Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003-02-05; Planning Commission; ; CT 02-10|CP 02-05|SDP 02-04|CDP 02-15 - VILLA FRANCESCA
~he City of Carlsbad Planning Departmel A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF: February 5, 2003 ItemNo. (D Application complete date: August 28, 2002 Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy Project Engineer: John Maashoff SUBJECT: CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15 -VILLA FRANCESCA-Request for a recommendation for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a recommendation of approval for a Tentative Subdivision Map, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit for a 51-unit senior condominium project located on the east side of Jefferson Street, north of Laguna Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5318, 5319, 5320, 5321 and 5322 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of CT 02-10, CP 02-05, SDP 02-04, and CDP 02-15 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION At the December 18, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission made a motion to continue this item to the February 5, 2003 meeting so that staff could research the resident and guest parking requirements for senior housing projects in other jurisdictions. Several of the Commissioners were concerned that there may not be adequate parking for the project, particularly with regard to guest parking. The Commission was also concerned about traffic and the existing on-street parking problems in the area and asked staff to look at these issues to· see if something could be done with the traffic and parking. Staff was able to research the parking requirements for a number of jurisdictions and also surveyed several built projects, including the four senior projects in the northwest quadrant of Carlsbad. A number of statistics and reports were also reviewed to help determine what parking requirements would be suitable for this project. The applicant also had an opportunity to layout the parking garage in a more efficient manner and 61 parking spaces are now provided. The new layout is included as an attachment for the Planning Commission's review. Staff surveyed other cities both within and outside of San Diego (SD) County. The results were inconclusive in that there was a wide range of parking requirements for senior housing projects with no one set of standards which appeared to be prevailing. A number of jurisdictions had no special standards for senior housing. In other words, the standard parking rates, which would typically be 2 spaces per unit, would apply to senior projects. However, it is important to note . -• CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 0l-04/CDP 02-15-VILLA FRANCESCA February 5, 2003 Pae 2 that modifications to reduce standard parking requirements can be granted for senior citizen housing projects requesting a density increase under the State Density Bonus Law. Other jurisdictions recognized that senior projects may have unique parking requirements and specifically allow a parking reduction at the discretion of the Planning Commission or City Council. fu jurisdictions where special parking standards have been developed for senior projects the parking requirements ranged from 1.2 spaces per unit (which included resident parking) to 1/2 space per unit. Two jurisdictions outside SD County had even lower parking rates of only 1/4 space per unit, however these rates applied to rentals units and units which were deed restricted for low or moderate income households. With regard to guest parking spaces, the requirements ranged from none required to 1 space for every 5 units. Staff was able to obtain limited information for several existing senior projects to see if there was a difference in parking requirements for owner vs. rental projects. There appear to be a limited number of "for sale" projects and data is generally not available which distinguishes between ownership and rental units. fu the projects surveyed, the "for sale" projects all had at least one parking space per unit with a high of 1.76 spaces per unit (resident/guest parking combined). Rental projects on the other hand showed that parking was provided at a maximum rate of 1.14 spaces to a low of 0.11 spaces per units in the SD Gaslamp district. The survey seems to indicate that more parking is generally required for a "for sale" project, however, the survey group was rather small to come up with any conclusive evidence. SANDAG was able to assist staff by generating data which shows the number of vehicles owned by households categorized by age group (55-64, 65-74, and 75 or older) and by housing type (single family vs. multi-family/mobile home). It is important to note that the data does not indicate the number of persons in the household. Fmihermore, the age range is for head of household and could include persons outside of that range such as teenagers living at the home. Nonetheless, the data showed that the average number of cars owned by persons living in multi- family projects was less than the number of cars owned by occupants in single-family dwellings. The average number of vehicles also dropped dramatically as the age of the household increased. The results showed that the average number of vehicles owned by families with the head of household at 55 years old or older in multifamily/mobile homes is 1.1 vehicles. The four projects in the northwest quadrant of Carlsbad were studied and it was found that the average age of residents in these senior housing projects ranged from 70 to 73 years old. The average number of vehicles owned per household is 0.53 vehicles. This average is lower than figures shown in the SANDAG data, probably because the households in the SANDAG report may include persons other than just "senior qualified" residents. Surprisingly, the number of vehicles per household was higher for the 100% affordable project on Tyler Court than for the market rate projects. A senior housing parking study was also prepared by SANDAG for the City of San Diego in 1984. The survey included a random selection of 12 complexes with a total of 1,274 units. The survey indicates that the average vehicle ownership rate for senior citizens is around 0.56 CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 0,04/CDP 02-15-VILLA FRANCESC, February 5, 2003 Pae 3 vehicles per unit. Based on this study, the City of San Diego increased the parking requirements for senior housing to 1 space per unit with no additional guest parking required. Staff was also able to obtain a report prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), prepared in 1996, analyzing senior housing trip generation rates and parking demand characteristics. Five categories of senior housing were identified, ranging from senior single- family homes to congregate care facilities. However, the report states that the data does not distinguish between the categories listed. This is a problem that staff has consistently found when trying to research data for senior housing. The report identifies some key points that are important to keep in mind when evaluating a senior project: 1. As the average age of residents increases, the number of trips and parking demand decreases. 2. The economic well-being ofresidents increases the likelihood that they will own a car and thus drive and park. 3. The peak hour traffic volumes for seniors occur between 11:00 am and 4:00 pm. These peak hour times do not coincide with the peak hour of adjacent street traffic because residents do not have to or want to travel during the rush hour. 4. Bus, shuttle, or chauffeur service provide an option to owning an auto. 5. The report found that the peak parking demand at most senior facilities occurred at mid-day with an average peak demand of 0.40 vehicles per dwelling unit for residents, employees, and visitors. 6. The peak parking day of the year is Mother's Day when many facilities run out of visitor parking. In evaluating this information, there was no one answer that surfaced as the optimal number of parking spaces for a senior housing project. Variables such as the age of residents, location of the project to public transportation, economic status of occupants, and ownership vs. rental units all have a bearing on the anticipated parking needs. Based on the information gathered, the following conclusions were drawn to try to determine what would be an adequate parking requirement for this project. 1. Residents of senior housing projects in Carlsbad are 70.75 years of age on the average so the likelihood of car ownership is beginning to decrease. 2. Since 51 % of the units will be affordable to low and moderate income households, the likelihood for car ownership should be less than if the project was 100% market rate. CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 0,04/CDP 02-15-VILLA FRANCESC, February 5, 2003 Pa e4 3. The Villa Francesca project is within walking distance of downtown Carlsbad and is adjacent to a bus stop, thereby providing an alternative to automobile ownership. 4. It is anticipated that there will be at least 0.56 cars per unit, but it will most likely be closer to 0. 7 cars per unit. 5. The peak parking demand occurs at mid-day. If overflow guest parking was necessary, it would most likely occur during the day when other residents in the vicinity that use the streets for parking are at work or away. Staff visited the site several times during working hours and never experienced any difficulty finding a parking space. Carlsbad senior housing projects have an average of 0.53 vehicles per dwelling unit with a high of 0.73 vehicles per dwelling unit, but these are rental projects and the rates may be higher for ownership properties. Staff suggests that 80-90% of the owners may have a vehicle and a rate of 0.8 to 0.9 spaces per unit would apply to the project. Parking rates of 0.2 space/unit (1 space per every 5 units) appear to be the most common rate for visitor parking. This results in a combined parking rate for resident/visitor parking of 1.0 to 1.1 spaces per unit. Staff believes that this would provide more than adequate parking for the project. This rate correlates with the SANDAG data showing an average of 1.1 vehicles owned in households with head of household as 55 years or older (multi-family/mobile home), taking into consideration that these are not "senior only" households so the rate of vehicle ownership shown is probably higher than it would be for "seniors only". The ITE data showing a parking demand of 0.4 vehicles per dwelling unit is probably too low since this includes the entire range of categories of senior projects. With a combined resident/visitor parking requirement of 1. 0 to 1.1 spaces per unit, the 51 unit project would require 51 to 57 (56.1) spaces. The applicant was able to redesign the parking garage and developed a more efficient use of space. As shown on the plan, 61 spaces are now provided in the parking garage for a rate of just under 1.2 spaces per unit. 51 spaces would be available for residents with 10 spaces for guests. As discussed previously, if resident parking spaces are not utilized by an owner, those spaces would also be available for guest parking. The project provides from 3 to 10 additional parking spaces over the 51 to 57 spaces recommended by staff, and is well over the 27 parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance. Therefore, staff still supports the recommendation for approval, subject to the revisions shown on the revised Exhibits "C, D, and E." With regard to the existing on-street parking problems, the Planning Commission could recommend, by minute motion to the City Manager or City Council, to direct staff to prepare a comprehensive parking study for the area to analyze the existing situation. A number of alternatives could be examined in the study including permit parking or time limits for parking. If it is found that there are safety issues involved, then additional traffic signals or signs may be warranted. The Engineering Department will be commencing their 2003 traffic counts in designated locations and this neighborhood could be added to that scope of work. CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP lo4/CDP 02-15 -VILLA FRANCEscP February 5, 2003 Pa e5 At the February 5, 2003 meeting, staff will have diagrams showing the tum lane proposed in the traffic study and how it would impact the on-street parking in the area. Staff does not recommend adding a mid-block turn lane since it would result in the loss of on-street parking in the area. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5318 (Mitigated Negative Declaration) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5319 (CT) 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5320 (CP) 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5321 (SDP) 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5322 (CDP) 6. Location Map 7. Reduced Revised Exhibits "C, D, and E" 8. Other City Parking Requirements for Senior Citizen Housing 9. Existing Senior Housing Projects (rental vs. ownership) 10. SANDAG 1990 Census Data -Households by Vehicle Available by Age of Householder 11. Comparison of Carlsbad Senior Housing Projects in the Northwest Quadrant 12. City of San Diego Senior Housing Parking Needs Survey 13. Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Demand Characteristics 14. Staff Report dated December 18, 2002 15. Minutes of the December 18, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting 16. Full Size Revised Exhibits "C, D, and E" dated February 5, 2003 SITE BUENA PL w ,_____ ~ J-----'----,------1 1-----'------'-~~~~ (/) ~ ,>----,-------j !ii i---- 6 W77n77D,;,zrn;;I 1----------1 ~ w LL LL w ______ ___, ...., ...._______, KNOWLES AVE LAGUNA DR VILLA FRANCESCA CT 02-10/CP 02-05/ SOP 02-04/CDP 02-15 1 i i!: ~~ n: t. i ~ h 8 ~ 211 r SCALE: ,•-20· IMPROVBMHNTS SHOWN NOTE: 11E LOCA110HS OF EXIS11HQ .IIFRO'iOIEHJS NG ~ U1U1J£S AA£ TN<DI FROM R£C0R0 DRAM«iS AHO IIAY HUr BE' TffE EXACT LOCAlJONS. N.L UlXJ1IES SHAU. l!E FED LOCATm (POTHCUD) 8E1aE' NIY lla9C' IS DONE OR »EE LOCA110HS ARE. RQJED UPOH. RECORD DRAMHO REFERENCES: Dll'AMH? BfEE'BfM% 11~ aJY OF CARLSBAD IIFRO\£IIENT Pt.ANS FM oEffERSOH ST,. ET N.: PRO.EC'T ~ SHEET 8 OFDRAIWfQ148-8 QRA.W1 BEHPfHQf 12: CNI.S8AD IIUHICIPN. WATER Dm1l'C1l' ~ PUNS FOR .EF1'ERSOH ST STAlJOH J1&f.OO TO STA 1~ SHEET 2 OF DRAMWO 305-2 (aTY OF WSTA A'tO.ECT J07 -OIIO # ~ .EFFERSOHSlRET .. ...±-""'"--"": .. I ~GUTTEJf ~ I I/ =:a -SOS1WO=~ I ::L.: _-------== --=~ □ PLANNOTBS: Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes CT 02-10 I CP 02-05 I SDP 02-04 /CDP 02-15 ,L,. oC) 0\, r~ Villa Francesca THIS IS A TENTA 71VE: MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES THE: MAXIMUM NUMBE:R OF UNITS IS 51 ~~-MrTCHELL AVENUE !CLOSED! :ig,-APN 155-271-18 \~pS ]. -~1·~~ M rT~f~ j -,t--""'-,~\. ---7 ~ . ~ ?}) J.,y ~ l--\ J ',\ SHEET 1 of 2 SHEETS OWNER AND APPUCANT: --o/o KNlNNC M<H1EC'1tJR£' .2!r02 STA'JE S1R£ET. 5U'1E C CWSIAD,CAB2000 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOIS 8. 7. ~ 8. 10 NID 11 IN a.oa< 1 OF SUNNY SLOP£ 1RACT. II 11£ Ct'IY OF ~ COUH1Y OF SNI D11EGO. SfAlE' OF' CALEtWN.A., AQXJRQNG 70 11£ MAP '1HER£OF' HO. <f.M. fl£D IH '1Hf OFRC£ OF THE COtM1Y ftECaR0E1i' OF SAN DIEGO COU'iTY. f'EZllft.WtY 7, 181118,. 1tlGE»EJt IW7H' A POR110H OF 7HE NJ.E'I IH BLOCK 1 NID REE.CE A.\ofME AS SAO l,lJ,£Y NIO SfflEET JIER£' a.osm 1D PUE/UC USE. SEE mt£ REPORT OH nE M1'H THE a1Y FOR A C<lft.rn:lmAl.""""""1JO PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ 28,U • 29.fe JD1'ERSOH S1"PIIEET ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 185--Dt-tll. 2Q. 2f • tt PROJECT DESCRIPTION: IIE.1f PROf'05fD AElf1!7l'WEAN sntE lS1 CHT SENIOR Cl11ZEH COM><MMM PRO.ECT. BASEJENT PMKMG S11'UC1URf' Mm 3 S10R1ES ABO\& l1£ msnHQ 3 a.DER RE51JfH17AL lH7S DOS1'WO CW TH£ STE ML 6E REMOKD. SBRVJNG UTILITY AGENCIES: WA'JER: arr OF CARLSBAD S£ME:R: art OF CARLS8AD FR£: CITY OF CNKSBNJ SCHOCl.: CAltt.SBAD lN'E) SCHOa. DtS1RfiCT GAS • fl£C'1RJC: SNI DEGO GAS • ELECJRJC PROJECT DATA: EXIS11HG LNID ltSF' .J SINGLE F'N&Y RESlliENTIAI.. LOIS NTH S1RUCTt.fiES PROPOSED f.AID US&----SENIOR arl2:E1I OCIHOCUNtU$ 7DTAL MAl8ER OF UNITS.--..--51 D<NSlY.'----------60.7 UMJs PER ACRE' PROPOSED USE ~ TOTAL WT SP'!" 318,750 SQ FT/ M ACRES ,.,.,,.,,,,,--______ 19,Ma SQ FT/ SU LAM>SCAPE.--.-1J.a18 SQ FT/ 3G PRIVATE DRM"'-------ao4 SQ FT/ 2 ,C -EX1S1WO Ir PROPOSED.-R-3 COASTAL ZOIE SEl!MCICS ="----_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ --------- 20' , .. 20' PNOOHG PR<Y'OSED-------+ r:~c:~ r,~~~~AL 11W7JC £S'IIIIA•=------M LN7S X .f AOT PER tNT • 20f. NJT (A~ DM.Y TRIPS) GRAIJINQ £SllifA1ED ---· HOO CY CUT 400 CY Fll 9400 C'f DPORT PR0JECm> 5"0 US. --· 51 EDU'. (f EDU / °"'1) ~ 1141ER USE --71!12 CFtl (7fU fV) . ._ ~\ ( "P~~ ~ii:-_ MAP 12986 \_J,f! )'-,j'\._~...::: REVISIONS: rw~ ~u, '\ ..,....,,, ,~ ,....,...,\:271~23 \_:==~IEGJITOF ClfttCIIW. o:s~~ CO::..v1rASSOC1NC A £:IOSJWO ~ ~ LM f£R OWG REF,, 'l St.OPE lO STREET of.ID' BW Fa.LOWS ~ Sn:Ril DRAW ,,,, -BC1T'lr:»I OF Will£ VI MV OJ Of/HJ/b2 CGNIMY ,, ASSOC IHC 8 .,.._, :n-....,. LN: PE1' o,o lfEF #I 0,,.., ~ ~ =, FS ABO>£••·• 1.L., S'IS1EII N!IXHJQ) 7W • 7llP or IIOU. CINITY MAP REV 02 o,;t>o/112 """"'',. ASSOC INC g =~~~~~If o-(,\ =~ cm Of OCEANSlOE :: : ~ :i:::: E EJCtS11HQ ctll9,, cutn'R IHO SllElWJC (IKml .Sl>ES OF .s7REE1) PER D~ REF 11 \ 0 ~ REV 05 01/r.J/OJ ~y II ASSOC IHC F -42" IN1ERCfPTDR SDER (LN>ER 00NSlRUCTJON OH 2,118/02) PER DJIO REF lfl C) y REV OS o,)23ftJJ: cx.:tiiMY .II MS0C INC Q ALL E»S11HO ~ le lREES CW-SITE MIL 8£ RfJIO\f'D FOR 7HS PRO,,.ECT TOPOGRAPlnC MAPPING: C) ~ ~ SElBACK l..N -SEE AEQURD SE7BAQ(S IN PRO,EC1' DATA NOTES MO',£' RIGHT ~ ~GW~: ~ ~to \).! J IHSTAU. r S7tlflf DRAW AROtJtlO SlE' l'ERliE1ER iEHHJ R£rNHHJ IMU. "'1H I.D'II POINT HE1S AT CURS OH THE Nc::W1HMDr COHCRElE' CURS (!!) (e.) :e:, l!!!!I (ii a 8:, csg ~ l!!!!I ~ c::::, 11=-csg 11=- 1!!3 l!!!!I II=- H u H 8 • h H lj 1~ I 6 H RDIOW: .J EJtZS1IHQ IESIEmAI.. DRI~ EN11WICCS NID NJD 1EW W DRnEWAY ENmAHCE -REPlACE' V ~ APPROXlWA7£ 1~ CENTERS. DRNH NEIS TD BE F1T1ED 111111 A 'F'OSSL 11.JER" OR BXMVALEJIT S1tMI IMTFR R£JtMH,, DAWS A\Etft.£ It~ DRM'. MIR PREPARED Em '\~lfll~~: ~ .-'f. f'l.1FR S')SlEII. NL ROOF DRNH DOIIH SPOUlS NIU. BC £IIIEC1ED n> 11£ tr S7tftil DRNH S'lS'1al WA Et£VAJ1GW • 574 MSt. COMMY A ASSOCIAJES INC. CRY or VISTA ~ • Q ~ SURF°M:E FU1W 11ftOUGH UHJSCN1ED PLAH1ERS. S1aW WAmt FROfl »IS srsJDI ML B£ DFTNNED ON 252' PfO PfCO DRIVE 2IIS.f2-M A f: STE,.. SEE S1tlftll DfWH H01£ 4 <M SET Z. FED~ PERFORJ,l£IJ OH 2/f.f/02 BY CARtSMD CA 1i200f!. '\.~~;f"":::,-.'Y,_ ~ll,--"""'-.--1I 1...... H jj ~ = ~ ~ ::" BEl.OW-GRADE ONWZ N£A llllL EE FLlIREO USNQ A 'Fl>SSI. FI..TER" Cft DNI HOOPEl. LS. 7248. 790-~t4lll :$"---ST. -, ~ tr} j EQUVAL.EHT SJ0R11 WAlER Fl,.TEH S')S1EM N«J £WIIEC1m TO T1E ~ S11'£ET Q.N R.OM.J1E lfA A A CITY OF 1-W ~ I ft'~~_;:;:= Z ~ BOUNDARY: SY:c_________ SAH WAACOS ,__J .!!:! • H __ ,..,,,......,..,._..,,.,.,.,,...,,,._ l,Htl0"07'W .... IIICHAELK.PN1KO,P£<1022 LOCATION MAP ~ g ~ 0 NW«xJN DOS1WQ ~ KP SEMO SER\fCE 2. N O"" <d E 1/Jd 11'1 R£GIS1RA110H EXPfiES OJ/31/b,:5 1"1' Ill ,;t p MTAU. 2 (EAJ NE.W %" WAlER SEJMCE'. ME1ER • 8AQ(R.OW PR£l€H1ER .., RR 8tM.DfHG DOIWESlJC USE .1. N ao-fiT W 2W '\'Glti~r.r,.,,.;._.,,.,. ,.... ~ ~ o INSTALL HEW BAc:,cnow PRa£Hl!1t ... FOR UKISCAPE ltftfGA110H ._ H o-or E ,w \ l._ ., • : ::t::::==~FDR~':t,\:'"'FOlfBUaDWQFIRE.ffliJDI ~~~~~~'=~~MAP. ~ ~j T ABN«J0H DIS11'#Q GAS SE1n4a! RECfflD DATA AS 5HOJIH HEREON IS "'BEST m" TO £XISJWQ FENCES 3: a, ~ U WSTAU. H£fl .... GI\S SE1Mc£ NID l"H'l'SJCAL £WJEHCE' ff TJE TIElD (£.a. FENCES). A aotWDNtY ~ ., V £lOS1'JNO O'oEtHEAD El£C1RIC POIIER I.MES stln£Y ML IIIE ~ AS A PNfT OF lHE FK,\L. ltUP. 1 § : ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ll=Rl--lu• Jon 23, 2003 -12,20.58 P:\02-004-Kamak\Owgs\TM\TM-1 DWG PLOT O 1 .. 1 z -I '~ STORMDRAINNOTES: G) ~ WSTAU. l'RIVA'JE' tr STORII £RAW NIOtllO SlE' PfME1m BDiN> RETAMG IMlL M1H UJW f"t:MT H£1S AT N'f'ftQICIIAlE' f5' CEHJEM DRAM N£1S 7D BE' F1TTED W11I A 'fDS:51. Fl.lER" <It EQIVAUM' S1tlRII WAlER Fl."IER S'tS'1DI. AU ROOF DRAIN DOIIN SPWlS TD BE' oe:cm> TO 11£ ll' snRI IJRAW S)SEI MA SURF'ACE' IIJJ'W 11RM;ff LNID9CAP£D PU.K1ms. STORlf IMD F1fOU lJtS SlSttM IIIU. BE DETANJJ CW Sl'1E' ,.. SEE NOT£ 4. @ GNMGE ME! QPW&; JU«JIT CCU£C1ED fffOII 1HE SEI.OKL-GRADE ~ MFA Ml. IE Fl.lEIED WHG A 'RlSsa. Fl.ttr OR SllVAUHT STORII IMJIR Fl.mt Sl'SlDI NIJ ORm1ED TD 11E Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes CT 02-10 I CP 02-05 I SDP 02-04 /CDP 02-15 SHEET 2 of 2 SHEETS CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN & GRADING SECTIONS -=a111-......... IUPS>SlDI_S>SlDI,.~ • v·ii F @ ~ tWAII Sl'S1EM OUTl£1S INTO B'FERSICJf S1IEET <UIS Fl.OIU!IE \CA SllEIMIK \. \ 1 --~ r-------7 ·r------7 1 cl ran,_Q~§Ca ~ ~I za'FY!B I Illa' s § & ! I I! ~ 1/2 _ _,,,_,... iii s Sl1I! ;!; @ :S'T..:&:T~~:1A=:.:: N,~ l 1\ 1 \. -m'~ .ER'ERSOHS1RE£Tij FflOJttl' ii! WX£111AHns_,,...._PENC.,_,..,.,.,._,,..,.,.,.s,,,_ W I, 1 \ ....,_ 1 THIS IS A 7ENTA,,.~ MAP FOR .,_ E\fHT. OE ""'8.£ -FOIi NI_,. .,_ "'""' """"'.. ........ ' ' ' ,-J CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES ~~sn::,":=i,"~,W.:l,,"",.=:"'...,. =.c~"" r.J c-7-L, 7HE MAXIMUM'N(!MBER\OF UNITS IS 51 071ER Dm1mOH S't.fflJIS NL 8£ ~lm MD IIAY lJ£ m.EC1ED AS PJlm..OF 11£"'~ : t \ I '• ' \, ~tg' ll: .' ~ 0 -11 <: h I~ = ....,_.....,l'HM£ L__ ____ ,l,_. . \ L-------' '--'-;:-.J ',"-'\ '•, □PLANNOTES: C~_,.. \ \_ ,~··•,, I ' '='====~~ '·,. '\ ,i ----1 I I ......, I I I l ~ \ ~.=., ;__~r--"7:::_:~ IICNTO"'IIMY ~ __ , __ _ .,..,.., I _,,.., --!(a:, _,..~,.-'I ' I lllfilf .....,, :_ .. J1 l I ...... , \ - ____ ...l ..... ' .. , -----, --------, '----.---I I I -~ I I I I -, ~ L _______ j a..llUlllllL -~ ElOSIIHGCIIN!E :; ...,.,......, .fl.tit...mBI. n, .. -""""""'-;; ~m.ssmurnf1£ I ~ SlREET.f.S l1tl RllOIIS liRAOE' I 11W ftUOIIS GRAD£ f'S MOVE UO g~ IL ___ ,.Sia'£"'= ------1-------------------------- ~ ---------------~------1 I 8 20' 10'5' 0 ~ 29' SCALE: 1°=20' <Kt l 1,. .')_ .. ,, -, \ ··-....... .. .. , .. 1:1" \ flRtFI.E N a. (F PftOP09ED DRI\IE 8ffltANCE .... \ \ ' ' ....... ',, I \ \ ·,.. ,;X.... \ \ \ ~-i +r \.COOR5E=~ 'Of' ,>""/ I / /~~~-FN5HCRAD<: /'-1-/ l ~/ ... ,,.~\ , .... ::..:...:.:., ., / ~ } \ ·,\ \ : I l lDlf PCINT a: 0 \ DETAL 1: n'PICAL 11!:TAlalO WH.1. / SllEEH WALL • PIICPfJnY UNE: / / > {CffSlESJl,P~if:. -1(ATS'LYF't.NLDt»CIIO£AST) SCALe-HCRZ1•-2tt \E'f1'19-,tt ~ • . ' 1tz;:o a. ll, / • ♦w • ·loll' ~m----.. ~. ,r: i!: I ' ~ ' .-. . ,,1, " sm: --~ l: ,'1\ 'i} z ,, '\ i / / \ \ 1111 l----------<00''----------1 ) / 1 : 1 sump \ •~ ' ;.?~t;_\.,._t ... ~·-..:·~--~~ J' ,, -.,.. /-------...--.. / "-/ ', // ii! "----------.. ~---•·-w =•-~ I p sm: ,,:;:;:, .. ._.., E1IIS1IHO CDHRJCIR -=-PROPOSED RCrNHMG 9IMlL -+-so-SD •/ DMEC110H CF FLOW ,. FF ,. ~ I -l _________________________ J ...,., Fl.OCR ...,., SUif'AC£ DA'l!J<HT 701 OF RETANNG lfAU. fl.EV 1"'P AIEPNIIED W. CCMMY • ASSXJATa IHC. 252SffOPKXJDRM" CNil511AD,CA-'90-153-Jffl .EmJtS0II STREET ~; -'---------~ --- 1 ~ I :--:..I + ~ BUI.DIHO tsr FLOOR CIINiE ~·"' --rn-1-E»S1WG LOT UE SD F'Rf6JOSED SttRI DRAW UCW UHt£SS 011EMSE' H01ED ELEV ELEVA""' DL 1W BW BOTTOM OF RETANNO WALL El.EV Jan 23. 2003 -12.19:20 P•\02-004 Kcrnak\Owgs\lM\TM-2.DWG PLOT O 1•1 .,,, _______ _ MOIAEL K. PASKQ, P£ 4U2Z2 MYREGmRATJCWDOw:sOJ/.51/t>J ~----- ~=-- -~---~--~--------~=~ ..,,_,....,,_ SCALE:: HORIZ 1• -20' ',EfT 1• -10" I!!) el ::e::i l!!!!I 8!il D l!1:o ~ ~ l!!!!I ::e::i c:, IF' ~ IF' 8il l!!!!I IF' <.i I .s ~ .; 1 "'. ~a ·s i 0 -"'. "'ii «:_ o'd I I?. ,= ~ o:I. 0. U3 ,1,15'-rr HtJW 5Tf)"i¥ I 2; -L/A b L/A ... A I --4--~/ --1 ~ l :---i §: 2•-• 2·-i. ~ ~ I LJL/• ;:w n'P ---T'tP ---~ ---•--•--itY;I ""' ~ ls-I lttlf'i E>CIT 3 o a·-e· I 4 o s'-6 I I 4 o a·-e· I I 4 o a·-e• I 4 o a'-6" t 5 ,-:a•. ,~:_::t ------I -----a-----1-30 .. 6'-0" .• b .• ~ I .. ,, -20' _....,.. __ 2_4_--1-1-a-·"'" .__,__ 1 I 24'-6"■ "" 20--1 SETSACK • ~ 1 ➔ I u, ,_ 1 L/A ,t 2 0 10 -0" 1, 10'-0"· l CD e•-5• 3 o '-s· l ~ !---- 11. ~ --; ,-a __.,,..-,-....,....,,..,,,1 0 'I;" I .....1 ,--...,._,__ .,---,r.///// ... r "'" ,,..., N ..... I 1J IP D. -1/////.1 -, ~ I --<K ){;x ><>,, ©--E ~a;;-.~lm: :y__ --'14'--"i,_ ----• --- .._. 1--C ·-~ = "'Ii ~ Ill Q IQ Cl) l' XX #4 '//////////////. ·' C I 1'/f ll-llzaclb:,:a:a:ia!Zl:!L.Jli; '//////////////.~ ~ _I_ t UJ 0 j I ~ • :_-~-T ';: ... t ~~ ~ -~ "'·---lL , __ ! -~-=--: --1-.,.---0 L/A -- (l) I ~; I FLQOR ABC VE-, • I · V f'A CD • 0 , -:, I <::S I ..,.__ l'3 d ~ "Is-·---+-' co CL i' 1 ,:;:, • ... 1,s'-o"l,s-0·1,s·-0•1. 1, J o a'-6" I. 1.10'-oj, o'-0" 1 -' z:: I __ 4._.2£:,lt'. _,...."' ____ 25'-7" 1-, ·• ·• ·• +-·• ·n ·• : rt) I \, ., ➔ i<J ':oi: • •N 'I,[ RAIIP DO'MI I 37'-6" ... N 5 -o "'I, • I --= -~-.------,.......,,.----¼.---------H--2-.... -----~, ;ii( 10·-o--e· 3 o a·-s· 3 o 1 •-e• 3 o a·-s• 3 o a'-6" J o a·-e· 1 V I El£CT ~ tr-6 3-u · 2 _4,, L./ I L/A l ITI", -.... ITI. ... - I I ---~. -fa ~-~ -® ~ 7 I -----.::11-••--•••:aat1mm;::;:::.i!.1draaa:a:.s-=t ... :ati::aiD:1i!:a:a:al:-ir.i:=::;==:!;al!:iim-llltPmlZlll:ar;aacal:lbtlra:l.-r:aaz-.d----i I -.. --L/A ~ ! L/A - - w-o· N8fltl 57'fJ.,, BASEMENT PLAN SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0' [j • -ATTACHMENT 8 OTHER CITY PAR:ffNG REQUIRMENTS FOR SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING CITY RESIDENT PARKING VISITOR PARKING REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT WITHIN SAN DIEGO COUNTY Chula Vista Coronado, Del Mar, No special standards for senior housing none El Cajon, Escondido, Standard residential parking requirement La Mesa, Lemon Grove Encinitas No special standards for senior housing 1 space per every 4 units Standard residential parking requirement (multifamily) Imperial Beach 2 spaces per unit (standard residential) none May be reduced at discretion of Planning Commission and City Council for senior housing National City Special Senior Citizen Housing Zone Determined through Planned Parking determined through Planned Development Permit Development Permit Oceanside Poway 1.2 spaces per unit (included in resident parking ratio) San Diego I space per unit none San Marcos Santee No special standards for senior housing I space per unit (multifamily) Standard residential parking requirement Solana Beach I space per unit I space per every 5 units Vista No special standards for senior housing .33 space per unit (multifamily) Standard residential parking requirement OUTSIDE SAN DIEGO COUNTY Dana Point I space per unit I space per every 2 units, plus I space for a resident manager Duarte 1 space per studio or I-bedroom unit (included in resident parking ratio) 2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit Foster City .5 space per bedroom I space per every 2 units Irvine Parking Study Long Beach I space per each 2 bedrooms (low rent); or none I space per each I bedroom (market rent) Los Angeles I space per every 2 units none Manhattan Beach I space per every 2 units I guest space per every 5 units, I space per employee, and I loading space Marina .8 space per studio or I-bedroom unit none space must be provided on-site to provide a minimum .2 space per unit should need arise (equivalent to I space per unit) San Dimas 2 spaces per unit none San Mateo I space per every 4 rental units; none 1 space per each for-sale unit Santa Monica I space per every 2 units; or I space per every 5 units 1 space per every 4 units if deed restricted for low or moderate income Seaside I space per unit none Temecula I space per every 2 units 1 space per every 5 units LIMITED SURVEY OF EXISTING SENIOR HOUSING PROJECTS RENTAL VS. OWNERSHIP Rental Projects Affordable/ unit #of Market/ breakdown # of parking Age Total# of Total #of City units Mixed Inc. (1br/2br) spaces Restricitions Avg.Age Residents Cars Danvile 120 A 78/42 120 Filmore 50 A unknown 21 San Jose 96 A unknown 74 San Diego (gaslamp) 153 A unknown 17 55+ 69 167 13 Poway A unknown 22 55+ 70 66 19 Poway 102 A unknown 117 55+ 69 115 54 For Sale Projects Torrance 68 Mrkt unknown 68 Gilroy 37 Mrkt unknown 65 62+ Cerritos 126 Mix'd unknown 189 (63 guest) Cerritos 98 Mix'd unknown 137 (39 guest) Spaces/ Unit 1.00 0.42 0.77 0.11 1.14 1.00 1.76 1.50 1.40 Vehicles/ Unit 0.08 0.52 - - ►--1 -I > n :c s: m z -I tO ALL HOUSEHOLDS No vehicles 1 vehicle 2 vehicles 3 vehicles 4 or more vehicles Total households Average number of vehicles per' household SINGLE FAMILY No vehicles 1 vehicle 2 vehicles 3 vehicles 4 or more vehicles Total households Average number of vehicles per household HOUSEHOLDS BY VEHICLES AVAILABLE BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER (CARLSBAD/SAN DIEGUITO SUBREGIONAL AREAS COMBINED) Householder Age: 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 or Older Households Percent Households Percent Households 96 1% 288 4% 1,046 1,782 26% 3,579 47% 2,623 3,491 50% 3,052 40% 899 1,046 15% 562 7% 127 556 8% 107 1% 33 6,971 100% 7,588 100% 4,728 2.1 1.6 1.0 Householder Age: 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 or Older Households Percent Households Percent Households 46 1% 77 1% 336 972 18% 2,272 41% 1,609 2,944 54% 2,589 47% 717 921 17% 506 9% 127 538 10% 107 2% 33 5,421 100% 5,551 100% 2,822 2.2 1.7 1.3 Source: 1990 Census Public Use Microdata Sample. Compiled by SAN DAG. ~ Total 55 and Older Percent Households Percent 22% 1,430 7% 55% 7,984 41% 19% 7,442 39%- 3% 1,735 9% 1% 696 4% 100% 19,287 100% 1.6 Total 55 and Older Percent Households Percent 12% 459 3% 57% 4,853 35% 25% 6,250 45% 5% 1,554 11%- 1% 678 5% -I 100% 13,794 100% -I ► n :c s: 1.8 m z -I ~ 0 December 18, 2002 MULTIPLE FAMILY/MOBILE HOME HOUSEHOLDS BY VEHICLES AVAILABLE BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER (CARLSBAD/SAN DIEGUITO SUBREGIONAL AREAS COMBINED) Householder Age: 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 or Older Households Percent Households Percent Households No vehicles 50 3% 211 10% 710 1 vehicle 810 52% 1,307 64% 1,014 2 vehicles 547 35% 463 23% 182 3 vehicles 125 8% 56 3% 4 or more vehicles 18 1% -0% - Total households 1,550 100% 2,037 100% 1,906 Average number of vehicles per household 1.5 1.2 0.7 Source: 1990 Census Public Use Microdata Sample. Compiled by SANDAG. Total 55 and Older Percent Households Percent 37% 971 18% 53% 3,131 57%- 10% 1,192. 22% 0% 181 3% 0% 18 0% 100% 5,493 100% 1.1 - December 18, 2002 Comparison of Carlsbad Senior Housing Projects in the Northwest Quadrant ., :·<, . ~,L: _;; :~·>. i :: .:.r .•.;,. _:·, ; .':~~: .. · .. ::,\;:-:.·: .·' i ·:~;.;;:: ;:,::_;-. ~,· ·--:. : . , .(.. . > .. , : .:, : ~< _:', -~ ·., ·._·:; .... : <. :· ::·_::~:. . ,_·::.~. : .. · ::\: ' ', .: ·: ..... :. . ;~t ·.:~ <,• '. \. . . .. · • ,::;__ .a::· Carlsbad Projects Affordable/ Market/ unit breakdown # of parking Age # of units Mixed Inc. (1br/2br) spaces Restricitions Sunset Seniors 38 Mrkt 1 bdrm 25 55+ Jefferson House 1 48 Mrkt 1 bdrm 24 55+ Jefferson House 2 59 Mrkt 1 & 2 bdrm 23 55+ Tyler Cout 75 A 66/9 55 55+ Average Total# of Total# of Avg.Age Residents Cars 70 38 14 70 47 25 73 63 30 70 77 54 70.75 Spaces/ Unit 0.66 0.5 0.39 0.73 0.57 Vehicles/ Unit 0.36 0.52 0.51 0.72 0.53 - ►--1 -I > (') :c s: m z -I ... ... DEC.-31'02(TUE) 16:56 SAND~ ATTACHMENT 12 CITY OF SAN DIEGO SENIOR HOUSING PARKING NEEDS SURVEY NOVEMBER, 1984 Survey Conducted by: San Diego Association of Govemraents 1200 Tbird Avenue, Suite 52.4 58.l'l Diego, CA 9_Zl01 P. 002 DEC. -31' 02(TUE) 16:57 SANDAG - Introduction Tbl!! City of San Diego CU!Tetttly grants CO!lditior.ial use permita for the eonstmc- Uon of senior housing projects. De'Velopers of these projects al'e given two inc:en- ti•es: (1) they are allowed to build a.t a density 50% greater than that provided for in t be Cottniumity Plan, a:nd (2) t bere ts a reduction in t be amount of off-street parking required. Normally, tbe amount of off-street pa?"king rl!!q_uired is 1.3 spaces for each one-bedroom unit and 1.6 spaces for each two-bedroom unit. The&e requirements are reduced for senior housing projects to Ohe space fo:r every two one-bechoom units B.!ld one space for each two-bedroom unit. As an example, a non-senior bousS:ng project of 14 one-bedroom units would require 18 parking Hpac:es; a similar housing project for senior citizens would :require only 7 parking iq,aces. In July, 1984, tbe City's Transportation and LBlld Uae Committee heard public testimony en parking requirements for senior citizen housing projects. Several of tbose testifyins COPlplained that inadequate puldng was -provided. Due to these comments and other indications of a puking sbol'tage in these complexes, the Committee directed the Planning Department staff to p?epa:re a study of this situation. As part of ttiis atudy, the City requested that SANDAG conduct Ii 1Urvey of resi-- denti; of eenlor bousinB cozaplexes. Tbe &Ul'Vey was designed to deterndne a pro- file of tbe residents relative to their vebicle ownership, persons per untt, a.ssigned puking !ipaces, and attitudes about tbe parking supply. Methodolon At tbe time of tbie fnlJ'~ey, tbere wete 48 senior bousing projects in tbe City with a total of 4,644 occupied units. (Tbis figure changes constantly, u new projec:ts are built.) It was decided that completed surveys frow ten perceilt of the total units would give an adequi'lte representatior.i of the total. Based an pre'l1ious similar 6W'Veys, a response rate of 35% to 45% was expected. • 1 P. 003 ''; ,, DEC. -31' 02(TUE) 16:57 SANDAG - A similar 61lrvey was ccmdl;i:::ted for tbe City in 19BZ., although it was a sur,qey of all candcminium projects, not specifically aenior citizen projects·. Since the object of 'both wneys was the same (to evaluate the adequacy of puking requiretneti.ts) u:iany of the same questions were used. A c0tt1parison of :responses to 'both &urveys can be found in the last section of tbis report. Twel--ve coiiiple~ee containing 1,Z.74 units were randomly selected from a list of se:aior housing projects provided by City staff. During the first put of October, tbe Sl.l.n'eY5 were band-delivered to each unit after obtaining permission tc do so from the Ob-site manager er owner of each complex. In order to improve the response rate, the &Ul'veys were printed with the City seal on the front a.long with a short paragraph describing the S\ll"Vey and requesting pa.rtidpatfon. Also, each survey was left with a postage-paid retum envelope, Survey responses were l'ecei\'ed abo:rtly after tbe survey was deliver-ed. A cut-off time perfod of twenty days from suney deli\'ery was established. After tbe SUl'vey was conducted, it was determined that one of the projec:tl:i (Midway) containhlg 255 ·units was built before the City hnplemented the 62 iUld' ovei-age :req,uirement. Since 73% of tbe units in tbis complex: did not. ba_ve a resident age 6Z or ove:r, it bas been eliminated froru this analysis. Survey Results A total of 474 surveys were J'etumed, for a response rate of 47'1'D. The response rates from individual p-rojects ?a.nged from 33% (Tommy Dr\ve) to 67% (52.nd Place). (See Table 1.) P. 004 · DEC.-31'02(TUE) 16:57 SANDAG - TABLE l SELECTED SENIOR cmzEN HOUSING PROJECTS No. of No. of ~ Address ~ Responses Response 3776 Alabama St. 164 75 4:6% 6106 Beadnell Wy, 88 34 39 3681 Fairmount Ave. 10 4 40 6884 Golfcrest Dr. 126 67 53 3 940 Park Blvd. 101 44 44 1 '2.ZO Robinson Ave. 3S 15 43 7707 Tomray Dr. 160 52. 33 740 S. 36tb St. 76 4:1 6Z 4-Z.60 44t b St. 36 16 44 260 !i0tb St. 148 70 47 52.07 52.nd Pl. __ll_ 50 fil. 1,019 474 47% One possible area of c:onf1.1sion in tbi& survey was the understandb:lg of the term "unit." Tbis was not a. p;oblem en tbe previously--<:onducted survey; however, aome of tbe respondents to this BU.l"Vey apparently misunderstood que11tfmis such as II Are there parking l!IPaces assigned specifically to yo'lU' unit?" Some respondents gave Reh answers ns "Yes -57 garage spaces/ leading one to beUeve that they tbougbt "unit" meant "complex." While tbis relatively minor problem does :net affect tbe usefulness of tbe survey results, it does causes some difficulty w heri calculating ave-rages (for example, average number of vehicles per unit). This situation is discussed in gl'eater detajl at the end of this repori. One cf tbe requirements placed on the owner of these senior c:itlzen complexes by tbe City is that at least one person :in every unit must be age 62 or over. How- ever, 18% of tbe uni~s aurveyed reported not. ha.Vin$ amycne ever 6?. years of age living tbere. Tbe range was from 35% with no one ovel' age 62. in the 50th Street complex down to 0% in the Fairmount project. (See Table 2..} • 3 P. 005 DEC. -31' 02(TUE) 16:57 SANDAG - TABLE 2. PERCENT OF UNITS WITH NO RESIDENT AGE 62 OR OVER BY PROJECT 3 77 6 Alabama St. 6 l 06 Beadnell Way 3681 Fairmount Ave. 6884 Golfcr('st Dr, 3940 Park Blvd. 12?.0 Robinson Ave. 7707 Tommy Dr, 740 S. ~6th_ St. 42.60 4-4:t h St. 260 50tll St. .52.07 52nd Pl. Average 15% Z4 0 8 5 ?7 14 29 33- 35 -11 18% Tbe average number of people living in each unit was 1.3, compal'ed to JJ. regional average of 2.6 pera01u1 pe:r unit. Nea:rly all of the unita (96%) ha\'e 011ly or.ie bed- room; 91% are renter-occupied. The average number of vehicles owned by respondents is l,O. Tbis figui-e ca.:n be compared to tbe region as a wbole as well as the 62 years old and over population in the City of San Diego by processing a sample of 1~80 Census respondents (see Table 3), None Qne T,a10 Threet Avg. vel:dcles owned TABLE 3 VEHICLE OWNERSHIP (Percent of Total) ~ur:vey Respondents 41 45 i n ioii% 1.02 San Diego Region (All House bolds) 1 9 37 33 Zl 100% 1,'7 ·i City of San Diego (6Z+ Years)l 2.5 47 'Z,O 8 100% 1.0 1source: U.S. Census 1980 Public Use Microdata SallJple for San Diego City of San Diego (62.,;, in Multi• f,.amily Units) 1 41 49 8 .J 100% 2Remcving tbe resppnses "Three +" from the computation of average vehicles owned reduces it to .56 vehicles per unit • • 4 P. 006 DEC. -31' 02(TUE) 16:57 SANDAG - It was felt by City staff tba.t some of the re9idents may have bad to sell' a 1/ehicle in order to move into these complexes. Sixteen respondenta, or three percent, stated tbat tbey did aeU a vebicle before moving in, Four percent of the re~pondents own a toeereational vehicle and 7&% of tbose store their rectoeatfonal 9ebicle m tbe aeigbborbood. Thirty-one percel1t of the units have :no Hcensed drivers, while 57% have one , pers0J1 licen&ed to ch-lve. Twelve percent bave two or more lieeuaed dzivers. ' About one quarter of the J'espondents have parking spaces assigned specifically to their wilt. Nearly all of tbose assigned spaces are unco11ered spaces (rathel' than ga:-age 0!' carport spaces}• FO!'ty-eigbt percent of the total !'espondents park on tbe streets mnounding their project. Flfty•two pel'cent do not park on the streeta; less than one pel'cent live in i::omP,lexes wbere parking is not allowed an sunounding streets. Ar, faz as the resident&' feelings about the adequacy of available visitor pal"ldng, only 21% felt tbat tbere was enough visitor parking within the project. Just over half (55%) thought tba.t tbere was enough street parkmg to accommodate their visiton. Cmly one thi'rd (36%) of tbe respondents were satisfied with the amount of puking available to them witb!n tbeir project. Wben. cross-tabulating those responses with the r-esponses to Question 8 (" Aze there pafldng spaces assigned i;pecifically to your imit?11), 73% of those who had autgned parking felt that there was ade- quate puking provided. However, ?f% of tbose without assigned parl.ing felt that tbe amount of pukins available to them waa inadequate. lil malyzing tbe survey results, It was found that a small percezitage of tbe re- .pond.ent& apprently mlsundei-stood tbe tei-m •Wlit," confusing it with "couiple~." Tbis problem became apparent · when IID&wers to two or more qiiestions were compared, BllCb aa penons per unit and number of liceni;ed drivers. A !ew respon- dents gave answer~ 11,1cb as "one person in this unit" and "four or mol'e Hcenseo d,rlvers." Tbis is oot a 1ignifi.cant problelD in terms of t be overall value of the S\U'\'ey results, However, tt does bave Dil effect wben cott1puting averages because even a few bigb responses skew tbe results of such computations, P. 007 s [pl ~r"' ~ ~ ri ml Ii . !;1;11 f1 G\n ,If.\ rIT,1 W I •.·'' , :1\•' ,~.\ •11 I ' ·,'. ' j \ ' • I I I I I I I DEC. -31' 02(TUE) 16:58 SANDAG - Table 4 shows the average bousebold size, vehicle::; owned, and licensed drivers per unit, for unit5 witb an occupant age 6Z or over and for uniti; with iio one a£ that age living there. Tbe table also show5 those values aftet eliu:iinatlng tbe highest ~&ponses for persons per unit (fi~e or more), veb.icles owned (three OJ:' more) and licensed driven (five or more) to c01t1pensate for the misunderstanding of the term •untt,11 discussed above. It can be seen tba.t tbe elimination of the "high" responsel:l Call drastically lower tbe average number of veb:lcJes owned (.94 vehicles compared to .56 vehicles per unit). While the .56 vehicles per unit may appear to conelate "bettef with the one parking space per twP one•bedro01J1 units, it does not take into acc:o~t the -aeed for adequate visito? pa.rlt.i'ng. As stated previou.aly, tbe City of San Diego places some resbictians on the owners of senior housing projects in Ol'der fot them to ?eceive tbe density and parking allowances described eulier. 01'.le of the i:noet h:aportant requirements ie that at least one person in each unit be age 62 or ove?". Since 18% of the t'88l)Ondents indicated tbat no one tn that age group lived in their Ullit, the information con- tained in Table 4 JAay be useful in determining whetber or uot tbe e:ii:isting pa.r'king requirements would be adequate tf the age requirements were mote strictly en- forced. Table 4 mdicates tbat wbUe bousebolds witbout a perso:i:i 62 years or older bave ba.sjcally tbe same nuu:iber of persons per household tban tbose with residents 6? and over, tbey do bave slightly more vebicles and licensed. drivers. Sillce the average ~umber of vehicles per household varies by project, that information is presented in Table S. P. 00 8 .. 6 ~ ~n ~ m rn 1n i\ n f.\ n-,""T,'v~ 0/ I 11 i', \ _/ f: I . ! I : \ ! ; ; _'. I l :.:') " lb I .,.· ... '. -! 1\ I • 1 ' 1 1 I U 1' ,. i ! I' 1 '• \.1 1: U LI U Ll U LJ \,. -• 1--1 DEC. -31' 02(TUE) 16:58 SANDAG - TABLE 4 SELECTED SURVEY QUESTIONS CROSS-TABULATED WITH QUESTION 13 .. AGE! Units with Unita wHhout Residents 62-t-Reaidents 62.+ Unite with (bigb values Unitis without (bigll values Residents 62,+ deleted) Residentli 6?.+ deleted) Housebold Size 1.29 1.15 l.ZB 1.14 Vebicles Owned 0.94 · 0.56 1.16 0.63 Number of Licensed Drivers 0.90 0.77 1.04 0.86 •1s there adequate parking ••• ?" Yes ·N/A 36% N/A 36% No N/A 64% N/A 64% TABLE 5 VEHICLE OWNERSHIP BY PROJECT No. of Vehicles :eer Household• Average Responding Total Vebfeles/ Project ~ 0 -l z Vehicles Household 3176 Alabama St. 68 27 39 2, 43 .63 6106 Beadnell Wy. Z6 11 14 1 '16 .6? 3681 Fairmount Ave, 3 2 1 0 l .33 6884 Golfcreat Dr, 54 Z3 31 0 31 .57 3940 Park Blvd. 33 2.Z 11 0 11 .33 122.0 Robinson Ave. 10 7 3 0 3 .30 1707 Tommy Dr. 47 8 38 l 40 .85 740 S. 36th St. 34 lZ 9 3 15 .44 42.60 44tb. St. ·lZ s 7 0 7 .58 260 50th St. 54 25 28 l 30 .56 5207 52nd Pl. 44 J! -1i 1 17 M. TOTAL 385 180 196 9 214 .56 • Responses of "thl'ee or more" bave been excluded. A aummary of responses to tbts survey as well as to select~ questions from the 1982. condominiura aq,rvey follows. JD analyzing the need for increased parking requirements for senior housing projects, the compal'ison of responses to household size, vehicle ownership, and n~t:aber of licensed driverG per unit &hould be uoted • • 7 P. 009 ; 'i DEC. -31' 02(TUE) 16:58 SANDAG - Survey ResJ:!0nses Ql. Bo• taany people (including ytn:inell) live m tbi& lJDit? Senior Housing Survey 1982 Condo Survey Percent of Total Percent of Total One 83 32 Two lZ 44 Tbree Ol' four 1 22. Fi'Q'e or iiiore _! __! 100% 100% Average Housebold Sii,e l.3 (1.1) * 2.0 •calculated with l'esponses 11thl'ee or foUJ'n and 11five or more" removed from analysis. 02. Bow mazay bedroom& does tb:is utdt have? None l 4 One 96 23 Twc z 45 Tbree of more l ___]! 100% 100% Average NuUJbeJ" of Bedrooms 1.1 z.o Q3,. Do you own ar rent tbia unit? Senior Housing Survey 1982. Cando Survey Percent of Total Percent o( Total Own 9 46 Rent 91 54 --100% 1 ooo/c 8 P. 010 DEC. -31' 02(TUE) 16:58 SANDAG - Ql. How muy Tebiclea (&11tomobiles, -.ans, mid trucb) are· owzaed cs 111ed by tbe people in JDm llllit? None One Two Tbree or more Average Number of Vehicles 41 45 2 ....li 100% " 1.0 (,56) 2 41 43 --11. 100% 1.8' .. Calculated with 1espot1ses •three or mcr-e" ·removed from analysis, QS. Did ,you sell a .ebicle in order to move :into this resldeuce? Yes No Q6. Do JtlU o,ni a recreatianal 'l'ebicle? Yeli No 9 3 JI 100% 4 ~ 100% P. 011 'j ·' DEC. -31' 02(TUE) 16:58 SANDAG ·- Q6a. U tbe a.swer to Question 6 was --,es,• do you. st~e the Jie(!J•eat,ciJ.: .. J •ebicle 01ltside of tbe neigbborbood? Yes No ZS -1.i 100% Q7. Bow manJ llcased dri..-en liw'e in your unit? Senior Housing Survey Percent of Total None ()p,e Two Tllree or mote A,qerage licensed drivers pe? unit 31 57 8 J. 100% 0.9 (.8) • 1982. Condo Survey Percent of Total l 38 50 .-1.1 100% 1.8 •calculated with ·responses "three or more" temoved ftom analysis. QS. ~ there park.mg spaces assigned specifically to JUUr llllit? • Yes No 10 l3 -11. 100% 87 13 -100% P. 012 DEC. -31' 02(TUE) 16:59 SANDAG -P. 013 Q9, If tbe Bll!Slfer to Qu.estlar:i 8 •as "yes,• ba,r, maDJ ue -• Garase spaces? One 8 Clll"port spaces? One 4 Fout 8 UDcovered spaces? One 72 Two 8 100% QlO. Do you at tbe people iD JOU!' unit park au tbe meet& around your building? Yes 48 No 51 No parking allowed ..l 100% Qlla.. la tbere adequate Yisitot parking withm tbe project? • Senior Housing Survey Percent of Total Yes No No visitor parking provided 11 21 36 43 100% 1982 Condo SUl'vey · Percent of Total 34 46 20 100% Ii ,--\ r:·· .. , " r, n n-:--tf . I / . I . I I I . • r I '' I I l : • ' i , i , • 1, / r· ·, 1 I / -·, I ~ '1 f • 1 I I : . ,-., ' .r • '. I f:'"°'\ ) • I. : • ; ; '' ': I 1 ~ , , • , I 1 1 , ' I 1 , DEC. -31' 02(TUE) 16:59 SANDAG - Qllb. ls there ooequa.te -.isitor parking ca 8Ul'Tounding streets? Yes No Senior Housing Survey Percent of Total No puking allowed 55 42. 3 100% 19BZ Condo Stu'vey Percent of Total 51 47 -1 100% Q12. ()yerall, do JDU feel tbat there i& adequte pa:rkmg awililal:tle within tbe project? Yea No 36 64 100%' Ql3. ls tbez,e anyone in JDur bausebold age 62 or ovei-? Ql4. Do you ba.'Je any cCffllm«mt&? • Yes No 82 -1!. 100% 42 SB 100% 50 _j_Q_ 100% · P. 014 ___ , 'TTACHMENT 13 SENIOR HOUSING TRIP GENERATION AND PARKING DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS INTRODUCTION by Stephen B. Corcoran, P .E. (Mt presented at the Institute of Transportation Engineers 66th Annual Meeting ( \"\°t(o) As the baby boomer generation ages, special housing projects have been developed for them in lieu of the traditional single-family home or apartment. Congregate care facilities, independent living apartments, assisted-care units, and senior apartments are being marketed, developed, and built to handle the needs of older adults. The changing lifestyle of older adults affects their transportation needs and usage as well. Trip generation and parking demand within this age group vary significantly from traditional residential uses because residents no longer have to be at work, pick up their children, or do their shopping at specific times. Also many senior communities provide on-site services to meet their residents' needs. This paper will present the author's experiences with senior housing and its trip and parking characteristics along with data on projects in suburban Chicago, Illinois and around the United States. SENIOR HOUSING TYPES Older adults have many special needs that change over time. Many seniors are clearly independent and need little assistance other than help with major chores or repairs. They are generally active and healthy. As time goes by, however, their needs change and grab bars become important, as well as, other features such as higher electrical outlets, emergency response systems, and lower reach cabinets. Good nutrition, socialization, and access to medical and supportive care also becomes more important. Several distinct types of housing have been developed to accommodate these needs: Senior Single Family Homes are senior-only subdivisions which have been developed for retirees ages 55 and up in the southeast and southwest sections of the United States. These developments typically include recreational facilities. Many of the residents are retired. Senior Apartments are traditional apartment complexes with a minimum age requirement of 55 years old. Some amenities include recreational facilities, security, and special design features. Residents are independent and may still be working. Independent Living Units are cottages or apartments were older adults live independently but without the worries of maintenance or housekeeping. Medical care can be available at the facility or by visiting medical staff. A variety of amenities are provided for the residents depending on the size of the community. a Senior Transportation Consultant, Metro Transportation Group, Inc, Hanover Park, Illinois Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Characteristics Institute of Transportation Engineers 66th Annual Meeting Page 1 Assisted-Care Units are for older adults having difficulty managing in an independent living arrangement but who do not need nursing home care. Assisted-care is usually apartment living with additional staff to help with normal daily activities. Congregate Care Facilities contain a full spectrum of housing types in one development with town homes or cottages, independent living units, assisted-care units, and nursing care. Congregate Care Facilities (CCF) allow the elderly to age in one place with nursing care available if they need it. This is particularly important for elderly couples wishing to stay together with one spouse needing special care. CCFs are in essence self-contained communities. Table 1 lists the amenities that are typically available at a CCF. Table 1 Typical Congregate Care Facility On-Site Services and Facilities Standard Services Extra Services Common Facilities • Main Meal of the Day • Breakfast and Lunch • Lounge Area • 24-Hour Nursing • Extended Room Service • Dining Room • Daily Check-In • Specialized Diets • Library • Weekly Laundry • Guest Meals • Chapel • Utilities • Catering • Recreation Room • Housecleaning • Physician • Country Store • Organized Programs • Podiatrist • Pharmacy • In Room Food Service • Physical/Speech Therapy • Arts and Crafts Room • Bus Shuttle • Insurance • Workshop • 24-Hour Security • Chauffeur Service • Cafe • Complete Maintenance • Garages • Exercise Room • Free Parking • Telephone • Beauty/Barber Shop • Garbage Collection • Cable TV • Bank Branch Office • Notary Public Service • Photocopying • Solarium • Supportive Care Nurse • Whirlpool • Chaplain • Outside Patio • Garden Plots Source: Milwaukee, Wisconsin CCF Brochure LITERATURE REVIEW A review was made of available data on senior trip generation and parking demands. Information was obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip and Parking Generation Manuals, the author's files, data from other consultants, as well as, information from California, Arizona, and Florida Departments of Transportation. After reviewing the data, it became clear that the amount of data is small and that the definition of senior housing was not consistent among each source. The data did not distinguish between the five categories mentioned previously. Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Characteristics Institute of Transportation Engineers 66th Annual Meeting Page2 FACTORS AFFECTING TRIP GENERATION AND PARKING Several factors affect the trip generation and parking demand at any particular facility. These include the number of dwelling units; nursing beds, average age of residents, resident's affluence, number of employees, and available bus shuttle/chauffeur service. More data needs to be collected in order to properly analyze their relationship to trip generation and parking demand. The trip generation rates for individual facilities varied. Insufficient information on all the survey locations made it difficult to statistically draw conclusions on individual impact of those factors. However, experience has indicated that as the average age of residents increases, the number of trips and parking demand decreases. This is an obvious affect of the aging process. Nursing beds require more staff to service a patient needs than a more independent resident. When the proportion of nursing beds to residential units increases, the amount of traffic and parking generally increase. The economic well being of residents increases the likelihood that they own a car and thus drive and park. Lastly, bus shuttle/chauffeur service will provide an option to the auto for residents keeping traffic and parking rates lower. DAILY TRAFFIC GENERATION Information on daily trip ends was obtained from surveys by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Florida and Arizona Departments of Transportation. This data generally categorized the facilities as retirement communities but included CCFs, senior apartment complexes, and may have nursing beds. The author's data consisted of one CCF in Pennsylvania. Table 2 summarizes the trip data and rates. The average trip rate daily varied between 2.78 and 8.91 trips per unit. The variation in rates supports the conclusion that the number of units/beds is not the only variable influencing trip production. The weighted average trip ends were 4.52 trips per unit which included one large development of 3, 122 units. Without the 3,122 unit project, the weighted average rate was 5.64 trips per units. The weighted daily trip generation rate, was 5.64 trip ends a day for senior housing developments. Senior housing generates two-thirds the amount of traffic compared to a typical single-family development. It's closer to other multi-family categories, including apartments (6.47 trips/unit) and condominiums or townhouses (5.86 trips/units). Table 3 shows the weekly variation in volumes based on one facility. The weekday volumes were consistent. Weekend traffic volumes were slightly lower. Table 4 illustrates the hourly distribution of traffic throughout an average weekday, Saturday, and Sunday. The peak-hour volumes of the facility occurred at lunch time and mid-afternoon (2:00 to 4:00 PM). Caltrans data indicated that the peak-hour occurred between 11 :00 AM and 4:00 PM, depending on the facility. These peak-hour times do not coincide with the peak-hour of adjacent street traffic because the residents do not have or want to travel during the rush hour. Also, the employee shifts are generally off peak. Most facilities are staffed 24 hours a day with a 7:00 AM-3:00 PM, 3:00 PM -11 :00 PM, 11 :00 PM- 7:00 AM shift schedule. Some administrative staff follow a typical 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM shift. PEAK-HOUR TRIP GENERATION RATES Table 5 shows the trip generation rates for eight facilities during the morning and evening peak-hour of the adjacent street system. The weighted average trip rate was 0.222 trips per unit/bed in the morning peak and 0.247 trips per unit/bed in the evening peak. Trip rates ranged from 0.085 to 0.450 per unit. The directional splits were 65% inbound and 35% outbound in the morning and 40% inbound and 60% outbound in the evening. Compared to other residential land-uses, senior developments generate significantly less traffic on a per unit basis. Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Characteristics Institute of Transportation Engineers 66th Annual Meeting Page3 Table 2 Table 3 Daily Trip Generation Rates for Senior Housing Weekly Volume Distribution Number of Daily Trip Day of the Week Percentage Source Dwelling Units Trips Rates Monday 15% Tuesday 15% Caltrans 3122 9630 3.09 Wednesday 16% 300 830 2.78 Thursday 17% 108 310 2.87 Friday 15% 76 260 3.42 Saturday 12%. 460 2252 4.90 Sunday 10% Florida 366 3262 8.91 DOT 560 1985 3.55 Total 100% 187 1449 7.75 120 901 7.51 127 561 4.42 Table4 Arizona 125 972 7.78 Hourly Traffic Distribution DOT 176 855 4.86 Start Average 74 447 6.04 Hour Weekday Saturday Sunday 60 285 4.75 12:00 AM 1.46% 1.45% 2.76% 216 1386 6.42 1:00AM 0.07% 0.12% 0.26% 175 1058 6.05 2:00AM 0% 0.00% 0.26% 129 941 7.30 3:00AM 0.12% 0.00% 0.00% 112 922 8.23 4:00AM 0.46% 0.00% 0.66% 106 820 7.74 5:00AM 0.41% 0.60% 0.39% 89 538 6.05 6:00AM 1.94% 2.05% 1.71% 81 529 6.53 7:00AM 5.74% 5.06% 3.94% 60 494 8.23 8:00AM 6.70% 5.06% 4.99% 59 432 7.30 9:00 AM 6.19% 5.78% 6.17% Penn. CCF 247 1163 4.71 10:00AM 7.20% 9.40% 7.74% Weighted 11:00 AM 9.33% 9.04% 8.53% Average 7135 32282 4.52 12:00 PM 7.05% 8.07% 8.01% 1:00 PM 7.44% 6.27% 4.86% Without 4013 22652 5.64 2:00 PM 9.76% 7.59% 8.40% 3,122 units 3:00 PM 9.54% 10.24% 9.84% 4:00 PM 8.39% 9.40% 9.32% ITE Average Weekday Daily Rates 5:00 PM 5.26% 6.14% 6.96% 6:00 PM 3.14% 3.25% 3.54% Single-Family (Code 210) 9.55 7:00 PM 2.90% 2.89% 4.20% Apartment (Code 220) 6.47 8:00 PM 2.59% 2.05% 2.49% Condo/townhouse (Code 230) 5.86 9:00 PM 1.10% 1.57% 1.31% Congregate Care Facility (Code 251) 2.15 10:00 PM 1.24% 1.33% 1.05% 11:00 PM 1.96% 2.65% 2.62% Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Characteristics Institute of Transportation Engineers 66th Annual Meeting Page4 Table 5 Peak-Hour Trip Generation Rates Occupied Units Dwelling Nursing AM Peak Facility Location Units Beds Total Volume Rate Covenant Village Northbrook, IL 220 151 371 86 .231 Friendship Village Lombard, IL 620 100 720 86 .120 Presbyterian Home Evanston, IL 312 166 478 92 .193 Glenview Terrace Glenview, IL 243 243 Good Shephard Manor Barrington, IL 102 102 18 .180 Mayslake Oakbrook, IL 630 630 67 .106 Leisure Village New Jersey 200 200 65 .325 Pennsylvania CCF 210 37 247 78 .316 Totals 2537 454 2991 492 Weighted Average Trip Rate .164 Comparison to other ITE Residential Rates Single Family Homes (Land Use Code 26) Apartments (Land Use Code 220) Condominiums/Townhouses (Land Use Code 230) Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Characteristics Institute of Transportation Engineers 66th Annual Meeting Inbound Percentage 65% Outbound Percentage 35% 0.74 0.51 0.44 PM Peak Volume 133 180 139 21 17 75 62 111 738 .247 Page5 40% 60% 1.01 0.63 0.55 PARKING DEMAND SURVEYS Parking demand characteristics were obtained from a number of surveys conducted in the Chicago metropolitan area The peak parking demand occurred during the mid-day between 11 :00 AM to 3:00 PM corresponding, in part, with the largest employee shift on-site. Table 6 summarizes those surveys. The peak day of the year is Mother's Day when many facilities run out of visitor parking, according to the on-site staff. The peak parking demand rates varied between 0.214 and 0.579 vehicles per unit/bed with a weighted average rate of 0.404 vehicles per unit/bed. Employee, resident, and visitor parking is included. This rate is one third to one half the parking rate of other residential uses. Readers should note that the survey sites with the higher parking rates generally have more nursing beds which requires more employees than the residential units. Table 6 Peak Parking Demand Surveys Dwelling Nursing Development Location Units Beds Covenant Village Northbrook, IL 220 151 Beacon Hill Lombard. IL 235 23 Friendship Village Schaumburg, IL 620 100 Presbyterian Home Evanston, IL 312 166 Glenview Terrace Glenview, IL 243 Mayslake Oakbrook, IL 630 EJM Engineering Studies Lilac Lodge Waukegan, IL 203 Deerfield Place Deerfield. IL 98 ITE Parking Manual1 2nd Ed Retirement Community (Land Use Code 250) 500 3061 440 Weighted Average ITE Parking Manual1 2nd Edition Low/Mid-Rise Apartments (Land Use Code 221) High-Rise Apartments (Land Use Code 222) Residential Condominium (Land Use Code 230) Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Characteristics Institute of Transportation Engineers 66th Annual Meeting Peak Peak Total Parking Parking Units/Beds Rate Demand 371 0.490 182 258 0.565 146 720 0.390 281 478 0.579 277 243 0.214 52 630 0.408 257 203 0.315 64 98 0.230 23 500 0.270 135 3501 1417 0.404 1.21 0.88 1.11 Page6 Conclusions Based on the analyses and studies for this paper, the following findings were made: 1. The overall category of senior housing should be broken down into at least five categories for trip generation and parking demand purposes. These categories could be: • Senior Single-Family Housing • Senior Apartments • Independent Living Units • Assisted-Care Units • Congregate Care Facility 2. Several factors affect the trip generation and parking demand at any particular facility. Any new survey should include the number of dwelling units, nursing beds, average age of residents, resident's affluence, number of employees, and available bus shuttle/chauffeur service. More data needs to be collected in order to properly analyze their relationship to trip generation and parking demand. 3. Daily trip generation rates were found to be 4.52 to 5.64 trip ends a day for senior housing developments. Senior housing generates two-thirds the amount of traffic compared to a typical single- family development. It's daily rates are similar to other multi-family categories, including apartments (6.47 trips/unit) and condominiums/townhouses (5.86 trips/units). 4. Trip generation rates during the peak hour of adjacent street traffic are significantly less because most employees arrive/depart during off-peak periods and residents avoid the peak-hour congestion. The peak hour rates are one-half to one-fourth that of other residential land-uses. 5. The peak-hours of site traffic occurs in the late-morning or early afternoon. 6. The peak parking demand. at most senior facilities occurred midday with an average peak demand of 0.40 vehicles per dwelling unit for residents, employees, and visitors. Mother's Day is the highest parking day of the year with many facilities short of spaces for that one day. References 1. Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers; January, 1991 2. Parking Generation Manual, 2nd Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers; August, 1987 3. Parking Requirements for Retirement Centers Requirements and Demands; EJM Engineering; May, 1987 4. 6th Progress Report of Trip Ends Generation Research Counts; California Department of Transportation; 1965-1970 5. Florida Department of Transportation Trip Generation Data 6. Arizona Department of Transportation Trip Generation Data Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Characteristics Institute of Transportation Engineers 66th Annual Meeting Page? t!Phe City of Carlsbad Planning Departme' ATTACHMENT 14 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF: December 18, 2002 ItemNo.@ Application complete date: August 28, 2002 Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy Project Engineer: John Maashoff SUBJECT: CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15 -VILLA FRANCESCA-Request for a recommendation for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a recommendation of approval for a Tentative Subdivision Map, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit for a 51-unit senior condominium project located on the east side of Jefferson Street, north of Laguna Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5318, 5319, 5320, 5321 and 5322 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of CT 02-10, CP 02-05, SDP 02-04, and CDP 02-15 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The applicant proposes to consolidate and develop three lots totaling 0. 84 acres with a 51-unit senior housing air-space condominium project. Six existing units will be demolished as part of the proposal. The project will require approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan, and Coastal Development Permit. The applicant is requesting a density increase of 42 units as an incentive to develop the site for senior housing and to reserve 51 % of the units as affordable to low and moderate income households. The project has been reviewed by the City's Housing Policy Team and the team is supportive of the senior housing project, the affordability component, and the proposed density increase. The project would not have a significant effect on the environment and a mitigated negative declaration has been issued for the project. The project complies with City standards and all necessary findings can be made for the approvals being requested. Because the project contains over 50 units, the project will require find approval by the City Council. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The 0.84-acre project site currently consists of three rectangular-shaped lots which are currently developed with two units on each lot. The lots all front on Jefferson Street and are surrounded by single-family development to the east, and multi-family development on the north, south and west. The site is relatively level and slopes gently from the northeast comer of the property to the southwest comer. The project will require approximately 9,800 cu. yds. of cut, 400 cu. yds. --CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15 -VILLA FRANCESCA December 18, 2002 Pa e2 of fill, and 9,400 cu. yds. of export generated primarily from the excavation of soil for the subterranean garage. The project consists of the demolition of the six existing units on three lots, and the construction of a 51-unit senior housing air-space condominium with a 55-space subterranean parking garage. The three-story building is designed around a central courtyard and features a Mediterranean architectural theme. A centralized entry feature faces towards Jefferson Street and provides a direct pedestrian connection to the street. The existing bus stop just south of the site will be moved near the entrance to the project and will be upgraded with a new bench and trash receptacle. The building is well articulated and includes "tower" accent elements, variations in the roof plane, and numerous balconies which provide a desirable combination of both recessed and projecting elements that result in an attractive architectural design. The building will have a two-tone off-white stucco exterior and terra cotta colored concrete roof tiles. A number of decorative elements are incorporated into the architectural design and include features such as arched windows, balconies with cast stone railings, and foam trim details at the eave line and under the windows. This high level of detail is incorporated in all four elevations. Mechanical equipment will be roof-mounted and screened by the roof parapet. The overall building height ranges from 32 to 34 feet and is below the 35-foot height limit. The three-story building has been designed so that the third story is stepped-back 15 feet on the front elevation and stepped- back 10 feet on the rear elevation so that the mass of the building is greatly reduced and the building appears to look more like a two-story structure. The units range in size from a 636 square foot I-bedroom, 1-bath unit to a 1,179 square foot 2- bedroom, 2-bath units. Each unit has either a private balcony (ranging in size from 42 sq. ft. to 350 sq. ft.) or a view into the courtyard area, or both in some instances. The project also features over 11,800 sq. ft. of common open space which includes a library and interior lounge area, a recreation room with kitchen facilities, an arts and crafts room, a gym/exercise room, "garden patio deck" in the courtyard area, and an outdoor lap pool. The project also features a subterranean parking garage and each unit will be allocated one parking space. Four parking spaces will be available for guest or handicap parking. Several storage closets are also available in the basement parking area and will be managed by the HOA. The site is zoned R-3 as are the sites north, south and east of the subject property. The project will require approval of a tentative map and condominium permit to allow the subdivision of the project into air-space condominiums. This would be one of the few senior housing projects that allows private ownership of the units. The project also requires approval of a site development plan for the proposed density increase, to review the project against the senior housing standards, and for the inclusionary housing component of the proposal. The permitted density yield for the property is 9 units based on the Growth Management Growth Control Point (GCP) dwelling unit allowance of 11.5 du/acre. The applicant is requesting an additional 42 dwelling units as an incentive to construct the project as senior condominiums and to reserve 51 % of the units for low and moderate income households. The 51-unit project would result in a density of 61 du/ac. City Council approval of the SDP is required pursuant to Section 21.53.120 of the Zoning Ordinance since the project proposes over 50 dwelling units. The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards, and policies: A. General Plan RMH (Residential-Medium High) designation; CT 02-101cP 02-05/SDP fo4/CDP 02-15-vrLLAFRANCEscP December 18, 2002 Pae 3 B. Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance); C. Chapter 21.45 -Planned Development (Condominium Permit) 1. Chapter 21.18.045 -Senior Citizen Housing 2. Chapter 21.16 -R-3 Zone 3. Chapter 21.44-Parking 4. Chapter 21.85 -Inclusionary Housing 5. Section 21.53.120 -Site Development Plan D. Local Coastal Program (Mello II); E. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the C.M.C.); and F. Growth Management (Chapter 21.90 of the C.M.C). IV. ANALYSIS The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project's compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below. A. General Plan The project is consistent with the following elements of the General Plan as indicated by the following table: GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, CONSISTENCY COMPLY GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR ? PROGRAM Land Use RMH -Residential Medium-Proposed density= 61 du/acre High Density: (9 units + 42 unit density increase 8-15 du/acre = 51 units). Yes* GCP: 11.5 du/acre The project exceeds the growth control point of 11.5 du/acre however the findings required by Yes* the City's Growth Management Plan can be made to exceed the Growth Control Point. Zoning consistency with R-3 Zone: General Plan Senior Citizen Housing is permitted by Site Development Yes Plan in the R-3 designation. CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 0,04/CDP 02-15-VILLAFRANCESC, December 18, 2002 Pa e4 GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE, continued ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, CONSISTENCY GOLA, OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM Housing Provide additional senior The project will provide 51 one housing for seniors of different and two bedroom "for-sale" mcome groups senior condominiums. 26 units will be affordable to low and moderate income senior households. Density Increase Policy 100% of units are for senior housing. 8 units (15.7%) will be reserved for low income households and 18 units (35.3%) will be reserved for moderate income households. Minimum Inclusionary The project satisfies the 15% Housing requirement of 15% inclusionary housing requirement of all units approved shall be of 8 units which are affordable to affordable to lower income low income families and also households. provides 35% of the units affordable to moderate income households. Circulation Require new development to All public facilities including dedicate and improve all curb, gutter and sidewalk exist roadways, utilities, and along the property frontage on drainage facilities Jefferson Street. Open Space Minimize environmental The project will not result in any & impacts to sensitive resources environmental impacts to the Conservation within the City existing developed site. Implement Best Management The project is conditioned to Practices (BMPs) to avoid prepare and implement a Storm degradation of water quality Water Pollution Prevention Plan that are necessary to serve (SWPPP) plan that will ensure development. BMPs are imposed. COMPLY ? Yes Yes Yes CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 0,04/CDP 02-15-VILLAFRANCESC, December 18, 2002 Pae 5 GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE, continued ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, CONSISTENCY COMPLY GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR ? PROGRAM Noise Residential interior noise The project is conditioned to Yes standard of 45 d.BA CNEL comply with the 45 dBA CNEL interior standard. Common open space recreation areas are subject to noise levels less than the City's 60 d.BA CNEL exterior noise standard. Public Safety Provide project review that Project improvements will not Yes allows consideration of seismic significantly impact or be and geologic hazards impacted by geologic or seismic conditions. * A finding of compliance with the RMH land use designation is contingent upon approval of the density increase to 61 du/ac requested as an incentive for developing the project as a senior citizen housing project and for preserving 26 inclusionary units affordable to low and moderate income households. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance and General Plan Residential Implementing Policy C.3 for density increases in that there are excess dwelling units in the northwest quadrant; the project is compatible with surrounding development; adequate public facilities are provided; and a major roadway, commercial center, and transit center are in close proximity to the development. B 1, 2, 3 & 4. Planned Development (Condominium Permit)/Senior Citizen Housing Regulations/R-3 Zone/Parking Ordinance The project requires approval of Condominium Permit, pursuant to the Planned Development (PD) Ordinance, to enable the project to be developed as "for-sale" airspace condominiums. A number of development standards are included in the PD Ordinance, however, Section 21.18.045 of the CMC allows rental or "for-sale" senior citizen housing subject to a different set of development standards which are more applicable to senior needs. Therefore, although the findings required for a Planned Development Permit (Condo Permit) are still required, the project will be evaluated for compliance with the senior citizen housing standards and not the PD standards. The table below illustrates how the project complies with the applicable semor housing development standards, parking requirements, and the R-3 zone standards. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Standard Senior housing R-3 Standards Provided Requirement Setbacks: Front: NIA 20' 20' Side: 10' 10' Rear: 20' 20' Height NIA 35' Maximum 32'-34' CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 0,04/CDP 02-15 -VILLA FRANCESC, December 18, 2002 Pae 6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, continued Standard Senior housing R-3 Standards Provided Requirement Building NIA 60%Maximum 54% Coverage Parking: Resident: 1 space/2 units NIA 1 space per unit 1 resident manager space (if appl.) Guest parking: 1 guest space 4 guest spaces Total required: 27 spaces required 5 5 spaces provided Common Areas 20 sf/unit(l,020 sf. NIA Over 11,800 sq. ft. of req'd) common open space Areas should be useful including a library and and functional for interior lounge area, a rec. residents. (recreation room with kitchen social room, common facilities, an arts and crafts cooking and dining room, a gym/exercise facility, passive open room, "garden patio deck" space, reading/TV in the courtyard area, and rooms.) an outdoor lap pool. Architectural Architectural harmony NIA The building does not Design with the neighborhood to exceed the 35' height limit Elements the maximum extent for the R-3 zone. The third feasible. level has been stepped back to reduce the mass of the building. The building size is similar to other multi-family projects in the vicinity. Equal level of All elevations have the architectural treatment same roof and wall on all building materials, colors, and elevations. similar level of architectural features. Laundry 1 washer & 1 dryer for NIA Washer & dryer provided Facilities every 25 dwelling units. in each unit. Add'l design Buildings over two-NIA An elevator is proposed. criteria stories require an elevator. CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 0,04/CDP 02-15-VILLAFRANCESC, December 18, 2002 Pae 7 In addition, the senior citizen housing standards also require that tubs are equipped with at least one grab bar; that tub or shower bottoms are slip resistant; that peepholes are installed in entry doors; and that all projects must conform with disabled access regulations. The project will be conditioned to comply with these regulations. B 5. lnclusionary Housing The City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that a minimum of 15% of all approved units in any qualified residential project must be reserved as affordable to low income households with incomes that are 80% of the AMI. The Inclusionary Housing requirement for this project is 8 units. In addition to reserving the 8 units for lower income households, the applicant also proposes to reserve 18 of the units (35.3%)for moderate income households with income levels at 120% of the AMI. This will result in 51 % of the units being set aside for low or moderate income households. The remaining 25 units (49%) will be market rate units. The sale price for the inclusionary units will be set as a price affordable to the target income level group, based on an assumed household size of no more than 2 persons for a two bedroom unit. After the initial sale of the units, the inclusionary for-sale units must remain affordable to subsequent income eligible buyers pursuant to a resale restriction with a term of thirty (30) years, or for-sale units may be sold at a market price to other than targeted households provided that the sale shall result in the recapture by the city or its designee of a financial interest in the units equal to the amount of subsidy necessary to make the unit affordable to the designated income group and a proportionate share of any appreciation. B 6. Site Development Plan The Zoning Ordinance requires approval of a site development plan for affordable housing projects of any size and for projects which propose senior citizen housing. Incentives such as development modifications and density increases to enable the reservation of affordable units are permitted pursuant to Section 21.53.120 (Site Development Plan Requirements). The project is requesting a 42 dwelling unit increase which would result in a density of 61 du/ac. The density increase is requested in exchange for reserving 51 % of the units as affordable to low and moderate income households. The site development plan must be processed pursuant to Chapter 21.06 (Qualified Overlay Zone) and findings must be made to ensure that the use is consistent with the General Plan and will not adversely impact the site or surrounding uses, and that the site and street system are adequate to accommodate the use. In addition, findings required for development of senior citizen housing projects require that the project help achieve the city's senior and affordable housing goals as set forth in the General Plan; that the density increase is necessary to make the project economically feasible; that the project shall not result in density or design that is incompatible with other land uses in the immediate vicinity; and that the project complies with the General Plan, zoning, certified local coastal program, and development policies of the city. Therefore, approval of the proposed site development plan involves the overall project, the senior housing component, and the affordable housing proposal. The proposed site is located in close proximity to a range of commercial retail, professional, and social and community services patronized by senior citizens. The existing bus stop just south of the site will be relocated onto the site and will be upgraded to include a loading pad, bus bench, and trash receptacle. The bus route provides service to the senior citizen complex, local mall, CT 02-101cP 02-05/SDP ofo4/CDP 02-15 -VILLA FRANCEscP December 18, 2002 Pae 8 shops, restaurants, downtown village, Carlsbad Company Stores, Costco, the Poinsettia Village Shopping Center, and the Village and Poinsettia coaster stations. The topographically level site is suitable for the proposed development and would not be detrimental to public health, safety, and general welfare. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use since all of the project's parking, open space, and other amenities can be provided on-site without any reduction in the required setbacks. The project provides over twice the parking required for senior citizen projects. The lot coverage of 54% is below the maximum 60% lot coverage allowed. All required minimum setbacks are provided, and the third story of the building has been stepped-back to reduce the overall building mass. The architectural design is finished on all sides with similar roof and wall materials, colors and architectural accent features. The project has been designed so that it will be compatible with the surrounding land uses and the building mass will be similar to several of the surrounding multi-family apartment projects. The proposed project density of 61 du/ac is consistent with three other senior citizen housing projects nearby in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area which have densities ranging from 63.5 du/ac to 75 du/ac. With the site's current density allowance, the project could be developed with nine units resulting in an estimated 72 Average Daily Trips (ADT). Although the project will result in an overall traffic increase of 204 ADT, the additional ADT generated by the senior citizen housing project is not likely to occur during normal "peak hours" and will not reduce the road segment or intersection levels of service to below the City's level of "B" during the PM peak. The project exceeds the density permitted by the RMH General Plan designation by 42 units. The project complies with General Plan policies requiring that projects requesting density increases above the density range satisfy the following criteria: that the project is compatible in density and design with surrounding development; the infill project is served by or conditioned to construct adequate public facilities; the site is in proximity to a major roadway and NCTD services; and commercial services are provided by nearby neighborhood and regional shopping centers. Since the proposed density increase requires the allocation of 42 units from the City's "Excess Dwelling Units," findings that the project is consistent with City Council Policy 43 must also be made. Policy 43 establishes priorities for the allocation of excess dwelling units existing in each quadrant of the City to avoid exceeding the Growth Management maximum dwelling unit caps. A finding that excess units are available must be made prior to granting density increases and the project must qualify as a priority project. There are excess dwelling units available in the northwest quadrant and the project satisfies criteria established by Policy 43 for first and second priority projects: 8 units (15.7 %) are reserved for low income households (first priority) and an additional 18 units (35.3 %) will be reserved for moderate income households; and the project will be developed entirely for qualified senior households (second priority). The Housing Policy Team has reviewed the applicant's pro forma and has recommended approval of the density increase in order to make the project economically feasible for the developer. The density increase is a necessary incentive to offset the subsidy required for the project to be developed as senior housing with 51% of the units affordable to low and moderate income senior households. The increased density from 11.5 du/ac to 61 du/ac will allow the project to be developed to help achieve the City's senior and affordable housing goals as set forth in the Housing Element of the General Plan by providing housing which is affordable to lower income households and senior citizens. CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 0,04/CDP 02-15 -VILLA FRANCESC, December 18, 2002 Pae 9 C. Local Coastal Program compliance The proposed project site is located outside the appeal area of the City's Coastal Zone and lies within the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Mello II Segment The proposed project is consistent with the Mello II segment of the LCP which contains land use policies for development and conservation of coastal land and water areas within the segment boundaries. The policies of the Mello II segment emphasize topics such as preservation of agriculture and scenic resources, protection of environmentally sensitive resources, provision of shoreline access and prevention of geologic instability and erosion. The project is consistent with the coastal act policies as follows: a) no agricultural lands exist on the project site, therefore no impacts to such will occur; b) the site does not contain environmentally sensitive habitats, water or marine resources; c) the site is geologically stable and the proposed grading for the site has been limited to the area necessary to develop the site; d) the project has been designed to reduce the amount of off-site runoff by surface drains and has been conditioned to implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards to ensure the quality of the water leaving the site; e) the project meets the parking requirements for senior housing; f) the project does not preclude any recreational opportunities or shoreline access as the property is located on the east side of Jefferson Street; and g) the development does not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or public right- of-way. Since the project is in an area of very low risk of impact to sensitive costal resources, an extension of the grading season beyond the normal November 15th deadline may be permitted and is included as a condition of approval in Resolution No. 5322. Given the above, the project is consistent with the Mello II segment land use policies. D. Subdivision Ordinance The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and concludes that the subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The project is conditioned to install all infrastructure improvements concurrent with development. Access to the site will be from a private driveway off of Jefferson Street to an underground parking garage. The proposed building setbacks and interior courtyard design will allow for adequate air circulation and the opportunity for passive heating and cooling. E. Growth Management The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized in the following table. GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE STANDARD IMPACTS COMPLIANCE City Administration 177 .31 square feet Yes Library 94.57 square feet Yes CT 02-l0ICP 02-05ISDP 0'04ICDP 02-15-VILLAFRANCESC, December 18, 2002 Pa e 10 Waste Water Treatment 51 EDU Yes Parks 0.35 acre Yes Drainage Basin A Yes Circulation 204ADT Yes Fire Station No. 1 Yes Open Space NIA Yes Schools NIA Yes Sewer Collection System 51 EDU Yes Water 11,220 GPD Yes *The project is 42 units above the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a potentially significant impact on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but mitigation measures agreed to by the applicant would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project "as revised" may have a significant impact on the environment. A rate of 204 Average Daily Trips (ADT) would be generated by the proposed project. This ADT is higher than the generation rate analyzed for the site in the MEIR, however, because excess dwelling units exist within this quadrant, the ADT is within the range anticipated for the affected road segments and intersections. The traffic study prepared for the project showed that the project will not have a significant impact on the roadway segments or intersections, and therefore, no mitigation measures in the form of roadway improvements are necessary. The project site has been disturbed by previous development and grading. The adjacent properties are developed with residential land uses and all the support utilities and infrastructure has been constructed or has been conditioned to be constructed. Since the project is subject to noise impacts from Jefferson Street, an acoustical analysis was prepared for the project. The required common recreation areas located within the courtyard and at the rear of the site are protected by the building placement and noise levels within theses areas do not exceed the City's exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL. Interior noise levels may exceed 45 dBA CNEL, therefore, a mitigation measure is included which requires the applicant to submit a supplemental acoustical analysis prior to issuance of a building permit to insure that the plans have been designed so that interior noise levels are mitigated to 45 dBA or less. In consideration of the foregoing, the Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project on November 4, 2002. No comments were received during the 30-day public review period. CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP ol4/CDP 02-15 -VILLA FRANCESC_, December 18, 2002 Pa e 11 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5318 (Mitigated Negative Declaration) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5319 (CT) 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5320 (CP) 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5321 (SDP) 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5322 (CDP) 6. Location Map 7. Background Data Sheet 8. Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form 9. Disclosure Statement 10. Reduced Exhibits 11. Exhibits "A" -"Q" dated December 18, 2002 -BACKGROUND DATA SHEET - CASE NO: CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15 CASE NAME: VILLA FRANCESCA APPLICANT: Anthony De Leonardis REQUEST AND LOCATION: 51 unit senior housing air-space condominium project located on the east side of Jefferson Street, north of Laguna Drive LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, in Block 1 of Sunny Slope Tract, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No 486, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, February 7, 1888. APN: 155-271-19, 20, 21 & 22 Acres: 0.84 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 51 units/I lot GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: "'-'RM=H=------------------------- Density Allowed: -=-1 =l.=--5--=d=u/'---'a~c ___ _ Density Proposed: =6"'---1-=du=/-=a=--c ________ _ Existing Zone: =R=--c-3=----------Proposed Zone: =--N=/A~----------- Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Zoning General Plan Site R-3 RMH ---------North R-3 RMH ---------South R-3 RMH ---------East R-2-Q & R-1-7,500 RMH&RLM West R-3 RH PUBLIC FACILITIES Current Land Use SFR/Multi-family Multi-family Multi-family Small-lot SFR & SFR Multi-family School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: =C=ar=ls=b=a=d ___ _ Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): =--5"'----1 =E=D'--"U~-------------- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT lxJ Mitigated Negative Declaration, issuedN =--=o'--'--v=em=be=r'--4~2=0=02=-------------- D Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated. ______________ _ D Other, ___________________________ _ CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMP ACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: VILLA FRANCESCA -CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: l GENERAL PLAN: =-=RM=H=-------- ZONING: =-=Rc...=-3 ______________________ _ DEVELOPER'S NAME: =...cAn=th=o=ny.,....=D---=-e-=L=...cce-=on=a=r=d1=·s _______________ _ ADDRESS: 2802 State St., Suite C Carlsbad, CA 92008 PHONE NO.: 760-738-8388 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 155-271-19, 20, 21, & 22 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 0.84 acres/51 units ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: ________________ _ A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage= -=--17'-'7-=.3"-'lc--=sf=------- B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = ~94--'-''-=--57~sf=------- C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) =n/-=a _____ _ E. D. F. G. H. I. J. K. Drainage: Demand in CFS = Park: Demand in Acreage = Identify Drainage Basin = (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADT = (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) 2.17 CFS 0.35 acres Basin A 204ADT Fire: Served by Fire Station No.= _1 _____ _ Open Space: Schools: Sewer: Acreage Provided = =n/-=a _____ _ n/a Demands in EDU 51 EDU ~=~---- Identify Sub Basin= Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Sewer Drainage Basin (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD = 11,220 GPD L. The project is 42 units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. • -City of Carlsbad l@Ei;■,i i,i· I •J=i ·Elli; ,14;11 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a comoration or partnership. include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (N/ A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publicly-owned comoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary) Person .~ /Ji ~ftrtOh Corp/Part ____________ _ Title a11 fre,'-· Title ---------------- Address t.-efh-2-~7_J?&r-.5f. <;ii J J7:; C.. Address ·-------------- Cl'r(l-1..$,f!:,~ f C1t 1Vc;6 2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in c~mmon, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a comoration or partnership. include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (NIA) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly- owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person &~ tJy ~j-//j(l./J17 Corp/Part. ___________ _ Title t)p.,t,lv'l:i'(L. Title ---------------- Address ·Ut? "2.. ~/Jr9-7li' 1if: 5vi Tlf L Address -------------- C 'lt{U. ep 6 tfJO 1635 Faraday Avenue• Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 @ 4. ~Ol'i-PROFIT IGAA'1ZATIO:!'-OR TRVST - If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2; above is a nonprofit orgamzat1on or a rrmt. i1:-'. till' names and addresses of Al\ry' person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiarv of the. Non ProfivTrust N / A . Non Profit-Trust J -----------Title_____________ Title ______________ _ Address ___________ _ Address _____________ _ Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve~ 12) months? No Ifye · · on(s): B...L ~, P ~ ~wv a4- NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. ~ ( ~-ofv•/w ____ _ Signature ofdi.Jner/da~ ,> • Signature of applicant/date 11 lt: -t (oi1-'{ v. J)..a l Q DlfCt. r L fs Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent • @l.pllt)jeuJS)f pti,19 CGttt&t' (09J.) X2:I 00lt'tCt' (09.l) 80126¥0 'paqsµr.)'011\flS'iNJJS~ZO~ JeUU91d ~H lJ'(IOt:I • ~u~ l"Sd uiJs;,a ~ 811j1111B!d l{IUJl'll ~ 'peqsplfO •~ lilWlS ,-z;s 9llllS tDi.: :JadOj8A8C ~-110 '""-AUBdwoo U!MJB)I JJ8UM() • 11W01Y110 •peqsµr.:,1NJ1s~r~z: u3u1snOH PJSPIISlS ~ a1qsp.10JJV JO X!W Yu :Y-tfo.ld IDD!ll!MOpUO:) .1oiuas psqsµB:) :J00[0.ld J884S JaJ\0:) C) C: rn ::, 0 I 0) C: ~ I-s... 0 T"" I (.) .. 0 .o ca c: a.. as a, c: .E en mg 'E c: ca co ca u "'C s... -s... "C C Q) ca s :E ~ en :::s-.:::: Cl) ca ces s... o_ Q) .... ~ > m ~ 0 J=; a, o, en "'C C: C: 0 ·-0 "'O ~ ~ ·5Jg '5 co~ ~ ~~ -=::::; ...,N :!: Cl)~ C Q) N ::J ~ T""" .c LO I- <( 1 --'Unit~ [ _) I___ I I I I I I II PROJECTINFORMATION I FIRE PROTECTION AFFamAEILE& MCJOERA:1t: IM.iVPIC Lm let 1. nt1S8UI.OIIOI.Sl09EPROlECTED TllROOGfOOT BY AH A!'PROW SIJPEJMSED FMSPRH<I.ERSYSTEM.HAWfGALOCAL >JJ.RLI TO HO'll1' A1L OCCLPAHTS. 1 4, STAl«lPl't -...BE R£00RED If M.l. 3 STAIR =(~-~~~). 5. f1RE: SfRNWJl S'tSTOI SW.U. HOT El£ R-13 ~DlllALl'K ,.. ,.. 2•· I :z4• -, $t Lows.otWol j; w Slone • C/J ;/mil•• on top c l'MlhArviuol 111 ""'"· ti ... , I I I I I jTcul )Picii I 15.6%: =-□ 2Ei42-415, DFERSOH STREET CARI.SBAD, CA 92009 ASSESSOR'SPARCELNUMBBlt 1ss-211-1a-oo ,20,21,22 l'ROJl!CTDB&lUPilON: NEW PROf"OSm MEDITEAAAIHIAN srtLt 51 UNIT SENIOR all2EN CONt>OMllWJ.15 PRO£CT, nHE Smirf, TWO eEDffOOM. TWO SATli, KITCHEN, OINIHG ROON, lMt«. ROOM A MIX OF STANOMO UNITS ANO INQ.USINAAY MOOERAT£ UNITS. LEOALD!!SCIUPl10N: Bmner(>~Optn Ar.aO.slgn Mital Rallh9 ,\OtUE !i Ill ~ H H: co,rd,lld IWQhl cf ,-I,~~M-... • ~C:, cgid R,tar,mg •! :£..Mr>8rJ. ... r.qd. ~+-+ --Retaklkl9 Wol I -.I --!=--Cooc ... TYPICAL RETAINING WALL/SCREEN WIJ.LS,PEtQf'~UNE_ _OCN.!: tJ4"»NI" 0ut11oestan noma.low 15' MlltOIIGll)I .. , e' Pool r..,cng •/ S.f Clolw,l .... "" ..... , e'Pool f-,.Qlla it!"ra111111, CARLSBAD SENIOR CITIZEN CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION SHEET INDEX AKCHmlCIURAL C10 , .. Al,0 ... ... ... .... ,.,,, ,.,, ,.,, AB,O A7,0 ... ..... , UHIT A&:B UNITc:aco UNIT E&F m~ L1.0 LANDSCAPE CONC£M' Pl.AH UTILITIES/SERVICES SBWEllANDWA'mA: FJRE: CITY OF CARI.Sl!AD SCHOOLDISTRICI': OAS AND ELECTRIC: CA.RI.SSAO UNIFIED SOiOOI. DISTRICT S0CE 801, PINE A\.'ENIJE CAALSBMl, CA. 92008 (760) n;..gm CONSULTANT INFORMATION ARCllll'OCT son.s ENGINEER CMLENGINBl!R VICINITY MAP INC. PROJEq SITE PROIBCT DATA BUJLDINO DATA: EXISllliC. BU~ TO St RDIO\m. BUJLDINO BRBAKDOWN: FIRSTFLOOR 14 UNITS 14554 SOFT, l!MAAYJ\.()e8YW/ELEVATOR 1t95 son RECR£A110N/G'IV./ARTS 2!09 SQ.FT rorAL 1~so.FT. 5l!COND PI.OOR """"' 'l1DRD FLOOR lOUNITS TOTAl.lua.DINO w""'"""" BASEMENT PAftKlNG W/STAm RAMPS (PARllH.) nn;ATCR 6: OWMENT ST0RAO< ""'"" CORIUDORll .. Dl!Cl<S 1ST flOOA OEQ{S COOIUYARO W/ STAIRS fl~\Cl»IOA 1WAL 2Nl>f'LOORDEO<S =DORSW/STAIRS ~fl.OM DECKS CORRIDORS 'W/ STIES ru,a, TERRACES IV-COOSO."T. ~ e~son. 21&03S0.n, 010 SO.FT IOS SQ.FT, 2262 SOFT, ~- ,~~: 1~SQ.FT 7830 SOFT, 1252sa.n. 2705 SQn. 3957 son. e99 SOFT, 245150.FT 736 SO.FT, 40MSO.FT, tiWE'l'Dt.U. ~ SITBDATA PROPOSED I.AHO USE. SENlat Clll2EN APNtlMDtT COMPLtX NO CE IJHITS: Sl OOiSITY: 60 7 UNITS/ACRES PDtC£HT.\GELANOSCAPIN0;1824eSO.n(41tKIC) PERCENT LOT CO~ 18504(50.~ LOTSUMWARY: SlI'l! BRRAIIDOV,N -CO<JUYA>l> L1l<DOcAHI ""'"" PAWIO REC. PAT10 1RA51I POOL POOI.DEO</JIO D!il\<WAY Pl-"'11110 ......... 1MS5SQ.FT 40$ !972SQ.fT 1$.6,C 1054 SQ.FT. JX 2eW SOFT, ex IIIOSQ.FT, 215 212 SQ.FT, ,f>X 420 SQ.FT, 1'1 89tl SO.FT, 2X 10B6SQ.TT, l,C S:zslSQ.fT.14X 36750 SQ.FT, 1°'"5 ,84ACRES LOTSIZE-· ~.750 SOFT. O.Bt ACRE$ PARKING--PROPOSED ZONlNCh -11-3 C01'$TAl ZONE COASTAL ZONE CDEIAL PLAH I RI.II SEI'BAast-fllONT 20• ~1:C<t~~i, AVBRAOB DAILY'IltAFFIC: 53--CAR' SPACES 2-HN10ICAi'SPAC£S SS CAR SPACES SI X 4 • 204 TRIPS ( 4'1/UWJE DM.Y lRP) CT'D2-10,CP02-05,110P:zt>.04,Cl:)llt02-15 sllf Iii, I~ l I I ..._<.1,llll• i:~11111 ~<rf1tlP' tun ~ il'!!I I ! I {a i It Ii i l I JI a :< 2 -l JI !ii @igs ~ en a. ~ 8 i IOOTED 104-2~ l~N """ C-2.0 ~.lll!II.. ~ ~ is t. i ct: \. i Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes CT 02-10 I CP 02-05 I SDP 02-04 /CDP 02-15 OWNBR AND APPLICANT: ANTHONY DELEONARotS o/o KAANAK MCHIJI:C7lh't£ 2802 STA1£ STREFT. sum: C CARlSSAD, CA 92008 SHEET 1 of 2 SHEETS ~ h 8 Villa Francesca .... 20' to',' 0 'I'll, .... THIS IS A TE:NTATIVE: MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES ~ 29' r SCALE: 1"•20' r?,, oG~ 0~ TH£ MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS IS 51 IMPROVBMBNTS SHOWN NOm: 1H£ LOCA TKJNS OF EXtS11HO WPROYDIENTS AND £X1S11NO UmJTIES ARE TAl<EN FRQU RECORD DRAV!INGS ANO MAY HOT BE THE EXACT LOCATIONS. AU. ummES SHAU. BE FTELO LOCAtto (PDTI-lotm) B£FORE ANY WORK IS DONE: Oft THESE LOCATIONS AR£ RWE1J UPON. RECORD ORAIWNO RO"ERENCD: QBAWIN<i BffFBfb'Cf ft: CITY OF CARLSBAD IMPRO\£/JEHT Pl.ANS FOR J£FF£RSON ST, ET AL; Pfio..ECT tJ-4; 5H£ET , OF ORAMtNO J.fis-e QBA\MHG BftTBQigf 42· CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WAmt OISTR/Cl} IMPROVDIEHT PU.NS FOR SffRSOH ST STATION J74+00 TO STA 1°"+00; SHffT 2 OF DRA\i\lNG Jf5-2 (CITY OF' "5TA PRO.£CT :,07 -OWO' I O-.,,,S7) olEFF£RSON STREET •• '"1--1---,-.-. -,,,-.-!JN-o :;~-,-_-OF---w,-l-,·---,--, EJasnHa I DasnNo L CURS, Gt/TIER Ir CURB, OUTIER It~ S'DE'WAUC SlOE:WAUC SlOPE' -~s1:.:.o ~ ~~ -~~o~c ~~ -'st.OPE VARIES VMtf'S EOSTNO S11IE£T SEC1K»I ,., .EFfDIS0H STREET ,.. LOOIONO NmlH ~sl,,..,.,..,... MrfCHl!LL AVI!NUI! (CLOSl!DJ "":s~ APN 155-271-18 EIEVATKW □ PLAN NOTES: ~.... --•-TW/SID£WAU( ,w ••· A £XIS11NO a· OAS UN£ n,r 01¥1:1 REF If SLOPE TO 57JU"ET 4.8:C SW FOU.O~..--·--.. / 8 EXISTING :J.7" SElEt UNE P£R OMJ REF If 'I:~% ~Jr FS ABOVE tU,O \~ C £XJS1JNGO"SEl!ERUN<P1'RDWGRU/I ~ f"' \ D £XJSTING ta• WA mt JINN PER DWO REF 11 11 ("\ V £ E)OSnNa CURS, GUT1£R AND SIOEWAUC (801H S10ES OF' smar., "°' OIK1 RU #I r \ J F 42• INmtCEPnm SEWEii (UNDER COHsmucnON ON a/tts/02) PER awa REF 12 Cl y G AI.L DJSTIN/1 SIRUCTIJR,S • IREES OIi-SiT!: ll!LL Be Ral0\£0 FOR THIS PRM:CT TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING: 9 H RDW\'E S DOS11Ha Rf:SIDOIT1AL DRI\£ ENTRANCES NIO ADO NCW :JO' DRl~WAY £HTIWIC£ -R!PI.AC£ SID£WAUC AS REQUIRED, BENCmtAAK: SHOMN ON CITY o, CARLSSAD I Bl.Ill.DINO UNE IS OH stnlAQ( UN£ -5a' REOIJIRSJ S£T8Aac5 tH PRo.l'CT DATA NOTE$ A80W7 1'/GHT DRAIWNG NO. J94-aA. SPIKE IN THE 70P OF ~~j>,~ 1>/2/0 LEOAL DESCRIPTION: LOt'S I, 7, a_ 9, 10 AND 11 IN Bt.OCk' f Of' SUNNY SLOPE TffACT, IH 'Di! C,1Y OF CNtt.S8AD, COUNTY OF' SAN DIEGO, STAJE' OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING n> THE NAP THEREOF HO. 4M. Flt.ED JN THE OFF1C£ OF' THE COUNT'( RECOROER' OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FESRVARY 7, IU& TOGETHER IWJH A PORTION OF THE AU£Y IN BLOCK I AHO R££CE A'-OWE AS SA!D Al.l.EY NID sma:r ~ a.osm TO PUBUC USE. SEE 1171.£ REPORT OH FILE M1H THE QTY FOlf A COIJPLEIE LEGAL OcSCRIPnOH. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2842. 28# ,If 28.f.a .£FFE1tSOH S1l'lfET ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: fs:5-271-111', Z0. 21 • 22 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NEW PROPOSED MEDIT(RRAN£AH 5T'l'L£ 5f UNIT SENIOR CITIZEN COHOOMINIU#,I PROECT. BASEMENT P.ARKING STRVCWRE MUH J STORIE:S ABO~ 1H£' EXISnNa 3 OLDER RESIDENTIAL. UMTS EXJST7HG OH 1HE SITE MW. BC REM0\£0. SERVINO UTILITY AOENCJES: WAT£R: CITY OF CARt.SBAD sar,at: CITY OF CARt.SSAD F1RE: art OF' CARLSBAD SCHOOL: CARLS8A0 UNIFJED SCHOOt. DtsffllCT OAS • ELECTRIC: SAN DJEGO GAS ,Ir £t.£CTRIC PROJECT DATA: £X1$11NO LAND US£.--........... -..... :J SINQI.£ FAKY R£SID£H11AL LOlS v,nw SlRUC1VRES PROPOSED LANO USE. .. .,, .. ,,,,_,.,,_ SENIOR CIT1ZEN CONDOMINIUMS TOTAL HUMBER OF UN/TS.., ............ 5f DENSII"'---------110.7 UNITS PER ACRE PROPOSED USE $UJ,LWAR'n TOTAL LOT s,,,._ ____ ~,1!50 SQ FT / ,84 ACRES SUJLOIN~=======-fll',848 SQ FT/ 54-K LANDSCJ.P t.J,aoa SQ FT / .ss,r PRIVATE ORI If~ SQ FT/ 2 .II' ZONINO EXISTIHO II PROPOSED ............ R-.J COASTAL ZONE SETS.AOCS ::"--==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R<AII ~ PARKINO PROPOSED------- 20' , .. , .. 03 s:PAc:m ♦ 2 ff.C. SPACES -~ SPACES TOTAL IAltYTMFFJC D~ND ESn.MAtm------- '"""" Of UNITS X -t ADT PER UNIT • 20.f. ADT (A'-ERAGi' DAILY TRIPS, J GRADINO ESTIMAn:D ............ ,-.. , ... , 9800 CY CUT ,aoavru. PRo..ECTED SOER USE _.,.,,..,_ !f £Dtf• (t £DU / U>ll1) PROJECJED WATER US£ ...... , .... .,, 152 GPII (1H ,V) • '•• MAP 12986 £Kl'Cllll SC,,EEIIWAU. (TO ROIAJH} MfCAlrS EXPOSED HEJGHT OF RCTAINING WALL '/:: :&."!: $,]"'" VICINITY MAP REVISIONS: ORIGINAL REV 01 REV 02 REV OJ REV O< ... ,. IU/11/02 IM/ta/02 07/M/02 ••/11/02 12/02/02 HOO CY EXPORT Ir CONWAY It ASSOC INC CONWAY Ir ASSOC INC CONWAY II ASSOC INC CONWAY It ASSOC INC CONWAY Ir ASSOC INC ~ (El ~ I!!!!) @s @b ~ ~ I!!!!) ~ c::, C= c:.g C= 8 I!!!!) C= J INSTALL e• STORIJ DRAIN AROUND STE PERfMETER BEHIND RETMmla WALL Mf1H LOW POINT INLETS AT CURS ON THE HORTH~T CONCRETE CURB APPROJ(lt.fATE' 161 CEHlERS. DRAJN 1Nt£1S TO 8£ FfTTEO MUHA 'FosslL flLmt" OR f;OIJIVAL.ENT STORM WAlrR RE1VRN, DA\.tS AVENUE Ir LAGUNA DRIWi, ,;,,-.--,-°""',f>..'-) • Flt.TER SYSTEM, AU. FrOOF DRAIN OO'M4 SPOUTS ltHJ. SE DIRECTED TO TH£ •• STORM DRAIN S\'$7EM 'HA £LEVA710N • 59.7.f MSL CONWAY ,r ASSoctATES. INC. ~~t tJ I ~!CE ~iw,r:,t:/Zi i.::,r;:c:~ :,,wf:.s. STORM WAlm FROM JH/S S'l'STEM MtLL BE DETAINED DH FIEJ.D SUR~ PERfORMED OH a/f.f/02 BY ~P!fo."~ = 5 ... ~t--L=-..,-t--.s ~ ~ :::::. g:~~ ~": ::AINBfl.OW-GRADI: OARAGE AR£A JMtL 8£ FII.JEJm> IJSINO A 'FosSK, nt..7£11• OR DAN HOOPER, L,S. 7249. 7a0-7:J.J-f4,J ,n j MAP PR~ARED BY: ECXNVALEHT SJ'ORU WATER Fflmf S\"SJDf AND DIRECJED TO THE J£F'FE1fSON STREU CURB FLOMUNE \.fA A A --=---~ J :)"'P=,;';,:.';,:if:::~•· Ll BO~DARY: , 8"--------LOCATION MAP 'cl" N ABANDON £11'/SJING WATER S£R\'ICE II R£1URH MEmt TO WAmt OISfflfCT 1• H ea .,7 W 245 MICHAEL K. PASIC'O. P£. 4102:l O ! 0 ABAHfJOH DCJSTINQ ... yep SEM£A SER~C£ 2. N O" 01' E 1.50" MY REGtSJRATJOH EXPIR£S 03/,91/0J \\ ,dt:~~i.;;__ -~· gi j P INSTAll 2 (EA) NEW 2• WAJ[R SER~!Z ilrrER • BACJ<FI.OW PRE't£N1£R N FOR BU/WING OCW£Snc USE .J. z 8!.;: W ~-:;. < ': ~ =~~ = =~~:= :r:o ... /g:c'i::D~J =~ ... FOR BUlLOINO FIRE 5\'SJDI ~ 9~:D;Y DATA SHOMI HEREON ME FROM ftE'CCl'fO SOURCfS. ~ j s INSTALL NEW •• SEWER LAlERA!. ... FOR BUILDING SDE'R S£R\1CE A BOUNDARY SUR1£Y WAS NOT PERFORMED FOR m,s 1ENTATI\£ MAP, ~ .§ L ,:;:: ~5:!'::S"'~::ct ~~~d"~ ~w=,:fR~00n:i, 1~J ~~{,a!n::::'%: t i V £XISJWQ O\efHEAD a.£C7R/C POMaf LINES SUR'rO' Vil!Ll 8£ PEltF0RM£0 AS A PART OF THE flHAL. MAP. 8 ffl STORM DRAIN NOTES: CD ~ wsrAU. PRtVA7E' a-srcm, DRJJH Nt<»lD snt ~ fJDfM> mAJHIHO WALL wm LOW POINT IMEfS AT APPROXUIA~ 16' cmmrs. OIWH IME1S ro BE FJTTED IWJH A 'P"OSSIL FIL.1Efl4 Off £Ql.#VAUHT SroRII WATER FJLJER SY.SmL AU. ROOF DIWN DOIIH SFotlTS T'O SE Dtlf£CTED lD 7HC ,-STORJrf DRAIH SVSTDI WA StHU"AC£ A.OW THROUGH WiOSCAPED Pt.AHJIRS. srom, w1iwt mol,f 1H1S s~ ltlfli BE OE:T.NHro OH snr H sa: NOT! ,.. @ :=,~a~~ ::z"r:.'~:~sr:: =-=-= :,r: ff:'O::r: m mr Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes CT 02-10 I CP 02-05 I SDP 02-04 /CDP 02-15 SHEET 2 of 2 SHEETS CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN & GRADING SECTIONS ,Eff[RSOH smar CURS FLOIIUHE WA A SUMP PUMP srsm, (PIAIP s\"SlEM II). \ v •11 F @ ~ -Sl$18/0l/1U1S/N10,DFERSCI/.,,,..,."""" ... ~ _______ 7 \-------, 1 ~ ranees a © l7PfNI WA:mt QCJEHDOH: nw: cnYS Df'SIGH atrl[fflA '°" A sroftW IMmt noN m!'t! I I\ \ """"""'. PRo.ECT 7D .... ,, .. AFTER-D<KJ.0/'IIENT PEAi( S7D/!ll ...... ·•".~2"' I I \ I THIS IS TE:NTA MAP FOR :,~~rs=-~~~~=:::.~R~'furrc::Jo-srs:Z"l:f ,...,.. 7 I ~ _J COND INIUM URPOSES 111111 SU6StHrf'AC£ STOftAGE TANKS LOCAlED ALOHa mt soum IKN.DlNG SIDa S£1BACk' A. r-I\ , M '-1 r 0'1HER DETEN»OH S'IS1EMI KL Bl' IH\£S110ATm ANO MAY BE SELECn:D AS PART OF lH£ PR I I ~ I ' i!:!RI Q:: .' ~ 0 -Q ::z: ~ ~ il i g i i '~ w,vsa I ,a~ : :;i JEFFERSON sm= ~ 1i _CT a i!; 1/R lilGHT-0,--WAY ,\ It Sl7fi t I .,.. 86~ Ii ~ ' ....... ' ~~ ~I ~-$ ~ 11 I ~ i ; •·«1~·· ·i·~1 PRESENrFJ) H£REOH. "'" Sl'Slal COHSISIS OF A STl>UI WAIEW,.,,,.,,,,. s,s (F1/llP •~ -' "-4 L THE MAXIMUM N~Br O<" UNITS IS 51 □P::: t=:,-,i-WAYOO' L-------' L.-\-.J L.~=~=--',, I 117\---._ ! "'-. \ CR'S/IE""""" Dl1!£01EIJ -, ~r--"',..)_ 2~ 2P' 40' ! ----, l:b-_> \ JOlHEiEm1fSONSTREETr L-L-- •-RIGHTO!WAY , ~ _ ... 1---SCALE: 1"•20' I I _, I I ____ ..J - -----, --------l.---i------1 I I I izsr~ -I I I L, I -L _______ _, n .... , a- = ( TWftl)(1rNJ( ~J.5 ""'-' 1 1W ~"':rwsmc:.mr 49 'I: r:J:W:,.fADE l ___ FS Sl0f'£ m s1R£E'T -----1-------------------------- ~ Jl£SQ!Jl!1lDlj ~ ~----------------~------7 1DPOflCUR8 ~ I ~ ~ EXISTSHO GMO£ T0 FJNISH GRAD£' Ea ,,.:,c,0 __ _ Pl'STIHO COHTDUR "' .--PROPOS£D RITAJHIHO WALL ff -+-so-so w/ DIR£C110H OF' now -~I-.,,.,.,. ,o,""' 50 PROPosto STORM DRAIN FS DI. TW I -I ~-------------------------j '11115H noo,i TIN/SH stnlf"ACI' DA'rt.lOHT n,p OF lt£TAWINO WALL DEV MAP PREPARED an ctWWAV II ASSOCtATl'S, WC. 2~~ PIO PJCO ORI\£ CARLSBAD, CA 92008 7'0-7:I.J-f<f6J UON UfUSS 011-l!RWISE NOTED aw BOTTOM OF RETAIN/NO WAU. a£V ··--------WY EUYAnCW MICHAEL K. PASKO. PE 41CW MY Rf"QS11rAT10H EXPfR£S OJ/J'f/QJ ~"l)t 11, 2002 -14:o.t:◄9 P:\02-004 Kornak\Ow'ils\TM\TM-:i!.OWG PLOT O 1•1 ,~ -l°'' I :;I ~ I\,!' -~ __ J\ ~'r,J . ~) __ _r \ _" • >;:7·"·-r -, 0 \ I 1 , ' 1 ,_ I\ \ \ , ' , I \ \ ... , >., I I ll _J ( J i \ ... \ . ' .. \\ t, 'I('\.,, \ I ♦ ' .,:~'\ \ I II" ',COURSC q:'" OFF'SITF:\ / 5JtlRM' WATER RUHOFF I n}..orrs,JE''~AAE'A f I ',,.., ' f ' ',,\ I I '\ \ LOW POINT OF \~ DETAL 1t nPICAL AETAIHfrfQ WALL / SCR£EN WALL e PROP£R1Y lllE I {Off9TF: st.MIP/"IEA-,fi':'-lr '°. (Arstrn ... LOOKJNG £U1J SCJJ.E: HORJZ 1•. :za• ~rt·. 10' .,.J • •• •ar,......_ •h ~ 7 ., '"l -/ ,/'I\ ,,,,, ' , ' \ ,J ! / ~p \\ .... ,..,,, ..... ,ccllON N a a (lOOKIHO £Asp .£fFERSOIIS111£ET ~!ll STE I '"' ..... _______________ __, :§ I ·"===' ~ g: ~-----.-= ~ct:IIUILDIH(J tsr n.OClft 1S71NG MAD£ -~.--~--~--------- !1'. SCAt£: HORIZ t• • 20' YERT 1• • 10' (Ml (§) :,i., l!!!!I Ill: D I!!:. ~ ~ l!!!!I :,i., <= C= ~ C= E:3 l!!!!I C= 30' 24' ID I ~, C: I JI ~i I I I I 24' 30' 215'-o· N,9gd 57'0"1f \'? L/A ... t _m~ =tt-~: _ 2-t-•-o' . -·~ ' :t--' ~ t 1➔ ~!'.! ! a·-•·1 ~ I l '"" i j' -+--➔--r---' T'rP, ,! ---1-----,----•····->···· ~ I I P~ L/A LOCKERfl \'? 2/J'..o• 1189<1 5l'O?f BASEMENT PLAN □ PARKl!iG SPA<XS REGIJI.AR OJ SPAC[S 'l&c,,.,·o f!~ "If# ,.,o .. ~ _..,.;....---t< ... I/Jb H.-.HOICAI' 2 SPAC'ES TOT~ -$S°'SPACES L/A i .i; ~ ~ Fire: 1. H la 'Mth greal f'IIIIJdanca that CFO alkMs tbel lnaealation of MOl1ilgll dDNll In abowlot ~ parking garaaea. In flllmea tottia appllcantCFOa1putprdcehulidated,CFDlh&lillrmlhe lnstalalloolOOUMofth8'88'o(age.-eas,10l0JWuhfcilcMing condllcnsPmat,noemipllons. .. a. n.e ... ,_,olnglheU_(_doou)- lho--llhailbemooon,y-Mcelooilal bo!ulyg,wed, b, Eooydoo!ololhe_d_llholbornolll-rnolll lb>r,llted11/2hotr'Mserrtile5thathlveanlrtogral¥Andow1or ~ ... ng.-U.-d-io. ~ Theomydoo!otothodoou"111bo.-k"1fl(leolhalU. HOAhMaccesatothtareasforrculfnelnapectiona Thereahallbe noetectrlclloutleb'lf!Uinthellmrgedosuts There maybe generaNghifnglOIJjnthod-lntlaledlnccrlonronce""1htho NationalSoctricCoda. d. Sg-lhalbo_al_d_door_thal_ol llammablelqtJdtor011H1lapotil:tted. 9, Flret:ldlngtAlheralNillbelnllal.lldalarrinilTIJffl100fNl:ltavel dR""8throughWlhlporl<lng_ond_doou_ Aut0ffllllcfir9prdeclon In llloragt unita w1III bl upgraded to quick reaponae hoeds and the Ire eprlnlder hNdfllf 111ch dosel ahlli1 be 18panudfromthelloraged01etwthachilnlnkcelllngeaserrti1v whk:h will ~tit storage lilbo\lethe Cl!Nling level and allowM operallonoftheaplnldllfhNdanda:ceeatothtltghtft:durefCII' ..... ....,,., g. Thell""""d--bo-byond""" .... bylheHOA The HOA lhall haw the responslbilHy a,c1 duty toenaure th.it al dosell usea arollrritedto alorage cl ordnary household gooda, which we c:ons!stent wth tho operalon ot • dwellilg unit. There llhallbenoatorageofftarrrnablelqddaorganofqtyplcf oontaner • h. There shall bll gravity vanlilatlon tolhe exterior from eacll lndMdual -·-CFO &hd reqJlre that the proposed elevator be of IUfflclent design lo accommodate an ■mbuance gurney in the prone poslllon. Cammon Storage FedllBN S0119Roca,.a S01'1g1Roomt2 Sc:nga,ftocml3 ScragtRoCllnlM SQfllgt,Roomie Tollllc ..... -.. 3!915cu.ll. ~16 cu.ft. 3818 cu.II. 1281 cu.II 3816 tu.ft. 111D cu.a. ># ,JU bD ~ < I ·oo a o, ~it 'O ~ 1 1 §al" ~ bD .ll " . -~" § I "'~ n:j-f-.-~ ~ ~ ! " s Jl ~ .P ! ! I J ~.it•II~ 1~11111 "..,.,,,1,w 1i a~ ~g 'o'~·~:O~ &: ! ~ ]~ § "'~ Qj~ •a ~] Oj ·a §] §5 .gcn'.:;:5tJ ~ ,:d CJ ,!ae1 8 Z ~ ~i a ~ g ;; .J ·-B t! a'~ j :a i 8~ 'g 'of .c] ~ ~ 11 ~ .. la,< I u ~ i -;::.g- 'f. Ji ... ~ Is en a. < I ID ·~ NOTED 10(-26-0 __ .,. SA.CHIN ..... ~- ShHt A-1.0 ~= ---~ I 111 I 1 HB "'6 S 6 l'<lf.ll-.!i<l -"" ............... (09 , 00........ (09L) ~1Sv.J'~'oat1ns~~zOilZ -·--~-~"1-uSisaa :v Sll!UlJ1'ld ljll1Ll1'JI W!U,l)p!e:l"ptqSl.lB!)'OeJlhS"iN4Sell:S?O... :Jad018"8Q •1J211U001 ao .<uoljluv t;uedwoo U!MJB)I /JaUMQ llfWOmir.> .-ia1,1r., ~s UOSJ81'8r9H'tst .llu1m•H (lllpD"lS 'fl o(q11(llOJJV JO "!JII Yu afD.ld lllD!DJlllOpUO;) JO!P3S puqqa;::> :l!)&fOJd r Ul!id JOOl:I ISJl:l --l _J....___J;~~:J.t.:!::!i:::::.bi=l:!~Ll:t:::::f. 1'=""-"""'~ -r -...,....__ . • I ' • I , 1 .. ~~~~~ I! '. --r-::: --::-: · · -I -1-'-...-,.l.,-1-\-.J..,.I!.-: i• -t---+l'-+...,__,........:.-'-'"""I '. -e-+ ...,:a;;:.==....,....,.;..:..~ ,io I I~ ; 1~~ ' -. _I _t -i ---. -----i-·---.' ---~-7 t • I . ! I I 0 C}' Jr 1 <C·· "' '5 C: (U Cl. .... g ~ -11 LL !e -;:: f u:: "' ~ 0.. 8 l 0.. 0 "' g 0.. u 0 ~ t; ------------------199'-1115/le"------------------------1-----------, I , I I , ~ 5'..Q"i I , I .. ,~ '"vi ~ I Standard Un~"B" L-Ix ,,, 1-, r 1 'f E Standard "C"Unlt I . I lt,,l':i k~ ~ I ~1.;. ;-1 \·.;I J I ~ I i 1 'C.-,LJI I l:1 ' \':i ,12 I , Standard "C"Unlt Standard Unit"B" 20' Sftlbar.k 1 L6'-0"l Moderate "A"Unlt 12s,r. -tos.r. !Ji;I0'-9318" 0-~ I t 1 ........ Moderate Unll"D" ◄21.f. Second Floor Second Floor Plan 1IB"=i1'-0" 241f, - 42.a.f. Standard Unlt"F" Standard Unil"B' Standard Unlt"B' Standard Unll"F' Standard Unll"B" ' I I ~6'-0"j i; Iii ,~ ' 200,.1, Typk:al ' 100J,. CT 02-10,CP 02-05, SOP 20-04, CDP 02-15 Revl1lona: &~~~ £Clyeci'~ £ ca,Cor11/ZW20Cl2 £;;,.,_ ___ _, 11!1 ~ ii! I I i j ~ ~ I ~ ~ iii Ii 1l ~ 0. G• 11111 DP ~-'e'J I =-;g.,, 2 .! 9~! ,q ·• 'E -. c!I ll ·UiH g: ll :,,~ ~:sl~~ -OI U> Q.UJ -rq gf r>J!:i! ~ u., "l:S 'a~ C ! .. ,tl ,. ·s: ill .0:sN Z:S 'C < ~ i::! 1 a• L! 't: g-g e' 11. ~ 11. o, -!I I 1! ~Jj ., 11. A-3.0 of: I I I I , I I I I I I I ,-10'-0"T1D'~D'" 180'-0" I 6'41"1 I · · I · , I I I ! r--, I I I I I I J hi 13h.f I I I I I ' I I ~---' I I', I ' i ', I I 'i-,-- 1 1.,,..,.."1 I lrr_ I I I I I I ' I I _ _J ~ I ii', I I ;}...-1' , ... , 11 i ', ' "'" Standard "B"Unlt standard "C"Unlt I, I ,i II I ·~- I 1 / ~ i· I/) I I 1,..1 I ---, I t.r--r----I I' ✓I i ik_"1 I' , -1 ii I I I' ' I l I 3GOal, ' I ' I r-1', i. I ', i / .- 1 / I ,✓ 14--1 Standard "B11 Unit Moderat "E"Unlt ~ :t Exit Stairs Moderate "A"Unlt Moderate "D"Unlt ::::::i Third Floor Moderate "D"Unit 1112al Moderate 11D"Unlt Moderate "D"Unlt .7 standard "F"Unlt Standard "B"Unlt Standard "B"Unlt Standard "F"Unlt I i 20' Setback ~ \ 30' Setback I L ~L ~ i I I I t N•' 1 n., ~ I I ~., = ] 40' Setback Third Floor Plan 1/16""1'-0" ~ CT 02-10,CP 02--05, SOP 20-04, CDP 02-15 Ro'1"°"' ~laweor1-.:z:m. &~~ &circ«1tQ8QDQ2 ~ J § 1 l ii I .. \j ~ §' J ~ 0 t:, "'ll ijl .. ii 11 1 C ~ .j ~ I£ i~ !l !I t:..l! 1 N -~ HIii WU, -~'bl • ~i i ! .. = i;!. ·a 'Eu 0 'ilij !l -U~q § ~ 11 >.o Q.!!_dij Jlli» ..., C ,! "'o 'f -~ Ill i~ ii-~ c:l:: :.: I I L! "l !! I :g j f:.a.. A-4.0 of: l_ I@"'""""""' l!fWeteti-Kt'C ::lootR-t£>COW aoo?SV:l'~'!l9HllS-.-nslilBISUI~ .»UU91cf'UOSJUIKFl!HJm(J)8• ~uoi&ia,plll'd dJS'l(lll:iUJIIUBld'l=")I I > ::i E 0 i r-v1I E 0 0 ,S "' m JB:>Jc!A.L wtUJ0J1~ •p~ •orqins 'iN.QS;,;eis ... :J&doteAea l!PJl'U001ao"-~uedwoo U!MJl!}I JJaUM() 11tWOJ1JBO •p~ 10QijslJ01.laJJar9t-z~ .. !UJSDOH p.1upuqs "!/ a1qap.rOJJV JO X!J\I Vu .);)fo.ld mn1u1mopoo;::> .101oas pBqSf.111;) :pe[OJd r F-1 -----~-/·7 ,---·---II ( '· J L C ., .c ~-.s S2 ~ l!Un 11811 ~ C, E C e ]: pJepuels c ..J c al m .8H s-.ez _., r ~o-.s ,.8/S ?·,vt E i . ..,: e ,; -"' al I "' m ,L_ i . ' r, - 'i t ' I m '· 11 • I 44444 SUEJd IUOJB:JJ<fA.L :ueJd :t:: C ::, -e cu "Cl C cu -en :t:: C ::, .e e CD "Cl 0 :ii: S!: T'" C cu ii: a.. 0 0 ii: :t:: C ::, m 0 I -T'" II ~ T'" C cu a: a.. 0 0 ii: :t:: C ::, < 0 LO I <( .. 'o "' ~ 0.. 8 I 0.. C u, I 0.. 0 ~ ,la 0 !3 l! t: 26'-0"--3?. ,~ "' I' ~ : 123 s.f. :; Living Room II !!! ~ Bedroom ,,, r-:. 13'-11 7/8" ---41 ~ ·--; io -< ~ N __ \ !:,- ;I; = en 7~e:;;;JI~ (') ,-+ = ll) C ::, ::, C. -· ll) ,-+ -, C. Dining [: /·fE.tj "7 rJ.:r--r-!-. Kitchen ~ ,,,..~, ---11'-3' ' Standard Unit C Unit Floor Plan 1/4" = 1'-0" I \. l i.---14'·9 3/8" --->j I ... !-, I ' I Bedroom b 14'-67/16"__,ji ~ Living Room Moderate "D"Unit 11'-0" I 01[ Dining _. _ • -.,. · ·-·-·---·---··-·--•t-,• ,,-- Tc---owr11~0c-- f !!1 Bedroom "' ,,, ;!. I Moderate Unit D Unit Floor Plan 1/4" = 1'-0" CT 02-10,CP 02-05, SOP 20-04, CDP 02-15 RDVllkma: ctrC.7N2002 CllyClr11121120C12_ L! i ..__ ~ l I -I~ s '!IJ I; j j -i ~ 0 t::. • !I =' j Ii h i I -! _§ s ~.:l i !l G• 11111 I~ tl ·S-=ct) t·t•II au ll ·='f~~n -~ ,ll., ~ t .gu i ~ r:i Cid O >.o· 8:a 11 @~ ... Cl i Q.0 ·aH ~a J.l <oil(.) .. ~ "o ~ .c I !i ;t ~ i~ ~ ::! u L! ti -::, g. ~ Ii 0. 6 0 .. C ::, ]1! i:: ~£ ~ A-5.1 of: I 10•-1 518" r- ~t-~~ ~., .... -- ti" Bedroom i~•··· '==""-1:d ,,-·-· , 1 • Bath i·.: [ Kttchen ~] I -~-\ -ml-~~::.\'.:'.'_;;:! ___ _ ' _ml ~1! I Living Room Moderate "K" Unit ,.~ / Moderate"K" Unit K Unit Floor Plan 1/4" = 1'-0" Bedroom Living Room c: C~ Affordable Unit"G" 11, I 18'-10 s1s" I Kitchen Balh"-.._]11) g [Q~ .£:mlLlfr~~L] Living Room Affordable --7 : I Unit "J" [r,"E'.11 Kitchen r;hJ I ~)J~lk.:d Bedroom 42 s.f. Affordable "G,H,J" Units Floor Plans 1/4" = 1'-0" !Jl Living Room ;-;: Affordable ~ Unit "H" ~ .g; -J .~.[ CT 02-10,CP 02--05, SOP 20--04, CDP 02-15 Revlslan1• ~c"..~iiaoo3-J I&~~ & '-C:C,1ttl8fZIOa 6 J ~ l ff~ I f i ! ~ '; ~ ~ Ii I l I! [I 1 111 ~ . 11111 IP 'e'\c • =-'§.!I J .!I Sill! H .e 'l! ~ ~ ~ ·u-q ..., "'I ~ II g '<Is >,<.i ~if u ·• 'E ~ E 1 !~«8~ 'l:l'ci, CI .!~~-~., i;< i ~ l;,l Ll 1l 11 j e' s ~ <L 6 ~ j D- A-5.3 of: -pwoc,n-m{oe,) tttC►{DS;J vows VO 'pvqlll80 '::> 8"'1S 'tNJiS 9'1'1S Zoat JOUUO!d'uospmjo/lj!JOCIO~• IOOlll?IV'uoieuo,IMd ullJSOaV~'l""""ll .e,se-.e~~ e U) ! ~ I I E 0 e "D ., m l!Un .. ~ .. pJepueJs I I: -•-o:,•~•s'lHIIS-szoo 01a~aa 11p,auoo, "'...,_ AUBdUJOO U!MJB}f JJ"UMO lfWOPJIO 'P9QSllr.J 1N.IJS UOIJIIJP!r erzm 0llu1moH papDllS 'l1 O(qsp,OJIY JO '!Ill Vu aafo.1c1 111n1iq111opno;:> ~o,nas puqS{.lll;J :i:,afrud IE C: <( :::> eiu Cl) _ls:_ \ C ·2 l5 ---=-' ;i.---t-f----.<§vi:~--+---... .. ;.,. ' .... ·2 :::> ~ "E a, "O C: a, .... ff) .... ·2: :::> ~ "E a, "O C a, .... ff) 0 I ..- JI ~ ..- C: a, a.. s... 0 0 u:: _. b I -..- JI ~ ..- C: a, a.. ... 0 0 u:: ...I :UBJd !2 8 0.. C 0 I 0.. !il g 0.. o. l= 8 t3 I ul s n s ~vo •paqsµso •:, aiins ~s .is~ ~B~ JIMJUtfd ~y 1,.laq<)H -l08JltpJV'~ lrt9d .,;j ~ W :lllJ1IUSidJ\W,l"ll I I ' I • Kdl------------lgl-----~- 1 ! : -----------------,- ' I ; rv1 I ! I r I Q) /.Ji C) r l:Jl ~ C: ' ~ ::I .9 = Tr s... L= Q) C. C. ::) ~ r----I = I I .sn1 .s.: -fD ~ ~ .. ~ .... >, ~ ;j. .c .c ~ "'.c :.J ~ 0 ..J -.8/S S-,;:~ -1 r --]! v\J ' ' •I ' --f1 ~ : c----,:~:---------t-, :! w :, i •a--------=-a l1 l -------------r I C ca a: a.. 0 0 u::: ~ e .0 ::i a, CJ C ::, .9 l .0 .9 ~§~ S!WOJ!ISO 'PIQIPWO •:, qns "JNJJS~m OJ8""CJ l!P'fl100'1oa'"°"""' AUedWO!) U!MJe)I /J8UM() w WltlJOiY!r.)'P9QSl.lr.J'tN4$U~9t-C:l're 112l11!snoH papu1qs '1f/ a1qap.10JJV JO XfflI y" J:>afo.1c1 mnro,mopoo3 ~oioas p1iqsµo3 :i:,a[OJd \ E >, (!) tJeld JOOl.,l uon•=~ ., :UBld J. ! 0 co I <( .. 0 C ca a: ... 0 0 U:: C 0 i e u & )> I ! '--l ~ 0 ! 25 '0 ? ,, b -o "' ~lq _ _ __ _ __ _ Jefferson Street !Ii 1 1 ____ _ ~ ~I~ -~ ~ 1➔ ~ ~ ~ I I I ,i; i; I I I ,➔ § <-I I ~ I 2 !I :,'! ~. ,➔ ~ J j~ "' <-I ~ I if' ~,,!!J ii SHE£T nru, "-~a ROOF ,,2 ! l~ -f'r " PLAN I➔ I I 'i I J--~:;;>1 I <-I I I .i/UO PON .0-.fGI ;1, ~ J -. Carlsbad Senior Condominium Project E f Affordable & Standard Housing• , Jefferson Street. Carlsbad, Callf'onda. ~ Karnak Planning and Design ~~ Paul Longton.AN:=-bert Hlchmbon. Plmnff OWn.r/ Company, Anthony De Leonardis Dftefop«: 2802 State Street, Sulle C, Carlsbad, C.l 92008 ~ = ~ 2802 State C, Co.rlsb■d. C.l 92008 ~=st ..._ma,~ ,a-m ---~ 900"8 v:> 'P•q'l-'"O 'O "ll"S ~"""18 "l"lS 80,~'I' •a sw.reuo;,i aia ..!uo111uv •Attedtao::, trJJU9)I .-u1110 -.pl,IOmr.) °P't(\l'(ZII:) ~ UO&iaJJa! '9t-Zt9a .!t[!StlOH J>"'P""lS 'II aiq<!J).IOJJY JO "!JI V. pafoJd wniuµnopuo:i Jo!"•S puqsJ.n!:J ,,..ro,. I i "" "" ... lt. "-.. .. f~ -j. ~ ~~ NOLl.03S NOllVl\313 ,:I I:: lNO~ ::ruu l33HS lil lil , .. cl I:: !1 0 ~ dl CX) s <( i I !~: g~ ti z 0 ~ ~ W1, I ~-! I en le_ I t:: - I ~ i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90<rcl6 V:> "p'8qaJ.t113 '3 lit1P\S "'.\H.llS litllllS 208.-0 sw.rvuo~ aa Anoq1uv '1trndwo~ ttµUli)! "'<> ~JtPJ "pVq,Slw.) 1a~ u01UaJPr '9t-8Wc: .:ftr!snoH p.mpmrJs 'l a1qupJ.oyy JO XJJ1 v .. 1oafo.ld mn101mopuo:i Jo!tI•S p9qSJ.Ill:J "°'I°"' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,,... :i I-..... I~ I~ I ijj I -' I :!: b Cl-! u.i .• I I I I I I I I I I __ J Ii SNOllV/1313 NOTES 1, ALL IRRIGATION, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE WIU. BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE CITY LANDSCAPE MANUAL POLICIES AND DETAILS 2, THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WIU. BE A FUU. Y AUTOMATIC SYSTEM WITH A MINIMUM 14 DAY WATERING SYSTEM. A DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL BE USED WHERE APPROPRIATE IN PLANTER LOCATIONS. 3. SOME OF Tl-IE PLANT MATERIAL LISTED ABOVE HAS NOT BEEN USED BUT WIU. BE CONSIOERED IN THE FINAL PLANT SELECTION. 4, All shrubs to be pruned to maintain vlaual control 6. Tl-IE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL LANDSCAPE ANO IRRIGATION FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS. ALL IRRIGATION,SHRUBS, TREES, AND GROUNDCOVER WILL BE GUARANTEED FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. GROUND COVER ANNUAL COVER LANDSCAPE PLAN SCAL.i,1"-111 0 5 10 ~ SCALE. t•:::110' GROUND COVER 1 LONI CERA JAPONICA 'HAI.LIANA' HALI.'S HONEYSUCKLE 16" 0,C, 2 ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIB ROSEMARY 16" O.C. 3 LANTANA MONTEVIOENSIS TRAILING LANTANA 18' O.C. 4 HEDERA HELIX 'HAHNS' HAHNSIVY 12"0.C. 5 GAZANIA UNIFLOAA LEUCOLAENA TRAILING GAZANIA 12" O.C. 8 CAMPANULA POSCHARSKYANA 12" O,C, SERBIAN BEU.FLOWER 7 ANNUAL COLOR 4" POTS O 12" O,C (IN SEASON) PLANT LIST TREES A WASHINGTON ROBUSTA £.-"1 FAN PALM (EXISTING) ,~j V ,,. B TRISTANIA CONFERTA 24"BOX 0 BRISBANE BOX C ARECASTRUM ROMANZOFFIANUM ~ 10' BROWN TRUNK QUEEN PALM D CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA • :W BOX CAMPORA E BAUHINIA VARIEGATA 24"BOX 0 PURPLE ORCHID TREE SHRUBS q5)wVv@ S•1 RAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 5 GALLON INDIAN HAWTHORNE 8-2 ROSMARINUS OFFICINALUS 6 GALLON ROSEMARY 8-3 VIBURNUM JAPONICA 5 GAU.ON VIBURNUM S-4 ROSA VARIED HYBRID' SPECIES 5 GAi.LON (PROVIDED BY OWNER) S-5 AGAPANTHUS AFRICANUS AFRICAN LILY 1 GALLON ~ HIBISCUS ROSA SINENSIB 5 GALLON HIBISCUS 5-7 TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINODES STAR JASMINE 1 GALI.ON S-8 PHOTINIA FRASERI 5 GALLON JAPANESE PHO'flNIA S-9 VIBURNUM JAPONICA 5 GALLON VIBURNUM S-10 PHOENIX ROEBELENII 24" BOX PIGMY DATE PALM VINES V•1 PARTHENOCISSUS TRJCUSPIDATA 1 GALLON BOSTON IVY V•2 HIBBERTIA SCANDENS 1 GALLON GUINEA GOLD VINE V-3 WISTERIA CHINENSIB 1 GALLON \~ )' " ___. ..__ ., f/'l , !,.!;j'.~-CHINESE WISTERIA F"4 I n I t t.. _t V-4 BOUGAINVILI.EA SPP. 1 GALLON □ BOUGAINVILLEA V-5 CL YTOSTOMA CALLISTEGIOIOES 1 GALLON ~ VIOLET TRUMPET VINES PROVIDE THE FOU.OWING VINES TO BE SELECTED _EROM THE LIST ABOVE AND LOCATED BY lliE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ON THE FINAL DRAWING: COVERED ENTRY 4•15 GALLON NORTH WALL SOUTH WALL WEST WALL EAST WALL 10-15 GALI.ON 6-15GALLON 8-15GALLON 10 ·16 GALI.ON ~ ~44..-o"Z,,,' t :g ~] ~ -~~ ~ ~ f] •cd ~ ~ ii! ~ bO l; -" Ji "',g .§ 7 "~ a:: ~ • .SI -:I 1, "~"' e ff ~ ::1 j ;i ! l i I ~.i~•II• 1;,11111 ~<rflllIDW ~ ·~ :ag ·e ·§ 1 ~: f1. ~ ~ .!l~ ~ ] ] ~~ ·= -0 II> ;,..~ ._. ] ,: Cl~ g In~ :,5c; ] ~ 1f ~! 0 C) .b .:i c.; :S tr.I >.w 8 'E § i.r ·a o ~ EE c8 ~ li 8&I ~!f·~i :gsii-UJ fa ti: u ~ t tli: ~i ~ E 0 0 t)W:ij; rn o :l CZ0. g 58 Ei ili N0J[0 J 04-26-0: -~ SACHIN Sl'il1t L-1.0 ··= Planning Commission Minute December 18, 2002 -Page? RTTACHMENT 15 4. CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15 -VILLA FRANCESCA -Request for a recommendation for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a recommendation of approval for a Tentative Subdivision Map, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit for a 51 unit senior condominium project located on the east side of Jefferson Street, north of Laguna Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant. Mr. Neu introduced Item #4 and stated that Barbara Kennedy would make the presentation. Chairperson Trigas opened the public hearing on Item #4. Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner, stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a 51-unit senior condominium project. The 0.84-acre site is located on the east side of Jefferson Street and currently consists of three lots. The project is surrounded by multi-family residential to the north, south and west and single-family residences to the east. The project contains both 1-and 2-bedroom units ranging in size from 636 square feet to 1,179 square feet. The site is zoned R-3, multi-family residential, with the General Plan designation of residential medium-high density. Under the current General Plan designation, which allows 11.5 dwelling units per acre, 9 units could be constructed on the site. The applicant is requesting approval of a density increase of 42 units as an incentive to construct the project as 100 percent senior housing and to reserve 51 percent of the units for low and moderate-income households.. The resulting density would be 61 dwelling units per acre, which is in the density range of other senior housing projects in the city. Ms. Kennedy stated that the project is proposed as for-sale units. Eight of the units (15.7%) would be reserved for low-income households and would be affordable to seniors with incomes up to 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). 18 units would be for moderate-income households with incomes up to 120 percent of AMI, and the remaining 25 units would be market rate units. Access to the underground parking garage is located slightly south of the center of the site. Although the zoning ordinance only requires a half space per unit, this project provides twice the required parking with one space per unit and four additional guest parking spaces. The project features a formal entrance which connects to the sidewalk along Jefferson Street. She pointed out that an existing bus stop will be relocated north of the entrance and will be upgraded to include a bench and trash receptacle. Ms. Kennedy stated that the building is designed around a central courtyard feature and all walkways are internal to the project, which helps maintain privacy for the adjacent properties. Walls will be constructed around the perimeter of the site and new landscaping will enhance the project. It has over 11,000 square feet of recreation uses on the first floor, including a library, gym, arts and crafts room, and a large recreation room that opens up into the courtyard area. A lap pool is also proposed at the rear of the site. The architectural design is contemporary Mediterranean style. The exterior will be stucco with a two-tone off-white color scheme and it will have terracotta concrete roof tiles. Ms. Kennedy pointed out a number of decorative elements incorporated into the design. The overall building height ranges from 32 to 34 feet and is under the 35-foot height limit. To reduce the mass of the building the third story has been offset 15 feet from the front of the building and 1 O feet at the rear elevation. Architectural detailing is carried through on all sides. Ms. Kennedy stated that the proposed use of the site as a senior housing project is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies and with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for senior housing. The site is well suited for senior housing because it's a level site and located in close proximity to a range of commercial, professional, and community services patronized by senior citizens. The density increase is allowed per review of the Site Development Plan. The increase in density from 11.5 dwelling units per acre to 61 dwelling units per acre will allow the project to be developed to help achieve the City's senior and affordable housing goals. The project is consistent with Council Policy 43, which establishes priorities for the allocation of excess dwelling units within each quadrant. It is a first priority project in that 15.7% of the units will be for low-income households and 35.3% of the units will be for moderate-income households. It is a second priority project in that it will be developed entirely for qualified senior households. The housing policy team recommends approval of the density increase as an incentive to offset the subsidy required to develop the project as proposed. The project meets all requirements of the R3 zone, PD Ordinance, Senior Citizen Housing Regulations, and parking requirements. No variances Planning Commission Minutee December 18, 2002 Page 8 are being requested and the project meets all of the setback, building height, and lot coverage requirements. Twice the required parking will be provided and over 10 times the required open space is provided. All requirements for senior housing development will be met. The project is consistent with the coastal developm·ent policies of the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program. It complies with all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and all necessary improvements will be provided. The project is subject to growth management requirements in Zone 1 and is in compliance with the public facilities performance standards. Ms. Kennedy stated that the project is conditioned to enter into an affordable housing agreement to reserve 51 % of the units as affordable to low-and moderate-income households for a minimum of 30 years. It has been reviewed pursuant to CEQA and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. It is subject to noise impacts from traffic along Jefferson Street and mitigation measures are included to ensure that the interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA. Traffic impacts were analyzed because the project would result in increased density and additional ADT. The project generates 204 ADT, which is higher than the 72 ADT projected without the density increase. Because there are excess dwelling units within the quadrant, the ADT is still in the range anticipated for the affected road segments and intersections. The traffic study shows that the project will not have a significant impact with regard to traffic. Because the project contains over 50 units, Ms. Kennedy said the Commission's action is in the form of a recommendation to the City Council. She turned the presentation over to Craig Ruiz of the Housing and Redevelopment Department to discuss the affordability component of the project. Craig Ruiz stated he would address questions that came up recently about how sales prices are determined for restricted units, initial sale and resale of the units. For low-income and moderate-income they had to determine what is an affordable housing cost. That generally means that a third of your income goes to housing cost. He stated that the income limits change each year and have gone up 3% to 5% a year for the last 6 to 8 years. He described how the purchase prices of units for low-income and moderate-income households are subsidized by a silent second mortgage in favor of the City. At some point the subsidy, and potentially some interest, is repaid to the City. He stated that resale restrictions, as currently proposed, would require that units be sold to another low-income household for the first 15 years. The subsidy from the first buyer would be assumed by the second buyer. If the unit is sold in years 16 through 30 the subsidy is repaid at the time the unit is sold and a percentage of the appreciation goes back to the City as well. The entire subsidy would be due and payable to the City in year 31. The money is then put back into affordable housing projects. He described some examples of what would happen in regard to the subsidies and shared appreciation if low-income or moderate-income units are sold in the first 15 years. Mr. Ruiz stated that for-sale units are a preferred product type but are much harder to do because there are no subsidies available. He said this would be the first product to have units restricted to moderate- income households and would provide 25% of the moderate-income units for the last 6 years and is very much needed. There's no financial assistance being requested which puts more burden on the developer and helps justify the increase in density. Mr. Ruiz said the Housing and Redevelopment Staff supports the proposal for those three reasons. Commissioner Baker asked if a low-income unit can appreciate since it must be sold to be affordable to someone in the low-income group. Mr. Ruiz replied that the appreciation and sale price will go up with the appreciation in income levels. As that income level goes up 5% a year, the sales price would go up accordingly. It appreciates to a lesser degree than a market rate unit. Commissioner Baker thought that some of the sales may involve estates and asked if there have been particular difficulty working with estates. Mr. Ruiz replied that they have done a lot of loans with some mobile home parks and deal with estates of seniors who have passed away and it's never been a problem. Commissioner Baker asked if the owner of a low-or moderate-income unit can rent it or are they required to be the resident. Mr. Ruiz replied that it would be their primary residence. If they were to move out and rent it, the subsidy would become due and payable. Commissioner Baker said the Staff Report says the unit must remain affordable to low-income or if it doesn't they must pay the City back. She wanted to know if that would take it out of the low-income range and asked for clarification on that statement. Mr. Ruiz said they are restricting it for 15 years but if they Planning Commission Minutee December 18, 2002 Page 9 resell it the City will recapture the subsidy and appreciation. They would lose that unit but have the money to turn into another unit. At year 16 they could sell it at market price and the City recaptures the initial subsidy. The ordinance says it can be restricted for 30 years but if it doesn't stay restricted for the full 30, they have to recapture any subsidy and put it back into another affordable housing project. Chairperson Trigas wanted to know if the money is interchangeable only with for-sale units .and cannot be used for low-income rentals. Mr. Ruiz said the money would come back into the housing trust fund and it could go to any affordable housing project. Chairperson Trigas asked if this is the first for-sale project in Carlsbad. Mr. Ruiz replied that this is the fourth for-sale project. Chairperson Trigas said she was concerned about having a senior housing project that is desperately needed that can be swapped for any kind of affordable housing in 16 years. Mr. Ruiz said the project will always remain a senior housing project, they lose the potential of having senior affordable units, and that's why they capture the subsidy and put it into other affordable units. Commissioner White said it seems to her that the potential for the city to recapture or bring in more income to put into the housing fund to use for other projects is much greater than a situation where you would have apartments. She said it seems that by allowing people to sell at market rate after 16 years and having the City recoup part of that profit, not just the subsidy, is a benefit to the housing fund in general because it generates cash for the housing fund that can be used for rentals. That's one aspect of letting people sell after 16 years that would actually benefit the housing fund for the entire city. Mr. Ruiz said that's one way to look at it. Commissioner Segall asked what the determining factors are to guarantee that it stays for seniors. Ms. Kennedy replied that there's a condition of approval that says the project is a senior project. Commissioner Segall asked how does she know that in two years it's not going to be open to any age group. Ms. Kennedy said they need to submit a list annually of all tenants with their ages that goes to the County Redevelopment Department. Commissioner Segall asked how they prevent someone from purchasing it and then leasing it to someone else. Ms. Kennedy said they have the annual monitoring of who's living there and all the tenants will be watching each other, and they have to abide by their CC&Rs. Commissioner Segall wanted to confirm that 9 units are what would be approved and they're asking for a density increase of 42 units. Ms. Kennedy replied that that's correct. Commissioner Dominguez asked how fee title would be held on these properties with these restrictions even though it only runs to the 16th year and if the City would be a party to the title. Mr. Ruiz said based on their experience they are held the same as any other units and the City would have a promissory note or a deed of trust. Commissioner Dominguez was concerned that the release upon the 16th year takes all bets off the table and we lose the existing neighborhood to all the malfeasance of any other non-conforming renter or owner as far as restrictions on automobiles, etc., and would be inflicted upon the existing neighborhood. He said he's also taking into consideration that the neighborhood would probably change substantially in 16 years. Ms. Kennedy stated that she doesn't agree with that. After 16 years it will still be a senior project and the same types of seniors will be living there after 16 years. Commissioner Dominguez said they wouldn't be able to have restrictions as to automobiles and other things. Ms. Kennedy said they would not have a restriction on automobiles now. One parking space per unit is provided. The Zoning Ordinance only requires half a parking space for senior projects. Research has been done showing that seniors in senior projects do not drive or they're consolidating their households and getting smaller units, getting one car, or maybe only one person in the household at that time. She said there may be very few households that have two cars and does not think that will be the norm based on her research and looking at other senior projects in this quadrant. Commissioner Heineman wanted to know how the obligation is satisfied if someone who buys one of the condos comes into some money in two years and wants to sell it and move out. Mr. Ruiz said in the first Planning Commission Minute December 18, 2002 Page 10 two years they would have to sell the unit to another low-income household whether they came into money or not. Commissioner Whitton asked what their definition of a senior is. Ms. Kennedy replied that State law defines a senior as somebody who is 62 years of age or older or someone who is 55 years of age or older that's in a qualified senior project. Commissioner Whitton asked what their experience is in terms of what housing they have for seniors and what their age is. Ms. Kennedy said they appear to be much older residents in the senior projects she looked at in the northwest quadrant. Commissioner Whitton asked how many cars they have on average. Ms. Kennedy said she talked with several people and most of the projects she researched had only a half parking space and some people had to wait several months to get a parking space, but eventually they did. This project would have one parking space available for each unit, however it's not designated for the unit. Commissioner White asked what the City's goal is for senior housing and how far these 51 units would go to meeting that goal. Mr. Ruiz said the City needs over 3,000 affordable units so this project would make a small dent in the need. He said they don't categorize the need for affordable housing strictly by age; it's by income level. Commissioner Segall asked for an explanation of the traffic and on-street parking concerns in that neighborhood. Ms. Kennedy said she met with several of the neighbors who expressed concern about being able to turn from some of the streets onto Jefferson. There are a lot of higher density apartment projects around there and there seems to be a lot of overflow parking from those projects that spreads into the surrounding residential neighborhoods and they voiced quite a bit of concern about that. They're very concerned about this project having an increased density and increased traffic. Ms. Kennedy said she explained to them that the senior ADT peak hours occur at different times and traffic generation rates for seniors are less than for apartment projects. Even though there are more units it's not incrementally the same amount. With 9 units it would be 72 ADT with 8 trips per unit. With the senior household it's 4 trips per unit so it's less traffic and it doesn't occur at peak hours. The peak hour in and out trips are only 4 additional trips in and 4 additional trips out over what is projected for a 9-unit project. Commissioner Segall asked where visitors park. Ms. Kennedy said they would need to park on the street if all of the visitor parking spaces were in use. There may be additional parking spaces if every tenant doesn't have a car. She said Carlsbad's current parking requirements for senior projects require only one parking space for guest parking and it doesn't matter what size the project is. This project has four parking spaces plus twice the required parking for the seniors. Commissioner Segall mentioned that other projects, such as restaurants, have to have adequate on-site parking and we do not allow for on street parking when the project is being considered. He asked why this project differs. Ms. Kennedy said they're not considering the on street parking as meeting the parking requirements. The project meets the parking requirements on its own merit. Commissioner Dominguez asked if on-site management is a requirement. Ms. Kennedy replied that it's not a requirement, but it's recommended to have an on-site manager. Commissioner Dominguez said it should be a requirement in this situation. Commissioner Segall asked legal counsel if the Commission could require an on-site HOA manager in these proceedings. Ms. McMahon said she would need a moment to check. Ms. Kennedy referred the Commission to Resolution 5321, Condition #6 that states, "Senior citizen housing projects which do not have an on-site manager shall provide a posted phone number of the project owner or off-site manager for emergencies or maintenance problems." She said if they don't agree with that condition, that would be the one to amend. Commissioner Whitton said he didn't see much area for storage and asked if there is some. Ms. Kennedy said there's a little bit of storage in the garage area and would be managed by the homeowners association. She said there's no individual storage space, it's not a requirement of the Senior Citizen Housing Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutee December 18, 2002 Page 11 Chairperson Trigas asked when they consider the senior housing if it has no additional medical services or assistance when considering the parking requir'=?ments. Ms. Kennedy said it's not an assisted living center. Commissioner Baker said she assumes a lot of fill will have to be removed from the site and asked at what point would they address whether the trucks have to be covered, if there are certain hours of operation, and how they will get in and out of the site to alleviate any traffic problems. Mr. Maashoff said a haul route permit would be required before beginning to export any material from the site. There are approximately 9,800 yards of material that will be removed from the site. Commissioner Baker asked if they would want direction from the Commission if we're concerned about hours of operation and haul routes or are they sensitive to it. Mr. Maashoff said they are typically sensitive to those issues. The standard hours are 7:00-4:00. If there are schools along the path of travel, they would restrict hours accordingly. In response to an earlier question from Commissioner Segall regarding if they could require on-site HOA, Ms. McMahon said she didn't see anything in the Senior Housing Ordinance that would preclude them from requiring that. She thought it would mean one less unit available for sale and it's a bit unusual to require it in a for-sale project. Usually HOAs contract with property management companies so there would be management from that perspective. Chairperson Trigas stated for the record that several letters and a petition were received. A letter dated December 17th from Cynthia McPherson expressed concern on the project. There was a letter dated December 18th from Dr. Millard and Mrs. Evelyn Biggs commenting on concerns of the project. A petition dated December 17th also expressed opposition to the project. Chairperson Trigas opened public testimony and asked the applicant to speak. Albert Richardson, Owner of Karnak Planning & Design, 2802 State Street, Suite C, Carlsbad stated he was very proud of this project. He said they started to plan for single-family residences for this land and when they were able to combine three lots together Debbie Fountain encouraged them to do something more exciting than just more houses. He said they investigated more thoroughly and did some preliminary studies and took it to the Planning Department and Housing to get input. They got a lot of input from Dee Landers before she retired. They worked with it to bring it to something that's quite exciting. He said he was involved in other senior projects and also did studies in other communities so he was somewhat familiar with some of the concerns. He said they tried to develop a project that's exciting and nice and blends with the community and meets the needs. It's very special in that it's right on Jefferson, close to the bus line. Mr. Richardson said the recreation designed into this facility is nicer than in some of the bigger senior facilities. Many times the more active seniors still have their homes and 2 or 3 cars but when people want something smaller they cut back on things. He said they leave around 9:00 in the morning to do errands and are back-by 3:00 or 4:00. He said he looked at projects with half a space per unit and it's not enough parking, unless it's all-affordable. In many projects the parking lot is barely half full. He said they tried to give more than double plus the extra spaces and they've designed it to where it's an easy loop. The elevation of the garage is elevated for service vehicles. Normally in projects like this 20-30% of the parking spaces will be empty all the time and he doesn't think they will be generating any parking problems: He mentioned how they pulled back parts of the building to make it seem like a two-story building rather than a three-story. He said it will not look like a low end, low cost senior housing facility, but will look like something found on Coast Highway. He said the owner should be commended for doing this project and the City has been very helpful. It's been an effort of joint design. He said it's unusual to find three large lots like this in Carlsbad so well located and it's a rare opportunity to do something great. Applicant Anthony De Leonardis, 2802 State Street, Suite C, Carlsbad, talked about the lack of ownership housing for senior citizens. He said he didn't think any group has been as hard hit as seniors in the California housing crunch. He stated that most housing is rental but it's usually at two extremes -either low end or high end. He said that Villa Francesca, in a sense, is an experiment. It's an unusual mixture of people in this development. The idea is not to have them level down, the idea is to level up the low- income and moderate-income. He said they worked closely with the City and the City housing authority in Planning Commission Minute December 18, 2002 Page 12 trying to develop something for senior citizens and thinks they did it. He said he hopes it's successful and if it is they can provide a model that can attract other developers to think that it's an interesting concept. Yvonne Beeson, 1018 Knowles Avenue, Carlsbad, had numerous concerns regarding the project. She felt that the density increase will have a negative environmental impact on the existing neighborhood, individually as well as for the community when looking at the other projects proposed for the immediate area. She said the City has a total of 94 condos scheduled as well as a 3-story office building within a half-mile radius of this project. These include Casa Laguna, Laguna Pointe, Las Flores, and Villa Francesca and will generate increased traffic on Jefferson and add significant problems of overflow parking on side streets, which are single-family residential areas. She said statistics she received indicate reported accidents between the 2300 and 2900 block of Jefferson -in 2000 9 reported accidents, 12 in 2001, and to date, 8 reported accidents in that short area. After listening to the presentation and hearing that the senior housing projects can be switched over to regular purchase pricing, she questioned what the money would be used for that goes into the fund because there's not going to be any land to build on. She said Jefferson has been given a B level of service, which is true most of the time except during peak hours. She invited the Commission to come down to their neighborhood before they make a decision and see the situation. She said it's very difficult to make left turns onto Jefferson or off of Jefferson and when they have another element of senior drivers there's increased risk. She said the on street-parking situation is such an impact on these side streets that it sometimes seems unbearable. This project has included the extra parking of one space per unit but the red stripe used for bus loading will eliminate parking in front of the complex. She said there's no accommodations for maintenance crews and asked where they will park. She asked where visitors and employees are going to park if the four additional spaces are used for handicapped. Commissioner Segall asked her to describe the on street parking around that area during the weekdays in the mornings and afternoons. Ms. Beeson said just about every space is taken. She said she went down the street to look at a rental senior project, Jefferson House II, about 2:00 and there were cars parked all in front of that project on Jefferson. She believes that seniors get lots of visitors. She said it's an important concern and situation not only for the residents but for all people of Carlsbad. Jan Costa, 973 Knowles Avenue, Carlsbad, said their property connects to the property that they're building on. Their neighborhood concern is on street parking -every spot is taken on their street every morning and every evening. She said she has always been able to turn left from Knowles to Jefferson Street until the last 2 years, because the traffic is too heavy and too fast. The people who live in Francesca won't be able to turn left very often which means they will turn right, then another right at Knowles, another right at Davis, and another right at Laguna. She invited the Commission to come to their neighborhood and they could walk it with them so the Commission could see what they're faced with. She said she thinks when the people move in they'll find a lot of problems they're not anticipating. She said all of them are for senior housing, but it's too dense and needs to be cut back for more parking spaces. Commissioner Segall asked if the sewer project on Jefferson is currently causing part of the traffic issue. Ms. Costa said that is not causing the traffic problem they're talking about. Commissioner Segall asked if the problem she was referring to has to do with traffic going to Oceanside and the mall area. Ms. Costa said it's going out to the freeway. It's because of all the people moving into Carlsbad. Agnes Kopacz, 17547 Fairlie Road, Rancho Bernardo, stated that she was very excited when she was told about the project because it was a senior project and there's very little being done today that seniors can purchase and live in a facility like this. She said she still drives a car and she likes the idea of a bus stop nearby and that it's walkable to shops and other places. She thinks a facility like this would be an asset to the community and an asset to the surrounding neighborhood and would like to move into this type of facility in the foreseeable future. She currently volunteers in senior centers and finds that the older the seniors get, they want to do everything later in the morning or the afternoon and don't want to be out in the morning or afternoon rush hours. Connie Bunnell, 925 Buena Place, Carlsbad, said she moved to Carlsbad two years ago and loved it. She expressed concern about all the traffic in her street, parking, and safety in her neighborhood. She mentioned that one of her friend's grandmother got hit by a car off Las Flores and now she can't walk. Planning Commission Minutee December 18, 2002 Page 13 Linda Russell, 972 Knowles Avenue, Carlsbad, said she's not upset about the project but would like to see it downsized and have enough parking so people wouldn't have to park on the street. The apartments in the area are using all the side streets, parking in front of their houses, and at times they had to call the police because they park in front of her driveway. She expressed concern that if there are too many cars on the street the ambulance will have a hard time getting to Villas de Carlsbad. She said there have been two fatalities when people have been trying to get across the street to the apartments. She was also concerned about two other projects going in off of Laguna that will generate more traffic onto Jefferson. She said the heaviest traffic is between 3:00 and 5:00. She assumed that a lot of people moving into the units will be mobile, have cars, and probably work. She said Peacock Hills in Oceanside was a senior only community and they started having some younger people buying the houses. Their homeowners association sued to try to stop younger people from moving there. She said Robert Frazee had a bill passed a few years ago where they cannot stop the younger people from buying houses, so Peacock Hills is no longer for seniors only. She asked if there's a State law that you cannot keep it for seniors only, that would affect this project. Claire Schlegel, 2049 Caraway Street, Escondido, stated that she is currently a homeowner but has given strong consideration to downsizing. She does a lot of volunteering and is very active and thinks the project meets all of her needs and would be proud to live there. She mentioned that her sister and brother, also in her age bracket, moved here within the last three months from Culver City and have been unable to find any housing they could afford to purchase. Most of the housing is not affordable because they're on limited incomes and she strongly recommended the project go ahead. Robert Hanlin, 167 49 Encina, Rancho Bernardo, stated he is a handicapped senior, retired since 1990 and has been unable to find any housing such as this that he could purchase. He said he does a lot of volunteer work -mentoring history at a high school in Poway and volunteering at senior centers. He read about the project and liked the idea of the full recreation facility. He said he would like one of the low- income affordable units. Barrie Chase, 2564 Navarra Street, La Costa, stated he built several condominiums in La Costa and he sold the first piece of the property to the owner of the project. He said he canvassed the area around there and some of the people that have objections just wanted more money for their property and they couldn't afford to pay it. He said now everyone wants to put the beautiful project down and it's not right. Regarding the concern about the traffic on the street, Albert Richardson stated that they're going to re- stripe with a left turn lane so someone can safely get into the middle and work their way into traffic, which will help improve that considerably. Regarding concerns expressed about parking from the local neighborhood, he said there are some problems, but it's from active apartment dwellers living in the area. He did not think they were really grasping what a senior citizen project like this is. When visiting them all over Southern California he said you see half the parking lot empty. The seniors will adjust their lives to where they want to go where they can get to safely and get back and they have a tendency to get really involved in the neighborhood and will probably improve the neighborhood. He thought they would see an increased level of security in the neighborhood. He said there will be at least 30% of the parking that will not be filled. He said that's why in the past they just had half a space per unit, but that's not enough. They have four more than the one space per unit. From what he's seen at other facilities, he said he thinks they over-designed. They have also made a higher ceiling so the service and maintenance people can come in. Anthony De Leonardis said this particular project has less density than any other senior citizen project in the downtown area. He said senior citizens use the bus and want to have the bus stop right in front of their facility because they tend to use buses much more than their cars. Chairperson Trigas closed public testimony. Mr. Maashoff clarified that in regard to the striping of Jefferson Street, the traffic study that was prepared for this project suggested two alternatives -striping designs to mitigate turning movements. One of the alternatives suggested putting a left turn lane down the middle eliminating parking on one side of the street or the other. Staff reviewed the alternatives in the report and neither one of the striping schemes appeared appropriate for the project. The project before you tonight does not propose to re-stripe Jefferson. Planning Commission Minute4t December 18, 2002 e. Page 14 Ms. Kennedy added that part of the reason for that was because they didn't want to eliminate additional parking spaces along Jefferson. She said if the Commission thinks that's important, they could incorporate that into the project, however, they thought the on street parking was more important than the turn lane. Regarding the topic of red curbing, Ms. Kennedy said they would still have 70 feet of frontage for parking out of the 150 feet. NCTD recommended about 80 feet of the frontage to be red curb, which would leave about 3 parking spaces. She said that they're going from three driveways for three different lots to one driveway for one project. The bus stop will be relocated so there will be some additional parking on the street, so the parking lost on the street won't be significant. Regarding the other projects in the vicinity, Ms. Kennedy said Casa Laguna was 12 units and came in just slightly below the allowed density of 11.5 dwelling units per acre, so that was what was anticipated for that site. Laguna Pointe Condos was a redevelopment project that was 21 units and came in at 19 dwelling units per acre, which is what's allowed for that site. The Jefferson Street Condos, scheduled for the Planning Commission on January 15th, is 11 units also, just slightly under 11.5 dwelling units per acre. Ms. Kennedy said she did some research on the density of other seni.or projects. This project has a density of 61 units per acre. Jefferson House I and II, down the street from this project, were both at 75 dwelling units per acre. Tyler Court was 63.5 dwelling units per acre and Carlsbad Sunset Seniors was 52 dwelling units per acre, but it was only a two-story project. These are all rental projects. Commissioner Baker asked what they would do with the money for affordable housing when there isn't any more land to build affordable housing. Mr. Ruiz replied they can do down payment assistance programs, acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units, and infill projects. He said there's a variety of uses. Commissioner Segall asked them to address the comment that ·the four parking spaces could be handicapped spots. Ms. Kennedy responded that there are two handicapped parking spots in the subterranean garage and those would probably be guest parking. Commissioner Baker brought up the question about Peacock Hills senior only housing and State law. Cindie McMahon stated that Civil Code Section 51.2, 51.3, and 51.4 carve out an exception to the Fair Housing Act and allows us to restrict senior developments provided the built development has physical and social characteristics designed especially for seniors as part of the project. From reading the project, Ms. McMahon said she believes that has been incorporated into this project. She said she wasn't familiar with the Peacock Hills case, but can only speculate that the development did not have special features for seniors. MOTION ACTION: DISCUSSION Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5318, 5319, 5320, 5321 and 5322 recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and recommending approval of CT 02-10, CP 02-05, SDP· 02-04, and CDP 02-15 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Commissioner Segall said he thinks we very much need alternative housing for seniors in this community and is supportive of the project but is having problems with the concept of parking. He said it doesn't seem to him that we have enough information in Carlsbad or in other cities when someone owns the property. He understands that rentals have a half parking space per unit and those aren't full, but he's not sure if that dynamic changes when someone purchases a unit. He said he would feel more comfortable if they had broader research on that area to know whether having one spot per unit is a good deal or not. He said the whole neighborhood appears to be heavily congested with parking and with putting 51 more units in he can't see guests pulling into the garage to park unless it's clearly designated and the spots are open and available. He said now we find out that the only two spots are available out of the four because two are going to be handicapped, making a bad situation worse. He said he's really struggling with the Planning Commission Minutee December 18, 2002 Page 15 · issue of parking and forcing people to park on the public streets when it's heavily congested. He wasn't sure if he could support the project if they decide to move forward with it tonight. He would like to see if there's additional research elsewhere to see if one parking spot per unit is a good number to go on. Otherwise he thought they would be approving a project that's going to guarantee at least each unit having one car and no overflow parking. He said when we look at restaurants and other businesses in this community, we're always looking toward parking and making sure there's enough on-site parking and here it seems like you're forcing it on the street. Commissioner White said she shares Commissioner Segall's concerns and it seems that information should be easy to get as to how many cars senior citizens who own a condominium have. She was also concerned that when the units come up for resale and are sold at market price and it's no longer a senior of low-or moderate-income, how does that affect the chances that that senior household may have more than one car. She liked the idea of the City being able to get some of the appreciation on these condominiums because it would generate money for the housing fund, but would like to see that money earmarked for other affordable senior projects within the city. She thought the design was great and liked the idea of having seniors living in a residential mixed neighborhood of all ages. Commissioner Dominguez said whatever the City decides to do on this issue, he hopes we don't forget that we should restrict haul routes and hauling hours. The traffic in that area is horrendous at peak hours, partially because a lot of people are using it as an escape route to avoid the turn off on 1-5 and 78 which exacerbates the existing traffic problems in the neighborhood. He said he considered himself a champion of affordable housing for many years, but is having some real problems with this because of the existing neighborhood. He said he's not pleased about compromising the quality of life for existing neighborhoods in Carlsbad and it's happening more. He feels that what they're giving up in order for us to achieve this affordable housing is too much and doesn't think he can support the application. Commissioner Heineman said he thinks we're running into all the problems any infill project brings. He didn't think they ever considered an infill project that the people already living there didn't object to and thinks we have that situation in spades in this case. He said he believes traffic is a problem and there's going to be a parking problem with only one space per unit. He wasn't sure he could support the project without some changes. Commissioner Whitton said he has concerns about the traffic and would very much like to see a left hand turn restriction on some of the streets because the traffic is very heavy. As far as parking for the project is concerned, he said he would rely on the people who did the research and provided it to the City in terms of State and County folks who had done some research on how many parking spaces seniors use. He said they hadn't discussed the trash requirements, hauling the trash. He said he understands that emergency vehicles can go into the building, but the trash vehicles are too big to get into the building and will have to pick up on the side, which will add some more congestion, but that's a matter of routine. He would like to see a left hand turn lane and other than that, he supports the project. Commissioner Baker said they talked a long time in the City of Carlsbad about how we have to be creative to find affordable housing and here's a project with some people who have been creative by asking for a density bonus and they're not asking for funds from the City or taxpayers to support this project and I think we need to be very supportive of the creative ways in which to provide low-income and moderate housing. That's something that we're going to have start looking to developers and different people in the city as they come in and provide different kinds of housing because the taxpayers are not always going to be available to foot the bill. She applauded the innovation in working on this project to provide housing and also thinks this is the kind of housing that will be for seniors who no longer want to live in their big homes. She agreed with the applicant who made the statement that these are for people who are downsizing so she didn't know that they could apply the logic of living in your big house and your two cars to this kind of situation because it's a different kind of housing for different people. She said she's on the fence with the parking problem. She was concerned about restricting the four open spaces to two handicapped. If you're not having reserved parking she sees no reason why the four visitor parking spaces would have to be reserved for handicapped, and said why not put some handicapped in the facility and not necessarily reserve those specifically for visitors. She said it would be better if there could be more parking. She said she's been in the area a lot and appreciates Ms. Costa who invited them down there. She's familiar with the area and thinks this would be a nice addition to the city and would support the project and it would be even better if we could get more parking. Planning Commission Minute December 18, 2002 • Page 16 Chairperson Trigas stated that everyone has expressed her concerns and wanted to know what their options would be because if some things can be clarified or dealt with there may be Commissioners who would be very much for it, and several Commissioners don't feel we have enough information to approve. Mr. Neu stated that if there are specific changes that the Commission feels should be incorporated into the project that would make it satisfactory, they could give Staff and the applicant direction to work on those items and come back. If there are things that they feel are offsite, such as neighborhood compatibility and traffic in the area that despite whatever happens on the site, those conditions will still exist, then the decision would be whether to support the project or not. Despite some of the parking information, that probably won't change those other neighborhood conditions. He said if their concerns are limited to things that can be done on-site or off site that they can tie to the project, they could come back and provide the Commission with more information. If they're concerned with compatibility issues, there's things the applicant could do to address those, but would need more direction on what types of things to look at. Ms. Kennedy said the trash area is located on the south end of the site and they do not have to go down into the basement level. That's been reviewed by the Engineering Department and Coast Waste and access is not a problem. Ms. Kennedy suggested that since the number of cars per unit seems to be a problem, there's an opportunity to put a restriction in the CC&Rs to limit it to one car per unit. She said it would be monitored by the homeowners association, but wasn't sure if the applicant would be willing to accept a condition like that. Chairperson Trigas asked if something like that could be monitored off site. Ms. Kennedy said it would just be in the CC&Rs. Chairperson Trigas said the question is that people would have more than one car and therefore, there would be off site use of it, and didn't think they would be able to monitor off site. Chairperson Trigas said she was struggling with the idea that in 16 years the affordable issue could be out the door with this project. Ms. Kennedy explained that if someone sells it between the years 16 and 30 that it's still under that 30-year clause because within that additional 15 years the City can still recoup that subsidy, so it is in effect restricted for 30 years. Chairperson Trigas said she understood that on the 16th year they could sell whatever senior units they wanted to and funds would be recouped by the City but it would be lost for that site. Mr. Ruiz responded that was correct. The way they've done previous for-sale projects they have never restricted the resale of that project for any length of time, so this is a new requirement they're proposing on some future projects. It could be extended, if that's the wish of the Commission to extend that resale period for the full 30 years. Chairperson Trigas asked if they decide to continue the item to get more information would they have public testimony again. Ms. McMahon said it would depend on how many changes there would be. Chairperson Trigas asked the Commissioners if they felt getting more information would make a difference or if the issues are off site which can't be dealt with and asked if they would want to vote on it. Commissioner Segall said if Staff were to come back with some kind of reasonable number of on-site guest parking spots (4 is not enough), that would mitigate street parking. He thought it was a good concept to restrict it to one car per unit, but would say give more on-site parking so people won't be forced to park in the street. He said in terms of the traffic, a comment was made about a left turn lane allowing people to turn in safely and that would probably make me feel more comfortable. Chairperson Trigas said that would take more space away. Mr. Maashoff said that the traffic study proposed to re-stripe Jefferson to include a left turn lane. It entailed the elimination of parking on at least one side of the street, narrower travel lanes, a narrow dual left turn and transition periods on either side of the turn pocket. Staff reviewed the proposed striping alternatives but did not feel there would be an overall benefit by implementing either one. Left turns into this project would be accommodated, however, adjacent driveways and properties that take access onto Jefferson Street would be affected in different ways. Planning Commission Minute December 18, 2002 • Page 17 Commissioner Baker asked since the on ramp from 1-5 to 78 is now two lanes, do they anticipate that will relieve some of the congestion on Jefferson. Mr. Maashoff did not have information on that. Chairperson Trigas asked if the Commission wanted to call for the question and vote or continue the item. Commissioner Heineman said he would prefer to continue. One concern he had was that traffic has been exacerbated by the sewer work. It seems to him that parking is the more important problem than the traffic and they should give the developer an opportunity to offer something they can accept. Commissioner Segall wanted to see if there are other items they want on the list other than parking. Commissioner White asked if it would be a problem to say that the funds generated by this project should be restricted for seniors. She said she feels we really need affordable housing for seniors so would like to see it restricted. Ms. McMahon said that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the housing fund, but the Council would read her comments in the minutes. Commissioner White said then she would not have any condition or amendment to add. Commissioner Whitton said in terms of the parking for purposes of our evaluation he would like to see some empirical data on parking in senior citizen complexes that's provided from a source other than the developer. If the developer provides it, things get adjusted appropriately. Empirical data would not only help us with this, but with other things. Commissioner Dominguez said whatever is proposed or adjusted, if this item is continued, we should strive to have improvement factors in the existing neighborhood instead of detraction factors. Perhaps this application's big problem is a matter of timing. With the infiltration of surface traffic that's headed for Vista and parts unknown, the sewer work, the culmination of all these congestive factors that are impacting the area, maybe it's just the time. Maybe this area has grown too quickly for the surface streets to be able to adjust. He said he was looking at the additional possible 44 units and it will probably increase the ADT by another 80 trips during peak hours. It's very difficult to make appropriate calls unless we have some empirical data to work with. It's a stretch to find more positives than negatives in this application. Commissioner Whitton said the truth of the matter is that a lot of what we're talking about should be focused on this unit and the impact of parking on the neighborhood. He said he would like to know something about the other apartment units on Jefferson. He said he's curious because a lot of those people are young folks and he goes down that street a couple times a day and sees boats and all that. He asked if there's any way we can know how many cars on average the dwellers of those units have or whether or not they're using what parking is available for vehicles that's provided in those complexes. Chairperson Trigas said they have to look at the project itself and the concern of the Commission is the parking within that project. That's something that can be dealt with but doesn't know that this project can do anything externally. Commissioner Whitton said he understands and the parking is focused totally on this project, but the parking is extending beyond this project out into the street and once you're out there, there's a whole lot of other things that impact on that parking that we have absolutely no control on. Chairperson Trigas said there's confusion perhaps on the actual generation on senior projects as far as parking. Even though it's double what our standards are, there is concern that in this kind of project where they are owned, are we dealing with a different situation than a different type of senior project. Ms. Kennedy said since this is such a unique type of project it will be rather difficult to find that information, but she would do everything she can to accommodate. Commissioner Whitton asked if they could also find out whether other improvements, if any, are going to be made on Jefferson that might alleviate. Chairperson Trigas said Staff said it would aggravate other conditions. Mr. Maashoff said that as far as improvements related specifically to this project, there aren't any proposed. Commissioner Heineman said he thinks we're losing sight of the testimony of several people who would be interested if this project were built. They're telling us, and I don't think we're listening to them, that this Planning Commission Minutee December 18, 2002 • Page 18 is an unusually attractive approach to senior living and perhaps they would be perfectly willing to deal with some of the things that seem to bothering this Commission if they had an opportunity to buy these units. I think we've been losing sight of that. We've been concerned about all of the peripherals and not about the core, which is very attractive, presumably affordable units, which seniors would like to buy. I don't think we should get so wrapped up in our own concern about details that may or may not be important, that we're about to throw into the trash heap what could be a very desirable project for Carlsbad. Commissioner Segall said he thinks it's a great project that's sorely needed; its well laid out and designed, but it just may be in the wrong place or it may have to be fixed up a little more. He said he thinks both Staff and the applicant are hearing their two biggest concerns of traffic and parking and maybe they can come up with some solutions that would make this palatable. He said the issue isn't whether this is a good place and whether people want to live there or not; he wants to make sure it's the best thing we're doing for this community and it's not going to adversely impact those who are already living there or those who commute every day. Chairperson Trigas said we have been concerned about infill projects down the road and that we're going to deal with a lot of different issues and have already indicated that in a number of projects that have been coming to us. When you look at the location of the project it is a perfect place for a senior project as far as accessibility. She thinks the idea that we don't have any senior purchasing projects other than rentals is a very sad comment about Carlsbad and surrounding communities. She said she thinks it's a wonderful project and the concern is more parking and doesn't know that we have enough information to make that decision. Commissioner Baker withdrew the motion. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission continue Item #4 until February 5, 2002. (CT 02-10/CP 02-05/SDP 02-04/CDP 02-15) The motion was interrupted by discussion as to which meeting the item should be continued to. Mr. Neu stated that the January 15th meeting has a full agenda and was not sure if any of those items could be moved to another meeting due to processing time limitations and state mandated deadlines. Mr. Neu said there is a special meeting scheduled for January 22nd for the Citywide Habitat Management Plan and the Municipal Golf Course project. Chairperson Trigas suggested making it the first item for the February 5th meeting. DISCUSSION ·commissioner Segall said he would like to make sure that Staff and the applicant get together on parking but also look at out-of-the-box creative things on the traffic. It seems that the consensus of the Commission's concerns is traffic so would like to see if there's something that can be done with traffic and parking. Chairperson Trigas said as much information that they can get back to the Commission to make their decision would be appreciated. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 7-0-0 Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, White, and Whitton None None Mr. Neu wanted to clarify that when the project comes back the Commission would have the ability to limit the comments and discussion to the parking and traffic issues. One of the things inherent in the parking rates is that it's based on how a use functions, so factored into that is what the age characteristics are, what are the ways in which they use the property, so the rates in part will reflect that. Maybe a typical senior occupant in a project like this is of a certain age group and it may be older than what some people Planning Commission Minut. December 18, 2002 • Page 19 are considering; 55 may be really the young end of that. Hopefully we can collect some state rates in our area and possibly even national rates, depending on the access we have. He said his point is that you, as individuals, will have to come to a conclusion, as to if you believe a project like that is really occupied by people of that age group and they have those characteristics. Commissioner Heineman said it would be helpful if he could get some information on the nearby senior projects like Jefferson I and Jefferson II. Commissioner Segall said that the League of California Cities Planning Organization may have some resources in similar kinds of communities where seniors are actually purchasing these and coming up with a demographic breakdown that they are 55 or not 55. If we have that kind of information that's going to help us more than knowing that right down the street there's some rentals and they have half a parking space. He said he would feel a lot more comfortable knowing with some more research that it either works or it doesn't, or maybe you can cut back and put 20 spots that are open for guests. He wanted to make sure the applicant knows he likes the project and wants to see whatever they can do to support it. Chairperson Trigas said they all voiced that they like the project. Commissioner Whitton said the empirical data he was looking for was more on the demographics -what is the age group. If we go for 55 we could occupy those apartments with people who are working every day, but if it's in the 62-65 or better range, then they're not working, their hours are going to be different and their car requirements are going to be different. Mr. Neu said they got the message and have several sources they can check.