
pedestrians, as well as outdoor dining, public activities and a protected bike lane, in lieu of one-half of
the current street.
Although not proposed as part of the Master Plan, the Master Plan acknowledges and integrates two
major transportation-related projects which may affect the Village and Barrio, and which would improve
connectivity with the planning area and its surroundings, a Master Plan goal. The first is the proposal by
the North County Transit District (NCTD} and SAN DAG to double-track the rail line through the area. In
addition to the plans to double-track the rail lines, the City and SANDAG are currently studying the
feasibility and environmental impacts of putting the rail lines in a below-street-level trench to reduce
noise and safety impacts, and allow more linkage between areas currently separated by the rail lines.
The second major transportation-related prnject regards the North Coast Corridor Project, which is the
proposal to widen 1-5 and make related improvements. Transportation . enhancements in local
communities, which accompany the· plans to widen 1-5 in the northern part of the county, offer another
opportunity to enhance mobility in the Master Plan area. These enhancements would be funded by the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans}, and could include "gateway" treatments, widened
sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, and stre~t trees. As freeway design proceeds, the City would continue to
work with Caltrans to improve east-west connections across 1-5 for all modes of transpo1ation (including
pedestrians and cyclists}, including Carlsbad Village Drive, Chestnut Avenue, and Tamarack Avenue.
In addition to the mobility and circulation system improvements and appearance enhancements noted
above, Chapter 4 concludes with a section entitled "Implement Parking and Transportation Demand
Strategies." This section is. based on the 2017 Parking Management Plan for the Village, Barrio, and Beach
Area (PMP}, accepted by City Council in September 2017. The PMP began with a comprehensive study
capturing the existing parking conditions in the Master Plan and adjacent beach areas, including parking
occupancy and duration data. Key recommendations and strategies from the PMP are incorporated into
this Master Pla_n for implementation. The PMP provides implementable short-term (by year 2020},
medium-term (by year 2025}, and long-term (by year 2035} strategies to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness ofthe parking system and increase mobility within the Village and Barrio.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 285 of 321
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO
MASTER PLAN
April 18, 2018
Pa e 13
Consistent with the PMP, the Master Plan recommends that the city implement a comprehensive parking
management program to strengthen and improve shared parking in the area and implement other
parking management and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to create a more
balanced and efficient parking system. TDM consists of programs, policies and actions that aim to reduce
reliance on· solo-occupant vehicle use, in part by providing more options for getting around. The goals,
policies, standards and programs identified in the Master Plan support the vision to more fully transform
the Village and Barrio into a vibrant, walkable community, supported by a mix of uses and transit options.
An important outcome will be to shift people from vehicle-focused travel, and more use of other modes:
walking, bicycling and transit.
Further, the PMP analyzed and supported the parking requirements contained in the prior, April 2016
draft of the Village and Barrio Master Plan. Parking provisions, including ratios, shared parking standards,
and in lieu fee requirements are contained in the area-wide standards found in Chapter 2. The parking
ratios listed in Chapter 2 are similar to those in the April 2016 draft.
Master Plan Implementation
Helping to achieve the Master Plan vision and General Plan goals are sections on Implementation
(Chapter 5) and Administration (Chapter 6). Chapter 5 responds in part to community comments
requesting an implementation plan for improvements and recommendations identified in the Master
Plan. Chapter 6 proposes review and approval requirements for development. The requirements are
streamlined compared to the existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual and similar to how projects
are reviewed and permitted in the rest of Carlsbad.
The Implementation Chapter identifies the fiscal benefits of redevelopment, outlines potential funding
sources for public improvements, and provides an Implementation Action Matrix (Table 5-1, beginning
on page 5-8). The matrix, applying mainly to public projects, groups the Master Plan's key project and
program recommendations into specific categories (e.g., regulatory programs, plans and studies; capital
improvements; parking management; transportation demand management; and railroad corridor), and
proposes an initial phasing plan and general implementation time frames. Phasing of Master Plan public
improvements helps identify what is most important to implement in the Village and Barrio and also aids
the city in developing its capital improvement program.
Administration of the Master Plan, as presented in Chapter 6, would be conducted through a permit
process, administered by the City Planner, that establishes improvements and activities that (1) are
exempt from a discretionary permit, or (2) require a discretionary permit. A discretionary permit requires
the approval of the City Planner, Planning Commission, or City Council. Such projects, which would
include most new construction, would be subject to the design guidelines contained in Chapter 2. Exempt
projects, such as some additions and exterior improvements that do not intensify the use of a structure,
would not be subject to the design guideiines. While considered an exempt project, a proposal to build
one single-family home would subject to the "Residential Design" section only of the design guidelines;
these guidelines are found in Section 2.8.3 Fon page 2-85.
Under the existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual, projects are permitted as either
"Administrative Review Permits," "Minor Review Permits" or "Major Review Permits." Similar to what
would be allowed under the proposed plan, projects under the current plan may also be exempt from
the need to obtain one of these review permits, such as interior or exterior remodels, repair and
maintenance activities, and landscaping. Further, the existing Master Plan does not require conditional
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 286 of 321
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO
MASTER PLAN
April 18, 2018
Pa e 14
use permits as in the rest of Carlsbad; instead some uses are classified as "provisional land uses," which
may be permitted under any one ofthe review permits identified above.
Additionally, the permitting of new building construction and additions under the current plan is based
on building permit valuation as follows:
• New construction of building(s) or addition(s) to the building footprint which has a building
permit valuation which is less than $60,000 -Administrative (City Planner) approval;
• New construction of building(s) or addition(s) to the building footprint which has a building
permit valuation which is equal to or greater than $60,000 but less than $150,000 -Planning
Commission approval;
• New construction of building(s) or addition(s) to the building footprint which has a building
permit valuation which is equal to or greater than $150,000 -City Council approval.
These valuations have not changed since adoption of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual in 1995.
Because of the low valuation thresholds, most significant new building construction now proposed in the
Village must go to City Council for approval.
As proposed the Village and Barrio Master Plan, permit types would change to be like those required
presently outside the Village, including the Barrio. This would include the replacement of provisional uses
, by conditional uses, or uses requiring a conditional use permit. In general, minor conditional use permits
and minor site development plans would replace administrative review permits (including those for
provisional uses), or those permits requiring City Planner approval. Conditional Use Permits and Site
Development Plans would replace Minor Review Permits and Major Review Permits, or those permits
requiring Planning Commission or City Council approval. In addition, projects within the Coastal Zone
would continue to be subject to coastal permitting regulations; new buildings, for example, generally
require approval of a Coastal Development Permit.
I
Further, the proposed Master Plan would revise permitting thresholds to be similar to those in the rest
of the city, meaning that they would be based on project size, not valuation. This would result in most
significant new construction being considered by the Planning Commission only and would no longer
require City Council approval unless appealed.
Though a simplified version of the proposed Master Plan's permitting thresholds, Table 4 below
illustrates how typical projects would be permitted.
Table 4 -Proposed Permitting Thresholds -Level of Approval Required
Exempt City Planner Planning City Council Commission
One single-family X dwelling
Additions of less
than ten percent of
the internal floor X
area
Additions up to X 2,500 square feet
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 287 of 321
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO
MASTER PLAN
April 18, 2018
Pa e 15
Table 4-Proposed Permitting Thresholds -Level of Approval Required
New buildings up to X 5,000 square feet
New buildings with X 2 to 4 dwellings
New buildings or
additions over 5,000 X
square feet
New buildings with X 5 or more dwellings
Master Plan X Amendments
Notes:
• City Planner decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission .
• Planning Commission decisions may be appealed to the City Council.
• Exception: In the Coastal Zone, a minor Coastal Development permit is required for a single-
family dwelling, and may be required for certain additions.
V. ANALYSIS
A. General Plan
The Village and Barrio Master Plan fulfills and is consistent with several General Plan goals and policies.
Among these are Land Use and Community Design Element Policy 2-P.69, which calls for the
comprehensive update of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, and Goal 2-G.31, which promotes
"rejuvenation of the Barrio while maintaining its walkable, residential character, and ensuring that new
development enhances neighborhood quality and character." These tie back to the Carlsbad Community
Vision, discussed in the General Plan's Introduction and Vision Chapter, which specifically encourages
revitalizing the Village and rejuvenating the Barrio.
Master Plan objectives to improve connectivity and overall circulation, including through streetscape
beautification, are supported by Mobility Element goals. Moreover, because the Master Plan supports
compact growth in a walkable environment, it also aligns with Sustainability Element Goal 9-G.3, which
states, "promote energy efficiency and conservation in the community." The Master Plan also maintains
consistency with the Housing Element by maintaining residential densities currently allowed in the
Village and Barrio and by permitting mixed use developments.
Approval of the Master Plan will require revisions to the General Plan text and Land Use Map. These
revisions are primarily minor and are necessary to recognize the Master Plan itself, the "Village-Barrio"
land use designation and project aspects such as the Village Center, Hospitality, and other proposed land
use districts.
In addition, an amendment is proposed to Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element policies
4-P.6 and 4-P.7. This amendment clarifies that the properties designated "VBO-P" in the Village and
Barrio Master Plan (which also have a corresponding General Plan designation of "V-B") · shall be
considered open space areas and equivalent to those open space areas designated on the General Plan
Land Use Map. This clarification is important as parks are typically designated by the General Plan as
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 288 of 321
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO
MASTER PLAN
April 18, 2018
Pa e 16
"open space." The "V-BO" designation would apply to Chase Field and Maxton Brown, Magee, and Pine
Avenue parks.
B. Zoning Ordinance
The project would revise both the Zoning Ordinance text and map. Text changes are proposed to revise
the many references throughout the Zoning Ordinance to the current Village Master Plan and Design
Manual and current Village Review ("V-R") Zone; these references would simply be replaced by "Village
and Barrio Master Plan," "Village-Barrio" Zone, or the zone's "V-B" abbreviation. Similarly, the V-R Zone
would be replaced by the V-B Zone on the Zoning-Map.
Additionally, Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.35, which establishes the V-R Zone, would also be amended.
According to the Intent and Purpose statement of this chapter (Section 21.35.010), the V-R zone "adopts
t_he land use classifications and development standards of the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design
Manual as the zoning for the area designated." As proposed, the project would delete unnecessary
sections in Chapter 21.35 (many of which simply duplicate information in the existing Village Master Plan
and Design Manual), and update sections as necessary to refle6t the proposed Master Plan.
Overall, proposed Zoning Ordinance text and map changes are minor but necessary and logical to ensure
consistency among the city's land use documents. Changes to Chapter 21.35 also streamline and improve
application of requirements by deferring to the Village and Barrio Master Plan for rriany standards rather
than repeating them in the chapter.
(
C. Local Coastal. Program
Portions of the Master Plan, together with the City's implementing ordinances, would serve as and would
implement the Local Coastal Program for the Village and Barrio areas of the Coastal Zone, pursuant to
the requirements of the California Coastal Act (see Section 6.2.1, page 6-1, for details). The Master Plan
would establish the standards for all development within the Village and Barrio portions within the
Coastal Zone, which equals about 149 acres or about 43 percent of the 350-acre Master Plan area.
Additionally, the Coastal Zone in the Village and Barrio presently is divided into two different Local
Coastal Program segments -the Village Area segment and the Mello II segment. The Village Area
segment boundary is generally the same as that of the existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual,
although the current Master Plan or its related V-R Zoning also encompass portions in the Mello II
segment. The Mello II segment covers a significant part of the city's Coastal Zone, including nearly 40
acres in the Barrio.
As proposed, those portions of the Village Area and Mello II segments within the boundaries of the
proposed Master Plan would be combined into one segment-the "Village-Barrio" segment. This would
enable uniform application of Coastal policies and standards across the Master Plan area. This change
will require minor text and map revisions to the city's Local Coastal Program document to reflect revised
segment descriptions and areas. These changes, detailed in Exhibit "20" to Planning Commission
Resolution 7294, contribute to improved and consistent application of Coastal Zone regulations in the
Village and Barrio.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 289 of 321
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO
MASTER PLAN
April 18, 2018
Pa e 17
D. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance), Local Facilities
Management Plans
The Master Plan is consistent with the General Plan and as such is consistent with the city's Growth
Management Program. The Master Plan does not propose changes to established density ranges or
Growth Management Control Points and substantially maintains the overall la.nd use pattern existing in
the Village and Barrio. In addition, the project does not conflict with public facilities relationships,
including the relationship to the city's planned major circulation network. It is also consistent with the
purpose and intent of the Growth Management Program, components of which are to provide quality
housing opportunities for all households and to provide a balanced community with adequate
commercial, industrial, recreational and open space areas to support the residential areas of the city.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Below is a summary of the environmental review conducted for the proposed Master Plan, including the
environmental document prepared and circulated for public review, comment letters received and
related city responses, and relevant provisions of state law. Complete information on the environmental
review for the project is provided as part of attached Planning Commission Resolution 7293.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND} was prepared for the Village and Barrio Master Plan. Drafting of the IS/M ND
included a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP} to ensure the implementation of
identified mitigation measures. The Draft IS/MND, including the MMRP, was circulated for public review
in early 2016, following release of the first Master Plan draft. During that time, the document was
reviewed by various state and local agencies, as well as by interested individuals and organizations. The
city received five comment letters.
As part of the preparation of proposed (third draft) Master Plan, staff revised the 2016 Draft IS/MND as
necessary to address the revised Master Plan. Revisions made are incorporated into the Final IS/MND,
Exhibit "MND" to Planning Commission Resolution 7293.
CEQA requires recirculation of a MND for public review when it has been substantially revised. An
example of a substantial revision includes identification of a new, avoidable significant environmental
effect requiring the addition of mitigation measures or project revisions to reduce the effect to
insignificance. On the other hand, CEQA does not require recirculation when, for example, new
information is added to the MND which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications
to the MND.
No new information has been presented in the Final IS/MND that would require recirculation of the Draft
IS/MND pursuant to CEQA. Specifically, no new significant environmental impacts would result from the
modifications to the Master Plan or new information in the Final IS/MND. In addition, no substantial
increase in the severity of environmental impacts would occur. Impacts identified as less than significant
in the Draft !5/MND would remain the same or be slightly reduced as a result of the revisions to the
Master Plan.
Revisions presented in the Final IS/MND are generally summarized as follows:
I
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 290 of 321
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO
MASTER PLAN
April 18, 2018
Pa e 18
• Updates to the IS Checklist format and discussion to be consistent with current city guidelines,
including expanding the checklist for agricultural and forestry resources and providing a separate
discussion of Tribal cultural resources per the 2018 CEQA Guidelines;
• Updates to the regulatory framework to discuss the current applicable plans, policies, guidelines,
and regulations that have been published or adopted subsequent to public circulation of the
Draft IS/MND; .
• Minor revisions to address changes to the Master Plan boundary, vision ~nd objectives, goals
and policies, development standards, design guidelines, and implementation plan;
• Updates to mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts to archaeological and
paleontological resources to reference the 2017 Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological
Resources Guidelines. The MMRP was revised accordingly as well;
• Updated data and additional information to clarify and support the significance conclusions
presented in the Draft IS/MND; and
• Revisions in response to comments received during public circulation.
The Draft IS/MND included adequate information for a meaningful public review and comment; the Final
IS/MND has not been changed in such a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to
comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Village and Barrio Master Plan or a
feasible way to mitigate or avoid a substantial environmental effect. Based on the above considerations,
recirculation of the Village and Barrio Master Plan is not warranted.
Response to Comments
Written comments were received during the 2016 public review period from the following agencies,
provided in chronological order of comments received: California Public Utilities Commission (CPU(), San
Diego Association of Governments (SAN DAG), and California Department ofTransportation (Caltrans). In
addition, written comments were received from two individuals: John Bailey and Robert C. Ladwig. The
comments and the city responses to them are provided as part ofthe Final IS/MND.
Among other things, commenters express concerns regarding parking, recommend consideration of
public safety needs when designing improvements near abo've grade rail crossings, and encourage
railroad trenching, Master Plan compliance with regional smart growth publications, and appropriate
analysis of improvements proposed near state facilities, such as Interstate 5. The city has provided
responses to all comments received and in some cases has proposed revisions to the Master Plan (as
shown in the errata). These revisions are also reflected in the Final 15/MND. However, the revisions are
not substantive.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7293 (MND)
a. Exhibit 11MND"
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7294 (GPA/ZCA/ZC/MP/LCPA)
a. Exhibit 112A" -General Plan Amendment GPA 16-01
b. Exhibit 112B1' -Zone Code Amendment ZCA 16-01 and Zone Change ZC 16-01
c. Exhibit 112C" -Master Plan MP 14-01 (The Village and Barrio Master Plan, dated January
2018 and previously distributed with a copy available at the Planning Division and on the
city's website at www.carlsbadca.gov/villagebarrio)
d. Exhibit 112D" -Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 14-01
( July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 291 of 321
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO
MASTER PLAN
April 18, 2018
Pa e 19
3. Location Map
4. Existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual and Proposed Village & Barrio Master Plan Land
Use Districts
5. Existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual & Proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan Land
Use Districts with Existing General Plan Land Use
6. Existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual & Proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan Land
Use Districts with Existing Zoning
7. Proposed text changes to the Zoning Ordinance shown in strikeout/underline format
8. Comparison of Master Plan with Planning Commission Resolution 7207 Exhibit A
9. Errata
10. Public comments
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 292 of 321
Exhibit 9
The City of Carlsbad Planning Division
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ltemNo. Q
Application complete date: N/A
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 2, 2018 Project Planner: Scott Donnell
PrnJett Engineer: N/ A
SUBJECT: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -
VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN -Request for a recommendation to c1dopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
a recommendation tci approve a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment,
Zone Change, Master Plan, and Local Coastal Program Amendment for the Village and
Barrio Master Plan. The request also includes a recommendation to repeal the Vlilage
Master Plan and Design Manual. The Notice of Intent (NOi} to adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was published in the newspaper February 12, 2016, and sent to the State
Clearinghouse (SCH#2016021056} for a 30:-day public review {February 16, 2016-IVlatch
16, 2016}. The Village and Barrio are generally west of interstates and between Laguna
Drive and Tamarack Avenue in the City's Northwest Quadrant and Local Facilitjes
Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning CommisSion Re.solution No. 7293 RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7294 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a General Pfan
Amendment (GPA 16-01), Zone code Amendment (ZCA 16-01), Zone Change (ZC 16-01), Master Plan (MP
14-01), and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 14-01), based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein, and RECOMMEND APPROVAL of errata dated April 18, 2018.
II. OVERVIEW
At its April 18, 2018, meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Village and Barrio
Master Plan. The Commission opened the public hearing, received public comment from 18 speakers,
and closed the public testimony portion of the meeting. Then, the Commission voted to tohtiriue
discussion of the master plan to its. May 2, 2018, meeting.
Since the printing of the staff report, the city has received additional public comments on the master
plan. Those comments are attached.
Additionally, staff has updated the master plan website, www.carlsbadca.gov/villagebarrio1 to include
links to the April 18 staff report and meeting video. Staff has split the report into multiple parts to
improve its use.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. April 18, 2018, Planning Commission staff report (previously distributed and available online)
2. Public comments received since printing the April 18, 2018, Planning Commission staff report
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 293 of 321
Exhibit 10
Planning Commission Minutes
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
CALL TO ORDER
April 18, 2018
PLANNING COMMISSION
6:00 p.m.
April 18, 2018
COUNCIL CHAMBER
Page 1
Planning Commission Chairperson Montgomery called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:12 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Meenes·led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Luna, Meenes, and Segall
Absent: Commissioner Black
(Commissioner Anderson arrived at 6:18 p.m.)
Staff Present: Don Neu, City Planner
Heather Stroud, Deputy City Attorney
Sheila Cobian, City Clerk Services Manager
Michele Hardy, Senior Office Specialist
Scott Donnell, Senic;,r Planner
David de Cordova, Principal Planner
Debbie Fountain, Community and Economic Development Director
Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager
Chairperson Montgomery announced and welcomed two new Planning commissioners: Commissioners
Luna and Meenes. He also recognized former Commissioner Goyarts who was in the audience and thanked
him for serving on the Planning Commission.
Chairperson Montgomery stated that the next item on the agenda would be the approval of minutes but
since there was not a quorum of Commissioners present he moved this item to the end of the meeting.
Chairperson Montgomery directed everyone's attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures
the Commission would be following for that evening's public hearing.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
None.
Chairperson Montgomery asked the Commission if there were any disclosures. Seeing none, he
continued to the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Montgomery opened the public hearing and asked City Planner Don Neu to introduce the first
item.
Don Neu proposed to take Item 2 -Village Barrio Master Plan first and hold off on the election of Vice
Chairperson until Commissioner Anderson is present.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 294 of 321
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2018 Page2
2. GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -
VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN -Request for a recommendation to adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a
, recommendation to approve a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, Zone
Change, Master Plan, and Local Coastal Program Amendment for the Village and Barrio
Master Plan. The request also includes a recommendation to repeal the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual. The Notice of Intent (NOi) to adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was published in the newspaper February 12, 2016, and sent to the State
Clearinghouse (SCH#2016021056) for a 30-day public review (February 16, 2016 -March
16, 2016). The Village and Barrio are generally west of interstate 5 and between Laguna
Drive and Tamarack Avenue in the city's Northwest Quadrant and Local Facilities
Management Zone 1.
Don Neu introduced f genda Item 2 and stated Senior Planner Scott Donnell assisted by Principal Planner
David de Cordova would make the staff presentation.
Scott Donnell made the presentation and stated he would be available to answer questions.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if the there were any members of the public who wished to speak on the
project.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Simon Angel, 3324 Tyler Street, stated his concerns that the Barrio is transitioning from residential into
commercial, roles and responsibilies, funding sources and how it impacts residents, chain link fencing being
prohibited, Tyler Street is too narrow and needs to be a one-way street, traffic circles, and the Master Plan
was not available in Spanish.
Chairperson Montgomery stated for the record that Simon Angel was also speaking on behalf of Iva Arrgola
and Maria Mauga.
Julie Ajdour, 3537 Madison, stated her concern that Village Barrio residents will be responsible for the
support of the implementation of downtown improvements and/or projects as a whole. She feels as a
resident she is not responsible for business development.
Brenda Leanhart, 1650 Frazier Avenue, stated her concern with the proposed LCPA 14-01 summary and
all of the Village Barrio being included in the zone change, which eliminates the municipal code 23.50.87
that did require public hearing notices. She would like clarification if notice of hearings has been changed
and the level of approval authority. Also concerned with angled parking on State Street. She stated that in
the Be section that she would like to see the building heights remain at 35'.
Gil Alvarado, 3327 Tyler Street, stated that he is for the revision of the Master Plan to address the parking
issue and parking structure no higher than the other buildings. Also, he would like to see the Tyler Street
sidewalk on the east side wider. He thanked Mr. Donnell on doing a great job with the plan.
Sherry Alvarado, 3327 Tyler Street, stated that she proposes that Tyler Street be converted to a one-way
street south to north, a crossing at Chestnut, not in favor of trenching the railroad tracks. She would like to
have street lighting, red curb painting, and speed limit signs posted. She is supportive of the Master Plan.
Nick Alvarado, 3331 Tyler Street, stated he is supportive of the Master Plan. He would like to see stop
signs at Roosevelt and Chestnut.
Jeffrey Scott, 3536 Madison Street, stated he is supportive of the Master Plan .
Noel Breen, 2758 Olympia Street, stated his concern for the building heights going to 55' and the need for
architectural design standards. He is in favor of a Design Commission for first review.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 295 of 321
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2018 Page3
John Bailey, 790 Magnolia Avenue, stated he supports this plan and thanked Scott Donnell for his hard
work. He brought up the parking issues he submitted a letter on it. Our parking standards are below other
cities.
Robert Wilkinson, 2277 Cameo Road, thanked the staff for their hard work. He stated he would like to have
added to the Village Barrio Master Plan, a master street tree plan and have it handled by the Parks
Department with a steering committee. He is also concerned with too narrow of sidewalks in the downtown
area. He also stated he would like to have staff address SB827 -taller and denser projects.
Socorro Anderson, 3256 Madison Street, stated that she supports this plan. One concern is traffic on
Roosevelt and lighting.
Michael Hedrick, 3557 Madison Street, thanked the Planning Commission and Scott Donnell for listening
and giving updates to the residents. He stated that he would like to see changes to the village: lighting,
traffic calming, uniform building standard, and access to the beach.
Jan Neff-Sinclair, lives near Faraday, stated her concern for distilleries in the Tyler Street area as not safe
in a residential area. Also building height 4 stories does not fit with small town beach feel. The proposed
Grand Plaza -traffic concern.
Mary Anne Viney, 2796 James Drive, asked if residents get their comments responded to prior to public
hearings in a timely manner. She also stated she would like to know where the vision orginated from for
the transition for Barrio to become the commericial support for the village. Also she stated, there are no
codes within draft plan that would require any historic or potential historic buildings to be preserved. She
would like to have a Design Review Board.
RECESS Chairperson Montgomery called for a recess at 8:10 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Montgomery called the meeting to order at 8:22 p.m.
Mike Howes, 2888 Loker Ave East, Suite 217, spoke on behalf of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce,
development community, and is a 38-year resident. He stated that a letter was sent to the Planning
Commissioners which should be added into the record. He supports the Master Plan.
Scott Engel, 4220 Isle Drive, stated his concern about the design guidelines and how they are being applied.
He is also concerned about the City Council not being part of the approval process.
Raul Villamar, 937 Oak Avenue, stated his concern about parking, traffic, and lighting in the Village and
Barrio with more development proposed.
Monica Bustamante, 3471 Jefferson Street, thanked the staff for their work. She stated she would like the
historic area on State and Carlsbad Village Drive preserved and the quality of life maintained. She stated
her concern about the parking issue with the increased density. She would like to see a crossing at
Chestnut to have access to the beach and for safety. Final approval of City Council should be part of the
plan.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any more speakers, seeing none he closed the public
testimony.
DISCUSSION
Scott Donnell addressed the public comments and concerns that were heard tonight.
Commissioner Anderson stated that people were concerned about the safety of slanted (angled) parking
on State Street.
Mr. Donnell stated that reverse angle parking is safer from the standpoint of both the occupant of the vehicle
and bicyclists because you are exiting into the street not the sidewalk and it improves the visibility. He also
stated more parking is achieved with angle parking opposed to parallel parking.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 296 of 321
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2018 Page4
Commissioner Anderson stated there were a lot of comments on lighting in the Barrio and she asked if all
of these improvements in the Barrio are going to be tied together in one program. She stated that the
commission has talked about the Chestnut crossings and has encouraged that this go forward. She asked
if some of these items could be broken out and not wait for the capital improvement program.
Scott Donnell stated that there have been p1ans and studies in place on improvements in the Barrio for
lighting. He stated that the Implementation action plan matrix identifies the standards for future lighting. He
also stated that some items are dependent upon other projects. For example, the crossing at Chestnut
railroad tracks is contingent upon whether there will be trenching of the railroad.
Commissioner Anderson asked how he would address public comments that were received previously.
Mr. Donnell stated that comments are extensive and he could come back to address those issues.
Don Neu stated that many questions were raised by the public in regard to why.other communities in the
city have certain improvements and the village barrio does not have these improvements. He stated that
the village barrio is an area that was developed at an earlier point in time. The other communities mentioned
have master plans and had a master developer and improvements were required concurrent with
development.
Commissioner Anderson commented oh the question from the public on the 55' height of buildings. She
stated that Scott Donnell was referring to the exception of elevator shafts.
Commissioner Segal stated that staff addressed many of concerns that were raised tonight and iri the staff
report attachment of public comments received.
Commissioner Luna stated that the Implementation Action Plan is a great document in the Village Barrio
Master Plan that answers a lot of questions that have been raised on funding that City Council is already
currently doing with the CIP in the village plan.
Chairperson Montgomery recommended that the commission deliberate and clarify public comments and
concerns at the next meeting on May 2, 2018.
Commissioner Segal suggested at the next meeting the commission can discuss key issues.
Chairperson Montgomery reiterated to the commissioners that in the Village Barrio Master Plan Staff report,
attachment 8, documents revisions staff was to consider and what was done regarding each item. Many
of these items were discussed at the October 19, 2016 Planning Commission meeting:
MOTION
I
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Anderson and duly seconded by Commissioner Segall that
the Planning Commission continue item 2 to the May 2, 2018 hearing.
VOTE: 5-0
AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Anderson, Luna, Meenes, and Segall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Black
ABSTAIN: None
1 Chairperson Montgomery closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2 and proceeded to the approval of
minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meetings of
March 7, 2018 and March 21, 2018.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 297 of 321
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2018 Page 5
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Anderson and duly seconded by Commissioner Segall to
approve the minutes of the Regular Meetings of March 7, 2018 and March 21, 2018
\
VOTE: 3-0-1-2
AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Anderson and Segall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Black
ABSTAIN: Commissioners Luna and Meenes
Chairperson Montgomery asked City Planner Don Neu to introduce the first item.
1. ELECTION OF OFFICER -The Planning Commission will elect a Vice Chairperson for
2018.
Don Neu stated that Vice Chairperson Rodman has resigned and the Commission will need to nominate a
new Vice Chairperson.
Chairperson Montgomery stated that Commissioner Black (absent) wishes not to be nominated.
Commissioner Segall nominated Commissioner Anderson for Vice Chairperson. The nomination was
seconded by Commissioner Luna.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any other nominations for Vice Chairperson. There were no
other nominations.
The Commission voted 5-0 to appoint Commissioner Anderson as Vice Chairperson for the remainder of
2018.
Chairperson Montgomery closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Anderson commentea that all commissioners that are present and the City Planner attended
the League of California Cities Planning Commissioners Academy in Monterey. She commended
Commissioner Segall on the two sessions that he led at the event. Commissioner Segal stated the two
sessions he led were: In-fill projects: Ensuring Neighborhood Compatibility and Wildland-Urban Interface
Conflagrations.
CITY PLANNER COMMENTS
None.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
None.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 298 of 321
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2018
ADJOURNMENT
[~Regular Meoting of the Planning CooUnlssion Was adJoumed at~:27 p.n,.
0011 Neu
City Planner
Michele Hardy
Minutes Clerk
Page6
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 299 of 321
Planning Commission Minutes, as Amended May2,2018
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meetlng:
Place of Meeting:
CALL TO ORDER
PLANNING COMMISSION
6:00 p.m.
May 2, 2018
COUNCIL CHAMBER
Page1
I . CORRECTED .. I
Planning Commission Chairperson Montgomery .called the Regular Meeting to orderat6:01 p.m .
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Black led the, Pledge of A(legi,ance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chalrperson Montgomery, Commissioners Anderson, Black, Luna, Meenes, and Segpll.
Absent: None
Staff Present: Don Neu, City Planner
Ron Kemp, Assistant City Attorney
Michele Hardy, Senior Office Specialist
Scott Donnell, Senior Planner ·
David de Cordova, Principal Planner
Craig Williams, Senior Engineer /
Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager
Claudia Huerta, Senlor Program Manager
Debbie Fountain, Community and Economic Development Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting of
April 18, 2018,
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Anderson and. duly seconded by Commissioner-Luna to
approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 18, 2018.
VOTE: 5-0
AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners. Anderson,. Luna, Meenes, and Segall.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Black
Chairperson Montgomery directed everyone's attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures
the Commission would be following for that evening's public hearing.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Brian Connor, 4815 Wind Jammer Way, stated he Would like to know the wisdom of allowing RVs, trailers,.
and boats to be parked in front yarcjs of residents' property.· He stated he thinks that it is a n,isguided policy
and it is abused.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 300 of 321
Planning Commission Minutes, as Amended May 2, 2018 Page2
CONTINUED PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON ITEM NO. 1
Chairperson Montgomery opened the hearing and asked City Planner Don Neu to introduce the first item.
1. GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-0.1/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -
VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN ._ Request for a recommendation to adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a
recommendation to approve a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, Zone
Change, Master Plan, and Local Coastal Program Amendment for the Vi.llage and Barrio
Master Plan. The Notice of Intent (NOi) to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
published in the newspaper February 12, 2016, and sent to the State Clearinghouse
(SCH#2016021056) for a 30-day public review(February 16, 2016-March 16, 2016}. The
Village and Barrio are generally west of interstate 5 and between Laguna Drive and
Tamarack Avenue in thecity's Northwest Quadrantand Loca:I Facilities ManagernentZone
1.
Senior Planner Neu introduced the continued Agenda Item 1 and stated Senior Planner Scott Donnell would
give some opening remarks.
Chairperson Montgomery stated that Commissioner Bfack has a statement he would like to make.
Commissioner Black stated that he missed the last public hearing on Village and Barrio Master Plan, but
has been in contact With the Planning Division and at the last qriefing on this subject He stated he did
watch the last meeting's video and heard all the responses from the speakers. He stated he is well informed
and can make a legitimate vote on this subject matter.
Chairperson Montgomery stated that there is a sec::ond Errata Sheet since the Planning Comrnissiqn's last
meeting and asked Senior Planner Donnell to give his presentation.
Senior Planner Donnell gave a brief presentation. He stated that thiS item involves 350 acres west of
Interstate. 5 between Laguna Drive and Tamarack Drive. He stc1ted there is a brief staff report that recaps
the meeting held on April 18, 2018, and includes additiona.1 public comments that were received since the
printing of the Aprjl 18, 2018 staff report, and a second Erra:ta Sheet He stated the second Errata Sheet
focuses on three specific-items: Bike paths, plan implementatipn, and review additions. He also stated
that the Errata Sheet includes changes staff is propos[rig frotnthe public comments received and from Bike
Walk Carlsbad, a bicycle interest group, and in conjunction with the city's consultant that assisted with the
bike plah. The second Errata Sheet proposes change$ .io ttie Village c1nd Barrio Master Plan iii Chapter 4
-Mobility and Beautification. He stated the second Errata. Sheet also proposes changes in Chapter 5 of
the Master Plan on implementation. He stated that ttie staff report and Errata Sheets ~re on the City of
Carlsbad_'s website under the Village and Barrio Master Plan and on the Planrting Commission webpage.
He stated he would be available to answer questiori,s as well as additional staff members present. He
stated representatives of the RRM consulting firm are available to answer questions, as well.
Chairperson Montgomery asked the Commissioners if there are any darifying questions on Senior Planner
Donnell's presentation.
Commissioner Segall cisked where he can find the firstErrata Sheet.
Senior Planner Donnell stated the first Errata Sheet is attached to the April 18, 2018, staff report.
Commissioner Anderson asked Senior Planner DonneU; if Bike Walk Carlsbad is the group he referred to
at the last meeting that he consulted with initially. She stated that at the last meeting he stated there were
comments from two different groups that did not always agree with each other.
Senior Planner Donnell stated that the city contracted San Diego Bike Coalition to help staff develop the
Master Plan; which includes the cycle tracks and protected bike lanes. He-stated once the Master Plan
was distributed that there were some comments received from another bike group named Bike Walk
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 301 of 321
Planning Commission Minutes, as Amended May 2; 2018 Page3
Carlsbad. He stated that staff wants to provide a plan that accommodate~ all types of riders (novice and
expert) arid is consistent with state law.
Chairperson Montgomery stated that the Commission has heard this item over the last several years and
there have been several opportunities for public input. He stated the Village and Barrio Master Plan (Plai1)
has gone through several iterations. He stated that the majority, of the public and staff agree With the Plan
and it would be appropriate to go right to the key issues. He proposed that the Commission separate the
areas of discussion. First area of discussion wbuld be the vc arid .Hosp district area a:nd then the following
issues: 1) building height, 2) architecture, 3) parking, 4) beatification and mobility, and 5) Land Use or any
other questions. The second district area would be the Barrio, parking on Tyler Street, and general land
use questions. He asked if the Commission was in agreement and would like to proceed.
Commissioners unanimously agreed to proceed with discussion.
DISCUSSION
VC AND I-IOSP DISTRICT AREA
BUILDING HEIGHT AND STORIES
Chairperson Montgomery stated the building height that is proposed in the Plan is to stay as is at four
stories with a 45 feet height limit. He stated that the Plan is also proposing a four story with a ceiling height
limit of 14 feet at the first level for retail. He asked Senior Planner DonneH it this is correct.
Senior Planner Donnell clarified that the existing Plan is co.iisjstent With the building height He stated it
does not establish a story limitation. ·
Chairperson Montgomery stated that in 1996, the City Council adopted a 45 feet height limit only if it was
over parking arid ifit had a steep roof pitch. He stated in 2007, City Council adopted 45. feet roof pitch but
no requirement for ground level parking and since then it has been modified.
Senior Planner Donnell stated that in 2013, the only changes that were made were outside the Coastal
Zone.
Chairperson Montgomery stated that he thinks the 45 feet height .limit does not reflect the Village that we
envisioned for Carlsbad. He stated staff is proposing a 14~foot ceiling forthe first floor which does not allow ·
a developer to get to 45 feet. He stated he would like to reduce that height limit to 35 feet He asked staff
if the 14-footceiling for the first floor is going to be a standard for every building.
Senior Planner Donnell stated that the 14~foot ceiling for the first floor would apply to most parts of the
Village Center District and Hosp District on Carlsbad Boulevard orily. He stated outside of those areas
there could be a mixed,-use project fhat does not have to meet that ceiling height minimum.
Commissioner Segall stated thatStateSenatorWienerproposed legislation S8827. He stated tl;latthestate
bill was proposing 65 feet building-heights and was revised to 55 feet. He asked if this law passes, how
would that impact what Commission is discussing tonight.
Senior Planner Donnell stated that legislation is ilo longer proposed.
commissioner Segall stated that they have heard public testimony from certain individuals that think we
should not mandate retail at the ground floor. By mandating commercial space, the spaces will go unfilled.
He stated the Commission had this experience with the Poinsettia properties at the TOD area which is
adjacent to the Poinsettia Station. He stated thatthose Units have been vacant for years. He stated that the
Commis$ion should decide if the building height limit should be allowed. He stated he would like to. know
what currently exists at a 45-foot building height.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 302 of 321
Planning Commission Minutes, as Amended May 2, 2018 Page4
Cqmrnissipner Meenes asked Senior Planner Donnell when we look atthe Vision for the Mc1ster Plan Village
Center, he sees a vibrant village core with residents living in a higher density environment with easy access
to multi-modal transportation and pedestrian friendly streets. He states that we would want enough units
and density in the core to entice people to live in that environment
Senior Planner Donnell responded that the area fends itself to a multi-modal area. He stated that the Village
and Barrio have been designated as smart growth areas because of the available transit and flat
topography. He Stated that if the building heights are lowered; the density would not be achieved for these
areas.
Senior Planner Donnell stated that the reason for the difference is because those are the heights that exist
today. He stated 'the Hosp District is ser\ling commercial more than residential and that is the reason for
lowerdensity.
Scott Martin, Architect with RRM Consulting, stated the vision of the Plan is the core of the Village that it is
a walkable, and bike friendly area. He stated that you need to think about the urban realm -the space
between the buildings, He stated it is important to have active streets. As a pedestrian; there are safety and
aesthetic concerns. The Plan has the most appropriate uses for a pedestrii;m area. He stated that retail
use.s have the greatest amount of transparency. Commercial and residential demand less transparency of
the occupant for the ground floor due to safety and too much engagement with the general public.
Scott Martin stated that with the direction of staff it is importaot to have retail on the ground floor. He stated
the retail world is changing dynamically, due to technology. He stated that retail is demanding a greater
ceiling height plate to be viable. He stated that they are requiring a minimum of 14 feet. He stated that in
West Hollywood there is a 3,000-square foot Cafe that just opened, where_ you can order online and go
there to try. on what you purchased. He stated if your decision is to keep a pedestrian area with retail on
the ground floor, then he highly recommends keeping the 14-foot minirnurn to ensure you get a quality retail
environment. He stated that in regard to stories, there is more flexibility of what happens above the gmund
floor. He stated that if you want residential above the ground floor; it would be difficult to have a 35-foot
height with the roof pitch.
Chairpersot, Montgomery stated when Commission had larger projects in the past there was a concern
with 1 O feet above the 45 feet height being allowed for miscellaneous architectural projections; elevator
shaft, and stairways:
Scott Martin stated that 45 feetdefinatly becomes a challenge for a quality retail space on the ground floor
and three stories of residential above. This can be done but ff you lower that to 35 feet and it would be
tough to have a three story building.
Commissioner Luna asked if vacancy rates are not what is envisioned; how difficult would it be to go back
into this Plan to make modifications.
Senior Planner Donnell stated that it would be difficult to modify within the Coastal zone. He stated that
outside the Coastal zone, there is flexibility.
Senior Program Manager, Claudia Huerta, stated she can get the vacancy rates for the Village to the
Commissioners. She stated that our retail spaces are constantly full. She stated the Economic DeVelophient
Division is working on a retail study to understand what uses are need1:1d to continue a vibrancy and ,
. economic vitality:
City Planner Neu stated they have received several comment letters from developers concerned about the
space available, He stated that the current Plan would allow other uses on the ground floor. He stated
outside the Coastal zone, there is flexibility to amend the Plan, but it would not be a quick process.
Commissioner Luna asked Senior Program Manager Huerta if the inquiries are for 1 O feet plate height.
Senior Program Manager Huerta stated that inquiries are looking for any vacant space. ·
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 303 of 321
Planning Commission Minutes, as Amended May2,2018 Page5
Commissioner Anderson asked Senior Program Manager Huerta Which is more pi"OfitablEl for a developer:
retail, office or residential, She stated that most applications are from reside.nti~I developers.
Senior Program Manager Huerta stated that iJdepends on the cleveloper. She stated tMt some developers
only do residential, therefore, that is all that they would be interested in.
commissioner Anderson stated she attended the Planning Commission Conference With her other fellow
Commissioners and other city attendees stated they are trying to preserve the character of their city. She
stated that she looked up the design standards for other cities such as: Fremont; Calabasas; Temecula;
Del M?r; and South Pasadena that she thinks have good quality character With a building height limit of 25~
30 feet. She stated she concurs with Commissioner Montgomery on a lower height limit with some flexibility.
Commissioner Segall stated that he is in favor of the 45 feet height limit for smart city growth and retail on
the ground floor. He stated that many Of the cities Commissioner Anclerson me.htioned clo not l)ave the
train or the ocean nearby;
Commissioner Meenes stated he is in favor to retain what is currently in the Plan.
Commissioner Black stated he concurs with the 45 feet height limit that would maintain the Village
character.
Commissioner Luna stated she concurs with the 45 feet height limit and commends staff for their efforts on
this Village. and Barrio Master Plan.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Commission if they would be willing to limit the archJtecture projections
and have 45 feet height limit.
Commissioner Anderson stated she would like to limit the architectural projections.
City Planner Neu stated that in city standards roof structures cannot be larger than the roof equipment that
is being screened. He stated ADA requirements need to be accommodated rn all parts of the building so
limiting elevator access to roof decks is discouraged.
Chairperson Montgomery stated that the Commission majority supports keeping the building height at 45
feet, as written in the Plan.
Chairperson Montgomery stated to move on to the next discussion item architecture.
ARCHITECTURE
Commissioner Segall stated he likes the architecture with enough building frontage. He stated he likes
North Coast Calvary Chapel's architecture where it has several buildings and it creates a smaller feel.
Senior Planner Martin stated that in the building massing section addresses this smaller building feel within
the Village. He stated this would be a guideline and not a standard. He stated the Plan da,es a good Job
on allowing a variety of architecture.
commissioner Anderson commented that she would' like to see stronger language With wards like. e.risure
and utilize. Sile stated that there currently isn't design guidelines bµt hope to hi::lve them in the new plan.
Commissioner Segall asked about the SB35 law, i.f Commission must interpret the guidelines objectively
instead of subjectively.
Assistant City Attorney, Ron Kemp, stated that S835 does state that architecture standards are objective.
He stated that this bill refers to affordable housing projects and does not apply to projects in the Coastal
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 304 of 321
Planning Commission Minutes, as Amended May 2, 2018 Page6
zone. He stated that this bill would be to prohibit denying a housing project because it does not conform to
a design guideline. He stated that this State law would supersede city law.
Commissioner Segall asked if the Commission wants an architectural style or leave it the way it is. He
stated that from public testimony and the Commission this concern comes up often.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Senior Planner Donnell how staff concluded certain styles that are written
in the plan.
Senior Planner Donnell stated from public testimony collected over the years and based on the Planning
Commission meeti~g on October 19, 2016, where 30 items were discussed. He stated these 30 items are
attached to the April 18, 2018, staff report.
Chairperson Montgomery commented that other cities have an Architecture Design Board. He-asked about
having a Design Board appointed by the City Council.
Senior Planner Neu stated the guidelines provides a better tool for staff and applicants. He. stated that
adding other processes would affect the timing and efficiency of project review. He stated that ifwe are not
getting the preferred quality of projects, then a design review board could be considered.
Commissioner Luna concurs with Senior Planner Neu that a design review bo_ard would not be cost efficient
to the applicant or to staff.
Commissioner Segall stated the city did have a design review board under Redevelopment for the Village.
He asked Senior Planner Ne_u if these guidelines would ensure the quality of projects.
Senior Planner Neu stated he thinks these guidelines would ensure higher quality project designs. He
stated if staff feels they are not getting the desired quality, they can propose modifications. to the guidelines
or add some expertise in the review process,
¢ommissiohet Meenes stated he is .comfortable with the guidelines presented.
Commissioner Luna stated that language _could be stronger i_li the guidelines.
City Attorney Kemp a·sked Senior Planner Donnell if he thinks guidelines and standards are the same.
Senior Planner Donne.II stated that guidelines are subjective to allow flexibility for different types of projects
and standards are requirements. He stated it is u·p to staff and the Planning Commission to determine if
those guidelines have been met.
RECESS Chairperson Montgomery called for a recess at 8:34 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Montgomery called the meeting to order at 8:50 p.m.
BEAUTIFICATION AND MOBILITY
Grand AVeriue Promenade
Chairperson Mo~tgomery asked if there were any comments,
Commissioner Segall stated he is in favor of combining State Street and Grand Promenade and closing
State Street. He stated that this area is the center of the. Village and he suggested having it be a pedestrian
only area. He stated he would like to seethe Grand Avenue Promenade become an entire paseo with no
vehicles.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 305 of 321
Planning Commission Minutes, as Amended May 2, 2018 Page 7
Chairperson Montgomery commented that the cycle track seems to be taking away the street right of way
which could be used for street fairs and other special events. He asked if the width of the cycle track can
be reduced.
Senior Engineer, Craig Williams, stated that 12 feet for a cycle track is the minimum for the variety of Users
such as baby strollers and people walking.
Commissioner Meenes stated has a concern from a public safety standpoint and asked if the Fire
Department has been consulted regarding the Grand Avenue Promenade project. ·
Senior Planner Donnell stated that the Fire Department has been consulted in on the Plan and that their
only concern would be if Grand Avenue was completely closed. He stated Carlsbad Village Drive must
remain open arid wide enough for emergency vehicles to marieuVer.
Chairperson Montgomery stated the Commission has a consensus that the Grand Avenue Promenaqe is
a valued commodity for the city. He stated that the Commission supports this with options that are available
in the futur~.
Commissioner Segall stated he would like to have the widening of the promenade be an option ih the Plan.
Principal Planner de Cordova stated that these options could be memorialized in the Plan for further
discussion. He stated that there are two phases in the implementation chapter. He stated the first Would
be a temporary examination to see what works first.
Commissioner Anderson is not in favor of closing State Street. She stated .that State Street is a main
thoroughfare to businesses and residents.
Chairperson Montgomery stated a list of memorializing options for Grand Avenue Promenade as follows:
State Street as a paseo, eliminate parking on State Street, raising the cycle track, and maximizing the
promenade more than 32 feet. · ·
Commissioner Anderson asked if the Errata Sheet could state eith.er -we have sharrows or a cycle track
and not both.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Commissioners What their thoughts regarding the corner plaza for smaller
lots in regard to the 500 square feet area requirement ·
Principal Planner de Cordova stated that the 500 feet minimum could be maintained and riot to exceed the
7.5 percent of the total lot area.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if the Commission wc1s in agreementon the small lot issue.
The Commission unanimously agreed to the modlfication for small lot size.
Commissioner Meenes commented hiS concern with sharrows oli Carlsbad Village Drive for public safety
and the volume of traffic on that street ·
Commissioner Black concurs With Commissioner Meenes because it is very dangerous to have sharrows
on Carlsbad Village Drive.
Chairperson Montgomery stated what staff is proposing on Carlsbad Village Drive is to eliminate the bike
lanes and widening the sidewalks and have sharrows.
Principal Planner de Cordova stated the traffic lanes wouict be. widened for vehicles.
Commissioner Anderson concurs with Commiss.ioner Meenes that sharrows is a potential for an accident
Commissioner Segall concurs.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 306 of 321
Planning Commission Minutes, as Amended May 2, 2018 Page8
Chairperson Montgomery stated the Commission is in agreement that sharrows should not be on Carlspad
Village Drive.
LAND USE
Chairperson Montgomery stated that in public comments that there was a concern of not having enough
clearance for sidewalk cafes. He asked staff about the five feet clearance. ·
Senior Planner Donnell stated that staff woul.d like to maintain the five feet minimum that is proposed in the
Plan.
Commissioner Anderson asked if there can be more attractive design standards for the curb cafes. She
stated she would like a 6-foot minimum sidewalk clearance adjacent to curb cafes.
Senior Planner Donnell stated the Traffic Engineer has the flexibility to modify those standards in the Plan
for curb cafes. ·
Engineering Manager Geldert, stated that most sidewalks are ten feet in width. He stated that the curb
cafes do not impede any of the sidewalks. He stated that the five feet produced a balance for walkability
and the sidewalk cafes. ·
Chairperson Montgomery asked Commissioners if they were in agreement with the required clearances.
Commissioner Segall stated he is in favor of it.
Chairperson Montgomery stated another public comment that came up was on land use in the Village. He
stated that the public would like to know if the plan has addressed retail and parking being moved off these
key areas.
Senior Planner Donnell stated that Imagine Carlsbad has requested a 50-foot setback before parking can
begin on a piece of property so that commercial buildings. can occupy the front of the lot. He stated that
the retail market is changing and staff feels that is too restrictive which forces parking in some cases fo be
located underground.
Principal Planner Cordova stated that there are standards and restrictions for street parking ih front of
buildings and to have it behind buildings for walkability.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Senior Planner Donnell if there is a size requirement for retail usage oh
the first level. ·
Senior Planner Donnell stated that there is an in-lieu fee that commercial can use for parking off site. He
stated that there is not a size requirement for retail space.
Chairperson Montgomery stated that the next discussion item i_$to specify timeshare uses and not to be
combined with other incompatible uses. He stated he thinks timeshares would be compatible with hotels.
Commissioner Anderson concurs.
Commissioner Segall concurs.
Senior Planner Donnell stated that staff tried to address this concern in the Plan under the Good Neighbor ---\
Section regarding mixed uses.
Chairperson Montgomery stated the Commiss.ion is in an agreement on not allowing timeshares with
residential uses in a mixed-use project.
MOTION TO EXTEND TO 10:15 P.M.
Chairperson Montgomery requested a motion to extend the meeting until 10:15 p.m. The motion passed
unanimously. ·
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 307 of 321
Planning Commission Minutes, as Amended May 2, 2018 Page9
Chairperson Montgomery stated that the items that relT)aih to be discussed are the parking in the Village,
Barrio on Land Use and parking/circulation on Tyler Street.
Commissioner Segall stated that the historically significant properties such as Twin Inns, fhe Santa Fe Train
Depot, Barrio Museum; Lola's, Carlsbad Theatre; and Magee Park should be preserved; He stated this
may be under consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission as they update their ordinance for
City Council consideration. ~
Chairperson Montgomery asked City Planner Neu if this is addressed in the Village and Barrio Master Plan.
City Planner Neu stated the Historic Preservation Commission has been working on Updating the Historic
Preservation ordinance. He stated the Plan does not specifically address this item. · ·
City Attorney Kemp stated he attended a Historic Preservation Commission · meeting when they Were
drafting. up their ordinance and defining their mission. He stated there is a subcommittee of the City Council
that is looking at chapter two of the codes that cover commissions and their missions .. He stated that in the
General Plan there are goals. He stated the Historic Preservation Commission is working on an inventory
of properties.
Chairperson Montgomery asked staff to address at their next meeting the foliowing: retail spaces and the
lack of a required minimum depth.
Chairperson Montgomery asked for a motion to continue this item to the May 16, 2018 Planning
Commission meeting.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Anderson and duly seconded by Commissioner Meenes
that the Planning Commission continue this item to the May 16, 2018 meeting.
VOTE: .6-0
AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Anderson, Black; Luna, Meenes, and
Segall.
NOES: None
AB-SENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Montgomery closed th.e continued hearing on Agenda Item 1, asked City Planner Neu to
introduce the next item and opened the public hearing for Agenda Item 2.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
2. APPOINTMENT TO THE AGRICULTURAL CONVERSION MITIGATION FEE AD HOC
CITIZENS' COMMITTEE -The Planning Commission will appoint a member to serve on the
AGRICULTURAL CONVERSION MITIGATION FEE AD HOC CITIZENS' COMMITTEE.
City Planner Neu stated that Commission Will need to appoint a member to serve on the Agricultural
Conversion Mitigation Fee Ad Hoc Citizens' Committee to fill the vacancy created when Commissioner
Siekmann completed her term. ·
Commissioner Luna nominated Commissioner Meehes.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 308 of 321
Planning Commission Minutes, as Amended May 2, 2018 Page: 10
IVIOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Luna and duly seconded by Comm'issioner Black that the
Commission appoint Commissioner Meenes to serve on the Agricultural Conversicih
Mitigation Fee Ad Hoc Citizens' Committee
VOTE: 6~0
AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, CommissJoners Anderson, Black, Luna, Meenes; arid
Segall.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Montgomery closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Anderson thanked staff for their work on Village and Barrio Master Plan; and she asked if
the Commission will still receive additional public correspondence.
Senior Planner Donnell stated there could be more public correspondence submitted.
Chairperson Montgomery thanked Commissioner Anderson for her willingness to serve .as Vice
Chairperson ori the Commission arid had no further comments.
CITY PLANNER COMMENTS
None.
CITY ATTdRNEY COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of May 2, 2018 was adjourned at
[~
Don Neu
City Planner
Michele Hardy
Minutes Clerk
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 309 of 321
May 16, 2018 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Page 3
Regular Meeting Amended Minutes
Chair Montgomery clarified that in construction terminology, a plate is the horizontal wood framing piece
on the top of the wall. There is usually two what is called a double plate that the vertical studs are framed
up to. The very top of that wall is called a plate.
Commissioner Anderson stated that on page seven the Errata Sheet Three refers to Class 4 Bikeways
stating it is the exclusive use of bikes.
Senior Planner Donnell explained that statement appears to be a discrepancy. He noted that he would
need clarification and that he will refer to Mr. Williams.
VILLAGE CENTER and HOSPITALITY -PARKING
Commissioner Anderson asked if the parking would be studied annually.
Senior Planner Donnell confirmed that a parking study initially was to be done semi-annually. This would
allow parking counts for both peak and non-peak seasons. The Master Plan states annually because in the
-future, due to costs, it could then be cut down to once a year.
Commissioner Segall is concerned about parking lots located in and all over the Village would take away
from the intimacy of the area. He would like to see a central place for a parking structure, where you park
once and can access all parts of the Village.
City Planner Neu spoke about the Parking In Lieu Fee program which was previously approved by the City
Council.
Senior Planner Donnell stated that a concept of regular monitoring of parking supply is built into the
Village Plan. He noted the Plan could be adjusted.
Senior Planner Donnell stated that in regard to the existing surface lot, if the city were to work with a
developer to develop those properties, they would either be trying to replace the parking elsewhere or
retain it on the property with some sort of structure either above or below ground. Regarding the Village
Master Plan, staff would look at the parking study recommendations that the Planning Commission
considered and that City Council accepted. He noted that, as Commissioner Segall mentioned, the park
once concept was still a very big part of the Plan.
Commissioner Segall stated that the vision of the Plan does not encourage a more intimate feel of the
Village. He would like to see the surface parking lots which take up a lot of real estate and are inefficient
changed to a central located parking structure.
Senior Planner Donnell explained that the Village Master Plan allows for the shared parking idea to
continue even if parking is lost. The Village Master Plan will require regular monitoring of the parking
supply so if parking lots are disappearing due to shared parking concept, then adjustments to the Village
Master Plan would be required.
Chair Montgomery stated that the Planning Commission does not have control over the in-lieu fees and
cannot be memorialized in the master plan document. He noted that the fee may not be high enough to
provide the needed parking in the future. He explained that he does view the city using the in-lieu fee
with public-private cooperation on a building with garage and retail spaces.
I ! ! i i
I
I l t I I f I I f i I j
l I
I ! J I
I I
I f I I i
I I I ~ ' i I July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 312 of 321
May 16, 2018 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Page 6
Regular Meeting Amended Minutes
Assistant Attorney Kemp stated that the state law requires that if you convert your garage to an accessory
dwelling unit; you must replace the primary parking on site. It doesn't have to be another garage, it could
be tandem parking or some other configuration.
Assistant City Attorney Kemp, going back to previous discussion on the cycle track, and per the highway
code, Class IV bikeways are exclusive to bicycles and do not allow pedestrians.
Barrio Perimeter (BP) and Barrio Center (BC) Districts (excluding Tyler Street) -Parking
Commissioner Segall stated that he is concerned with not having enough on-site parking. He noted that
additional parking would be pushed out onto the street which in turn exacerbates the parking problem.
Chair Montgomery agreed with Commissioner Segall. He asked if the reduction of parking requirements
proposed in the Master Plan was due to the results of the Parking Study.
Senior Planner Donnell answered that is correct, the Parking Study supported the parking reduction
requirement.
Chair Montgomery stated that two parking spaces per unit for units of two or more bedrooms should be
required in the Plan.
City Planner Neu explained that the Village Master Plan is proposing that the spaces for visitor parking in
the BP and BC districts are to be located onsite.
' Planning Commissioners unanimously recommended to change the Master Plan to require two spaces
per unit for units of two or more bedrooms.
Pine-Tyler (PT) District Five and Six-Land Use
Chair Montgomery stated that distilleries are not allowed in the PT District, by right.
Senior Planner Donnell explained that districts 5 and 6 provisionally permits wineries today. Under the proposed
Master Plan, it is the same in that regard but instead of being provisionally permitted, they would be conditionally
permitted. They would need a conditional-use permit that requires Planning Commission approval. The one
difference between the proposed Master Plan and the existing Master Plan is that the proposed Master
Plan would also allow breweries in existing districts 5 and 6, subject to an approved Conditional Use
Permit.
Chair Montgomery asked if the Commission would like to discuss any other options for Tyler Street
improvements.
Commissioner Segall stated the proposed Master Plan allows future discussion and public hearings for
improvements on Tyler and Grand Street.
Senior Planner Donnell stated that the proposed Master Plan states that significant public improvements
(street redesign for example) require public input.
Commissioner Segall asked about the boundary lines of the districts particularly as they relate to the Barrio
City Planner Neu stated the real importance is the district that the property is within, in terms of allowed
uses, development standards and those things that relate to developing a property.
I I !
I I ! l i i I I I I I
f I ! I
I I I
I
r I i I I t I
I I i t I July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 315 of 321
May 16, 2018 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Amended Minutes
Page 7
Senior Planner Donnell stated that the plan lays out three different concepts for Tyler Street all would
need public review. The policy for the public review for significant public improvements is stated on page
1-16 of the proposed Village Master Plan.
Chair Montgomery talked about the public concerns regarding future traffic circles on Tyler Street and the
impact of large truck traffic.
After discussion, Commissioners agreed to make a recommendation to the City Council for consideration
of monument and street signage.
Commissioner Anderson stated that there was a public comment that suggested local artists should be
used for art. She asked if local area artists are already given priority.
Chair Montgomery stated that would be up to the Arts Commission.
Commissioner Anderson stated that she has a concern with roof top decks being counted as open space
in the Hospitality and Barrio districts.
Commissioner Segall asked about a request or recommendation to the City Council for traffic calming on
Madison and Roosevelt Road. He would like to see a stop sign or roundabout which would slow down the
vehicles in this area. He noted that the community has voiced a concern over the years and there hasn't
been a solution.
Principal Planner de Cordova stated that with respect to the traffic calming in the Barrio, it is in the current
Capital Improvements Program so it is already partially funded. Traffic calming for this area has been
identified in the proposed Village Master Plan and recommended as a Phase 1 Improvement. More
broadly, in the matrix on page 5-8, the implementation actions have been lumped into various categories
some relate to additional regulatory or planning type projects and additional studies. The Pla'n has a
comprehensive list on proposed Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) many of them are tied back to the
street. Those projects are going to get developed through the City Council's CIP process.
Commissioner Segall stated that there is a large community concern about traffic calming in this area. He
is concerned that it could take two years for implementation of some type of traffic calming in that area.
Commissioners unanimously agreed to make a recommendation to the City Council requesting to make
traffic calming in this area be a high priority.
Commissioner Anderson requested clarification on the Planning Commission's role regarding design
discretion and subjective authority over development. Residents are concerned that the Planning
Commission will be the final decision body. She asked that since the city has chosen not to have a design
review board, the Planning Commission becomes the design review board.
Senior Planner Donnell explained that both findings for permits approved by the Planning Commission tie
back to the Master Plan which requires project consistency. He noted that the design guidelines are part
of the Master Plan which gives the Planning Commission the ability to make sure a project is consistent
with the document.
Commissioner Segall stated that the Commissioners are at a real disadvantage when a project is brought
before them and they don't approve of the design. He stated that he would like more discussion on this
request.
I I I I i I
I [
i
I I I
I
f I 1 I i
I
! i I ! !
f July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 316 of 321
May 16, 2018 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Amended Minutes
Page 9
• Clarification on the chain link fence prohibition that it is only applicable to new fencing not any
existing fence;
• In the parking section, there was a desire to change from 1.5 spaces to 2 spaces for 2 bedrooms
or more per dwelling unit;
• Recommendation to the City Council emphasizing to prioritize Capital Improvement Project for
traffic calming;
• Requested that the City Council approve staff acquiring consulting architect services, when staff
feels that it is needed to help with project review; and
• Review and clarify use of the term "cycle track.".
Commissioners thanked fellow Commissioners, staff and the public for all the time and work that has been
put into the Village Master Plan.
MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Meenes, to Adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 7293 and Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7294
including the errata sheets.
VOTE: 5/1
AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Black, Luna, Meenes, and Segall
NOES: Chair Montgomery
Chair Montgomery closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1, asked City Planner Neu to introduce the
next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 2.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
2. CT 2017-0005/PUD 2017-0005 (DEV2017-0063) -GRAND WEST -Request for approval of a
Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development Permit to allow the development of a six-unit,
residential air-space condominium project on a 0.43-acre site located at 972-988 Grand Avenue,
within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The City Planner has determined that this project is
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15332 "In-Fill Development Projects" of the State CEQA Guidelines and will not have any
adverse significant impact on the environment.
City Planner Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and Associate Planner Garcia reviewed a PowerPoint
presentation (on file in the Planning Division).
DISCLOSURES:
Commissioner Segall and Meenes stated that they drove by the site.
Chair Montgomery asked if there were questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant would
like to make a presentation.
Terry Mathew, applicant, spoke about the project and stated she would be available to answer questions.
Chair Montgomery asked if there were questions for the applicant. Seeing none, he asked if there were
any members of the public who wished to speak on the project. Seeing none, he opened and closed public
testimony.
l l t l I I
I j
I I I
r I
f
I I I 2 I
i I
I I r
I I
l I I
I j t I
f
f I July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 318 of 321
Exhibit 11
VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN
PROPOSED TEXT CHANGES TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OTHER THAN TITLE 21 (MCA 16-01)
{Strikethrough indicates text to be deleted and underline indicates text to be added.)
1. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 2.24.060 is amended to read as follows:
In addition to the duties specified by this chapter, the planning commission shall perform the
duties and have all the rights, powers and privileges specified and provided for by city or state law. For
the village review areaVillage and Barrio Master Plan, the planning commission shall be responsible for
the administration of, and shall carry out the duties specified in Chapters 21.35 and 21.81 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code.
2. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 8.09.080 A.6 is amended to read as follows:
The proposed entertainment establishment does not comply with all applicable laws, including
but not limited to: health, zoning, building, and fire code requirements. Prior to granting a license, the
chief of police or designee shall obtain certification from the fire chief, city planner or housing and
neighborhood services director (if the property is located in the redevelopment area), and building
official that the proposed use is in compliance with the land use and zoning provisions of the applicable
municipal codes provisions and Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design ManualVillage and
Barrio Master Plan {if applicable), and that the structures are suitable and safe for the proposed
operation of an entertainment establishment.
3. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 8.44.040 A.1 is amended to read as follows:
8.44.040 Consuming or possessing an open container of alcoholic beverages in certain public
places and parks owned by the city prohibited.
A. No person shall possess any can, bottle, or other receptacle containing any alcoholic
beverage that has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have been partially
removed, nor shall any person consume any alcoholic beverage in any city-owned public places and
park identified in this section as:
1. Any public street, sidewalk, alley, highway or public parking lot in the city's -\L-R
Village Redevelopment V-B Village Barrio Zone, as that zone is designated in Chapter 21.35 of this code,
as amended, and specifically within or adjacent to the VC, VG, HOSP, FC, and PT districts and the VBO
district (Magee and Maxton Brown parks) of the Village and Barrio Master Plan.
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 319 of 321
2. Rotary Park located at 2900 block of Washington Street, bordered to the west
by Washington Street, bordered to the east by the west alley of State Street immediately east of the
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Rail Road tracks, bordered to the south by Carlsbad Village Drive and
bordered to the north by Grand Avenue in the City of Carlsbad.
B. Any of the prohibitions set forth in this section may be waived during a special event
when a special event permit requesting a waiver has been granted by the city manager or designee.
C. Th is section does not apply when an individual is in possession of an alcoholic beverage
container w ithin a sidewalk ca f e or curb cafe t hat is approved and permitted as req uired by the Village
and Barrio Master Pla n and the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
D. This section does not apply when an individual is in possession of an alcoholic beverage
container for the purpose of recycling or other related activity.
4. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 11.44.010 is amended to read as follows:
The provisions of the chapter shall apply generally to all zones within the city, including
the Village Review Zo neV-B, Village-Barrio Zone. No "sign" as defined in the sign ordinance
(Chapter 21.41), may be displayed on city property, unless a city property sign permit has first been
issued, or the subject sign is expressly exempted from the city property sign permit requirement by this
chapter.
A sign may be affixed, erected, constructed, placed, established, mounted, created or maintained only
in conformance with the standards, procedures and other requirements of this chapter. The standards
regarding number and size of signs regulated by this chapter are maximum standards, unless otherwise
stated.
5. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 11.44.050 is amended by revising the section title to
read as follows:
11.44.050 Permits for A-frame signs in the Carlsbad Village Re¥iew areaV-B, Village-Barrio
Zone, bearing commercial messages for adjacent establishments or noncommercial messages.
6. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 11.44.050 8.1 is amended to read as follows:
"A-frame" signs, as that term is defined in the sign ordinance, may be placed in particular
portions of the public right-of-way, within the Carlsba d Vi llage Re view are aV-B, Village-Barrio Zone
only, namely, on the public sidewalk directly in front of the store or other establishment displaying the
sign.
6. Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 11.44.050 B.3 is amended to read as follows:
All such signs may be placed in the permitted space on the public right-of-way only when the
establishment is actually open to the public for business. A person employed by or associated with the
establishment must be physically present within 50 feet of the sign at all times. The sign must be placed
2
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 320 of 321
10. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.42.020 is amended by revising "Note 2" after Table
Table 18.42.020 as follows:
Note 2 Square footage of dining area allowed in incidental outdoor dining areas pursuant
to Section 21.26.013, and square footage of dining area allowed without any parking requirement in
outdoor, sidewalk or curb cafes, as defined by and pursuant to the Carl sbad Village Master Plan and
Design ManualVillage and Ba rrio Mast er Plan and the city council, shall not count towards the
generation of trips. However, any combination of outdoor dining area square footage which exceeds
the amount of indoor dining area square footage shall count towards the generation of trips.
4
July 10, 2018 Item #12 Page 321 of 321
(cicyof
Carlsbad
Memorandum
July 10, 2018
To: Mayor and City Council Members
All Receive -Agenda Item # lb
Forthe Information of the:
CITYCOU~l
ACM~CA_cc /
Date ~CM ./ COO / --
From:
Via
Re:
Debbie Fountain, Community & Economic Dev~ment Director
Elaine Lu key, Acting Chief Operations Officer -zv---
Additional Material/Information Regarding Staff Report Item 12 -Village Barrio Master
Plan
Staff requests the attached Sixth Errata Sheet be added to the record as Attachment D to
Exhibit 3 of the City Council staff report for consideration by the City Council on the Village
Barrio Master Plan. In the Sixth Errata Sheet city staff has added a Farmers' Market as a
conditional permitted use in the Village and corrected a map error in the combined errata sheet
provided as part ofthe City Council staff report.
C: City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk Services Manager
July 10, 2018
ATTACHMENT D
{city of
Carlsbad
SIXTH ERRATA SHEET FOR VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN -GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-
01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014)
This sixth errata sheet adds a Farmers' Market as a conditionally permitted use in the Village
and corrects a map error in the combined errata sheet provided as part of the City Council staff
report. This sixth errata sheet can be added as Attachment D to Exhibit 3 of the staff report.
Underline indicates text to be added.
Page#
2-7 (of
Master
Plan)
48 (of City
Council
staff
report,
Item #12)
Section, Figure or Table
Table 2-1, Permitted Uses
Combined Errata Exhibit
2 (provided at end of
Attachment B of
proposed City Council
Ordinance for MP 14-01
(Exhibit 3 to City Council
staff report))
Recommended change
Under the "Other" category, add "Farmers' Market" as a
conditionally permitted use in the VC, Village Center,
District as follows:
I Farmers' Market
Revise Exhibit 2 to correctly show the proposed districting
for a parcel {APN 203-101-22) between State and Roosevelt
Streets and north of Beech Avenue. The exhibit presently
shows the parcel as being entirely within the VG District.
Consistent with Figure 2-1 of the proposed plan, the parcel
should be split by the VC and VG districts. See below.
Figure 2-2, Use Restrictions Map with incorrect districting
Sixth Errata Sheet for Village and Barrio Master Plan
July 10, 2018
Page 2
Figure 2-2, Use Restrictions Map with correct districting
June 26, 2018
To:
From:
Via:
Re:
To the members of the:
CITYCOUNOL
ACM v" CA ./ CC ,/
Date 1-10·1q;CM v COOL
Council Memorandum
Honorable Mayor Hall and Members of the City Council
Gary Barberio, Assistant City ManagerB~ ,,,.J __,,
Elaine Lu key, Acting Chief Operations Officer~
Responses to Questions from July 10 City Council Briefings
Agenda Item No. 1 -Buena Vista Channel Maintenance
{city of
Carlsbad
Question 1: When was the last time channel maintenance was performed?
Answer: Channel maintenance is performed every year, with vegetation removed by ,.
hand from one-fifth of the northern half of the channel each year.
Question 2: Are the properties in Oceanside included in the district and are they
assessed?
Answer: Yes.
Agenda Item No. 5 -La Costa Avenue Storm Drain Replacement Program
Question 1: Is this project subject to the city's adopted Integrated Pest Management
Program requirements? Specifically, are Sections 3.0 and 5.0 of the Restoration Plan
consistent with the IPM?
Answer: Yes, the project is subject to the 1PM. No, Sections 3.0 and 5.0 are inconsistent
with the 1PM and city staff has prepared the attached "Supplemental Information" document to
address this issue.
Question 2: What is the construction schedule?
Answer: Construction cannot start until after September 17, 2018, due to project
environmental restrictions, and it will take 35 working days (approximately 7 weeks) to
complete the project.
Agenda Item No. 6 -Traffic Calming Plans for Daisy Ave and Harbor Dr
Question: Is the city planning to install any traffic control signage on Chinquapin Ave
near the intersection with Harbor Drive?
Answer: The city is preparing a City Council Inquiry response to this question which will
be distributed to the City Council once it is completed.
Agenda Item No. 8 -Recycled Water Phase Ill Pipeline Expansion Segment 5
{NOTE: This Item is being rescheduled for the July 24, 2018 City Council meeting)
Question: What is the construction schedule?
Answer: Actual construction on the project is not likely to start until January 2019 and
finish in the Spring of 2020.
City Manager's Office
City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2820 t
Mr./Ms. Last name
Feb. 27,2014
Page 2
Agenda Item No. 9 -Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1
Question: How does the city ensure that the Business Parks and HOA's that have
assumed responsibility for maintaining medians and parkways within their boundaries are
doing so in a manner consistent with city standards? -
Answer: The city does not regularly inspect the maintenance practices of any Business
Parks and/or HOA's that assume tree and median maintenance responsibilities via a formalized
agreement with the city. The Business Parks and/or HOA's assume all liability for their
maintenance activities and indemnify the city against any claims.
Agenda Item No. 11-Grand Pacific Palisades Resort
Question 1: Does the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (CRSP) have an architectural design
standard for this pla nning area?
Answer: Yes, the CRSP requires Mediterranean architecture in Planning Area 3.
Question 2: Did the California Coastal Commission review the project specific to lower
cost visitor-serving recreational uses?
Answer: Not directly, but, at staff's direction, the applicant prepared an affordable
accommodations analysis for the project based on and consistent with methodologies and
assumptions in analyses submitted for other recent projects and accepted by the Cal Coastal
Commission, with new data pertinent to the current project.
Agenda Item No. 12 -Village and Barrio Master Plan
Question 1: What definition/description of "mobility hub" does the Plan utilize?
Answer: Appendix A (Definitions) of the Master Plan defines a mobility hub as "a
transportation center that provides an array of transportation services, amenities and design
enhancements that bridge the gap between transit and where people live, work and play."
Mobility hub, is a conditionally-permitted land use in the VC district.
The appendix also defines mobility support services as a land use, "or combin ation of uses, that
directly supports the mobility needs of residents, workers, and visitors to the Village and Barrio
Master Plan area . Such use, or combination of uses, addresses 'first mile/last mile' limitations
faced by transit riders by providing services to get them from their point of origin or to their
final destination." Such uses include car-share, bike-share, electric vehicle charging stations
(EVCS) (including electric bicycles), demand-based shuttle or t rolley services, pedestrian and
bicycle comfort stations, and secure bicycle parking. Mobility support services are
conditionally-permitted in the HOSP, VC, VG, and FC districts.
Mobility hubs and mobility support services as described in the Master Plan are intended to
support SANDAG's Regional Mobility Hub Strategy contained in the San Diego Forward: Th e
Regional Plan.
Question 2: Was the Plan presented to the Traffic Safety Commission? If so, was it
presented as in information item or as an action item?
\
Mr./Ms. Last name
Feb.27,2014
Page 3
Answer: The traffic Safety Commission (TSC) received a presentation on the draft Village
and Barrio Master Plan process on September 8, 2014. The purpose of the presentation was to
inform the TSC about the update process, community outreach steps and overall timeline. Staff
also requested that the TSC designate a Commissioner or two to participate in the interview
process conducted by the city's consultant team. Commissioners Muir and Hunter agreed to
participate in the interviews.
In addition, the Traffic Safety Commission received a report for discussion and comment on the
draft Village, Barrio and Beach Parking Study and Parking Management Plan on Augw;t 7, 2017.
No formal action was taken on the item.
Question 3: Has Caltrans released their guidelines for "cycle tracks"?
Answer: CalTrans issued its initial guidance for Class IV Bikeways (Separated
Bikeways/Cycle Tracks) in December 2015 (Design Information Bulletin No. 89). The
introduction to the guidance states that "The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
publication Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (FHWA Guide) should be used to
design separated bikeways ... The FHWA Guide used the Urban Bikeway Design Guide, a
National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) publication, as part of its source
material. The NACTO publication also provides additional guidance not covered in this DIB
[Design Information Bulletin]. The use of that guidance, coupled with sound engineering
judgment, can be used in collaboration with the guidance in this DIB (p. 1)."
Staff utilized the FHWA guide referenced in the CalTrans DIB in developing the plan level
conceptual recommendations for Class IV Separated Bikeways (Cycle Tracks) in the Master Plan.
Note that Ca IT rans issued updated Class IV Bikeway guidance as DIB 89-01 on May 3, 2018. City
staff will utilize the most current CalTrans guidance available at the time project level design
plans are developed.
Question 4: Does the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) have any
standards regulating the concentration/density of alcohol-serving establishments (breweries,
distilleries, wineries, restaurants with alcohol, etc.) in a given geographical location?
Answer: Breweries, wineries, and distilleries are regulated as alcohol manufacturers
and, unlike retail (on-sale or off-sale) licensees, are not subject to license overconcentration
limits for a given area. In other words, there are no spacing requirements or a statutory limit on
the number of licensed beer/wine/distilled spirits manufacturers in a census tract. However,
the local ABC district supervisor advised staff that in their investigation of a manufacturers
license, the ABC will evaluate whether a proposed location is within 100 feet of a residence and
may impose conditions/restrictions on the licensee to mitigate potential impacts to nearby
residents.
Staff was also informed that, unlike for a retail license, the ABC cannot require the
applicant for a beer/ wine/ distilled spirits manufacturer type license to obtain zoning clearance
from the local jurisdiction prior to issuance of the license. It is however, ABC practice to advise
their applicants to check with the locality regarding land use permit requirements. ABC will also
provide notice to the local jurisdiction (typically the police department) when a license
Mr./Ms. Last name
Feb.27,2014
Page 4
application has been made, but zoning approval is not a pre-requisite to ABC issuance of a non-
retail, manufacturer license.
Question 5: Was Exhibit 13 -Public Comments to the Staff Report available to the
public?
Answer: Yes. Exhibit 13 was listed in the Staff Report as "on file in the Office of the City
Clerk" and was available there in hard copy. In addition Exhibit 13 was electronically posted on
the city website ~long with the rest of the Agenda items for the July 10, 2018 City Council
meeting (link to Exhibit 13: http://www.carlsbadca.gov/cityhall/clerk/meetings/default.asp ).
Question 6: What is the proposed master plan's relationship to the recently approved
Arts & Culture Master Plan?
Answer: Planning Division and Cultural Arts Office staff worked together during the
drafting of both master plans to ensure coordination of both documents. A review of the
recently approved Arts & Culture Master Plan and the proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan
verifies consistency.
Attachment: Item 5 -La Costa Avenue Storm Draine
cc: City Attorney
City Manager
( Cicyof
Carlsbad
Memorandum
July 10, 2018
To:
From:
Via
Re:
Mayor and City Council Members
Daniel Zimny, Assistant Engineer/Marshall Plantz Transportation Director
James Wood, Acting Public Works Director
Additional Material/Information Regarding Staff Report Item #5 -Award of a contract
to Tri Group Construction and Development Inc. for an amount not to exceed $181,000
for the construction of the La Costa Avenue Storm Drain Replacement Program -Storm
Drain Improvements East of Piraeus Street.
The subject staff report includes the approval of a Right of Entry permit (Permit) from the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to facilitate the construction of the storm drain system. The
Right of Entry permit includes a Restoration Plan, for areas that may be disturbed during construction,
which was prepared by the City and provided to the CDFW for inclusion in the Permit. The published
version of staff report included an outdated version of the Restoration Plan. The updated/current
version of the Restoration Plan is dated March 2018 and it was prepared to reflect the updated/current
Integrated Pest Management (1PM) plan which was approved by the City Council on December 5, 2017.
The updated Restoration Plan replaces language that referenced the use of glyphosate herbicides and
replaces it with language that is consistent with the city's current 1PM plan.
In particular Sections 3 and 5 of the Restoration plan were revised as follows:
3.0 SITE PREPARATION
Once construction of the new storm drain system is complete, site preparation can commence.
3.1 Appropriate erosion control materials (e.g., straw wattles) shall be installed.
3.2 Prior to planting and seeding, all weeds, trash, and debris shall be removed from resto'ration
areas.
3.3 'Needs (nonnati're species) shall be killed/eradicated before they reach the seed stage of
growth or e>Eceed 6 inches in length, whichei.1er occurs first. 'l'leeds shall be eradicated through
hand remoi.1al, or herbicide for those ·Needs that require herbicide to kill them (e.g., a run do
[Arundo dona>E], fennel I=oeniculum ,,,ulgare], etc.). Weeds (nonnative species) shall be
killed/eradicated before they reach the seed stage of growth or exceed 6 inches in length,
whichever occurs first. Weeds shall be eradicated through hand-removal whenever possible.
Removal of difficult, perennial species will be removed using methods consistent with the City's
current Integrated Pest Management Plan (I PM).
3.4 Merbicide shall be a glyphosate approved for use by waters. Merbicide shall be o•rerseen by a
licensed Pest Control Advisor and applied by a certified Pest Control Applicator. Herbicide
approved for use by waters may be used if consistent with the 1PM, with authorization from the
City biologist. Herbicide shall be overseen by a licensed Pest Control Advisor and applied by a
certified Pest Control Applicator.
3.5 Weeds that re-establish after the initial weed control and before seeding will als'? be killed
and removed in a manner consistent with the 1PM. The Contractor shall confirm that the site is
weed-free before seeding.
5.0 MAINTENANCE AND SUCCESS STANDARDS
5.1 After the City biologist confirms in writing that the restoration installation work is complete,
the 90-day plant establishment period will begin. The primary standards for the restored habitat
are establishment of native species, erosion control and eradicating problematic invasive
exotics.
5.2 The Contractor is responsible for plant care {watering if necessary); weed control, debris and
trash removal, and erosion control to meet the success standards.
5.3 The Contractor has the option of watering {e.g., hand watering or water truck) seeded areas
within restoration areas to promote the restoration process.
5.4 All weed species within the restored area shall be controlled by hand pulling or herbicide
application, if chemical treatment is needed to kill particular weed species. Weeds shall be
controlled before they set seed or become e inches in length. Weed debris •,•.iill be properly
disposed of offsite. All weed species within the restored area shall be controlled by hand pulling
or other methods consistent with the City's 1PM. Weeds shall be controlled before they set seed
or become 6 inches in length. Weed debris will be properly disposed of offsite.
5.5 The Biological Monitor will provide a list to the Contractor {monthly) of weed species that
need to be eradicated.
5.6 During the maintenance period, the Contractor shall remove all debris and trash from the
restoration areas. Organic debris {e.g., stems and branches) may be left in place.
5.7 During the maintenance period, the Contractor shall maintain erosion control materials,
repair erosion, and install additional erosion control materials as necessary and at the discretion
of the City biologist. Erosion control materials could include, but are not limited to: straw
wattles, gravel bags, and/or mulch.
The updated/current version of the Restoration Plan will be incorporated into the Permit for execution
by the City and the CDFW.
C: City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk Services Manager
(cicyof
Carlsbad
Memorandum
July 10, 2018
To: Mayor and City Council Members
All Receive -Agenda Item # I~
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
ACMJLCA v CC If"
Date -i\, O l\S CM .JL COO v'
From:
Via
Re:
Debbie Fountain, Community & Economic DevelE· ent Director
Elaine Lu key, Acting Chief Operations Officer
Additional Material/Information Regarding Sta Report Item 12 -Village Barrio Master
Plan
Councilmember Cori Schumacher has requested that the attached information be added to the
record as additional information for consideration by the City Council on the Village Barrio
Master Plan. City staff will address the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and the matter of
objective standards during its presentation of the Village Barrio Master Plan (Item 12) to the
City Council. The information provided jointly to the Planning Commission and City Council in
December, 2017 on the HAA is now being provided as additional material/information.
C: City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk Services Manager
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
We Welcome Your Participation
December 5, 2017 3 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER:
CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL:
PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL:
DEPARTMENTAL AND CITY MANAGER REPORT:
1. REPORT ON 2017 HOUSING RELATED LEGISLATION.
Council Chamber
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive .
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Council Members and the Planning Commission will receive a report from staff and legal
counsel regarding the 2017 housing related legislation.
City Manager's Recommendation: Receive the report.
ADJOURNMENT:
Persons with a disability may request an agenda packet in appropriate alternative formats as required by the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. Reasonable accommodations and auxiliary aids will be provided to effectively allow participation in the
meeting. Please contact the City Manager's Office at 760-434-2821 (voice}, 711 (free relay service for TTY users}, 760-720-9461
(fax) or manaqer@carlsbadca.gov by noon on the Monday preceding the meeting to make arrangements.
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Staff Contact:
Subject:
CA Review Jlv( _
December 5, 2017
Mayor and City Council and Planning Commissioners
Kevin Crawford, City Manager
Debbie Fountain, Interim Community & Economic Development Director
Debbie.fountain@carlsbadca.gov or 760-434-2935
Accept the Report on 2017 Housing Related Legislation
Recommended Action
Accept the report on the 2017 housing related legislation, as presented by city staff and legal
counsel.
.Executive Summary
On September 15, 2017, the last day of the 2017 legislative session, the California Legislature
responded to the state's housing crisis by passing fifteen bills in a landmark housing package
developed together with Governor Jerry Brown's office. The Governor signed all fifteen bills on
September 29, 2017. The package raises more money for affordable housing-much designated
for local government-in exchange for requirements to "streamline" housing development
approvals. Although most of the attention has been focused on only three of the bills, SB 2, SB
3, and SB 35, many significant changes are contained in more obscure bills which received little
publicity. Together, the bills will require each city and county to change the way it processes
housing applications.
Attached, as Exhibit 1, is a summary prepared by the law firm of Goldfarb and Lipman (which
provides legal counsel to the city on affordable housing matters) discussing the key provisions
of all fifteen housing bills, as well as several other laws related to housing, such as the
legislation covering accessory dwelling units. Because each bill has numerous complex
provisions, staff has requested that Barbara Kautz, attorney with Goldfarb and Lipman, assist
staff in presenting an overview of the new legislation at a joint meeting of the Planning
Commission and City Council. This new legislation will take effect on January 1, 2018 and the
city needs to be prepared to comply with the new regulations resulting from this landmark
housing legislation.
Discussion
As stated in the attached legislative summary prepared by Goldfarb and Lipman, the 2017
legislative session included enactment of fifteen significant bills, many of which were intended
to "streamline" local government approvals of housing projects. Goldfarb and Lipman noted in
the summary that the amendments to the Housing Accountability Act and the "No Net Loss"
statute will likely have the most significant impact on how housing applications are processed
within the city after January 1, 2018. It is important, therefore, for the city's decision makers to
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 1 of 39
receive an overview ofthe new legislation from legal counsel and be given the opportunity to
ask questions for clarification and enhanced understanding of the new laws.
Barbara E. Kautz is an attorney with Goldfarb and Lipman, and will be presenting and discussing
the new housing laws at the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council. Ms.
Kautz practices in the areas of land use {especially housing-related land use), CEQA compliance,
real estate, economic development, fair housing, and affordable housing. She has assisted
public agency clients in a wide variety of matters including compliance with planning and zoning
law, real estate transactions, redevelopment dissolution issues, loan and homebuyer
documents for affordable housing, CEQA disputes, and compliance with the Fair Housing Act
and Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Fiscal Anal~sis
There is no fiscal impact at this time. This will be a presentation of new legislation only for
information purposes.
,Environmental EvaluationfCEQAl
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, this action does not constitute a "project"
within the meaning of CEQA in that it has no potential to cause either a direct physical change
in the environment, or a reasonably forseeable indirect physical change in the environment,
and therefore does not require environmental review.
Public Notification
A Public Outreach Strategy was developed by communications staff and the public was notified
of the information sessions via the city's website page with information about the new laws,
including links to the white paper on the new laws prepared by the law office of Goldfarb and
Lipman. The joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission will also be streamed
live for those unable to attend the workshops. The video of the joint meeting will be replayed
frequently on the city cable channel during December and January. In addition, the city's social
media channels, media reports and eblasts to existing stakeholder lists have been utilized to
promote awareness of the change in laws and provide information on the meeting schedules.
_Exhibitfsl
1. Recent Developments in California Housing Law, Summary of 2017 Housing Legislation,
October 20, 2017 by Goldfarb Lipman Attorneys
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 2 of 39
ww,v 9oldla,bl1pman com
goldfarb
Ii pma n
attorneys
GOLDFARB & LIPMAN LLP
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CALIFORNIA HOUSING LAW
SUMMARY OF 201 7 HOUSING LEGISLATION
OCTOBER 20, 2017
OAKLAND
510 836 6336
LOS ANGELES
213 627 6336
SAN DIEGO
619 239 6336
This summary has been published by Goldfarb & Lipman LLP to alert clients and others of
recent changes in California law related to the state's housing package. This summary does not
represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the
information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further
analysis or explanation be required, please contact any Goldfarb & Lipman attorney.
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 3 of 39
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. CHANGES REQUIRED IN PROCESSING OF ALL HOUSING PROJECTS ................ 2
A. Housing Accountability Act (HAA): Applicable to All Housing
Development Projects (AB 678, SB 167, and AB 1515; Government Code
§ 65589.5) ............................................................................................................... 2
B. "No Net Loss": Applicable to All Development on Sites Listed in the
Housing Element (SB 166; Government Code§ 65863) ........................................ 5
C. Streamlined Approval for Housing Projects Meeting Specific Criteria
(SB 35; Government Code § 65913.4) ................................................................... 7
II. ANNUAL REPORTING AND HOUSING ELEMENT ENFORCEMENT ................... 11
A. Increased Annual Reporting Obligations, Now Applicable to Charter
Cities (AB 879 and SB 35; Government Code§ 65400) ...................................... 11
B. Increased Enforcement of Housing Law (AB 72; Government Code
§ 65585) ................................................................................................................ 12
C. Future Housing Element Sites Restricted (AB 879 and AB 1397;
Government Code§§ 65583 and 65583.2) ........................................................... 13
III. SUPPORT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING .................................................................. 15
A. New Permanent Funding Sources for Housing (SB 2 and SB 3) ......................... 15
B. Support for Farmworker Housing and Migrant Farm Labor Centers
(AB571) ............................................................................................................... 18
C. Preservation of Units with Expiring Use Restrictions (AB 1521) ........................ 19
D. Welfare Exelnption for Over-Income Tenants (AB 1193) ................................... 22
IV. NEW DISTRICTS AND ZONES TO STREAMLINE DEVELOPMENT AND
FINANCE HOUSING ...................................................................................................... 23
A. W0rkforce Housing Opportunity Zones (SB 540) ... : ............................................ 23
B. Housing Sustainability Districts (AB 73) ............................................................. 25
C. Neighborhood Infill Finance and Transit Improvements (NIFTI) Districts
(AB 1568) ............................................................................................................. 29
V. ACCESSORYDWELLINGUNITLEGISLATION ....................................................... 31
VI. RETURN OF RENTAL INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ........................... '. ...................... 33
A. The Palnier Decision ............................................................................................ 33
B. AB 1505 Authorizes Inclusionary Housing Requirements in Rental
Projects .................................................................................................................. 33
C. Implications for Local Ordinances ........................................................................ 34
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 4 of 39
--
INTRODUCTION
On September 15, 2017, the last day of the 2017 legislative session, the California Legislature
responded to the state's housing crisis by passing fifteen bills in a landmark housing package
developed together with Governor Jerry Brown's office. The Governor signed all fifteen bills on
September 29, 2017. The package raises more money for affordable housing-much designated
for local government-in exchange for requirements to "streamline" housing development
approvals. Although most of the attention has been focused on only three of the bills, SB 2, SB 3,
and SB 35, many significant changes are contained in more obscure bills which received little
publicity. Together, the bills will require each city and county to change the way it processes
housing applications.
This summary discusses the key provisions of all fifteen bills, as well as several other laws
related to housing, such as the legislation covering accessory dwelling units. Each bill has
numerous complex provisions, and this review only provides highlights. Please contact any
attorney at Goldfarb & Lipman for more information regarding the effects of these new laws and
their applicability to your organization or projects.
-w ww go I ti far b Ii p rn an ca 11i-------------------~.-
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 5 of 39
------. -
I. CHANGES REQUIRED IN PROCESSING OF ALL HOUSING PROJECTS
The 2017 legislative session included the enactment of fifteen significant bills, many of which
were intended to "streamline" local government approvals of housing projects. This reflects the
Legislature's view that local government approval processes significantly delay housing
construction and increase costs. While SB 35 was the most publicized statute related to
streamlining, its effects on local government will be relatively minor compared with those
required by amendments to the Housing Accountability Act and the so-called "No Net Loss"
statute. The changes to the Housing Accountability Act and the No Net Loss statute will require
changes on how housing applications are processed after January 1, 2018.
A. Housing Accountabili!Y_ Act [HAA): Afil!licable to All Housing Develol!ment
Projects (AB 678, SB 167, and AB 1515; Government Code§ 65589.5)
1. Ker HAA Provisions. The HAA currently applies to all "housing development projects,"
whether or not affordable. Its key provisions are: ·
a. A Housing Proiect May Usually_ Not be Denied or Reduced in Densi!Y if It
~onforms with All "Obiective" Standards. For all housing projects, whether
affordable or not, the key provision requires that if a housing project complies
with all "objective" general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards, it may only
be denied or have its density reduced if a city or county can find that the project
would have a "specific adverse impact" on public health and safety.
A "specific adverse impact" is a "significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable
impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards" in
effect when the application was deemed complete; and there is no feasible method
to mitigate the impact.
b. Additional Findings Must be Made to Deny an Affordable Proiect. If a project is
also "housing for very low-, low-or moderate-income households," additional
findings need to be made to deny the project, reduce the density, or add a
condition making the project infeasible-even if the project does not comply with
all "objective" standards.
Affordable developments include projects where at least 20 percent of the units
are affordable to low-income households (incomes up to 80% of median) or 100%
are affordable to·either moderate-income households (120% of median) or
middle-income households (150% of median).
-w w w go Id far b I Ip man cum--------------------....... -
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 6 of 39
•
2. Maior Changes to the HAA.
As of January 1, 2018:
a. Aim_licants Must be Informed of Any Inconsistencies within 30-60 Days after the
Aim_lication is Complete. Cities and counties must identify any inconsistencies
with any applicable "plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or
similar provision" within 30 days after an application for 150 units or less has
been deemed complete, or within 60 days for projects with more than 150 units. If
the local agency does hot identify an inconsistency within the required period, the
project will be "deemed consistent."
It is not clear how this provision applies to "pipeline" projects: projects that are
deemed complete before January 1, 2018. Clearly when a project is found to be
complete before January 1, 2018, the provision is not yet in effect. The most
· reasonable approach is that the requirement applies only to projects deemed
complete after January 1, 2018. However, this issue was not resolved in the
legislation.
b. Definition of a "Housing Development Project" Expanded. A "housing
development project" will include any mixed-use project where at least two-thirds
of the square footage in the project is designated for residences, as well as
projects that include residences only and transitional and supportive housing.
c. Definition of "Objective" Standard. The HAA does not define "objective."
However, SB 35 defines an "objective" standard as one that involves "no personal
or subjective judgment by a public official and uniformly verifiable by reference
to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both
the development applicant ... and the public official prior to submittal." Although
SB 35 states that this definition is confined to that statute, courts may reference
this definition in interpreting the HAA.
Provisions such as permitted uses, density, height, setbacks, floor area ratio, even
specific design guidelines such as required materials should all be considered to
be "objective" standards under this definition. On the other hand, subjective
criteria such as "consistent with the character of the city" are not likely to be
considered "objective" and, if not objective, cannot be the basis for denying a
housing project or reducing the density.
d. Projects Receiving Density Bonuses Are Consistent. Receipt of a density bonus is
not a basis to find a housing project inconsistent with applicable development
standards.
-w ww go Id f.H b Ii pm an com---------------------
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 7 of 39
•
e. Less Deference to Local Government Findings oflnconsistency. A housing
project "shall" be deemed consistent with applicable standards if there is
substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the
project is consistent. Currently a local government's finding of either consistency
or inconsistency is upheld unless no reasonable person could agree.
This new standard may make it more difficult for local governments to deny
projects, because if a court finds that evidence of project consistency submitted by
an applicant is reasonable, the project may be found consistent even if the local
government has better evidence that the project is inconsistent. The standard will
also make it more difficult for project opponents to challenge a project as
inconsistent when the local government has found it to be consistent.
Additionally, any findings made to deny a housing project must be supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, which is a less deferential standard ofreview than
the current substantial evidence standard. Rather than only looking at the city's or
county's evidence to see if it is "substantial," a court will compare the agency's
evidence with the applicant's evidence and d,etermine which is more convincing.
f. Increased Penalties for Failure to Com,Qly with the HAA. If a local government
improperly denies any housing project, whether market rate or affordable, the
prevailing party in a lawsuit brought under the Housing Accountability Act is
entitled to attorneys' fees. In addition, if a local agency fails to comply with a
court order to approve a project pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, it
shall be fined a minimum of $10,000 per unit. Penalties can increase to five times
this amount if the local agency fails to comply with a court order, and the court
finds bad faith.
3. ,Coastal Acl The HAA provides specifically that nothing in the Act relieves a local
agency from compliance with the Coastal Act. In Kaine/ Gardens LLC v. City of Los
Angeles (2016), the Court of Appeal stated in dicta. that the HAA is likely to be
subordinate to the Coastal Act as a consequence.of this provision. Assuming that this
conclusion is correct, projects within the coastal zone may be denied if they are
inconsistent with relatively subjective provisions of the Coastal Act, such as the
requirement that they be "visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area."
However, an applicant may submit evidence of consistency into the record. It is not clear
if a court would evaluate a local decision regarding the Coastal Act under the HAA
standard ofreview rather than under the usual 'substantial evidence' standard for
administrative mandate. Under the HAA, if a court were to find that a developer's
evidence is substantial and would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the project
is consistent, a finding of inconsistency by the local agency may not be upheld.
-w w w go I d far b I I pm an cu rn------------------------d
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 8 of 39
4. .CEQA. In reviewing the project, the agency must also comply with CEQA and, if
approving a project, must make all findings required by CEQA. (See Schellinger Bros. v.
City of Sebastopol (2009).) Since environmental review may well substantially exceed 30
to 60 days, applicants will often receive a list of plan inconsistencies long before CEQA
review is completed. That review could require the incorporation of various mitigation
measures into the project, potentially resulting in major project changes. The HAA
contains no provisions for submittal of revised plans, and re-review, once a project is
deemed complete.
5. lm[!lications ff!..r Processing_ of.Housing_ Develo[!ment Al!J2.lications. Thirty to sixty days
is a very short time to review developments for consistency with every local standard. In
the short term, local governments may want to develop checklists of all of the objective
requirements placed on housing development and require applicants to demonstrate how
they comply with those requirements. Because agencies must review compliance with all
"standards and requirements," as well as the general plan, zoning, and subdivision
ordinance, applications may need to show a higher level of detail to demonstrate this
consistency.
In the longer term, local governments may wish to review their standards to ensure that
they are "objective," especially design review standards and findings for approval of
projects. Under SB 2, significant planning funds will be available in 2018 that may be
used for the purpose of streamlining housing approvals. Developing "objective" standards
may both enable local government to achieve quality development and provide more
certainty to housing developers.
B. _"No Net Loss": AJmlicable to All DeveloJlment on Sites Listed in the Housing
Element1 (SB 166; Government Code § 65863)
1. Key_ "No Net Loss" Provisions. Each city and county in its housing element must list
specific sites that can accommodate its Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) for
three income levels: lower (very low and low); moderate; and above moderate. For each
site listed, the housing element must show the number of units that can be constructed on
the site, and whether the site is intended to meet the need for lower-, moderate-, or above-
moderate-income housing. Sites designated for lower-income housing need to be zoned at
certain densities, usually 20 or 30 units per acre in urban areas.
The current "no net loss" provisions apply only when a city or county subject to the
provision approves a project on a site shown in the housing element with fewer units than
shown in the housing element. If that is the case, the government must either:
1 The provision also applies to sites zoned for residential development in communities that have not adopted housing
elements. However, because this affects fewer than 5% of communities, these provisions are not described here.
-w w w go Id far b I I pm an. c • m -------------------------
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 9 of 39
•
• Find that other sites shown in the housing element are adequate to meet the
RHNA at all income levels; or
• Identify other sites so there is 'no net loss' in capacity.
Under current law, if a site designated as suitable for lower-income housing is developed
with the number of units shown in the housing element, there is "no net loss," even if the
units are not affordable.
The statute applies only to general law cities and counties, and SB 166 did not apply the
provision to charter cities.
2. Malor Change to "No Net Loss": Maintaining Ca[!_acit.J!. hr. Income Catego!:J!.. As of
January 1, 2018, cities and counties subject to the provision will need to make "no net
loss" findings if projects are approved on housing element sites with either fewer units
OR a different income category than shown in the housing element. If a site shovvn as
suitable for lower-or moderate-income housing is developed with market-rate units-
even with the same number of units as shown in the housing element-the local
government must either:
• Make a written finding (including unmet need and remaining capacity of sites)
that other sites shown in the housing element are adequate to meet the RHNA for
lower-or moderate-income housing, as applicable; or
• "Identify and make available" within 180 days other sites zoned at a density
suitable for lower-or moderate-income housing, either by identifying existing
properly zoned sites or by making such sites available through rezoning. It is not
entirely clear when the 180-day period starts; the most likely interpretation is that
it begins on the date that a project is approved that results in sites being
inadequate.
Other important provisions include:
a. Denial Because of Need to Rezone. Cities and counties are not authorized to
disapprove a housing development because additional sites would need to be
identified for a specific income category. This appears to be intended to disallow
project denials when a market-rate housing project is proposed on a site shown as
suitable for affordable housing, and a replacement site must be found. Note that
this provision does not apply to non-residential development proposed on a
housing element site, apparently allowing non-residential development to be
disapproved for this reason.
b. CEQA Review of Any Reguired Rezoning. If an approval results in the need to
find a replacement housing site, the agency is not "obligated" to complete CEQA
-w ww go Id far b ! 1 pm an com-----------------------•
Dec. 5, 2017 Item #1 Page 10 of 39
•
review of any rezoning or other action needed to create a replacement site. While
this language appears to be intended to separate any CEQA review of the project
from CEQA review of any needed rezoning, it does not clearly prevent agencies
from reviewing both actions together, if they choose to do so.
The obligation to identify another site within 180 days of project approval does not allow
any extension due to the need to complete CEQA review.
3. Imelications [Qr Processing_ olA1!J2.lications on Housing Element Sites. Any
development application on a site shown in the housing element, including commercial
development on mixed-use sites, should be reviewed for compliance with this section.
Before January 1, 2018, agencies should review all applications approved on housing
element sites since adoption; list the number of units approved and their income category;
list all housing approved on sites not listed in the housing element and their income
category; and determine ifthere is a current shortage of sites in any income category. If
so, when another application is reviewed for a site listed in that income category, the
agency will need to "identify and make available" a replacement site within 180 days if
the project does not include the density and income category shown in the housing
element. The replacement site could be one that is properly zoned but not shown in the
housing element; or a site not included in the housing element that is rezoned to a higher
density.
SB 166 does not appear to require that the housing element be amended if a site not
shown in the housing element is "identified and made available" to account for any
shortfall. However, AB 879 requires that housing element annual reports list any sites
rezoned or identified to comply with this provision.
C. Streamlined Afil!roval for HousingProiects Meeting SQecific Criteria (SB 35;
Governm'ent Code§ 65913.4)
1. Jurisdictions Subiect to SB 35. Government Code section 65913.4 applies to general law
and charter cities and counties; however, jurisdictions are only subject to its provisions if:
• HCD has determined that the jurisdiction has not issued enough building permits
to satisfy its regional housing need allocation (RHNA) by income category; or
• A jurisdiction has not submitted its required annual report to HCD for at least two
consecutive years.
HCD will make its determination for each "reporting period," and once HCD has
determined that a jurisdiction is subject to streamlining requirements, housing projects
remain eligible through the end of that reporting period. A "reporting period" is either the
first half or second half of the either five-or eight-year-long housing element planning
-w ww go Id far b I Ip man co rri---------------------;·-·.
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 11 of 39
•
period. Accordingly, HCD determinations will last for a maximum of either two and a
half or four years, depending on the length of each jurisdiction's housing element
planning period.
2. Proiects Elig_ible [Qr Streamlining_. To be eligible for streamlined approval, the project
must:
• Propose at least two residential units;
• Be located in an urban area, with 75% of the site's perimeter already developed;
• Have a general plan or zoning designation that allows residential or mixed-use
development; and
• Meet all "objective" zoning and design review standards in effect when the
project is submitted.
o A project that receives a density bonus and other regulatory incentives
under density bonus law is considered consistent, and any "maximum unit
allocation" (presumably under a growth coritrol measure) must be ignored.
o Maximum density is the maximum shown in the general plan. Under
SB 3 5, general plan standards trump other standards if documents are
inconsistent.
In addition, projects must meet affordable housing and labor requirements. Specifically:
• If the jurisdiction has not approved enough units to meet its RHNA for above-
moderate-income housing, a project with more than 10 units of housing qualifies
if it dedicates at least 10% of the total unit count for low-income households;
• If the jurisdiction has not issued enough building permits to meet its RHNA for
low-income housing, a project qualifies if it dedicates 50% of the total unit count
for low-income households;
• If the jurisdiction has not issued enough building permits to meet its RHNA for
low-income housing and above-moderate-income housing, the applicant can
choose between dedicating 10% or 50% of the total unit count for low-income
households;
• Projects with more than 10 units must commit to paying prevailing wages; and
• Projects must be completed using a "skilled and trained workforce" if they:
-w WW g O Id fa i b I Ip rr, a 17 CO rri--------------------...... -
Dec. 5, 2017 Item #1 Page 12 of 39
•
o Are located in a coastal or bay county with a population of 225,000 or
more and propose 75 or more units (January 1, 2018, until December 31,
2021) or 50 or more units (January 1, 2022, until December 31, 2025) that
are not 100 percent subsidized affordable housing; or
o Are located in a county with a population of 550,000 or more that is not a
coastal or bay county and propose 75 or more units (January 1, 2018, until
December 31, 2019), 50 or more units (January 1, 2020, until December
31, 2021), or 25 or more units (January 1, 2022, until December 31, 2025)
that are not 100 percent subsidized affordable housing.
3. Exclusions. If a project meets the above qualifications, it may be eligible for
streamlining if no exclusions apply. Specifically, the project site must not be in the
following areas:
• The coastal zone;
• Prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance;
• Wetlands;
• Specified hazardous areas ( e.g., severe fire hazard areas, hazardous waste sites,
fault zones, floodways, etc.);
• Sites subject to a conservation easement or designated for conservation in a
habitat conservation plan;
• Sites subject to the Mobilehome Residency Law, the Recreational Vehicle Park
Occupancy Law, the Mobilehome Parks Act, or the Special Occupancy Parks Act;
• Sites that require the demolition of housing restricted to households with
moderate income or lower or housing subject to rent control or an historic
structure; or
• Sites that have contained housing occupied by tenants within last 10 years, even if
such housing has subsequently been demolished.
Finally, the project must not involve the subdivision of a parcel unless it satisfies the
prevailing wage and skilled and trained workforce requirements (summarized above) or it
is financed with low-income housing tax credits and commits to paying prevailing wages.
4. Limitations on Parking_ [Qr Elig_ible Protects. No more than one parking space per unit
may be required for eligible projects. Moreover, no parking may be required if the project
is located:
-w ww go Id tar b Ii p rn an c,o rn----------------------11
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 13 of 39
•
• Within one-half mile of public transit;
• Within an architecturally and historically significant historic district;
• In an area where on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the
occupants of the development; or
• Within one block of a car share vehicle.
5. Streamlining_Bene{lts to Al!J2.licant. Most importantly, qualifying projects are eligible
for streamlined approvals under a ministerial process, which excludes qualified projects
from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
An applicant must request review under the streamlining provisions. A jurisdiction then
has 60 days from submittal (90 days for projects with more than 150 units) to provide the
applicant with written notice of any objective development standards that the project does
not satisfy and an explanation for the conflict; failure to meet this timeframe results in a
project being deemed consistent with such standards. The jurisdiction must complete any
"design review or public oversight" for the project within 90 days of an application's
submittal (180 days for projects with more than 150 units).
Because of the numerous qualification criteria and exclusions, it is not clear how many
projects will be in a position to take advantage of the new streamlining provisions.
However, note that the timeframes for processing applications are triggered from the date
of submittal, not from the date an application is accepted as complete, which increases
the pressure on local agency staff to review and process applications quickly. Regardless,
agencies may want to develop a checklist to evaluate eligibility for streamlining and
submittal requirements needed to determine if a project is consistent with all objective
standards. As with the Housing Accountability Act, cities and counties will need to
compile a list of applicable objective development standards that can be used to evaluate
housing applications going forward.
-w w w go I d f rH b ! i pm a lfl cc rn-----------------------lDI
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 14 of 39
•
II. ANNUAL REPORTING AND HOUSING ELEMENT ENFORCEMENT
SB 35, AB 72, AB 879, and AB 1397 have created significant changes to housing element
requirements and annual reporting of housing development.
A. Increased Annual ReQorting Obligations.:z.Now Afil!licable to Charter Cities. (AB 879
and SB 35; Government Code § 65400)
General law cities have been obliged to draft an annual report on implementation of their general
plans that includes a description of housing development activity in the jurisdiction. The annual
report requires a discussion of the jurisdiction's progress towards implementing its housing
element programs to meet its share of the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA). Local
governments are required to hold a hearing and accept public comment regarding the report, as
well as to submit the report to the state Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) and state Office of Planning and Research (OPR) by April 1 each year. HCD has adopted
forms for the annual reports.
SB 35 and AB 879 impose additional substantive requirements for the preparation and contents
of annual reports on implementation of the general plan and extend the requirements to charter
cities. The bills require that the following additional information be included in the report:
• The number of housing development applications received in the prior year;
• The number of units included in all development applications in the prior year;
• The number of units approved and disapproved in the prior year;
• A listing of sites that were rezoned to accommodate any portion of the local government's
share of the RHNA for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites
identified in the site inventory of the housing element;
• A listing of sites that were identified or rezoned if housing was developed at a lesser
density or for a different income level than anticipated for that site in the housing element
site inventory, in accordance with the new "No Net Loss" requirements in AB 166;
• A .Q_roduction re12ort that identifies:
o The number of net new units of housing (both rental and for-sale) that have been
issued a "completed entitlement," a building permit, or a certificate of occupancy,
thus far in the housing element cycle. The term "completed entitlement" is
defined in the streamlining provisions of SB 35 as "all required land use approvals
or entitlements necessary for issuance of [a] building permit" (Government Code
section 65913.4). It appears likely this definition will be used for the annual
reports; and
-w w w go Id tar b I Ip m an cam--------------------..
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 15 of 39
•
o The income category that each new housing unit satisfies, based on the
anticipated area median income of the future occupants, presumably in
accordance with the RHNA categories ( e.g. very low-, lower-, moderate-, and
above-moderate-income categories); and
o A unique site identifier for each entitlement, building permit, or certificate of
occupancy, including the assessor parcel number.
• A re2ort on the im2act of SB 35's streamlining 2rovisions (Government Code section
65913 .4 ), including the number of applications for streamlining, the location and number
of each development approved and building permit issued via SB 35 streamlining, and
the total number of units constructed via streamlining by income category and noting
whether the unit is for rent or sale.
HCD has been given authority to revise the housing element annual report forms it previously
adopted via notice and comment, but the new revisions are not subject to the California
Administrative Procedures Act. Presumably the new annual report forms will incorporate all of
the new requirements. HCD has stated that the additional information must be submitted in the
annual reports due on April 1, 2019, but that the reports due on April 1, 2018 need only conform
with the regulations adopted in 2010.
Each city, county, or city and county that fails to submit an annual report in substantial
compliance with the new requirements by May 31 of each year may be subject to a court order
requiring completion of the report. After HCD revises the forms to incorporate the above
requirements, agencies may be ordered by a court to prepare a report consistent with the new
forms by October 1 following the adoption of the forms, but no sooner than six months following
their adoption, and after that must submit consistent annual reports by April 1. Separately, failure
to submit the annual report for two or more consecutive years triggers SB 35 streamlining
provisions for housing development applications.
AB 879 also directs HCD to evaluate the reasonableness of local government fees charged under
the Mitigation Fee Act by June 30, 2019, with direction to identify fee reduction opportunities to
promote housing development.
B. Increased Enforcement of Housing Law (AB 72; Government Code§ 65585)
Currently, HCD reviews all housing elements and determines whether each housing element or
amendment substantially complies with state housing element law. In the past HCD has revoked
its finding of compliance when communities have failed to implement their housing elements but
has not had statutory authority to do so.
AB 72 provides explicit authority for HCD to revoke its compliance finding, allowing the
department to review any action or failure to act that is inconsistent with either an adopted
-w •.v w go I d far b !Ip trnl n cam------------------------
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 16 of 39
•
housing element or state housing element law, such as a failure to complete required rezonings.
HCD must provide the city or county with a "reasonable" time to respond that cannot exceed 30
days and then may revoke its finding of substantial compliance and may refer the violation for
potential action by the California Attorney General. HCD may additionally report to the Attorney
General any violations of the Housing Accountability Act, the "No Net Loss" statute, density
bonus law, or fair housing law. However, no funds were appropriated for the Attorney General to
act on these referrals.
C. Future Housing Element Sites Restricted (AB 879 and AB 1397; Government Code
§§ 65583 and 65583.2)
AB 13 79 and AB 879 require cities and counties to provide additional analysis when adopting a
housing element and seek to limit the designation of certain sites as suitable for lower-income
housing, especially non-vacant sites. Although most housing elements in the state will not be
required to be revised until 2021 to 2023, cities and counties should be aware of the substantial
changes regarding adequate sites'.
1. Site Inventory_ Reg_uirements. Housing elements previously required land inventories that
identify sites that could accommodate housing development. Now, the site inventory
must include the "realistic and demonstrated potential" for identified sites to
accommodate housing development. While the realistic and demonstrated potential is not
clearly defined, new requirements for the site inventory may shed light. The site
inventory must now identify each property by its assessor parcel number (rather than
allowing other identifiers) and then describe whether the property either currently has
access to sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities, or is scheduled to have such access
according to an adopted plan. As currently required, the site inventory must identify the
number of units that can "realistically be accommodated" on site, but AB 1397 requires
more justification of the number ofunits identified for each site, including a review of the
density of projects on similar sites in the jurisdiction and at similar affordability levels.
2. Restrictions on Site Designations. AB 1397 revises Government Code section 65583.2
to impose new restrictions on which sites may be included in the site inventory based on
the size and current use of the site. Sites smaller than one-half acre and those larger than
ten acres are presumed to be inappropriate for development of housing affordable to
lower-income households, unless the jurisdiction can provide evidence why the site
would be appropriate. Acceptable evidence includes either a proposal for or an approved
development project affordable to lower-income households for the site.
3. ,Use olVacant Sites in the Site lnvento!J!_. Vacant sites that were previously included in
prior housing element site inventories are subject to additional scrutiny. If a vacant site
was identified in two or more consecutive planning periods to accommodate lower-
income households but was not a site of an approved housing development, or if a non-
vacant site was identified in a prior housing element, the site cannot be used to fulfill the
-w ww go Id far b I Ip ms n com-----------------------•
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 17 of 39
•
jurisdiction's obligation to accommodate development for lower-income households
unless:
• the site is or will be rezoned to the minimum lower-income household density for
the jurisdiction within three years; and
• the zoning allows for residential development by right if at least twenty percent
(20%) of the units are affordable to lower-income households.
4. Use ol Non-vacant Sites in the Site Inventor}!_. For each non-vacant site identified in the
housing element site inventory, the development potential for the site must additionally
consider the jurisdiction's past experience converting existing uses to higher density
residential development, the current market demand for the existing use, and an analysis
of any existing leases or contracts that could prevent redevelopment of the site.
Additionally, if a jurisdiction relies on non-vacant sites to accommodate fifty percent
(50%) or more of its housing need for lower-income households, the "existing use shall
be presumed to impede additional residential development, absent findings based on
substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period."
Sites identified for housing development that currently or within the last five years
contained residential units occupied by lower-income households, or were subject to an
affordability requirement or local rent control policy, must be replaced one-for-one with
units affordable to the same or lower income levels. This replacement requirement must
be a condition to any development of the site.
5. Additional Anal}!_sis Reg_uired. The analysis of governmental constraints on the
production of housing must specifically address "any locally adopted ordinances that
directly impact the cost and supply of residential development." Such ordinances likely
include mitigation fees related to traffic, parks, and utilities, but could potentially be
interpreted to include typical zoning constraints like height limits or mandatory setbacks
from streets and lot lines.
Finally, the housing element must expand the analysis of nongovernmental constraints on
the production of housing. AB 1397 requires that this analysis discuss any requests to
develop housing at densities below the density identified for the site in the land
inventory, describe the length of time between project approval and a request for building
permits, and identify local efforts to address nongovernmental constraints.
-www goldfarbitpman carn--------------------~-IIJ
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 18 of 39
•
III. SUPPORT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
A. New Permanent Funding Sources for Housing (SB 2 and SB 3)
For over a decade, and more urgently since the demise of redevelopment in 2012, which
provided over $1 billion each year for affordable housing, local governments and affordable
housing developers have been struggling to find an alternative source of funding to help address
the state's severe housing shortage. The California Legislature passed two funding bills this year
as part of the fifteen-bill housing package in an effort to replace some of the lost redevelopment
funds and provide a permanent source of funding.
1. Permanent Source [Qr Housing-Recording Fee. SB 2, the Building Homes and Jobs
Act, provides a "penp.anent source" of funding for affordable housing by imposing a $75
fee on each recorded document up to a maximum of $225 per transaction per parcel,
estimated to generate $200 to $300 million annually. Documents exempted from the fee
include documents transferring a residential dwelling to an owner-occupant and
documents recorded in connection with transfers that are subject to the transfer tax, such
as grant deeds not involving related parties.
As of January 1, 2018, SB 2 requires county recorders to send fee revenues quarterly,
after deduction of administrative costs, to the State Controller for deposit in the Building
Homes and Jobs Fund. The funds to be generated by the fees will be provided to local
governments and the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) in two phases, with the majority of the funding designated for use by local
governments.
a. Year 1: January 2018--December 2018
• 50% for local governments to streamline housing production. During the
first year, 50% of the funds will be available for local governments to
update planning documents and zoning ordinances to streamline housing
production, including but not limited to general plans, community plans,
specific plans, sustainable communities strategies, and local coastal
programs. The funds can also be used for analyses under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to eliminate the need for project-
specific review and for process improvements to expedite local permits.
To obtain funding, local governments must submit requests to HCD with a
description of the proposed use of the funds in the interest of accelerating
housing production. HCD is required to ensure geographic equity in the
allocation of the funds.
• 50% for HCD to combat homelessness. The remaining 50% of the funds
will be available to HCD to assist individuals experiencing or at risk of
-w w w go Id far b I I p tn an cam-----------------------il1
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 19 of 39
•
homelessness including, but not limited to, providing rapid rehousing,
rental assistance, navigation centers, and the new construction,
rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional rental
housing.
b. Year 2 and Beyond: January 2019-Beyond
Beginning January 1, 2019, the funding will shift toward the creation of
affordable housing with 70% of funds designated for local government use and
30% for HCD use. Additionally, SB 2 requires that 20% of all funds be used for
affordable owner-occupied workforce housing, but does not define "workforce
housing."
• 70% for local governments to support affordable housing,
homeownership opportunities, and other housing-related programs. Of
the 70% for local governments, 90% of the funds will be allocated bg.sed
on the same formula as used for Community Development Block Grants
(CDBG) funds, except that the funds allocated to non-entitlement areas
pursuant to the CDBG formula will be distributed by HCD through a
competitive grant program. As under the CDBG program, cities with
populations of at least 50,000 and urban counties with a population of at
least 200,000 (excluding entitlement cities) will be designated as
entitlement jurisdictions and receive grants by formula, provided they
comply with certain minimum requirements.
For non-entitlement areas, HCD is required to prioritize counties that have
populations of 200,000 or less in unincorporated areas, local governments
that did not receive awards based on the CDBG formula in 2016, and local
governments that pledge to use the funds towards assisting persons
experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
The remaining 10% of the funds for local governments will be allocated
equitably among non-entitlement areas using the CDBG formula.
Minimum Reguirements. To receive the funds, cities and counties must
comply with the following minimum requirements: (1) submit a plan to
HCD describing how the funds will be used consistent with the eligible
uses and to meet the local government's unmet share of the regional
housing needs allocation (RHNA); (2) have a "compliant" housing
element and submit a current housing element annual report (Government
Code section 65400); (3) submit an annual report to HCD tracking the
uses and expenditures of any allocated funds; ( 4) expend funds for the
eligible purposes; and (5) prioritize investments that increase the housing
supply to households that are at or below 60% Area Median Income
-w w w go Id ia r b I Ip rn a ri ca rn -----------------------11
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 20 of 39
•
(AMI). If there is no "documented plan" to spend the funds within five
years, the funds revert to HCD for use in its Multifamily Housing
Program.
Uses of Funds. Local governments may use the funds for a wide variety of
purposes that include: (1) predevelopment, development, acquisition,
rehabilitation, and preservation of multifamily, residential live-work,
rental housing that is affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-and
moderate-income households; (2) affordable rental and ownership housing
that meets the needs of a growing workforce earning up to 120% of AMI
(or 150% AMI in high-cost areas, which are not defined); (3) capitalized
reserves for services connected to the creation of new permanent
supportive housing; ( 4) assisting persons who are experiencing or at risk
of homelessness; (5) accessibility modifications; (6) acquisition and
rehabilitation of foreclosed or vacant homes; (7) homeownership
opportunities; or (8) fiscal incentives or matching funds to local agencies
that approve new affordable housing.
Two or more cities may spend their allocation on a joint project. Only five
percent of the funds may be spent on administration.
HCD is authorized to adopt guidelines in consultation with "stakeholders"
to implement this section and determine allocation methodologies.
• 30% for HCD for specified purposes. The remaining 30% of the funds
will be made available to HCD for the following purposes: 5% for state
incentive programs including loan and grant programs administered by
HCD, 10% to address affordable homeownership and rental housing
opportunities for agricultural workers and their families, and 15% will be
appropriated to the California Housing Finance Agency to create mixed-
income multifamily residential housing for lower-or moderate-income
households.
2. &Veterans and Affordab/eHousing_Bonds. SB 3 places on the November 6, 2018 ballot
a bond measure to raise $3 billion for existing state affordable housing programs and $1
billion for the veterans' home purchase program. For the most part, funds raised under
SB 3 (if approved by voters) are not directed to local governments. Like SB 2, SB 3 is
also an urgency measure that became effective on September 29, 2017. Supporters intend
to develop get-out-the-vote efforts and other campaign efforts to ensure that this will be a
successful initiative.
3. _Summarr,. Both SB 2 and SB 3 are long-awaited sources of funding for affordable
housing. Local governments will need to pay special attention to eligibility requirements
-w w w go I d hi r b I I pm an c nm-----------------------11
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 21 of 39
•
to receive funding under SB 2, and developers and other entities should be aware of new
recording fees as a result of SB 2.
B. .Su.imort for Farmworker Housing and Migrant Farm Labor Centers (AB 571)
AB 571 makes several changes to the state low-income housing tax credit program to promote
the development of additional farmworker housing, and also provides additional support and
flexibility for the operation of migrant farm labor centers. AB 571 is an urgency measure, so it is
effective as of September 29, 2017, except as otherwise provided in the legislation.
1. f;JJi!!Jg_es to the State Low-Income Housing_ Tax Credit [Qr Farmworker Housing_.
California's state low-income housing tax credit program provides a set-aside of
$500,000 annually for farmworker housing, which accrues if unused. As of June 7, 2017,
there was approximately $4.8 million of unused state farmworker tax credits available.
AB 571 alters the state low-income housing tax credit program to make the farmworker
set-aside more effective. These changes are:
a. As of January I, 2018, the definition of "farmworker housing" is modified so that
only 50 percent (rather than 100 percent) of the residential units in the
development must be occupied by farmworker households.
b. As of January I, 2018, the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee
("TCAC") can now allocate farmworker state low-income housing tax credits to
housing developments located in difficult to develop areas (DDAs) and Qualified
Census Tracts (QCTs) (which are the two areas where developments qualify for a
30% basis boost for federal tax credits). Previously, TCAC could only allocate
state credit for developments in DDAs and QCTs where at least 50% of the units
served special needs populations.
c. As of January 1, 2018, for developments that also receive 4% federal low-income
housing tax credits, the state low-income housing tax credit for farmworker
housing will be increased to 75% of the development's basis over four years. For
all other situations, the state low-income housing tax credit equals only 13% of
the development's basis over four years.
These changes will work together to make the farmworker set-aside of the state low-
income housing tax credit more flexible and enable owners of farmworker housing to
raise more equity than was previously possible. The goal is to encourage more
farmworker housing to be constructed.
-www gold1arbi1pman com--------------------· Ill
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 22 of 39
•
2. _Cl,ang_es to tlte State Migrant Farm Labor Centers Programs. AB 571 also provides
more support and flexibility to the state's migrant farm labor centers in the following
ways:
a. Allows HCD to make advance payment of up to 20% of annual operating costs
for migrant farm labor centers, provided the contractors do not have outstanding
advance balances from previous periods.
b. Clarifies that the maximum occupancy period, consisting of the standard 180-day
occupancy period plus any HCD-approved extended occupancy period, cannot
exceed a total of 275 days in a calendar year.
c. Deletes a condition for approval of an extended occupancy period that no
additional subsidies from HCD are to be used for the extended occupancy period
beyond the first 14 days of the extended period.
These changes will provide more flexibility in extending the occupancy period, which
will presumably make housing available to migrant farm labor households for longer
periods of time.
C. Preservation of Units with ExQiring Use Restrictions (AB 1521)
AB 1521 provides additional measures to retain the affordability of developments with expiring
use restrictions, a proposed termination of a subsidy contract, or a proposed prepayment in an
effort to preserve more affordable housing developments ( collectively, "expiring use
restrictions").
1. Changes to the Reg_uired Notices [Qr Assisted A(fprdable Housing_Develo'f2.ments with
EX[2_iring_ Use Restrictions.
• A.ssisted Housing Developments. The notice requirement applies to multifamily
affordable housing developments with federal, state, or local governmental
assistance, with the exception of Housing Choice Vouchers, and does not apply to
units under rent control/rent stabilization ordinances.
• Notice Period. Under current law, notice of "expiring use restrictions" must be
given for all assisted affordable housing developments within one year of the
expiration of those restrictions. The legislation now provides that notice must also
be given at least three years prior to the expiration date of restrictions to
prospective tenants, current tenants, and "affected local entities" if the rental
restrictions are set to expire after January 1, 2021. This change will allow
potential purchasers more time to obtain financing to maintain the affordability of
the units. "Affected local entities" are the local city or county, any local housing
-w WW g O I d f r:3 r b I Ip lTl S 11 Ca ITT-------------------------•
Dec. 5, 2017 Item #1 Page 23 of 39
---------------------------
authority, and the California Department of Housing and Community
Development.
• Injunctive Relief Injunctive relief was always a remedy for violation of the notice
requirements. Now, the legislation provides that the re-imposition of the prior
restrictions and restitution of increased rents are remedies that a court can impose
for violations of this notice requirement, along with attorneys' fees and costs to a
prevailing plaintiff.
2. Changes to the Mandato!J!_ Offer to Purchase Process ff!.r Assisted Af[ordahle Housing_
Develoe.ments with Exe.iring_ Use Restrictions. Under current law, the owners of assisted
affordable housing developments are required to provide a notice of the opportunity to
offer to purchase the development within five years of termination of a subsidy contract,
prepayment of a mortgage, or expiration of rental restrictions. AB 1521 makes the
following changes to the offer to purchase requirements:
• HCD Certification. Any eligible purchase offers made during the first 180 days
after the owner's notice of the opportunity to offer to purchase must be from
qualified purchasers, which have been certified by HCD and which own and
operate at least three comparable developments subject to regulatory agreements
with a California or federal department or agency. HCD is now required to
maintain a list of certified entities that is to be updated annually.
• Maintain Affordability. Under existing law, the offeror must also agree to
maintain the affordability of the development for the longer of 30 years after the
purchase of the development or the remaining term of any existing federal
restrictions.
• Initial 180-Day Period. The offer to purchase must be made by a certified,
qualified entity and submitted within 180 days of the owner's notice of
opportunity to submit an offer. If the owner wishes to sell, it must accept the offer
and sign a purchase and sale agreement within 90 days ofreceipt of the offer.
• Limits on Owner. If the owner receives an offer to purchase from a qualified
entity within 180 days of the owner's notice of opportunity to submit an offer,
then the owner cannot accept offers from other entities and shall either accept that
offer or decide not to sell by making a declaration that it will not sell the property
for at least five years. That declaration must be made under penalty of perjury and
recorded against the property.
• Fair ~Market Value Determination. The owner and buyer can establish fair market
value by negotiation or by the appraisal process set forth in the legislation
(Government Code section 65863.l l(k)).
-w ww go Id far b Ii pm an cam-----------------------id
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 24 of 39
•
• After the Initial 180-Day Period. Under existing law, the owner may accept an
offer in the 180-day period following the initial 180-day period from any
purchaser which is not qualified. However, the owner must first notify any
qualified offeror who made an offer during the initial 180-day period of the
opportunity to purchase on the same terms and conditions as the pending offer
unless the new offeror agrees to maintain the affordability of the development for
the longer of 30 years after the purchase of the development or the remaining term
of any existing federal restrictions. The legislation is not clear on how this
provision works given the new requirement to record a declaration not t~ sell
within five years if the owner does not accept an offer from a certified, qualified
purchaser within the first 180-day period.
• Exemptions. Under AB 1521, the provisions related to the offers to purchase and
HCD reporting (as set forth below) do not apply to affordable housing
developments where 25% or fewer of the units are subject to affordability
restrictions due to density bonus or inclusionary zoning requirements. Under
existing law, the requirements to send notices to tenants and local jurisdictions
and to potential purchasers for developments with expiring use restrictions do not
apply if a regulatory agreement is recorded on the property to maintain
affordability that contains all the conditions set forth in Government Code section
65863.13 for the longer of an additional 30 years or the remaining term of any
existing regulatory agreement.
• Enforcement. Judicial action to enforce these provisions can now be brought by
tenant associations and affected public entities that have been adversely affected
by failure to follow the statute. The court can waive bonding requirements and
award attorneys' fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff.
3. New HCD Monitoring_ and Annual Ree_ort Reg_uirements. Under AB 1521, HCD now is
required to monitor and issue annual reports, starting no later than March 31, 2019, on
compliance with these procedures for all assisted affordable housing developments.
• Annual Reporting by Owners. Owners of assisted affordable housing
developments where 25% or more of the units are subject to affordability
restrictions will now need to report annually to HCD on forms to be provided by
HCD.
• HCD Annual Report. HCD is required to compile specified data and provide a
report annually to the Legislature. HCD's annual report will also be available on
its website.
• Violations. If HCD discovers violations, it can refer those to the Attorney General
for enforcement.
-'Nww goldf.:1rblipm.:1n cum---------~---------~.
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 25 of 39
•
D. Welfare ExemQtion for Over-Income Tenants (AB 1193)
AB 1193 expands the welfare property tax exemption for developments receiving federal low-
income housing tax credits for residential units where tenant incomes increase above lower
income (def med as income at or below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI)). In the past,
increases in tenant incomes above 80% of AMI created fiscal problems for tax credit
developments because those units were not eligible for the welfare exemption, the tax credit
projects were underwritten assuming a property tax exemption for all units affordable to "lower-
income" residents, and, under tax credit rules, the owners are unable to raise rents on those units
unless incomes are increased above a specified level.
• Expansion of Exemption. For fiscal years 2018-19 through 2027--28 only, the welfare
exemption for affordable housing developments that receive federal low-income housing
tax credits will be expanded to include residential units where the tenant occupant income
was at or below 80% of AMI at the time of initial occupancy, even if that tenant
occupant's income has increased up to 140% of AMI. For units where the tenant
occupant's income has increased above 140% of the AMI, those units will not be eligible
for the welfare property tax exemption.
• Claim for Welfare Exemption. For fiscal years 2018-19 through 2027-28 only, the claim
for the welfare exemption for units with tenant incomes that have increased over "lower
income" must include an affidavit with specified information about the increased income
and rent paid by that tenant household. The affidavit form is not available yet, but is
likely to be published before the January 1, 2018 lien date for the 2018-19 fiscal year.
The legislation also provides that the information provided in such affidavits is not
subject to the Public Records Act to protect the privacy of the individual households.
-w w w go Id far b I Ip man. cum-------------·-------II
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 26 of 39
•
IV. NEW DISTRICTS AND ZONES TO STREAMLINE DEVELOPMENT AND
FINANCE HOUSING
A. ,Workforce Housing OJ!l!ortuni,!y Zones (SB 540)
1. _What is a Workf!!.rce Housing_ Ol!Jl.ortunitJ!. Zone (1£.HOZJ and How is One Created?
SB 540 permits local jurisdictions to create a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone
(WHOZ) to streamline housing approvals. A city or county can establish a WHOZ
through the preparation of an EIR and adoption of a specific plan creating the zone. The
WHOZ can include in its boundaries contiguous or non-contiguous parcels which must be
identified in the community's housing element land inventory.
Prior to adoption of the specific plan, a community must meet detailed statutory
requirements, including holding two noticed public hearings that are at least 30 days apart
and providing written notice to local agencies, property owners within the proposed zone,
and property owners within 300 feet of the proposed zone.
The specific plan must include text and diagrams that:
• Specifies the distribution and location of 100 to 1,500 residential dwelling units
within the zone, but the community may not include more than 50% of the
community's regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) within the zone.
However, if the community's RHNA is less than 100 dwelling units, the zone
must include the entire allocation;
• Specifies the distribution, location and extent and intensity of major components
of public and private infrastructure and essential facilities (including schools) that
will be required to support the construction of the residential dwelling units within
the zone;
• Identifies traffic, water quality, public utility, and natural r.esource protection
mitigation measures that will apply to all developments within the zone (in
addition to mitigation measures identified in the EIR);
• Specifies density ranges for housing in an amount not lower than is deemed
appropriate to accommodate the lower-income housing, and a density range for
single-family attached or detached housing not less than 10 units per acre;
• Identifies the uniformly applied development policies or standards that will apply
to all development constructed within the zone;
• Identifies the manner in which funding will be provided for infrastructure and
services necessary for development within the zone; and
-w w w go Id far b I, p rn an corn--------·--------------•
Dec. 5, 2017 Item #1 Page 27 of 39
•
• Includes design review standards.
Within five years of adoption of the specific plan for the zone, the community must
complete an analysis of the EIR under Public Resource Code section 21166 to determine
if a supplemental or subsequent EIR must be prepared, and consider whether any
amendments are required to the specific plan for the zone. The community must then
hold a noticed public hearing to consider amendments and re-adoption of the specific
plan (for a new five-year period).
2. _What are the benefJ . .ts of ado[!_ting a WHOZ? For a period of five years after the specific
plan is adopted ( or re-adopted), a housing development that is consistent with the specific
plan, and satisfies the criteria listed below, must be approved within 60 days after the
application is deemed complete:
• The development is located on land within the boundaries of the zone;
• The development is consistent with the specific plan for the zone, including
applicable density ranges;
• The development implements the low-and moderate-income housing targeting
within the zone, as follows:
o At least 30% of the total units constructed or substantially rehabilitated in the
zone will be sold or rented to moderate-income households;
o At least 15% of the total units constructed or substantially rehabilitated in the
zone will be sold or rented to lower-income households; and
o At least 5% of the total units constructed or substantially rehabilitated in the
zone will be sold or rented to very low-income households.
o Not more than 50% of the total units constructed or substantially rehabilitated
in the zone will be sold or rented to above-moderate-income households. If
the total number of units in a development will be sold or rented to above-
moderate-income households exceeds 50%, then not less than 10% of the
units in the development must be sold or rented to lower-income households.
• The developer must provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure continued
availability of units for very low-, low-, moderate-, or middle-income households
for 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units;
• The development incorporates all applicable mitigation measures from the
specific plan and those identified in the EIR;
-w ww go Id far b 11 p rn an cu m--------------------,111
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 28 of 39
•
• The development incorporates each of the applicable uniformly applied
development standards;
• The development complies with the applicable adopted design review standards;
and
• The developer agrees to pay all construction works employed in execution of the
work at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages.
When the community receives an application for a housing development within the zone,
the community must post a notice on its website and mail or deliver notice to interested
parties within 10 days of receiving the completed application. In addition, the community
must include the number of residential dweiling units approved within the zone during
the past fiscal year that comply with the income targeting requirements for the zone.
After the adoption of a WHOZ, no additional environmental review is required for
housing within the zone if the development is consistent with the specific plan, specified
affordability goals are achieved, mitigation measures and the uniformly applied
development standards are incorporated in the development, the development complies
with the applicable design review standards, and the project proponent certifies the
payment of prevailing wages and related requirements under the Labor Code. The
community may not deny approvals for a development unless the community makes a
finding, based on substantial evidence in the record of a public hearing for the project,
regarding changes in the physical condition of the site that would result in a specific,
adverse impact upon public health or safety.
Under SB 540, HCD may provide grants or no-interest loans to cities and counties to
develop the specific plan and related EIR required for the adoption of a zone.
B. .Housing Sustainabili,!y Districts (AB 73)
1. .What is a Housing_SustainabilitJ!. District and how is one created? AB 73 permits
communities, with HCD's approval, to create housing sustainability districts meeting
designated conditions, including a specified amount of low-and moderate-income
housing and zoning to permit residences through a ministerial permit.
A community may establish a housing sustainability district through adoption of a zoning
ordinance under Government Code section 65800, and subject to the following criteria:
• The district must be located in an eligible location and the district may include an
area adjacent to an eligible location if the adjacent area is served by existing
infrastructure, defined to include an area within 1 /2 mile of public transit; or an
area that, by virtue of existing infrastructure, transportation access, existing
-w ww go Id f rH b ! , p rn an co ITi--------------------~ .II
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 29 of 39
underutilized facilities, or location, is highly suitable for a residential or mixed-
use housing sustainability district.
• The area must be zoned to permit residential uses through the ministerial issuance
of a permit. Other uses may be permitted by conditional use. or other discretionary
permit, provided that uses are consistent with residential use.
• The area must be subject to density ranges for multifamily housing in an amount
not less than is deemed appropriate to accommodate the lower-income housing,
and a density range for single-family attached or detached housing not less than
10 units per acre, and the density range must specify a minimum and maximum of
dwelling units per acre.
• The development of housing is permitted, consistent with neighborhood building
and use patterns and applicable building codes.
• No limitations or moratoriums on residential use, other than those imposed by a
court, apply to any of the area within the district.
• The area within the district is not subject to any general age or occupancy
restrictions, except that the community may allow for the development of specific
projects within the district, exclusively for the elderly or the disabled or for
assisted living.
• Housing units must comply with all applicable federal, state, and local fair
housing laws.
• The area included within a housing sustainability district may not exceed 15% of
the total land area under the jurisdiction of the community, unless approved by
HCD. A community may not include more than 30% of the total land area under
its jurisdiction in housing sustainability districts.
• Development projects within the district must comply with the replacement
housing obligations applicable to the district.
The ordinance proposing to establish a housing sustainability district must:
• Provide for an "approving authority" to review permit applications for
development within the district consistent ,vith requirements of the bill.
• Provide a manner ofreview by an approving authority, consistent with HCD
regulations.
_,..,. w w go I d tar b ! 1 p rn an com------------------------Bi
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 30 of 39
•
• Require that at least 20% of the residential units constructed within the district be
affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households and subject to
recorded affordability restrictions for at least 5 5 years. A development that is
affordable to above-moderate-income households must include not less than 10%
of the units for lower-income households, subject to additional requirements
imposed by local ordinance. For communities that include their entire RHNA
within the district, then the percentages of the total units constructed or
substantially rehabilitated within the housing sustainability district shall match the
percentages in each income category of the community's RHNA.
• Specify that a project is not deemed to be for residential use if it is infeasible for
actual use as a single or multifamily residence.
• Require the applicant for a development within the district to pay prevailing
wages or use skilled and trained workforce to construct the development based on
the location of the project, population of the county the project is located in, and
the size of the project.
• Provide that a project is not eligible for approval if the project involved or
involves a subdivision, with limited exceptions for projects receiving assistance
under the low-income housing tax credit program or if the project is subject to the
requirement that prevailing wages be paid, and a skilled and trained workforce be
used.
• Provide relocation assistance for persons and families displaced from their
residences due to development within the housing sustainability district.
2. How Is HCD Involved in Review of a Housing SustainabilitJ!. District? A community
that desires to create a housing sustainability district must first submit a preliminary
application to HCD along with the following information:
• The proposed boundaries of the district;
• A description of the developable land within the proposed district;
• A description of other residential development opportunities within the city,
county, or city and county, including infill development and reuse of existing
buildings within already developed areas;
• A copy of the community's housing element;
• A copy of the adopted housing sustainability ordinance (made subject to HCD
approval);
-w ww go Id f arb I Ip man. cum-----------------------8.1
Dec. 5, 2017 Item #1 Page 31 of 39
--
• A copy of the environmental impact report;
• Design review standards applicable to developments within the district, adopted
pursuant to Government Code section 66206;
• Other materials establishing the community's compliance with the requirements
for a sustainability district.
HCD must give the community a preliminary determination as to the eligibility of the
proposed housing sustainability district within 45 days ofreceipt of the application.
Following preliminary approval of an application, and following receipt of a notice
provided by the community that the ordinance establishing the housing sustainability
district has taken effect, HCD must confirm approval of the district
The ordinance establishing the housing sustainability district will remain in effect for 10
years, subject to one I 0-year extension. But on or before October I of each year
following the approval of the ordinance establishing the housing sustainability district,
HCD must issue a certificate of compliance if the community has satisfied all of the
following:
• The ordinance establishing the housing sustainability district is in effect;
• The housing sustainability district complies with the minimum requirements to
adopt the district; 1
• The community has only denied a permit for a residential development consistent
with its housing sustainability district ordinance, the provisions of its housing
element, or for failure to comply with the housing sustainability district
ordinance, failure to pay any applicable district application fees, or a change in
the physical condition on the site of the development that would have a specific
adverse impact on the public health or safety;
• The design review standards, if any, adopted by the community ensure that the
physical character of development within the district is complementary to
adjacent buildings and structures and is consistent with the community's general
plan, including the housing element. "Design review standards" is defined as
reasonable application of qualitative design requirements that are clear and
concise and consistently applied to all types of development applications, with
specific terms defined or generally accepted word definitions.
HCD may deny the certification of the housing sustainability district if HCD finds that
the conditions are not satisfied.
-w WW go Id far b I I pm a !1 Ca ITT------------------------•
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 32 of 39
•
3. _What are the beneO:.ts ofado12.ting_ a housing_ sustainabili!J!. district? A community with
an HCD-approved housing sustainability district is entitled to receive a zoning incentive
payment. The amount of the zoning incentive payment will be based on the number of
new residential units constructed within the district, subject to specified exclusions. If a
community reduces the. density of sites within the district from the required levels, the
community will be required to return the full amount of the zoning incentive payment it
received.
The EIR included as part of the application to HCD will serve as the EIR for all housing
projects developed in the district for the next IO years, thereby reducing development
costs for projects within the district that are consistent with the requirements of the
district.
Grounds to deny a housing project are very specific and limited. AB 73 also gives
developers the ability to opt-out of the requirements of the district and standing to sue if a
project is denied or has been approved subject to conditions rendering the project
infeasible for residential uses.
Similar to SB 35, the bill requires payment of prevailing wages and use of a "skilled and
trained workforce" for projects with more than IO units.
C. Neighborhood Infill Finance and Transit lmQrovements (NIFTD. Districts (AB 1568)
1. .What is a NIFTI and how is one created? Existing law allows for the creation of
enhanced infrastructure financing districts (EIFDs), a tax increment tool available for
community economic development activities. Under AB 1568, a city or county may now
designate one or more EIFD overlay districts identified as Neighborhood Infill Finance
and Transit Improvements (NIFTI) Districts, by adopting a resolution at a noticed public
hearing.
2. How is a NIFTI [.unded? Prior to or after the adoption of the EIFD's infrastructure
financing plan, a community, through adoption of an ordinance at a noticed public
hearing, may pledge sales and use taxes and transaction and use taxes to the EIFD. In the
ordinance, the community must establish procedures to calculate amounts derived from
sales and use taxes and transaction and use taxes and amounts of each to be allocated to
the EIFD.
3. _What are elig_ible activities? N1FTI funds may be used by the district to fund affordable
housing and infrastructure upgrades to meet current and future capacity demands in infill
areas. Any housing units assisted by the district must be subject to recorded covenants or
restrictions ensuring the units remain affordable to, and are occupied by, very low-, low-
and moderate-income households ( as applicable) for the longest time feasible, but for not
less than 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units.
-w w w go Id far b r i pi m an com-----------------------11
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 33 of 39
•
NIFTI-generated funds are limited for use on "infill sites" and must be used for activities
that are consistent with the purposes for which the tax was imposed. NIFTI funds may
not be used for highway or highway interchange improvements.
4. _What are the affordable housing re9.uirements? A community that desires to establish a
NIFTI must ensure that the infrastructure financing plan applicable to the district requires
that
• At least 20% of all funds allocated to the EFID are set aside for the acquisition,
construction, or rehabilitation of very low-and low-income housing; and
• That at least 20% percent of any new housing units constructed within the district
be affordable to low-or moderate-income households with:
o At least 6% of new units affordable to very low-income households;
o At least 9% of new units affordable to low-income households; and
o Up to 5% of new units affordable to moderate-income households.
The District must ensure that the production requirements are satisfied every 10 years,
and for the 45-year life of the plan. A local community may not adopt an ordinance to
terminate the district, if the district has not complied with the affordable housing
obligations.
-www goldfarb!1prnan corn--------------------liJ
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 34 of 39
•
V. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT LEGISLATION
In 2016, the Legislature adopted two bills that significantly limited the restrictions jurisdictions
could place on the construction of second units, formally called "accessory dwelling units" or
"AD Us." This year, two more pieces of legislation were adopted, and additional changes will
become effective on January 1, 2018.
1. Non-Come.lr.ing_ Ordinances Are Void Even public agencies that adopted or amended
ADU ordinances within the past year may want to review their ADU ordinances to
confirm if further amendments are required to comply with the latest state requirements.
This review is especially important because Government Code section 65852.2 still
includes language that all non-complying ordinances are void, and non-complying local
governments must approve or disapprove an ADU application ministerially, applying
only the standards specified in Government Code section 65852.2.
2. Existing_ADU Processing_Reg_uirements. Government Code section 65852.2 requires
local jurisdictions to approve ADU applications through a ministerial process.
• If a property owner applies to create a new accessory structure or expand an
existing structure to create an ADU (an "exterior ADU"), the jurisdiction may
restrict which areas of the jurisdiction allow AD Us and impose certain physical
standards.
• By contrast, if a property owner applies to create an ADU entirely within an
existing structure (an "interior ADU"), the jurisdiction may impose fewer
restrictions.
3. Exterior ADUs. Jurisdictions continue to have the ability to designate where AD Us are
permitted. AB 494 and SB 229 clarify that an applicant may propose an ADU on any lot
that is zoned to permit a single-family dwelling and includes an existing or proposed
single-family dwelling, provided that the site is included within the area designated.
4. Interior ADUs. Under the current law, jurisdictions must permit interior AD Us on sites
with an existing single-family home in all single-family zoning districts. The new
legislation requires the approval of interior AD Us on sites with existing or proposed
single-family homes in any district where single-family dwellings are permitted (e.g.,
multifamily zones that permit single-family dwellings). This should not require local
agencies to approve AD Us in zones where there are non-conforming single-family
dwellings, because such uses are not permitted in the zoning district.
5. Parking_ Reg_uirements. The new legislation further reduces parking requirements that
may be imposed in connection with ADU development.
-w w w go 1 d far b Ii pm an.corn---------------------
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 35 of 39
•
• Parking for exterior AD Us is limited to no more than 1 space per unit or per
bedroom, whichever is less.
o The "whichever is less" language may imply that no parking is required for
AD Us that are studio units (because they do not have bedrooms), but the
language is unclear, so the actual effect of this new provision is uncertain.
• Jurisdictions may only prohibit ADU parking in setbacks or in tandem spaces by
making specific findings that such parking is not feasible due to site specific,
topographical, or fire and life safety issues. Finding that parking in setbacks or in
tandem spaces is not permitted elsewhere in the jurisdiction is no longer
sufficient.
6. ,UtilitJ!. Fees. The new legislation clarifies that Government Code section 65852.2 applies
to local agencies along with special districts and water corporations. Accordingly, such
entities:
• May not consider an ADU to be a new residential use for the purpose of
calculating connection fees or capacity charges;
• May not require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection
directly between an interior ADU and the utility or impose a related connection
fee or capacity charge; and
• May require a new or separate utility connection for exterior AD Us, subject to a
connection fee or charge that is based on the ADU's size or the number of its
plumbing fixtures.
-',V WW g O Id f 3 I' b I Ip m i3 11 C {l ITT--------------------,.-
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 36 of 39
•
VI RETURN OF RENT AL INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
AB 1505 restores the ability of cities and counties to adopt inclusionary housing policies for
rental projects. It explicitly allows local ordinances to require the provision of affordable rental
housing, if so desired, superseding the California Court of Appeal's 2009 decision in
Palmer/Sixth Street Properties LP v. City of Los Angeles (Palmer). However, the ordinances
must meet certain standards, and the Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) may review inclusionary requirements for rental projects under certain circumstances.
A. The Palmer Decision
In 2009, the Court of Appeal held in Palmer that the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa
Hawkins) prevented local governments from imposing inclusionary requirements on rental units
that did not receive government assistance. In relevant part, Costa Hawkins gives rental housing
owners the right to set the initial rent level at the start of any tenancy. In Palmer, Los Angeles
adopted a policy requiring certain residential housing projects to construct affordable housing
units subject to rent restrictions for at least 30 years or pay an in lieu fee that the city would use
to build affordable housing units elsewhere. A rental housing developer challenged the
application of the policy to rental housing projects as invalid under Costa Hawkins. The court
ruled in favor of the developer, stating that requiring a rental housing project to provide
affordable housing units at regulated rents is "clearly hostile" to the right afforded under Costa
Hawkins for a rental housing owner to establish the rental rate at the start of a tenancy; and that
in-lieu fees were "inextricably intertwined" with the affordable housing requirement and also
invalid.
Local ResQonses to Palmer. Since the Court's decision in Palmer, local governments have been
prohibited from implementing policies requiring rental housing developers to provide affordable
housing units unless the government provided financial assistance or a regulatory incentive such
as a density bonus. Instead, some communities adopted rental housing impact fees to mitigate the
impact of market-rate rental housing on the need for affordable housing; while others simply
stopped applying their inclusionary ordinances to rental housing development.
B. AB 1505 Authorizes Inclusiona!Y Housing Reguirements in Rental Proiects
AB 1505 expressly supersedes the Palmer decision by authorizing the legislative body of any
city or county to adopt ordinances requiring that, as a condition of developing rental housing
units, the development include a certain percentage of rental units affordable to moderate-
income, lower-income, very low-income, or extremely low-income households.
1. Alternative Means o[Coml!liance Reg_uired. Any inclusionary housing ordinance
requiring affordable rental housing must provide alternative means of compliance, which
may include, but are not limited to, in-lieu fees, land dedication, off-site development of
units, or acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units. Cities and counties have broad
-w w w go I d far b 11 pm an c -D rn-------------------------
Dec. 5, 2017 Item #1 Page 37 of 39
•
discretion to provide any of these alternatives, or additional alternatives not listed, so
long as alternative means of compliance are available.
2. Possible HCD Review. HCD may review an inclusionary housing ordinance that: 1) was
adopted after September 15, 201 7; and 2) requires more than 15 percent of the rental
units to be affordable to households with incomes of 80 percent or less of the area median
income (low-income households) if either of two conditions is met:
• The city or county has failed to meet at least 75 percent of its share of the regional
housing need for the above-moderate-income category for five years or more; or
• The city or county has not submitted its annual housing element report (required
by Government Code section 65400) for at least two consecutive years.
If either of these conditions is met, HCD may request, and the locality must provide, an
economic feasibility study meeting specified standards that demonstrates that the
ordinance does not unduly constrain the production of housing.
If HCD finds that the economic feasibility study 'does not meet these specified standards,
or if the local government fails to submit the study within 180 days, the city or county
cannot require that more than 15 percent ofrental units be affordable to low-income
households until the city or county submits an economic feasibility study that HCD finds
to support the ordinance.
HCD cannot ask to review an economic feasibility study for an ordinance more than 10
years after it was adopted or amended.
C. lml!.lications for Local Ordinances
1. .Ordinances that Reg_uire Rental lnclusiona!J!. Housing_. Local inclusionary ordinances
that were not amended after Palmer and continued to require affordable rental housing, or
which provide that inclusionary rental housing will be required if state law so allows,
may be implemented after January 1, 2018 so long as they provide alternative means of
compliance. If the ordinance was adopted by September 15, 2017, HCD has no authority
to request review of an economic feasibility study, regardless of the required percentage
of affordable units.
2. New and Amended Inclusiona!J!. Ordinances. Inclusionary ordinances adopted after
September 15, 2017 or amended to require affordable rental housing after September 15,
2017 may require 15 percent of rental units to be affordable to low-income households
without being subject to a future HCD request for an economic feasibility study. If the
ordinance proposes a higher inclusionary requirement, or affordability for extremely low-
income or very low-income households, it would be good practice to prepare an
economic feasibility study meeting the standards in the statute prior to adoption.
-w 'NW go Id f r:i r bi, pm an com--------------------..
Dec.5,2017 Item #1 Page 38 of 39
3. Need (pr Ordinance. AB 1505 authorizes communities to adopt rental inclusionary
requirements by ordinance. An ordinance should be adopted to implement inclusionary
requirements contained in general plans, housing elements, or other policy documents.
4. Need f!!..r a Nexus Stud}!_. No nexus study is required to justify a rental inclusionary
requirement. In its 2015 decision California Building Industry Ass'n v. City of San Jose
(CBIA), the California Supreme Court determined that inclusionary requirements were
land use provisions similar to rent and price controls and met constitutional requirements
so long as not "confiscatory" and designed to further the public health, safety, and
welfare. After Palmer, the Costa Hawkins Act prevented communities from adopting
rental inclusionary requirements, and many instead completed nexus studies to support
the adoption of rental housing impact fees. However, a requirement to limit rents in a
certain number of units is a form ofrent control that does not need to be supported by a
nexus study.
-www goldfarb,,pman cam----------------------lJi
Dec. 5, 2017 Item #1 Page 39 of 39
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO: CITY CLERK
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: -------::a-----r;~/~/~D-+-)~/ s: _________ _
SUBJECT, u , , 1 le~ ,j-~ '°-mP
LOCATION: / ,Af> Oc~JJ U, I /4f§--.-J___~_. ___ _
DATE NOTICES MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS: b L\ G:..rYvn .
'-._)
NUMBER MAILED: -------
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am
employed by the City of Carlsbad and the foregoing is true and correct.
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
(Signature) (Date)
SENT TO FOR PUBLICATION VIA E-MAIL TO: .ra: Union Tribune
D Coast News
PUBLICATION DATE: Union Tribune_---=LP~/--=:J-----'-9_/_l_?s _____ _
Coast News ---------------
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am
employed by the City of Carlsbad in the City Clerk's Office and the foregoing is true and
correct. r ~
Date: vi d-?f /42 V turYla.Aa !2n7<----17l~
(Signature)
Attachments: 1) Mailing Labels ~
2) Notice w/ attachments
Notice of Public Hearing for Village and Barrio Master Plan
{city of
Carlsbad
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing to consider a request for the Village and Barrio Master Plan:
Tuesday, July 10, 2018, at 6 p.m.
at Carlsbad City Hall, Council Chamber, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Case Name: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV 08014)
Publish Date: Friday, June 29, 2018
Description: The Village and Barrio Master Plan establishes a vision, policies, standards and guidelines
for future development and land uses for the historic Village and Barrio neighborhoods, an
approximately 350-acre area west of Interstate 5 and roughly between Laguna Drive and Tamarack
Avenue in northwest Carlsbad. The July 10 meeting will include a request for the City Council to consider
adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
approving a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, Zone Change, Master Plan, Local Coastal
Program Amendment, and Municipal Code Amendment for the Village and Barrio Master Plan. The Village
and Barrio Master Plan would replace the existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual and the general
regulations applicable to the Barrio. A project map is on the back of this notice. More project information,
including proposed land use changes by parcel and Planning Commission action on the project, is available
at www.carlsbadca.gov/villagebarrio.
Whereas, on May 16, 2018, the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted 5-1 (Montgomery voting
'no') to recommend adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and approving a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, Zone Change, Master Plan,
and Local Coastal Program Amendment.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the July 10 public hearing.
Copies of the staff report will be available on and after Friday, July 6, 2018. If you have any questions,
please contact Scott Donnell in the Planning Division at 760-602-4618 or scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov.
Appeals: If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting
Program, General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, Zone Change, Master Plan, Local Coastal
Program Amendment or Municipal Code Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
City of Carlsbad, Planning Division
Community & Economic Development
Planning Division 1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 t
0 Proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan
Boundary
Existing Village Master Plan and Design
Manual Boundary (Master Plan To Be
Repealed and Replaced by Proposed Village
and Barrio Master Plan)
8
--c:====i Feet
0 800
Palh: J:IRequestsMarch2015'ComEconDev\PlanninglRITM0011347 _ 18\Exhibit1_ VilageBarrioMP.mxd
{city of
Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan
Exhibit 1
Village and Barrio Master Plan
Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
July 10, 2018
GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/
LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01
Why a Village and Barrio Master Plan?
•Recognize unique neighborhoods
•Implement community vision and input
•Implement Council direction
•Update 1996 document, generic standards
•Simplify requirements and use
•Improve standards and guidelines
Master Plan Boundary
–existing vs. proposed
0 Proposed Vilage and Barrio Master Plan
Boundary
ExisUng Vl11age Master Plan and Design
Manual Boundary (Master Plan To Be
Repealed and Replaced by Proposed Village
and Barrio Master Plan)
8
Village and Barrio Master Plan Vision
The Village and Barrio are vibrant, safe, and healthy
neighborhoods that:
–Serve as the historic heart of the city
–Are connected, yet unique
–Embody smart growth principles
–Attract quality development that enhances
character
Proposed Parking: 40 Spaces
(Diagonal and Parallel Parking)
.-t--"'ff='---.t'ir.-1--1 o Foot Sidewalks (Both sides
of Carlsbad Village Drive)
fi---'-''--~_;__r.'-i-Parallel Parking and
Possible NEV Parking
~~~~""7<.~ Beach Loading and
Unloading Zone and Bui bout
Recommendation
Approve:
•GPA 16 -01
•ZCA 16-01
•ZC 16-01
•MP 14-01
•L CPA 14 -01
•MCA 16-01
•Repeal existing master plan
•Adopt new master plan
•Replace existing land use
designations and zoning
•Recognize new plan
The Master Plan does not:
•Propose changes to existing land use patterns
•Significantly alter existing building heights
•Significantly change existing densities
•Significantly revise other standards
•Significantly change policies
Public Outreach
Village and Barrio
Master Plan
Hea ri ng, 4/lB
April 1,,
2018 _ for t he Village
A public heanng will be held -Master Plan Barno
the Apn ·118 City of...
r City of Carl
(__ Apn1 4 a122i
At the April 18 Plan
rtuni1y to comr
oppo Learn more: r Plan.
News1D=1623
Plan Development Highlights
•January 2018 –Third draft release
•April 18, May 2, May 16 – Planning Commission
•July 10 –City Council
•2019 –Coastal Commission
If the Plan is Approved…
•Outside Coastal Zone
•Inside Coastal Zone
•Concepts
•“Pipeline” projects
-• CGar;ttl Zone BCXJnebry 0 Prol)oMd M~er Pbn eoinu,y
Proposed LCP Ufld Use Des.ign.ations: -"""·-R·1.S.Re51ClentliliCH ..SOJJ'ae::
R4, RKlden.UI CM dthc
-R-e, Re&klfntal 4--8 ottac
-R·1S. Rt$ltlenll.al6-151Jl.l'ac
-R-23, RKl!ernl" 15-23'""""
• R-30,RKl!ernlal2"""'""""
• vc. wtor comme:rw1
o,ou. -"·""""' -OS,OpfflSpace
• TC. Tr.,,.ponatlon Coo'-
Existing and Proposed
Districts
Existing District Proposed District
1,2 and 4 VC
3 FC
5 and 6 PT
7 and 8 VG
9 HOSP
Existing Village .Master Plan D and Design Manual Land
Use Districts:
1 _ Carlsbad Vllage Cet1ter
2 -Office Support
3 _ Freeway Commercial S<4>port
4 -Resldentlal Support
5 _ Hispanic Mix.eel Use Support
6 _ Seivce C.ommerd al S~port
7 -Office Support
a-Residentlal Support
9 -Tourism Support
Barrio Center
-Barrio F'erimeter
-Freeway Commercial
Hospltally
Pine-Tyler MIXed-Use
-Vllage-Barrio Other
-Vllage Ce~er
Vllage General
Existing and Proposed
Height Limits
35’
45’
35’
30’to
35’
35’to 45’
Existing Village Master Plan 0 and Design Manual Land
Use Districts:
1 _ Carlsbad Vlltage Center
2 -Office Support
3 _ Freeway Comm&rolal Support
4 _ Residential Support
5 _ Hispanic Mixed Use Support
6 _ Service Commercial Support
1 -Office Support
8 _ Residential Support
9 -Tourism Support
Barrio Center
-BaTrio Plll'irMlflt
-Freeway Commercial
Hospitably
Pine-Tyler Mocad-Use
-Vlllage-,Barrlo Other
-VIUage Center
VIiiage General
e o F...t eoo
Existing and Proposed
Densities
23-30
28-35
18-23
15 min to 18-23
18-23 to 28-35
18-23 23-30
8-15
18-23
Existing Viillage Master Plan D and Design Manual Land
Use Districts:
1 _ Carlsbad Vlll:aga C&ntar
2 -Olrica Support
3 _ Fraaway Commarclal Support
4 -Rasldantlal Support
5 _ H~nlc Mlxl!ld use Support
6 _ Sl!lrvlce Commaraal Support
7 -Olrica Support
a _ Rasldantlal Support
9 -Tourism Support
Barrio Cantar
-Barrio Parimaler
-frl!li/!IWay Commercial
t-mpltalily
Plna-Tylar Mixed-Use
-Vllaga-.Barrio OU'ol!lr
-v111aga Canter
v11aga Ganaral
Housing Accountability Act
•New state law
•Applies to all housing developments
•Objective standards
•Does not apply to commercial, public realm
Housing Accountability Act - Compliance
•Districts established
•Uses defined for each
district
•Development standards
more objective
•Guidelines more specific
2.7.5 PINE-TYLER MIXED-USE
SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
------Standard
A. SETBACKS
------~------Interpretation
Front and Rear Setbacks
1. Front. Minimum of 5 fttL Minimum 10 foot
landscape setback where surface parking
areas are located adjacent to a public str~t.
a Encroachments permitted within the front
setback:
Maximum 5 feet: Awnings, canopie.s,
upper floor balconies
Up to the property line: Plazas,
courtyards, and outdoordinlng
2. Sldo,: Minimum o( 0feet
3. Rear. Minimum of 10 feet
B. LOT SIZE AND DIMENSION Notappllcable.
C. LOT COVERAGE
1 80% maximum
18 minimum and 23 ma~lmum dwelling units
per acre.
E. OPEN SPACE
1. Property Op,m Space
a. A minimum of 1 0percent of property must
be maintained as open space.
Property Open Space
Housing Accountability Act - Compliance
Existing Plan Proposed Plan
Roof protrusions No limit; discretionary Height, area, setback
standards
Setbacks Ranges; discretionary Definite minimums or
maximums
Parking Net square footage Gross floor area
Uses on the Ground
Floor Street
Frontage
•HOSP and VC districts
•Retail emphasis
•Keeps streets active
•Coastal Zone
•Minimum plate height
DISTRICTS
-Villag,! C..Oter (VC) D Villag,! General (VG}
D Hospital~y (HOSPI
-Freeway Commercial (FC) D Firn,-Tyter Mixed-use (PT}
-Barrio Perimeter (BP)
Barrio Center (BC)
D Village-Barrio Other (VBO) r.::a Village and Barrio Master Plan Area
--Coastal Zone Boundary
1::::::::t::::: Railroad
MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 2--9
Ground Floor Street Frontage Requirement
Street
•More than one-half ground
floor habitable space
•At least 80% of building
frontageUp to 20% of frontage for
entryway
Other uses permitted
behind and above Parking
Changes to Project Review Process
City Planner
(Admin notice)
Planning Commission
(Public hearing)
City Council
(Public hearing)
Buildings up to 5,000
square feet X
2 to 4 dwellings X
Buildings over 5,000
square feet X
5 or more dwellings X
Master Plan
Amendments X
City Planner and Planning Commission decisions may be appealed.
Parking
•In lieu fee
•Converting uses
•Parking ratios
•Parking Management Plan
•Parking counts
Bicycle Plan
Recommendation
That the City Council hold a public hearing and:
(1)Introduce an ordinance adopting Municipal Code
Amendment MCA 16-01;
(2)Introduce an ordinance adopting Zone Code
Amendment ZCA 16-01/Zone Change ZC 16-
01/Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 14-
01;and
Recommendation
That the City Council hold a public hearing and:
(3)Introduce an ordinance approving Master Plan MP
14-01,which repeals the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual and approves the Village and Barrio
Master Plan;and
Recommendation
That the City Council hold a public hearing and:
(4)Adopt a resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and approving General Plan Amendment GPA
16-01 and Local Coastal Program Amendment 14-01.
(5)Approve the sixth errata,Attachment D to the
ordinance approving Master Plan MP 14-01.
Carlsbad Village
Barrio Master Plan
January 2018
Public Review Draft
Review Overview
1.The Paradox Syndrome
Terms used and ideas expressed in the Plan are in
some cases the exact opposite of reality.
2.Categorically Dismissing Citizen Input
The Plan refers to community outreach but doesn’t
mention that citizen input is categorically rejected.
0 •
The Paradox Syndrome
and Semantics
•Paradox: self contradictory statement
•The introduction of the Plan references Carlsbad’s character and
small town feel, then sets about dismantling it.
•1.5.1 Maintain and enhance the predominantly residential character
of the Barrio,. By transitioning it to the commercial core of the
village.
•Standards and design guidelines are mentioned multiple times in
the Plan, yet when the rubber meets the road, the design guidelines
are summarily ignored and only the hard standards are applied.
(Carlsbad Village Center). It’s a word game.
Categorically Dismissing
Citizen Input
•Throughout the Plan are references to community outreach,
public comments, and the Envision Carlsbad program. The
reality is that though the public provides input, it is
categorically dismissed.
•Billy goes to Carlsbad High, meets his friends in the parking
lot and they decide to go surfing. At dinner, Dad says, “Billy,
did you go to school today?” and Billy says “Yes, Dad”, is he
being truthful? Technically, he did go to school, he just didn’t
go inside, sit down and learn anything.
0
How it Works!
“. . . comments that relate to quaintness and character, staff has
perpetually struggled with and there are comments made in the
current Village Master Plan, but the bottom line remains that
these projects are driven by the existing development standards
within the Village Master Plan. So that allows buildings up to 45
feet in height and very limited setbacks.”
“I really appreciate all the comments from people, and I
understand what you’re talking about BUT, at the same time, we
have to be objective and not subjective and we learned a lot about
that yesterday. We are not allowed to approve a project or deny a
project because it doesn’t have the right feel or it doesn’t have a
quaint, it’s not quaint or it’s not charming. “
“I cannot ignore that all the meetings I attended
about the Village Master Plan, about the hundreds
of people that turned out and spoke up against 4
story buildings in the Village.”
r
!
I
, t l ,.
f. ;
.1 r i
I.I~ \r f
i I, Ir' ~ r ,
}I. ' •. -I . \ Item 3 -RP 16-13/CDP 16-35 (DEV160 40) -CARLSBAD V ILLAGE C ...
Who Decides?
1.3.2 As the Village continues to evolve, it will be
important to redevelop and strategically focus
improvements to best express the city’s small-town
beach-community character (a repeated theme of
many public comments).
With 4 story buildings?
1.5.1 B.Maintain and enhance the predominantly
residential character of the Barrio .
Mix of office, service commercial, retail, light industrial
uses as the residential neighborhood transitions to
the commercial core of the Village.
Disturbing
Who Decides?
Who determines the definitions of the subjective terms
in the Plan that the Planning Commission claims
they can’t use to make decisions?
More importantly, who decides why they can’t apply
subjective terminology through community input but
can invariably apply their own subjective opinions
when justifying their vote?
Who Decides?
You Lieutenant Weinberg?
Who Decides?