HomeMy WebLinkAbout; CARLSBAD VILLAGE; MASTER PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY - PHASE 1 REDEVELOPMENT STRAGEGIES; 1992-02-01CARLSBAD VILLAGE
Master Plan
and
Implementation Strategy
Phase 1
Redevelopment Strategies
February 1992
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
KEYSER MARSTON AssocIA TES
JOHN B. DYKSTRA & ASSOCIATES
JHK & ASSOCIATES
CONTENTS
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
INTRODUCTION
Village Planning History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Work Scope and Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Phase 1 Report Overview ................................... 1-5
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
Land Use ............................................. 2-17
Development Character .................................... 2-23
Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27
MARKET POTENTIALS
Demographic Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Market Potentials
Retail Uses ........................................ 3-5
Professional Office Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
Multi-Family I Senior Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
Hotel I Lodging Uses ................................ 3-15
Housing Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
Development Parameters ................................... 3-20
Economic Development Strategies ............................ 3-28
VILLAGE VISION
Problems and Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Recommended Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section 5 REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
Opportunity Areas ........................................ 5-1
Implementation Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
Recommended Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
APPENDICES ( Cont'd )
B-19 Transient Occupancy Tax and Total Room Revenues
B-20 Household Income Distribution
B-21 Housing Affordability
B-22 Housing Needs Survey Results
B-23 Residual Land Value Analysis : Retail Space ( 100% On-Site Parking)
B-24 Residual Land Value Analysis : Retail Rehabilitation
B-25 Residual Land Value Analysis : Retail ( No On-Site Parking)
B-26 Residual Land Value Analysis : Retail ( 100% Off-Site Parking via In-
Lieu Parking Fee to City)
B-27 Residual Land Value Analysis: Retail/ Residential Mixed Use
B-28 Residual Land Value Analysis : Current Typical Professional Office
Buildings
B-29 Residual Land Value Analysis : Professional Office Space with
Structured Parking
B-30 Residual Land Value Analysis : Professional Office Space with Reduced
Parking Requirement ( 3.0 Spaces per 1000 SF GBA)
B-31 Residual Land Value Analysis : Medical Office Space with Structural
Parking
B-32 Residual Land Value Analysis : Apartments
B-33 Residual Land Value Analysis : Condominiums
B-34 Residual Land Value Analysis : High Density Condominiums
B-35 Residual Land Value Analysis: Three Duplexes
B-36 Residual Land Value Analysis : Hotel
B-37 Recent Land and Property Transactions
B-38 Summary of Land Listings
Appendix C VILLAGE VISION
C-1 Selective Interviews Summary
C-2 Workshops Summary
LIST OF FIGURES ( Cont'd )
Figure# Fhmre Title Page#
5-5 Strategy 3 : Create Stronger Linkages Across
Railroad Tracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9
5-6 Strategy 4 : Locate City Hall in the Village ........... 5-10
5-7 Strategy 5: Work with Church for Land Trade ......... 5-11
5-8 Strategy 6 : Encourage Hispanic Commercial Center . . . . . 5-12
5-9 Strategy 7 : Establish a Parking District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13
5-10 Strategy 8 : Increase Public Parking Resources . . . . . . . . . 5-14
5-11 Strategy 9: Gain Control of Railroad Right-Of-Way ..... 5-15
5-12 Strategy 10 : Establish a Residential Presence on
North State Street ......................... 5-16
5-13 Strategy 11 : Encourage North State Street
Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-17
5-14 Strategy 12: Improve Linkages to State Street ......... 5-18
5-15 Strategy 13 : Intensify State Street Development . . . . . . . . 5-19
5-16 Strategy 14 : Develop a Village Cultural / Activity
Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-20
5-17 Multi-Purpose Community Hall Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-21
5-18 Strategy 15 : Limit Residential-to-Commercial
Conversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-22
5-19 Strategy 16 : Limit Office Incursions into
Residential Neighborhoods .................. 5-23
5-20 Strategy 17 : Improve and Increase Housing in the
Village ................................ 5-24
LIST OF TABLES
Table#
2-1
2-2
2-3
Title
Roadway Capacity and Level of Service Standards
Summary of Study Area Intersections Level of
Page#
2-10
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
Summary of Study Area Parking Supply .............. 2-12
2) to provide an overall development strategy based on the economic potential of various real estate markets
as they relate to specific sites within the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Project Area;
3) to establish specific site development standards for projects within the Village Redevelopment Area;
4) to shift the emphasis from publicly-funded to privately-funded revitalization efforts; and,
5) to develop a strategy for creating a strong identification or image for the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment
Project Area as the center of economic activity for the City.
In carrying out the study, the Cannon Design Group has organized the work into three major phases as shown
on Figure 1-2. The emphasis in each phase will be as described below:
Phase 1: Redevelopment Strategy
The first phase of work has been devoted to an updating of past studies in light of market, traffic and other
relevant changes which have occurred over the past five years. Public input has been sought to clarify a future
vision for the Carls bad Village Area and to enhance the potential for consensus on the plan and implementation
strategies. Special opportunity areas based upon market potentials and physical conditions have been identified
and alternative land use, redevelopment action and urban design approaches are recommended.
Phase 2: Preliminary Plan
In the second phase of work we will evaluate specific redevelopment action areas, major changes to the Village
Design Manual, and proposed modifications to current Agency procedures. A few specific, but representative,
projects will be studied to evaluate the potential for direct redevelopment action in support of private
development initiatives. In addition, major components of the Master Plan, Village Design Manual and
Implementation Strategy will be studied and presented for discussion. A special Community Forum will be
held at the end of Phase 2 to summarize the Planning Team's recommendations, answer questions and identify
any special concerns which may result from specific plan components and recommendations.
Phase 3: Master Plan and Implementation Program
The final phase of work will be devoted to integrating the conclusions of the study into an administrative
document to replace the current Village Design Manual and to a further refinement of the Implementation
Program.
In carrying out the above workscope, the Planning Team will be working closely with the Housing and
Redevelopment Agency staff, the City of Carlsbad staff and a special Master Plan Advisory Committee. The
Phase 1 work summarized in this report will be presented to the Master Plan Advisory Committee and, as shown
on the Figure 1-2 Preliminary Schedule, a second meeting will be held with the Advisory Committee after a
review period to answer further questions and to gain additional feedback for utilization in Phase 2 of the study.
1-3
Month
1 2 3
r---------..,
REDEVELOPMENf
STRATEGY Review
l • Background Review
• Data Assembly L _________ J
• Market Overview
• Community Input
• Traffic and Parking Evaluation
• Opportunity Areas Identification
• Redevelopment Strategies Evaluation
Community Workshops and Presentations
• • Advisory Committee
• 0 • Redevelopment Commission
I
4 5 6 7
,.---------, r••••••••• •••••••••-,r••••••••·•~ MASTER PLAN AND II I
II I
IMPLEMENf ATION " I
PRELIMINARY Review " I
" I
PLAN PROGRAM " I
Review and " Final I
" I
" I
• Goals and Policies Adoption : : Document:
• Site Specific Marlcet " I " I
" I
Evaluations I • Land Use Plan " I
" I L _________ J ___________________ _jl __________ J
• Development Projects Analysi! • Circulation and
• Land Use Plan Parking Plan
• Circ. and Parking Plans • Development
• Redevelopment Procedures Standards
• Preliminary Implementation • Design Guidelines
Strategies • Implementation
• Development and Design Strategy
Guidelines
0
0 0 • 0
0 • 0 • RGURE1-2
Preliminary Schedule
MASTER PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
Carlsbad. California
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
PHASE 1 REPORT OVERVIEW
Section 2 Existing Conditions
• Existing vehicular circulation systems and transit services are described and current traffic conditions
analyzed.
• Existing Village parking resources are quantified.
• Utilization of the current parking resources is summarized for both weekday and weekend occupancy.
• Existing land use patterns are diagrammed and described.
• The architectural and site development character of the Village is discussed.
• Major influences affecting planning and future development are identified.
Section 3 Market Potentials
• Current demographic conditions are summarized.
• Market potentials are estimated for retail, professional office space, multi-family/ senior housing, and
hotel / lodging uses.
• Housing needs are discussed with special attention to affordability.
• Typical project prototypes are analyzed with respect to their ability to be successfully developed within
current village land value ranges.
Section 4 Village Vision
• Current problems and concerns from public input and observations are summarized
• A Recommended Vision is described.
• Goals and objectives related to the Recommended Vision are outlined.
Section 5 Redevelopment Strategies
• Opportunity areas based upon an evaluation of apparent blight, other on-site conditions and property
ownership patterns are identified.
• Opportunities and constraints related to redevelopment implementation activities are identified and
discussed.
• A series of Recommended Strategies to accomplish the Village Vision and meet the identified goals
and objectives is outlined and illustrated for discussion during the review process.
• A Goals and Strategies Comparative Matrix is included to assist in evaluating the Recommended
Strategies.
1-5
Appendix
• Background information and data which are important to an understanding of the report but which
would detract from its readability are assembled in this section.
1-6
Section 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
CIRCULATION
Introduction
This chapter presents the existing circulation system conditions, transit operations, bicycle routes, and planned
improvements in the Carlsbad Village Downtown Redevelopment Area. Figure 2-1 shows the study area and
the commercial core area used in this circulation and parking analysis.
Existing Circulation System
The Carlsbad Village Downtown Redevelopment Area circulation network located west of Interstate Route 5
and north of Walnut Avenue consists of a grid system running north-east and south-west. As shown on
Figure 2-2, regional access is provided by Interstate Route 5. Local access is provided by Carlsbad Boulevard
and Carlsbad Village Drive. Figure 2-2 shows the average daily traffic ( ADT) volumes on the existing street
network in the study area. The volumes shown on Figure 2-2 were derived from 24-hour traffic counts taken
between July 9, 1991 and November 26, 1991 by the City of Carlsbad Traffic Engineering Department. Traffic
signals shown on Figure 2-2 are those in place as of December 1, 1991.
Interstate 5
Interstate 5 ( I-5 ) is an eight-lane freeway in the vicinity of the Carlsbad Village Area. It extends southward
through San Diego to the California-Mexico border and to the north through Oceanside, providing interstate
travel through California, Oregon, and Washington State. The grade-separated diamond interchange of
1-5 / Carlsbad Village Drive is the only regional access point to Carlsbad Village from I-5 within the study area.
Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad Village Drive is a four-lane roadway providing primary east-west circulation to the study area. It has
an ADT ranging from 32,700 vpd ( vehicles per day ) west of I-5 to 3,200 vpd west of Carlsbad Village
Boulevard. Carlsbad Village Drive provides a gated railroad crossing along with five signalized intersections;
I-5 northbound ramps, I-5 southbound ramps, Harding Street, State Street, and Carlsbad Boulevard. Exclusive
left turn lanes are provided at each intersection and a raised median is located between Carlsbad Boulevard and
State Street on Carlsbad Village Drive. On-street parking is prohibited between 1-5 and Carlsbad Boulevard.
2-1
Grand Avenue
Grand Avenue is a four-lane roadway between its eastern terminus just west ofl-5 and Roosevelt Street. West
of Roosevelt Street, Grand Avenue narrows to two through lanes. Cunently, it carries 5,500 vpd between
Washington Street and Carlsbad Boulevard. On Grand A venue, only the intersections with Carlsbad Boulevard
and State Street are signalized. A gated railroad crossing is provided and on-street parking is allowed on both
the north and south sides of Grand A venue.
Carlsbad Boulevard
Carlsbad Boulevard is a four-lane roadway from the southern edge of the study area to Christianson Way.
Between Christianson Way and Mountain View Drive, only one northbound and two southbound lanes are
provided on Carlsbad Boulevard. North of Mountain View Drive, Carlsbad Boulevard narrows to two through
lanes. On a typical weekday the ADT on Carlsbad Boulevard ranges from 18,600 vpd south of Carlsbad Village
Drive to 11,300 vpd south of State Street. Bike lanes are provided on both sides of Carlsbad Boulevard within
the study area. On-street parking is limited to the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard north of Carlsbad Village
Drive.
State Street
State Street is a two-lane collector facility providing north-south access through the study area. State Street
carries 6,800 vpd south of Carlsbad Village Drive. The intersection of State Street/ Carlsbad Village Drive is
currently signalized, and parking is allowed on both sides of the street within the study area.
Roosevelt Street
Roosevelt Street is a two-lane collector facility, carrying approximately 4,400 vpd south of Carlsbad Village
Drive and 3,600 vpd north of Carlsbad Village Drive. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street
within the study area.
Existing Transit Service
The Carlsbad Village Area is currently served by three North County Transit bus routes: 301, 321, and 322.
Route 301, which operates from the Oceanside Transit Center, passes through the Carlsbad Village area on
Carlsbad Boulevard and travels through the North County, terminating at University Town Center Mall in the
Golden Triangle area of San Diego. Route 321 is a loop route beginning and ending at the bus transfer station
located on Grand Avenue at Washington Street in the western portion of the Carlsbad Village area. Route 321
serves Grand Avenue, Jefferson Street, and Harding Street, in addition to northern Carlsbad and parts of
Encinitas. Route 322 also initiates at the Grand A venue bus transfer station. This bus route serves Grand
A venue, Roosevelt Street, Jefferson Street and Carlsbad Village Drive, in addition to other locations in
Carlsbad. Figure 2-3 shows the existing bus routes serving the study area.
2-4
existing roadway segments under ADT volume coordinators. For signalized intersections this same document
requires a minimum WS of C for peak hour operations as determined by the Intersection Capacity Utilization
( ICU ) Method under the Heavy Demand Procedure.
Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis
To provide a baseline condition for impacts on the circulation system, we analyzed the existing operations on
key study area roadway segments. The majority of the roadways in the study area are classified as collector
facilities with the exceptions of Carlsbad Boulevard, which is classified as a major arterial, and Carlsbad Village
Drive, which is classified as a secondary arterial. Table 2-1 summarizes the roadway Capacity and Level of
Service Standards as recommended in the City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program. In addition,
Table 2-1 summarizes the existing Levels of Service on the study area roadway segments.
Intersection Capacity Analysis
To analyze existing intersection operations, we compiled p.m. peak hour turning movement volumes at key
intersections from previous traffic studies. The p.m. peak hour turning movement volumes were derived from
the following sources :
• City of Carlsbad Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Program Report ( Year 1991 ), JHK &
Associates, December 1991.
• Kaku Associates traffic counts taken February 17, 1986.
• City of Carlsbad Traffic Engineering Department Counts taken February 1991.
• Technical Memorandum on the Analysis of Traffic and Circulation Implications of Proposed Carlsbad
(Grand) Commuter Rail Station, Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc, April 1989.
In order to estimate Winter 1991 Turning Movement Volumes, the data contained in the above documents were
compared and an annual average growth rate of 2% was applied only to mainline volumes to approximate
Winter 1991 conditions.
Intersection Capacity Utifrmtion Methodology
Levels of Service for p.m. peak hours were calculated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
method. The ICU method is the ratio of intersection demand to capacity calculated by summing the ratios of
demand to capacity for the critical movements. For this analysis, we assumed a capacity of 2000 vehicles per
hour ( vph ) for through lanes and a capacity of 1800 vph for turning lanes. The following table summarizes
the ranges of ICU for each level of service.
2-9
Level of Service ICURan1:es
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00-0.60
0.61-0.70
0.71-0.80
0.81-0.90
0.91-1.00
Greater than 1.00
Appendix A-2 of this document contains a detailed explanation of the ICU methodology and full descriptions
of the various levels of service.
Table 2-2 lists the existing levels of service at the major signalized study area intersections. As shown on this
table, all intersections operate at acceptable levels of service ( LOS A-C ) during the p.m. peak hour.
Appendix A-3 of this document contains the ICU worksheets used to analyze the existing p.m. peak hour
conditions of the six study area signalized intersections.
Table2-2
Summary of Study Area Intersections Level of Service
Existing Year 1991 Conditions -PM Peak Hour
Intersection Location
Existing Year 1991
Conditions
N/S Street E/W Street ICU LOS
1-5 NB Ramps Carlsbad Village Drive 0.61 B
1-5 SB Ramps Carlsbad Village Drive 0.73 C
Harding Street Carlsbad Village Drive 0.61 B
State Street Carlsbad Village Drive 0.38 A
Carlsbad Blvd. Carlsbad Village Drive 0.42 A
Carlsbad Blvd. Grand Avenue 0.38 A
Source: JHK & Associates calculated level of service calculations based on data sources listed under the section
entttled "Intersection Capacity Analysis."
2-11
PARKING
This section presents the methodology and the results of the parking supply inventory and parking occupancy
and utilization survey conducted in the study area.
The first step in the analysis was to number the study area blocks to aid in the analysis. An inventory of all the
available parking spaces by ownership, type, and restriction was conducted in November 1991. Table 2-3
summarizes the types of parking spaces available in the study area.
Based on a field survey of the study area, we decided to limit the detailed parking survey to the area shown on
Figure 2-5, characterized as the commercial core. A more generalized parking survey was conducted in the
non-core area as described below. Appendix A-3 contains the results of the detailed parking inventory.
Location
Core Area
Non Core Area
Total
Table2-3
Summary of Study Area Parking Supply
NUMBER OF AVAILABLE SPACES
On Street
578
1,078
1,656
Off Street
Public*
380
380
Private
1,460
1,572
3,032
Total
2,418
2,650
5,068
* The following list summarizes the ownership of land for the public parking spaces
located within the core area. ( See Appendix A-5 for map. )
Ownership of Core Area Land for Off Street Public Spaces
Leased from A.T. & S.F. Railroad 208
City Owned 66
Leased from Private Owner 106
Total 380
2-12
Detailed Parking Occupancy And Utilization Survey
The detailed parking survey, conducted on Saturday, November 23, 1991 and Tuesday, November 26, 1991
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., gathered data on parking occupancy and duration by parking space location
and type. Parking occupancy is defined as the number of cars parked in a given location divided by the number
of spaces available. Normally a parking facility is considered to be at capacity when 85% of the spaces are
filled. Parking duration is the length of time that the vehicles remained parked. The data collected were
subdivided into weekday and Saturday parking conditions and public and private ownership. Detailed parking
data are included in Appendix A-5 of this document.
Weekday Core Area Parking Conditions
Figure 2-6 shows the overall weekday hourly parking occupancy for each type of parking available in the core
area. Although the time of peak occupancy varies by type and location, virtually all of the peaks occur between
10:00 a.m. and 1 :00 p.m. Although overall occupancy rates are relatively low, certain areas are heavily utilized
( See Appendix A-5 ). Using the 85% occupancy criterion described above, the following observations can be
made:
• Ten of the thirty block faces in the core area have a peak occupancy at or above capacity at least once
during the weekday. These block faces are closest to the Village Faire shopping center and the center
of the commercial district.
• Two of the nine public off-street parking lots have peak occupancy at or above capacity at least once
during the weekday. These lots are closest to the commercial district.
• No private off-street lots have peak occupancy over 75% during the weekday.
The survey also revealed that average parking durations for the core area parking spaces, shown on Figure 2-5,
do not exceed the established time limits.
Saturday Core Area Parking Conditions
The same methodology and data collection effort was used to determine Saturday parking conditions.
Figure 2-7 shows the weekday hourly parking occupancy for each type of parking available in the core area.
Although the time of peak occupancy varies by type and location, virtually all of the peaks occur between
12:00 p.m. and 1 :00 p.m. Based on the 85% occupancy criterion described above, the following observations
can be made as to the Saturday parking usage ( See Appendix A-5 ) :
• Nine of the thirty block-faces in the core area have a peak occupancy at or above capacity at least once
during the day.
• One of the nine public off-street parking lots has peak occupancy at or above capacity at least once
during the day. This lot is located adjacent to the Village Faire shopping center.
• No private off-street lots have peak occupancy over 75% during the day.
The survey also revealed that when compared with the parking time restriction shown on Figure 2-5, the average
durations do not exceed the established time limits. Appendix A-5 contains detailed graphics showing core
area parking occupancy and duration results for the weekday and Saturday surveys.
2-14
Non-Core Area Parking Conditions
Occupancy rates were observed in the remainder of the study area on Thursday, December 5, 1991. Figure 2-8
shows the maximum occupancy for each block in the non-core portion of the study area. As shown on this
graphic, all maximum occupancy values outside the core area are below the 85% threshold. However, the
blocks immediately adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard have the highest rate of utilization. Because no blocks
were found to have occupancy values at or above capacity on the weekday, it was assumed that the Saturday
results would reveal less occupancy. Therefore, no occupancy survey was conducted on a Saturday outside the
core.
Seasonal Parking Variations
Due to the timing of the Redevelopment Plan Master Plan Implementation effort, the parking surveys were
conducted during the winter. During the summer increased on-street and off-street parking would be expected
from the beach users. At present, free on-street parking is available near the beach. A free public lot is located
at the southern terminus of Ocean Street, and free parking is available along the west side of the railroad tracks
on Washington Street between Beech Avenue and Pine Avenue. The existing public lots serving the
commercial district east of the railroad tracks are over a quarter of a mile from the beach. Thus, it is anticipated
that few beachgoers would utilize these parking areas. During the coming summer months, the City should
monitor these parking areas within walking distance of the beach to determine whether additional parking
strategies are necessary.
Summary Of Existing Parking Conditions
Current weekday parking conditions vary from block to block within the study area. Several block faces are
at capacity ( over 85% filled ) during peak times while others are below 50% occupied. Overall, in the core
area 56% of the available public spaces ( on-street and off-street) were filled at peak times on a weekday. On
weekends the demand is somewhat less, with 42% of the available public spaces filled during peak times.
Outside the core area, occupancy rates are lower than in the core area.
LAND USE
Land uses within the Village area are quite varied. However, for initial planning description purposes they
may be classified as retail, office or other commercial. Residential pockets and, in some cases, isolated
residential parcels occur throughout much of the redevelopment area. Existing land uses, based upon a survey
completed by the Housing and Redevelopment Agency staff in November and December of 1991, are shown
on Figure 2-9.
For purposes of discussing the current development patterns, Figure 2-10 shows a generalized distribution of
land use zones in the Village.
2-17
Zone A
In general, the area west of the A.T. & S.F. Railroad right-of-way along Carlsbad Boulevard is composed of
tourist accommodations, institutional and quasi-institutional uses, retail shops and restaurants, and some
residential units of varying types. The area immediately adjacent to the ocean is dominated by residential use
with some isolated motel construction. This strip, however, is outside of the boundaries of the current
Redevelopment Project Area. In general, Zone A has a high quality appearance and creates a strongly positive
image for the Village as well as the City as a whole. Specific uses of importance in this zone include the
following:
• Village Faire mixed use retail, office and restaurant complex
• Carlsbad Village Inn
• Tamarack Beach Resort
• Army and Navy Academy
• St. Michael's by the Sea Episcopal Church
• Carlsbad by the Sea Retirement Community
• Lutheran Health Facility of Carlsbad
• Alt Karlsbad-a small mixed use parcel containing the site of the original Frazier's Well
• Magee Park including several historical structures
ZoneB
The area along State Street and Grand A venue is the small scale heart of the downtown. It is characterized by
a mix of retail, office and restaurant uses strongly oriented to a pedestrian environment which has been
reinforced by recent public improvements. In most instances, buildings rather than parking lots dominate the
environment. It is this area that once contained Carlsbad's main social hall as well as a town baseball diamond.
Together with the City's first movie theatre and first commercial block, these original public features served
as the focus of the growing community. Today this area projects a strong image with interesting shops, excellent
quality public improvements and merchants who make a real effort to improve the visual character of their
shops. Specific uses of importance in this area include the following :
• The historic A.T. & S.F. Depot
• MacDonald Phannacy
• Bauer Lumber Company
• Carlsbad Village Theatre
• US Post Office
• Two small shopping centers
• Old World Center ( mixed commercial uses )
• Numerous antiques and collectibles shops
• Several restaurants
• City public parking lots
2-21
ZoneC
Zone C contains perhaps the widest mix of uses of any of the sub-areas of the Village. While it includes a few
antiques stores, service shops, offices and small residences, the area is generally dominated by industrial-type
uses devoted largely to automotive repair and painting. These automotive and quasi-industrial uses also occupy
the relatively large A.T. & S.F. right-of-way area between the State Street frontage and the railroad tracks to
the West. Specific uses in the area include:
• Larger professional offices at the northern end of the zone
• Maxton Brown Park adjacent to Buena Vista Lagoon
• A Mobile Home Park
ZoneD
Located at the southern edge of the Redevelopment Project Area, this zone also contains a number of industrial
uses and automotive-oriented uses. Those west of Tyler Street are generally on larger parcels and in more
substantial structures than their counterparts on North State Street. Some of these uses spill over to the east
side of Tyler Street in smaller facilities mixed in with single family residences, many of which are substantially
deteriorated. The small area fronting the east -side of Roosevelt Street contains better quality single family
residences and is more similar to the residential neighborhood to the south of the Redevelopment Project Area.
This zone and the adjacent neighborhood to the south, known as The Barrio, have a rich history. Here immigrant
laborers settled following the 1916 revolution in Mexico. Many of the small homes date from the earlier part
of this century. Specific uses located in this area include :
• The City of Carlsbad Maintenance Yard
• The Boys and Girls Club of Carlsbad
• A two-story professional office building
• A Circle K mini-mart
• Lola's Mexican Market and Delicatessen
ZoneE
Most of the uses normally associated with an urban freeway interchange are located here along Carlsbad Village
Drive. Gas stations, chain and fast food restaurants, and a chain motel are located near the Interstate 5
interchange. Large areas of paving devoted to automobile circulation and parking are found in this area. Further
to the west along Carlsbad Village Drive are located several larger buildings housing banks and other financial
institutions. Some have substantial drive-up banking accommodations. Specific uses located in this area
include the following :
• Big Bear Market Center
• Denny's
• Motel 6
• Carls Jr.
2-22
• Jack in the Box
• Kentucky Fried Chicken
• Chevron, Texaco, Gasco and Union 76 Gas Stations
• Bank of California
• Home Savings and Loan
• San Dieguito National Bank
• Security Pacific Bank
• Pacific First Bank ( located on Grand A venue )
DEVELOPMENT CHARACTER
The character of existing development varies considerably over the Carlsbad Village area. The State street
retail core area contains a mix of standard flat-roofed commercial buildings with simple parapets
( Figure 2-1 lA ) and buildings with a more distinctive village character as expressed by sloped roofs, small
paned windows and distinctive wall finishes ( Figure 2-11B ). While offering room for some improvements,
the buildings and storefronts in this area provide a good base for increased development quality within the
Village. Alleys are largely service-oriented but occasionally an effort has been made to develop a village
character through outdoor uses, second floor access, landscaping and awnings ( Figure 2-11 C ).
North State Street has fewer buildings of quality and the range of building types is much greater. While some
substantial commercial buildings are located here, the street's image is largely shaped by automotive repair
shops ( Figures 2-11D and E ) and other commercial buildings of little distinction ( Figure 2-1 lF ). Some
newer commercial buildings, while more substantial and of higher construction quality, lack a character which
relates to the unique qualities of the Village ( Figure 2-12A ). Also located within the North State Street area
are a few small residential structures. Some are still used as residences but several have been converted to
commercial use ( Figure 2-12B ).
Newer commercial and hotel structures are generally larger than the older scale of development. Those along
Carlsbad Village Drive near Interstate 5 are typical of freeway-oriented construction in any California
community. Those elsewhere in the Village have made more of an effort to relate to a special "village
character." Successful examples include the Village Faire Shopping Center ( Figure 2-12C) and the Carlsbad
Village Inn ( Figure 2-12D ). Others, mostly office buildings, are less successful because little attempt has
been made to fit into the scale and character of the Village ( Figure 2-12E ). Almost all are overly large
compared to their adjacent residential neighbors, due to the use of the ground level under the building for
parking ( Figure 2-12F ). The on-grade parking under buildings has also resulted in little activity or design
quality at the ground level ( Figure 2-13A ).
Residential buildings throughout the area are generally small ( Figures 2-13B and C ) although a number of
small multi-family complexes are scattered throughout the Village area. They range from one-story
( Figure 2-13D) to small and large two-story projects ( Figures 2-13E and F ). Often they are dominated by
large expanses of paving devoted to access and parking.
2-23
In summary, the structures in the Redevelopment Area are mostly small in scale with the exception of more
recent construction which is often many times larger than adjacent existing buildings. Architecturally, the
structures range from charming to strictly utilitarian.
INFLUENCES
The current master plan for the Village Redevelopment Area took into account the physical conditions and
influences which existed at the time. In preparing this revision, the Planning Team has taken a fresh look at
those conditions and influences. The major Planning Influences are summarized in Figure 2-14 and include
the following :
• The A.T. & S.F. Railroad line bisects the Project Area.
• The North County Transit District ( NCTD ) plans a commuter rail station and a transit transfer area
adjacent to the commercial core of the Village. As part of the project they will construct public parking.
• The remainder of the railroad right-of-way north of the NC1D proposed parking area is currently
occupied by a mix of unsightly industrial-type uses.
• Two major arterial roads, Carlsbad Village Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard, provide convenient access
to the Village from both the remainder of Carlsbad and the surrounding communities.
• The Buena Vista Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean are adjacent to the Village and serve both as amenities
for Village residents and as magnets to attract residents from outside the immediate area.
• Two city parks, a coIIimunity recreation center and a major grocery store also serve as amenities for the
Village residents.
• The US Post Office draws many Carlsbad residents to the Village.
• The Senior Center on Pine A venue is a major activity node.
• The Carlsbad Village Inn and the Tamarack Beach Resort establish a strong, high-quality tourist
accommodations image for the Village.
• A number of other smaller, well-kept motels provide tourist accommodations at a wide range of nightly
rates.
• Several senior-citizen housing complexes are located in or planned for the area.
• The Village Faire Shopping Center provides a strong image for the Village and a potential magnet for
specialty retail customers.
• The City has constructed a number of off-street public parking lots in the commercial core of the Village.
• Several financial institutions are located along the Carlsbad Village Drive corridor.
• A number of new two-story office buildings have been constructed in the northeast portion of the area.
• Many small medical offices are located throughout the Village.
• Good quality restaurants, some with outdoor dining accommodations, provide an amenity for local
business customers and residents, as well as a source of nighttime activity.
2-27
• The Army and Navy Academy with its white buildings and open lawn areas contributes to the northern
entry image to the Village.
• Remnants of the interesting and unique early history of the City of Carlsbad are still visible in older
commercial and residential buildings in the Village.
2-29
Section 3
MARKET POTENTIALS
DEMOGRAPIDCS SUMMARY
A demographic profile of the Carlsbad Village area was undertaken as part of the market overview. Because
statistical information was not available for the precise boundaries of the Village redevelopment project area
(the "Village"), Census Tracts 179 and 180 were chosen since they include all of downtown Carlsbad and
adjacent areas west of Interstate 5, east of the Pacific Ocean, south of Buena Vista Lagoon, and north of
Agua Hedionda Lagoon (see Figure 3-1, Census Tract Map). For purposes of evaluating demographic
trends, adjacent geographic areas for comparison were selected as follows: Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista, and
the coastal San Diego region as defined by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
Population and Households
Appendix B-1 describes trends in population and households for the period 1980 to 1990 for the study areas.
Population in Census Tracts 179/180 grew from 8,039 in 1980 to 11,215 in 1990 per the U.S. Census. This
equates to an average annual growth of 318 persons per year and a compounded annual growth rate of 3.4%.
In comparison, the City of Carlsbad's population grew from 34,490 in 1980 to 63,126 in 1990, an average
annual growth of 2,764 persons, or 5.9% per year. Overall, Census Tracts 179/180 captured about 11.5%
of the City's growth in population over the period 1980 to 1990. Census Tracts 179/180 grew at a slower
annual percentage rate than the North County comparison areas -Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista, and the three
cities combined. Only the San Diego region showed a slower rate of population growth.
The number of households in Census Tracts 179/180 grew from 3,395 in 1980 to 4,553 in 1990, an average
increase of 116 households per year. The number of households in the City of Carlsbad grew from 13,586
in 1980 to 24,995 in 1990, an average annual increase of 1,141 households. Census Tracts 179/180 captured
about 10% of the City of Carlsbad's growth in households over this period. Households in Census Tracts
179/180 grew at an annual rate of 3.0%, less than one-half of Carlsbad's rate of growth of 6.3%. Among
the comparison areas, only the San Diego region experienced a slower rate of growth than Census Tracts
179/180 at 2.8%.
Average household size and median age are also presented in Appendix B-1. The average household size
has increased in Census Tracts 179/180 from 2.29 to 2.38 persons over the period 1980 to 1990. In the City
of Carlsbad, the average household size declined in size from 2.54 to 2.47 persons over the same period.
However, average household size in Census Tracts 179/180 is still lower than in the City of Carlsbad as a
whole. Overall, Census Tracts 179/180 had the smallest average household size of all areas studied,
indicating a concentration of single-person households.
Median age has increased substantially in Census Tracts 179/180 from 26.9 years in 1980 to 30.2 years in
1990, an increase of 12.4%. Comparatively, the City of Carlsbad median age grew by 9.7% from 32.1 years
3-1
in 1980 to 35.2 years in 1990. Typically, lower median age figures reflect proportionately higher
concentrations of children.
Population by Ethnicity
Appendix B-2 describes the ethnic population for the study areas for the period 1980 to 1990. In Census
Tracts 179/180, white population declined from 64% of total population in 1980 to 59% in 1990. Population
of Hispanic origin grew from 32% of total population in 1980 to 37% in 1990. In absolute terms, both
white and Hispanic origin population in Census Tracts 179/180 grew by an average 150 persons per year
during 1980-1990. Relative to the comparison areas, Census Tracts 179/180 have the highest ratio of
Hispanic origin population relative to total population, i.e., in 1990, Hispanic origin population was at 14%
in Carlsbad, 23% in Oceanside, 25% in Vista, 21 % in the Tri-City Area, and 20% in the San Diego region.
Employment
Appendix B-3 describes the change in employment from 1980 to 1990 for Census Tracts 179 and 180, the
City of Carlsbad, and the San Diego region. Several employment categories were studied: (1) Agriculture,
Forestry, Fishing, and Mining; (2) Construction; (3) Manufacturing; (4) Transportation, Communications,
and Utilities; (5) Wholesale Trade; (6) Retail Trade; (7) Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE); and
(8) Services. Trends in total non-government employment, followed by a sector-by-sector analysis, are
presented below.
In terms of total non-government employment, Census Tracts 179/180 experienced an increase from 3,201
to 5,250 jobs over the period 1980 to 1990, an increase of 64%. The City of Carlsbad experienced a greater
increase of 120% in total employment over the same period, almost twice the rate of growth experienced
in Census Tracts 179/180. The San Diego region experienced an increase of 50% in total employment.
In absolute growth (i.e., number of employees), Retail Trade, FIRE, and Services exhibited the strongest
increases. Retail Trade grew by 570 jobs over the period 1980 to 1990, FIRE grew by 250 jobs, and
Services, which showed the largest increase, grew by 1,066 jobs. The remaining employment sectors
showed only marginal or negative change in the number of jobs.
Also of significance is the share of employment in Census Tracts 179/180 relative to that of the City of
Carlsbad. For example, FIRE employment in Census Tracts 179/180 in 1980 accounted for 44% of total
FIRE jobs in the City. By 1990, that ratio had declined dramatically, to just 20% of Citywide FIRE
employment. Wholesale Trade had the largest drop, where in 1980, 60% of Wholesale Trade employment
in the City of Carlsbad existed in Census Tracts 179/180. By 1990 that ratio had declined to just 14% of
total Wholesale Trade employment Citywide. Overall, total civilian employment in Census Tracts 179/180
declined from 21 % of the City of Carlsbad's jobs in 1980 to 16% by 1990. The downtown area's declining
share of Citywide employment is reflective of the rapid growth in commercial and industrial development
in more suburban sectors of the City.
• Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Mining
In Census Tracts 179/180 this employment sector declined from 63 to 41 jobs over the period 1980
to 1990, a decline of 35%. The City of Carlsbad saw a similar decline of 41 % in this employment
3-3
sector over the same period. Conversely, the San Diego region experienced an increase of 62% in
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Mining employment.
• Construction
In Census Tracts 179/180 construction employment sector grew from 234 to 399 jobs over the period
1980 to 1990, an increase of 71 %. Over the same period, the City of Carlsbad experienced a greater
increase in this employment sector-88%. The San Diego region experienced a 1980-1990 increase
of 69% in Construction employment.
• Manufacturing
In Census Tracts 179/180 manufacturing employment grew from 106 to 145 jobs over the period
1980 to 1990, an increase of 37%. The City of Carlsbad saw an increase of 114% in this
employment sector over the same period, over three times the rate of growth experienced in Census
Tracts 179/180. The San Diego region experienced an increase of 21 % in manufacturing
employment.
• Transportation, Communications, and Utilities
In this employment sector, Census Tracts 179/180 experienced a decline from 116 to 106 jobs over
the period 1980 to 1990, a decrease of 9%. Conversely, the City of Carlsbad saw a substantial
increase of 100% in this employment sector over the same period. The San Diego region
experienced an increase of 29% in Transportation, Communications, and Utilities employment.
• Wholesale Trade
In Census Tracts 179/180 this employment sector declined from 189 to 180 jobs over the period
1980 to 1990, a decrease of 5%. However, the City of Carlsbad saw an increase of 312% in this
employment sector over the same period. The San Diego region also experienced an increase in
Wholesale Trade employment -62%.
• Retail Trade
In this employment sector, Census Tracts 179/180 grew from 1,036 to 1,606 jobs over the period
1980 to 1990, an increase of 55%, while the City of Carlsbad experienced a greater increase of 96%
in this employment sector. The San Diego region experienced an increase of 43% increase in Retail
Trade employment.
• Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE)
In this employment sector, Census Tracts 179/180 grew from 359 to 609 jobs over the period 1980
to 1990, an increase of 70%. The City of Carlsbad experienced a greater increase of 270% in FIRE
employment over the same period, almost four times the rate of growth experienced in Census Tracts
179/180. The San Diego region experienced an increase of 72% in FIRE employment.
• Services
Between 1980 and 1990, Services employment in Census Tracts 179/180 grew from 1,098 to 2,164
jobs, an increase of 97%. The City of Carlsbad grew at twice the rate experienced in Census Tracts
179/180 -193% -in this employment sector over the same period. The San Diego region
experienced an increase of 64% in Services employment. •
3-4
MARKET POTENTIALS
This section of the report summarizes market conditions and trends for the major land uses deemed suitable
for the Carlsbad Village area. The land uses examined are: (1) retail; (2) professional office; (3) multi-
family residential; (4) and hotel/lodging uses. In order to assess the market potentials of the Village, we
examined existing market data as well as the market study prepared by Economic Research Associates, Inc.
in March 1986. In addition, we compiled limited original market data via surveys with brokers, property
owners, property managers, and other individuals knowledgeable in the Village area real estate market.
Note that the market potentials section of this report is based, in part, on data collected from secondary
sources. While we believe that these sources are accurate, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. The
analysis, opinions, recommendations, and conclusions contained herein reflects our informed judgement
based on market and economic conditions as of the date of this report. Due to the volatility of market
conditions and complex dynamics influencing the economic situation of the building and development
industry, conclusions and recommended actions contained within this section should not be relied upon as
sole input for final business decisions regarding current and future development and planning.
Retail Uses
Overview!Profile
The Carlsbad Village retail market is comprised of three separate and interrelated segments which are
freeway-serving, tourist-serving·, and local-serving in nature. These segments of the Village retail market
are profiled below.
• Freeway-Serving: This segment of the Village market is comprised largely of fast food outlets and
service stations. Freeway-serving retailers in the Village are generally located along Carlsbad Village
Drive between Interstate 5 and Harding Street. Freeway-serving retail uses in this area include
Carl's Jr., Jack in the Box, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Denny's Restaurant, and four service stations.
These retailers are located in close proximity to Interstate 5, from which they draw convenience
shoppers.
• Tourist-Serving: This retail segment is composed largely of specialty retailers and eating and
drinking places located in the heart of the Village and near the beach. The center of the Village
tourist-oriented retail market is within or nearby the block bounded by Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad Boulevard, Grand Avenue, and State Street. Tourist-oriented retailers draw from the
Village's tourists and beach goers. Typical retailers include upper-end restaurants such as Neiman's
and the Coyote Bar and Grill, antiques dealers, children's wear, apparel and beach wear, and
handicraft and gift shops.
• Local-Serving: This retail segment is comprised of local-serving retailers offering both merchandise
and services. These retailers draw from the local community and do not necessarily require prime
retail locations. Tenants in this segment include the Big Bear supermarket, a pharmacy, liquor stores,
a clock repair shop, donut shops/bakeries, delicatessens, small pubs, cleaners, etc.
3-5
retail building and three one-story retail buildings. At present, the building has 900 square feet vacant
which is being offered at $1.35 per square foot per month, Net/Net/Net.
The most recently built retail center in the Village area is Village Faire. This 69,000-square-foot center has
become a major center of retail activity in the Village. This is a specialty retail shopping center located on
a 3.66-acre site with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.43:1. The center contains a total of 297 parking spaces
both on-and off-site. The parking ratio is 4.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of leasable space. The two-story
center was completed in 1989 and has since leased 57,000 square feet (19,000 square feet per year). The
center does not have a traditional anchor such as a department store, supermarket, or drug store. However,
its major draws include a Wherehouse Video and two popular eating and drinking establishments (Neiman's
Restaurant and the Coyote Bar and Grill). The center also features shops with specialties such as hardwood
handicrafts, beach and surf apparel, children's clothes, and two local serving banks. Rents at Village Faire
range from $1 .50 to $2.50 per square foot per month, Net/Net/Net. Rents vary by location within the project
and by the level of tenant improvements provided.
Vacancy
We surveyed a total of 248,240 square feet of retail space in the Village area, of which 22,100 square feet
was reported as vacant, or 8.9%. Of the 22,100 vacant square feet, over one-half exists in the Village Faire
retail center. Because of its lack of traditional retail anchors, two-story configuration, and the fact that the
prime retail locations in the center have been taken, this last 12,000 square feet of space may prove slow
to lease. Further exacerbating these factors is the current economic decline which has slowed retail demand
not just in Southern California but throughout much of the nation. Excluding Village Faire, the vacancy rate
in the Village is approximately 4%.
Taxable Sales
Appendix B-6 summarizes historical growth in taxable sales in the City of Carlsbad and surrounding areas
(Oceanside, Vista, tri-city area, and the County). Over the period 1970 to 1980 and 1980 to 1990 Carlsbad
experienced the greatest rate of growth in taxable retail sales. During 1970-1980 Carlsbad retail sales grew
at an annual compounded rate of 25%, almost twice the rate of the surrounding areas. During 1980-1990,
the rate of growth slowed to 11.3% and during the most recent period, 1985-1990, the rate fell to 9.4%, both
of which are comparable to the rates of growth experienced in the surrounding areas. Overall, taxable retail
sales in Carlsbad have had substantial real growth during each period examined, as did the surrounding
areas.
Projected Retail Space Demand
Due to the lack of large development sites in the Village area, the demand for larger retail uses, namely
department stores, supermarkets, drug stores, home improvement stores, and other large-scale retail uses with
substantial land requirements has not been projected. The types of retail to be absorbed in the Village area
are anticipated to be comparable to that of Village Faire tenants, tourist-oriented and/or local-serving retail
tenants as well as eating and drinking places. Given the fact that Village Faire has been the only retail
center to open since 1989 in the Village, it provides a useful indicator of the demand for these types of uses.
Since its opening in 1989, Village Faire has absorbed 57,000 square feet of retail and eating and drinking
space, or an average annual 19,000 square feet. Through 2000, we project that the Village area is likely to
3-7
• The Grand Professional Office Building -785 Grand
The building is located on approximately 20,713 square feet of land located at the southwest comer
of Grand Avenue and Jefferson Street. It is a two-story, 17,600-square-foot building built over 51
covered parking spaces.
There are eight additional alley spaces. In total, there are 3.33 spaces per 1,000 square feet of space.
The building is 35 feet in height and has an FAR of 0.85. Completed in 1988, the building has
leased all but 2,800 square feet. Rents range from $1.40 to $1.60 per square foot, Mcxlified Gross.
• Austin/Pacific Office Complex -2777 Jefferson Street
The building is located on a 18,414-square-foot lot at the southwest comer of Jefferson Street and
Arbuckle Street. It is a two-story, 9,307-square-foot building with a FAR of 0.51. The project
contains 23 surface parking spaces, or 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area. The
building was completed in 1986 and presently has 650 square feet of vacant space. Rents range from
$1.50 to $1.75 per square foot, Modified Gross.
• The Grand Professional Building -2910 Jefferson Street
The building is located on a 0.249 acre lot on the southeast comer of Grand A venue and Jefferson
Street. It is a two-story, 10,692-square-foot building constructed over 30 parking spaces. There are
an additional seven spaces at the rear of the building. The overall parking ratio is 2.8 spaces per
1,000 square feet of building area and the FAR is 1.0. The building was completed in 1986 and
presently has no vacant space. The landlord would not disclose rents for this project.
Tenants in these office buildings and office tenants throughout the Village are comprised of smaller
professional tenants. These include medical, chiropractor, dentist, legal, financial, insurance, and real estate
tenants (i.e., FIRE and professional services employment).
Vacancy and Absorption
The four projects built in the Village area since 1986 comprise a total of 46,000 square feet of space and
collectively have a 7 .5% vacancy -the bulk of which is in one building (The Grand). Rents range from
$1.25 to $1.75 per square foot, Modified Gross. These buildings have accounted for approximately 9,000
square feet of absorption per year.
Appendix B-8 summarizes historical office absorption in Carlsbad, adjacent markets, and the County overall.
The Carlsbad office market contains an inventory of about 1.07 million square feet, or about 3.6% of the
San Diego County total. Vacancy for Carlsbad is about 24%, vs. 21 % in the County. On average, Carlsbad
has shown historical absorption of about 150,000 square feet per year over the pericxl 1985 to 1990.
(However, for the pericxl 1985-1987, the Carlsbad absorption estimate is inclusive of Vista. As such, this
estimate is somewhat exaggerated.) Carlsbad absorption was at 108,000 square feet in 1990.
Projected Office Demand
In order to assess the demand for professional office space in the Village, we examined historical growth
in office-using employment. The two primary sources of office demand are FIRE (Finance, Insurance, and
3-9
Housing Product Type
Tenure (Owner vs. Renter)
Appendix B-10 presents information on housing by tenure (i.e., by owner-occupant vs. renter-occupant) and
the percent of housing units that are owner-occupied. Census Tracts 179/180 have the lowest ratio of owner-
occupied housing relative to the comparison areas. In 1990, only 20% of the housing stock in Census Tracts
179/180 was owner-occupied, down from 22% in 1980. In contrast, the City of Carlsbad had the highest
ratio of owner-occupied dwellings at 62.6% of total housing in 1990. The other study areas ranged from
53.8% to 58.4% owner-occupied. The owner-occupied ratio in Census Tracts 179/180 is two to three times
lower than the other areas studied. This area represents a concentration of renter-occupied housing in a City
where home ownership is the standard. Overall, Census Tracts 179/180 added an average of 98 renter-
occupied units per year over the period 1980 to 1990, about 25% of the total growth in rental housing in
the City of Carlsbad ..
Unit Type (Single-Family vs. Multi-Family)
Appendix B-11 summarizes housing production by unit type (i.e., single-family vs. multi-family). In Census
Tracts 179/180, approximately 33% of the total housing was comprised of single-family units in 1990, down
from 35% in 1980. For the City of Carlsbad, single-family units comprise 68% of the total housing stock,
more than twice the proportion in the downtown area. The other comparison areas also have much higher
ratios of single-family dwellings. Census Tracts 179/180 have exhibited an annual increase of 125 dwelling
units during -1980-1990, of which only 34 units or 27% were single-family units. An average 92 multi-
family units, or 73% of the increase, were added each year during 1980-1990.
Appendix B-12 presents historical data on permit activity in the City of Carlsbad and the County overall for
the years 1980 through 1990. On average, the City of Carlsbad has issued about 1,100 dwelling unit permits
per year over the period 1980 to 1990. About 48% of these were for multi-family dwellings. San Diego
County has had a higher ratio of multi-family housing of about 57% of total building permits over the period
1980 to 1990.
For-Sale Housing Values
Single-Family
Appendix B-13 summarizes recent single-family home sales and listings in the Village area. Closed sales
are shown in the top half of the table and listings are presented in the bottom half of the table. Sale prices
ranged from $117 to $451 per square foot of living area. The average per-square-foot value was $181. The
key factor in price variation appears to be location. There are three distinct residential areas in the Village
area:
• West of the Railroad Tracks
This area has the highest home values in the Village area due to close proximity to the beach.
Homes in this area are of mixed type, including a number of garden-style apartments, bungalows
built between 1900 and 1950, as well as modern vacation homes and condominiums. Home sale
3-11
Annual Demand Through 2000
Annual Housing Demand (DU)
Percent Single-Family
Single-Family Demand (DU)
Multi-Family Demand (DU)
Apartment vs. Condominium Demand
Average
Annual
Demand
120
30
90
Total
Demand
1990-2000
1,200
300
900
Of the estimated demand for 90 multi-family units per year, we have projected the split between rental and
ownership dwelling units. In 1990 just 20.2% of the housing units in Census Tracts 179/180 were owner-
occupied, down from 22.0% in 1980 (see Appendix B-10). Over the period 1980 to 1990, owner-occupied
units accounted for only 15% of household growth in Census Tracts 179/180. This trend is not expected
to continue as high land costs and down-zoning in the City of Carlsbad have combined to make rental
housing development economically less attractive. Furthermore, as the area increases in appeal, the Village
is expected to become more comparable in housing ownership trends to the City as a whole (i.e., a higher
proportion of owner-occupied housing). Therefore, we are projecting that the share of owner-occupied
housing in the Village will increase between 1990 and 2000. We estimate that 45% to 55% of near-term
multi-family housing demand will consist of attached for-sale dwellings (i.e., owner-occupied). Projected
demand for apartments and attached for-sale housing through 2000 is presented below.
Annual Demand through 2000
Low High
Annual Multi-Family Demand (DU) 90 90
Percent Owner-Occupied 45% 55%
Owner-Occupied Demand (DU) 40 50
Apartment Demand (DU) 50 40
The potential for residential development is projected as follows: total residential (all housing types) -120
units per year; multi-family apartments -40 to 50 units per year; and multi-family for-sale -40 to 50
units per year.
3-14
Programmatic Recommendations
Residential has the greatest near-term development potential in the Village area. Multi-family housing will
continue to dominate future residential development activity in the Village area. Middle-to upper-end multi-
family development should be encouraged as the Village currently has a disproportionately large share of
lower-income households relative to the City overall. Home ownership should also be encouraged due to
the low rate of owner-occupied housing in the Village area. Because of the limited availability of larger
sites in the Village, residential development will be limited to mostly smaller in-fill projects which cannot
provide substantial on-site amenities. The City should therefore consider providing "general neighborhood
amenities" such as small parks, tennis courts, children's play areas, and other related facilities in order for
the Village to attract higher income households. These amenities will also enhance the Village's
attractiveness to residents and tourists alike. Residential development designed for middle-and upper-
income households with an emphasis on for-sale product will also strengthen the retail base of the Village.
The area west of the railroad tracks is considered ideal for higher-end for-sale attached condominium and
townhome development. In the area south of Oak Street, for-sale townhomes and in-fill duplexes with
attached two-car garages should be encouraged. Some multi-family rental and condominium development
is supportable on larger sites. Lastly, in the area north of Grand Avenue, higher-density for-sale and rental
development should be encouraged in the areas closest to Grand A venue and the commercial core. Mixed-
use residential development with subterranean parking near the commercial district should be encouraged
to project a stronger Village atmosphere and to create more of an urban flavor. Mixed-use development will
also enhance the area's nighttime activity and create more of a 24-hour downtown environment. On smaller
in-fill sites, small duplexes or row housing should be encouraged. On larger sites away from the commercial
core a mix of townhomes, condominiums, and apartments is supportable.
Hotel/Lodging Uses
Historical Development and Occupancy
Historic hotel room inventories in the City of Carlsbad at five-year intervals are presented below.
Historical Hotel Room Inventories
1990
1985
1980
1975
Average
Room
Inventory
1,844
1,482
686
406
3-15
Annuai
Increase
80
159
56
NA
98
decline and the overbuilt nature of the lodging industry in Southern California, little near-term demand,
particularly in the lower-end motel market is projected. Development of moderate-sized tourist-oriented
inns, and small bed-and-breakfast hotels should be emphasized over the long term. However, should a
sizeable oceanfront site become available, such as the Army and Navy Academy site, a larger tourist-
oriented resort facility would be recommended as a new focal point for tourist activity for the Village. Such
a development would be desirable as it would provide the Village with a strong tourist identity similar to
what the Hotel Del Coronado, the Dana Point Resort, and the Laguna Niguel Ritz Carlton have done for
their respective communities. Given the current economic downturn and the over-built nature of the lodging
industry, such a development may not be feasible until the mid-to late 1990s. However, a larger resort
facility should be viable in the long~term given the limited availability of sizeable oceanfront sites in
Southern California; the unique character of the Village area; the Village's proximity to golf, tennis, and
other tourist attractions; and Carlsbad's close proximity to the densely populated areas of Los Angeles and
Orange Counties.
HOUSING NEEDS
Household Income and Affordability
Household income levels in the Carlsbad Village area are substantially lower than in the City or County as
a whole. According to SANDAG, median 1990 household income in the combined Census Tracts 179/180
was approximately $23,000 (1989 dollars). (See Appendix B-20.) For the City as a whole, median income
in 1990 was nearly twice this amount at $43,500. San Diego County households had a median 1990 income
of $33,700. The City and County experienced real growth in household income of 3% to 4% during 1980-
1990, while Tracts 179/180 showed no real income growth.
Not surprisingly, the Carlsbad Village area contained a disproportionate share of households in the lower
income categories relative to the City as a whole. About 30% of households in Tracts 179/180 earned less
than $15,000 in 1990; only 10% of Citywide households had incomes below this level. In fact, Tracts
179/180 accounted for nearly one-half (46%) of all households in this income group.
The lower incomes of the Carlsbad Village area translate to lower levels of housing affordability. As shown
in Appendix B-21, based on standard assumptions regarding household purchase and rent capacity, a
household at median income for Carlsbad ($43,500) can afford to spend $1,087 in monthly rent or to
purchase a $122,200 home. At the median income for Tracts 179/180 ($23,000), a household can afford
$574 in rent or $58,700 in sale price. The latter figure compares unfavorably to the median condominium
price in Carlsbad of $148,000 (1990). While approximately 41 % of households in Carlsbad can afford the
median-priced condominium, only about 14% of households in Tracts 179/180 meet these affordability
criteria.
Survey of Housing Expenditures
In order to gather data about household income, housing affordability, and actual housing costs, CIC
Research, Inc., a contract survey research finn, was engaged to conduct a telephone survey of Carlsbad
Village area residents. The actual boundaries for the survey were defined as: Tamarack Boulevard on the
south; Interstate 5 on the east; Buena Vista Lagoon on the north; and the Pacific Ocean on the west These
3-17
boundaries encompass an area larger than the redevelopment project but were selected for the ease of deter-
mining household eligibility for participation. The survey was conducted in December 1991 by CIC
Research staff using telephone interviews and a random-digit-dialing technique. A total of 392 interviews
were completed. In terms of statistical validity, a 384 sample size is required to guarantee a 95%, 5%
confidence level. As noted previously, in 1990 there were 4,553 occupied housing units in Census Tracts
179/180, which comprise an area larger than the survey boundaries. Thus, the CIC Research survey included
about 8.6% of the households in this larger area.
The principal conclusions from the CIC Research housing survey can be summarized as follows:
• The survey indicates that the majority of downtown residents are renters, and that most renter
households reside in apartments. However, one-third of respondents live in single-family homes,
including a significant number of renters.
• The average respondent has lived in Carlsbad almost 11 years and in their present home almost seven
years. These figures are even higher for single-family dwellers.
• While average household size is larger than in the City as a whole, overcrowding does not appear
to be a significant problem. Only 12% of all respondents report more than two persons per bedroom.
• The condition of housing stock appears to be a problem. One-quarter of all renters describe their
complex as being in fair or poor condition.
• Nearly one-half of the respondents reporting income earn less than $25,000 annually. Based on an
assumed 30% income allocation to housing costs (rent and utilities), this translates to a maximum
monthly housing expenditure for these households of $625. The average renter households reports
paying $660 in monthly rent.
• A comparison of reported total housing cost and estimated housing affordability indicates that more
than three-fifths of the renter households are "over-paying", i.e., actual housing costs exceed 30%
of income. An even higher proportion of renters in the below-$25,000 income group are over-paying
for housing.
More specific findings are detailed below; the complete survey results are presented in Appendix B-22.
• Respondents have lived in Carlsbad an average of 10.89 years. They have lived in their present
home an average 6.52 years.
• One-third (32.7%) of respondents live in single-family homes. One-half (51.8%) live in apartments.
Just 8.9% live in condominiums.
• Single-family home dwellers have lived in Carlsbad an average 17.59 years and in their present home
an average 12.05 years.
• About three-quarters (72.7%) of respondents rent and one-quarter (27.3%) own. Among single-
family dwellers, 40.6% rent and 59.4% own. Among condominium dwellers, 34.3% rent and 65.7%
own.
• The majority of renters (70.9%) live in apartments.
• The average renter occupies a 996-square-foot unit with 1.73 bedrooms and 1.37 bathrooms.
Apartments average 852 square feet with 1.59 bedrooms and 1.31 bathrooms.
• One-quarter of renters (25.3%) describe the condition of their complex or unit as fair or poor.
• Average monthly rental rate for renters is $660.
3-18
• Average household size for respondents is 2.59 persons. Nearly one-quarter (24.1 % ) have four or
more persons. In 1990, the average household size in the City of Carlsbad was 2.47.
• Single-family households average 3.09 persons while apartments average 2.39 persons.
• Average persons per bedroom is 1.51 overall. It is higher for households earning less than $25,000
than for households earning $25,000 or more.
• An average 1.42 persons per household are employed.
• About one-half (48.0%) of the respondents that reported income earn less than $25,000 annually.
• More than one-half of renters (53.7%) reporting income earn less than $25,000 annually. For
owners, this figure was only about one-third (31.9% ).
• Housing affordability was calculated for renters as follows: Income divided by 12 months times 30%
income allocation to housing. This figure was then compared to housing cost, defined as rent, gas,
and electric, and water bill. Based on this comparison, more than three-fifths (62.9%) of surveyed
renters have total housing costs at or below their affordability level. Housing payments in excess
of affordability are most evident in the lower income categories, e.g.: 100% of households under
$7,500; 98.2% of households from $7,500 to $14,999; and 83.3% of households from $15,000 to
$24,999. (All renter households at $50,000 or more report housing costs in excess of affordability,
but this is a very small sample size.)
Housing Needs Assessment
In June 1990, the Carlsbad City Council adopted interim objectives as set forth in SANDAG's Regional
Housing Needs Statement (July 1990). The SANDAG goals call for production of a minimum 6,273 total
new housing units ("regional share") and assistance in providing affordable housing to an additional 1,125
lower-income households ("fair share") during the five-year period 1991-1996. Of the 6,273 "regional share"
housing units required, 1,443 units are required for very low income households (50% of Area Median
Income); 1,066 are required for low income households (80% of AMI); and 1,317 are required for moderate
income households (120% of AMn. The balance of 2,447 represent households with incomes greater than
120% of AMI.
The City Council in January 1991 adopted an interim resolution requiring that all master-planned residential
communities include a minimum of 15% of all dwelling units affordable to households of low or very low
income. Planning staff estimated that 10 master plan developments likely to be active over the next five
years could deliver 855 affordable units. None of these are located in or near the greater downtown area.
The balance of the "fair share" affordable units could be produced through an array of other programs,
including Section 8 vouchers, senior housing ordinances, density bonuses, and City-sponsored development
using Community Development Block Grants and redevelopment set-aside funds.
The need for affordable housing is particularly apparent .in the downtown area. Median household income
in this area is considerably lower than Citywide, $23,000 vs. $43,500. Almost one-third (30%) of
households in the downtown area earn less than $15,000 annually. Even at the median income level for
downtown, a household can afford only $574 per month in rent, as compared to an average $660 in reported
actual rents. The detailed housing survey concluded that more than three-fifths (62.9%) of renters in the
downtown area make total housing payments in excess of 30% of income. Housing condition appears to
be problematic, with one-quarter reporting units or complexes in fair to poor condition. Few households,
however, experience overcrowding, i.e., more than two persons per bedroom.
3-19
DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS
Summary of Absorption Potential
Retail Uses
Based on recent historical market conditions, we estimate near-term demand for 10,000 to 15,000 square
feet of retail space per year in the Village area. Demand will continue for general merchandise, specialty,
eating and drinking, and food and liquor stores as new retail locations develop and in-fill residential
development occurs. There is little opportunity for large-scale retail development due to limited site
availability. However, retail space demand will be soft until the current economic downturn has improved.
Professional Office Space
The Village office market is comprised of small professional office buildings particularly on Grand,
Jefferson, and Roosevelt, as well as a number of small financial buildings along Carlsbad Village Drive.
Historic employment growth indicates absorption of about 12,000 square feet per year during 1980-1990.
we project future demand at 9,000 to 12,000 square feet per year. Office demand is also expected to be soft
until the current economic downturn has improved.
Multi-Family/Senior Housing
Residential has the greatest potential in the Village area in the near-term. Multi-family housing will
continue to dominate future residential development activity in the Village. The maximum potential for
residential development is projected as follows: total residential (all housing types) -120 units per year;
multi-family apartments -40 to 50 units per year; and attached for-sale -40 to 50 units per year.
Middle-to upper-end multi-family development should be encouraged as the Village currently has a
disproportionately large share of lower-income households relative to the City overall. Home ownership
should also be encouraged due to the low rate of owner-occupied housing in the Village area. Because of
the limited availability of larger sites in the Village, residential development will be limited to mostly
smaller in-fill projects which cannot provide substantial on-site amenities. The City should consider
providing neighborhood amenities such as parks, tennis courts, children's play areas, and other related
facilities in order for the Village to attract higher-income households. Residential development designed
for middle-and upper-income households will also strengthen the Village retail base.
Hotel/Lodging Uses
There is potential for small-to moderate-sized tourist-oriented inns and small bed-and-breakfast hotels in
the Village. Small, price-oriented motels are the currently the weakest segment in the Village lodging
market. However, should a sizeable oceanfront site become available, such as the Army and Navy Academy
site, a larger tourist-oriented resort facility is recommended as a new focal point for tourist activity for the
Village. Such a development would be desirable as it would provide the Village with a strong tourist
3-20
identity. Such a resort facility may not be feasible until the mid-to late 1990s. KMA projects demand of
200 to 300 hotel rooms by 200 in the Village.
Preliminary Assessment of Financial Feasibility
Supportable Land Values
In order to determine the relative financial feasibility of various land uses, Keyset Marsten Associates
prepared residual land value analyses for prototypical developments. The principal of residual land value
analysis is that supportable land values are a function of market rents or prices; development costs and
operating expenses; and prevailing rates of return. In general, a project's anticipated sale price or capitalized
value, less cost of sale, development profit, and total development costs (excluding land), should yield the
amount a developer can afford to pay for the land and land carry. We used this formula in combination with
cost estimates and market parameters based on both the market overview of proposed uses and review of
comparable projects in Southern California. Residual land values were estimated for a range of development
types, including retail, office, multi-family, hotel, and mixed-use projects. Each development prototype and
the corresponding estimate of supportable land value are explained briefly below.
Retail Space -Strip Retail Center
In Appendix B-23, we considered a small new construction retail center on 42,000 square feet of land,
requiring assembly of six standard-sized parcels. At an FAR of about 0.26 and parking of 5 spaces per
1,000 square feet, such a site could accommodate about 11,000 square feet of retail space. Based on
prevailing rents and costs in this market, we calculated a residual land value for this product type of about
$19 per square foot of land.
Single-Parcel Retail Rehabilitation
Appendix B-24 considers the economic feasibility of rehabilitating an existing retail building on a single
7 ,000-square-foot parcel. A $35/square foot rehabilitation cost is assumed; it is also assumed that the
building will continue to operate without any discrete parking. Typically, a single-tenant retail building
would require 3.33 spaces per 1,000 SF of gross building area (GBA) on-site. However, this development
scenario assumes zero on-site parking. This product type yields a residual value -for land and building
-of $80 per square foot of building, or $76 per square foot of land.
Single-Parcel New Construction Retail (No On-Site Parking)
We also considered new construction of retail space on a single vacant parcel (Appendix B-25). A building
area of 5,600 was estimated, based on 7,000 square feet of land and an FAR of 0.80. This assumes that the
building will be developed as in-line storefront shop space without any on-site parking. Based on these
assumptions, this product type yields a $58/square foot land value. Although this land value estimate is
significantly higher than in the case of the Strip Retail Center, it is largely a function of the zero on-site
parking assumption.
3-21
development prototype of about $2 per square foot. (See Appendix B-31.) The low value is a result of the
high cost of providing 6/1,000 parking on site.
Multi-Family Apartments
Appendix B-32 looks at the economic feasibility of multi-family apartments in a three-story configuration
on 42,000 square feet of land, or about six parcels. Based on a maximum density allowance of 23 units per
acre, such a site could accommodate about 22 units with all surface parking. This development type yields
an estimated supportable land value of about $3 per square foot.
Condominiums
A similar calculation was prepared for a residential condominium in a comparable configuration
(Appendix B-33). We assumed that this product type would include larger units; garage parking; and a two-
story format. In addition, per-square-foot construction costs are assumed to be higher ($45) than for
apartments ($38). However, relatively high sale prices -$135 per square foot, or about $162,000 per unit
-result in higher land values than for rental product, about $14/square foot.
High-Density Condominiums
A high-density condominium project is shown in Appendix B-34. The density is shown at 60 dwelling units
per acre, or 58 units in all on the 42,000 square foot site. The development represents a 3-story building
constructed over 3/4 sunk parking (i.e., 3/4 of parking structure is below grade). The high density prototype
yields a land value of about $29/SF, or about twice the value generated as a density of 23 units per acre.
Three Duplexes
We examined the economics of an intensification of residential uses by assembling three typical parcels for
development of residential duplexes (Appendix B-35). This product type, which is similar to townhomes,
can be built at densities of 10 to 14 units per acre. Unit size and cost characteristics are relatively similar
to the condominium product type, but market price is estimated to be slightly lower, at $120 per square foot,
or about $156,000 per unit. Based on these assumptions, duplex residential homes yield an estimated
supportable land value of $5 per square foot.
In Appendix B-36, we examined the economic feasibility of a small hotel on 42,000 square feet of land, or
about six parcels. Based on parking requirements and height limits, this use could achieve a maximum 109
rooms in a three-story configuration over underground parking. Based on our cost and income estimates,
this hotel product type results in a supportable land value estimated as $24 per square foot.
3-23
Current Market Land Values
In order to estimate acquisition costs for property in the Carlsbad Village area, a detailed survey of current
market land values was conducted. The survey attempted to identify all major comparison sales of vacant
land and tear down sites in the Village area since 1985. As shown in Appendix B-37, sales activity has been
relatively limited. According to commercial property sales information from COMPS, Inc., 18 such sales
occurred in the area during this time period. Most sites were one or two parcels in size, i.e., approximately
7,000 or 14,000 square feet. Price per square foot of land typically ranged from $20 to $50. The average
price was $36 per square foot of land. Most sites transacted were intended for commercial, office, or multi-
family construction. In addition, three properties currently listed for sale, shown in Appendix B-38, list for
an average price of $34 per square foot.
For the purposes of the present analysis, we estimated potential land acquisition costs by intended use as
follows:
• Residential, $20 to $30 per square foot, or a mean of $25 per square foot
• Commercial, $30 to $40 per square foot, or a mean of $35 per square foot
3-25
As shown in the summary table, only new construction retail without parking and high density
condominiums generate a high enough land value to fully support estimated acquisition costs. This can be
attributed to the significant cost savings resulting from use of off-site parking and the higher densities. All
other proposed uses examined yield a deficit, i.e, land acquisition costs exceed supportable land values by
approximately $10 to $20 per square foot. These deficits indicate a need for financial assistance, which can
also be expressed on a per-unit or per-square foot basis, as follows:
Gap per Gap per Unit or
SF Land SF Building Area
Strip Retail $16 $61/SF GBA (1)
Retail w/ln-lieu $5 $6/SF GBA
Parking fee
Mixed-use RetaiV
Residential $18 $13/SF GBA
Current Office $15 $20/SF GBA
Medical Office $33 $52/SF GBA
Space
Office w/ $14 $14/SF GBA
structured parking
Office w/ $7 $5/SF GBA
structured parking
and reduced parking
Apartments $22 $40 ,200/unit
Condominiums $11 $20, 100/unit
Duplexes $20 $33,700/unit
Hotel $11 $4,200/room
(1) GBA = Gross building area.
3-27
Subterranean Parking
Discreet (i.e. hidden) on-site parking in the Village core should be encouraged. Large on-site surface
parking lots are not considered appropriate for an urban village atmosphere. Without stringent zoning
requirements, subterranean parking would be the norm in the Village, as land costs generally exceed the cost
of developing structured or subterranean parking. A "carrot" or incentive-based approach is considered most
effective for encouraging the development of discreet parking.
The City should consider encouraging subterranean parking or at minimum half-sunk parking in the Village
core that would screen or hide a project's parking by providing development incentives for doing so.
Incentives may include: (1) lot coverage, height, or density bonuses; (2) reductions for on-site parking
requirements; and (3) payment of an in-lieu parking fee to the City for use of public parking facilities.
Requiring subterranean, or even "half-sunk," parking will negatively impact a project's economics unless
incentives are provided to offset higher costs. Requiring such parking without incentives via zoning
requirements is likely to reduce development activity in the Village.
Public Parking
The high cost of land and the limited capacity for developing on-site parking on smaller in-fill sites makes
the current parking requirements imposed by the City very costly/difficult to provide. Replacing some on-
site parking with public parking will improve development economics in the Village and promote more
aesthetically pleasing projects as on-site parking will not dominate a project's appearance.
Residential Base
A broader economic residential base should be encouraged in the Village. The Village population is now
dominated by low-income renters. Middle-and upper-income housing should be encouraged to broaden the
economic base of the Village. General neighborhood amenities, such as parks, tennis courts, and children's
play areas, should be developed at in-fill locations, since small development sites are unlikely to provide
for such amenities.
Tourist Focal Point
A tourist focal point such as a large oceanfront or oceanview hotel resort would further enhance the
Village's identity as a tourist destination. Such a resort could be to Carlsbad what the Hotel Del Coronado,
Dana Point Resort, and Laguna Niguel Ritz Carlton are to their respective communities. However, given
the current economic decline and the overbuilt nature of the lodging industry in Southern California, a long-
term perspective may be necessary for such a project. Given the limited availability of sizeable oceanfront
or close by sites in Southern California, the unique character of the Village and its proximity to prime golf
and San Diego County tourist attractions, and Carlsbad's close proximity to greater Los Angeles, the
development of additional resort projects in the Village should be attractive in the future.
3-29
Cultural Uses
As the City and North County continues to grow, support for cultural facilities such as a performing arts
theater, cultural center, and museums will be enhanced. The Village should be the focal point of any
cultural development in the City.
General Neighborhood Amenities
In order to encourage a broader residential base in the Village area (i.e. more middle-to upper-income
households) the development of public amenities such as tennis courts, small parks, and childrens play areas
is necessary.
General Neighborhood Improvements
As a means of complementing public improvements that have occurred in the Village commercial core,
additional improvements in the outlying Village residential areas are recommended. Also recommended are
streetscape improvements such as new sidewalks in areas with deteriorating or no sidewalks and landscaping
features. Specific pockets of residential areas should be targeted for residential rehabilitation through facade
and landscaping improvements assistance via low or no interest loans or grants (partial or whole). Funding
for rehabilitation programs could be provided through housing set-aside funds as most occupants in the
Village would meet moderate-income requirements.
3-31
Section 4
VILLAGE VISION
PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS
During the early weeks of Phase 1, members of the Planning Team reviewed past reports and documents on
the Village Redevelopment Area as well as other relevant City plans, studies and regulations. We walked
through the entire Village area several times, taking notes and photographs. In mid-November we interviewed
twenty-one individuals, including each of the City Council Members, to gain additional insights into the
problems and concerns which need to be addressed in this Master Plan update. ( See Appendix C-1 for
summary.) We held two public workshops in December for additional community input ( Appendix C-2 ).
The first was focused on the business people, property owners and residents of the Village area while the second
was held to hear the thoughts of the Carlsbad community as a whole. In addition we contacted the staff of the
California Coastal Commission, met with various members of the City staff and held informal conversations
with business owners in the Village.
Based upon all of the above input, we prepared the following summary of problems as a guide for the
establishment of goals and objectives and for the identification of preliminary redevelopment strategies :
Circulation
• Currently internal downtown vehicular circulation is difficult due to traffic speeds on Carlsbad Village
Drive and a shortage of traffic signals.
• The long physical dimension of some blocks limits both vehicular and pedestrian east-west circulation.
• Vehicular and pedestrian connections between State Street and Carlsbad Boulevard are limited.
• Currently, pedestrian access across Carlsbad Village Drive and across Carlsbad Boulevard is difficult.
• Roosevelt Street north of Grand A venue has three different curb-to-curb widths.
• The Village lacks a full system of pedestrian sidewalks.
• Northbound traffic on Carlsbad Boulevard and State Street is not allowed to reverse direction onto the
other street to return to the Village. No tum-around is possible until one crosses the lagoon and reaches
Oceanside.
• The entry to State Street from the north is difficult
Parking
• There is a shortage of parking at peak periods in a few high-demand areas.
4-1
• The City currently owns the land under only 66 of the total 380 public parking spaces in the Village.
The remainder of the spaces are located on land leased to the Agency by the railroad and other private
land owners.
• Due to limited personnel resources, parking regulations are not strictly enforced. Currently that seems
to have created few problems as noted in the parking utilization summary, but it would likely be a larger
problem with increased downtown business activity.
Land Use
• The deteriorated appearance of North State Street tends to inhibit higher quality development in the
area.
• The physical condition of the uses on the railroad right-of-way behind the North State Street frontage
also inhibits upgraded development in the North State Street area. In addition, it presents a poor
community image when viewed from AMTRAK and the future commuter rail trains.
• The unresolved mix of residential and automotive uses in the blocks bounded by Tyler and Roosevelt
Streets has a blighting influence on residential upgrading in the area.
• Automotive and other industrial uses along Tyler Street, North State Street and the railroad right-of-way
create potential toxic clean-up problems for an upgraded use of the areas.
• Noise and odor problems from automotive uses have some negative impacts on the adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
• The very small lots in the Village area are difficult to develop under existing city parking standards.
• Drive-up uses for financial institutions along Carlsbad Village Drive consume relatively large land
areas.
• Large office projects and the residential-to-commercial conversion of existing structures have removed
housing from the Village area and have substantially eroded the sense of neighborhoods.
• A significant portion of the existing housing stock is physically deteriorated.
Urban Design
• There is no sense of arrival at the ocean end of Carlsbad Village Drive and little feeling within the
Village that this is an oceanfront location.
• The linkage between the areas east and west of the railroad tracks is weak.
• The Carlsbad Village Drive entry to the area exhibits little of the Village character that is seen elsewhere
in the area.
• The North State Street entry to the Village presents a poor image.
• Several of the streets in the Village are exceptionally wide for the current traffic volumes and detrimental
to the reinforcement of a village character.
• There are many large areas of paving with little landscaping.
• Night pedestrian lighting, especially in the residential areas, is inadequate to promote a feeling of safety.
4-2
• Few retail shop windows are adequately lit at night.
Marketing and Implementation
• The Village is isolated in the far northwest comer of the City.
• The rich history of the area is little evident in the Village.
• High land costs make most types of development difficult.
• Short-term development opportunities are likely to be limited except in the area of affordable housing
because of general economic and real estate development conditions in California.
• Initially the Redevelopment Agency has only limited tax increment funds to invest in the Village area.
• The Downtown Association represents only a small proportion of businesses downtown and their good
efforts are limited by an absence of funding and a total reliance on volunteer labor.
• Non-uniform business hours and some stores ( antiques and collectibles) which operate on irregular
schedules have a negative effect on shopper attitudes.
RECOMMENDED VISION
During interviews and the public workshops, the issue of a vision for Carlsbad Village was explored. No clear
comprehensive vision was put forward, but the following components seemed to be shared by a strong majority
of the participants :
• The Village should serve as Carlsbad's downtown.
• Although tourism should be encouraged, most of the businesses in the Village can't survive on tourism
alone.
• The Village should continue to accommodate a wide range of uses.
• The Village should continue to be the financial institution center of Carlsbad.
• The Village should serve as a specialty retail center for the larger region.
• The plan for the Village should capitalize on the planned NCTD commuter rail station.
• Additional housing should be added to the Village but it should be of a higher quality than currently
exists there.
• The Village should maintain its small scale character. While the emphasis should not be as heavily on
tourism, the area should nevertheless have the charm and quality of other coastal communities like
Carmel and Santa Barbara.
The goals and objectives outlined later in this section and the development strategies recommended for
consideration in Section 5 have been developed based upon this general vision direction. An overall concept
plan and visual images of the Carlsbad Village of the future are shown in Figure 4-1. Major components of
the vision are as follows :
4-3
• The Village should serve both as a tourist center and as the commercial heart of substantial population
which lives within 5 miles ( Figure 4-2 ).
• The area west of the A.T. & S.F. Railroad tracks will continue to be focused on tourist-serving
accommodations as is consistent with the policies of the California Coastal Commission.
• A sense of destination and arrival will be created at the western terminus of Carlsbad Village Drive to
better establish the area's oceanside setting.
• Stronger pedestrian linkages will be created between State Street and Carlsbad Boulevard through
additional urban design improvements and commercial intensification.
• Intensification of development in the existing retail heart of the Village along State Street will be
encouraged.
• Additional public parking resources will be developed over time and more intense development will be
encouraged through the establishment of a parking district.
• A community use magnet such as a small performing arts space, community multi-use hall or cinema
will become a focus of night-time and weekend activities.
• North State Street and the railroad right-of-way will be cleaned up to serve as a mixed use area including
residential which is convenient to the commuter rail station.
• Focused efforts will be placed on the establishment of a mixed commercial, retail and residential area
built around the cultural heritage of the Hispanic community as a Village attraction and as a stimulus
to revitalization activities in the Barrio.
• The Village will be considered as the site of the new Carlsbad City Hall which is to be constructed
within the next ten to fifteen years.
• Existing housing will be improved, new housing will be built and the overall sense of a neighborhood
will be strengthened.
• The scale and character of buildings will reflect a village atmosphere and will distinguish Carlsbad
Village from other areas of the community and other communities of the region.
4-4
Objective 3.3
Limit commercial development in and adjacent to the residential neighborhoods to a type and
scale suitable to a residential environment
Objective 3.4
Improve the current housing stock in the Village
Objective 3.5
Increase the number of residential units in the Village
Objective 3.6
Provide a broad mix of housing opportunities in the Village
Goal 4 : Enhance the Area's Village Character
Objective 4.1
Encourage better utilization of small sites
Objective 4.2
Adopt appropriate development standards and design guidelines to achieve a village character
Objective 4.3
Improve the design review process to achieve a stronger village character
Objective 4.4
Assist property owners in architectural, signing and landscaping improvements to their property
Objective 4.5
Improve the visual character of the North State Street area
Goal 5 : Improve the Village's Competitive Position
Objective 5.1
Increase the Village's attractiveness to Carlsbad residents
Objective 5.2
Strengthen the current Downtown Business Association
Objective 5.3
Enhance the uniqueness of the Village area
Objective 5.4
Improve promotion of the area's unique history
4-9
Section 5
REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
OPPORTUNITY AREAS
In Figure 5-1 we have identified the Village areas where significant change might occur in the next fifteen
years. In arriving at these areas, we have considered many factors including blight, land ownerships,
under-utilization of parcels and potential market opportunities. The identification of these properties does not
in any way suggest that the Redevelopment Agency will acquire any of them or that the Agency will encourage
projects in these locations. Rather, they are areas where change is likely and where the Agency may wish to
exert some degree of influence in guiding future changes when they occur. Also the identification of an area
does not mean that all current uses in each sub-area are likely to change in the future. Indeed, some areas
contain structures and uses which are likely to remain for some time although change may occur around them.
The areas identified in Figure 5-1 are as follows :
A) This area contains one-story structures and a fair amount of vacant land and areas devoted to surface
parking. Approximately sixty percent of the area is under one land ownership. Its prime location may
over time lend itself to more intensive development.
B) This block contains the Alt Karlsbad building, the potential site of a new Carlsbad Historic Museum,
surface parking on leased land for Village Faire and a few other commercial and residential structures.
Its location along a prime linkage between State Street and Carlsbad Boulevard, nearness to the future
commuter rail station and proximity to Village Faire suggest that development in portions of this area will
be intensified in the future.
C) This largely vacant area is currently under a limited number of ownerships and has already been proposed
for development in the past.
D) The A.T. & S.F. right-of-way is currently occupied by a mix of automotive and industrial-type uses. The
North County Transit District has tentative plans to acquire this property as a part of the future commuter
rail station complex.
E) Located at a prime location with views of Buena Vista Lagoon, these parcels are vacant except for a small
area occupied by deteriorated structures.
F) This area is occupied by a variety of uses including automotive repair shops, a coin-operated laundry
facility and one commercial structure. The area is generally blighted in appearance.
G) Occupied by similar uses as "F," this area also contains a self-serve car wash, mobile home park and other
small service uses and offices. The Roosevelt Street frontage also includes several deteriorated residential
units.
H) This area is similar to both areas "F' and "G."
I) All of this area except the one parcel at the corner of Christianson Way is owned by the City of Carlsbad.
J) This large parcel is now largely devoted to fenced outdoor storage.
5-1
K) Vacant parcels.
L) Old and small structures converted to commercial use.
M) Most of this area is occupied by public parking lots ( owned and leased by the City ). The remaining
parcels mainly contain small residential structures, some of which have been converted to commercial
use.
N) Three small houses flanked on either side by larger office structures.
0) Large parking lot and drive-through banking facility for Bank of California.
P) Property occupied by the Good Shepherd Assembly of God Church. The church is reportedly growing
in membership and while they have no plans to relocate at the present time, they might consider a land
trade or buyout sometime in the future.
Q) This parcel contains a large drive-up banking facility for the Security Pacific Bank.
R) This area contains a wide mix of uses in a fairly dense development pattern. Because of the nature of the
uses and its location adjacent to Carlsbad Village Drive and existing public parking, it has potential to
change in the future.
S) This area contains a public parking lot ( leased by the. City ) and four smaller structures at least two of
which are in marginal condition. It is also adjacent to the public parking lot located on the A.T. & S.F.
right-of-way.
T) Most of this area is currently devoted to the City of Carlsbad Maintenance Yard.
U) A mix of automotive uses and small houses, most badly deteriorated, occupy these parcels.
V) Similar to area "U."
IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW
A Preliminary Implementation Strategy will be prepared during Phase 2. However, a few opportunities and
constraints should be kept in mind as the recommended strategies are reviewed :
Funding
To date funding for the implementation of Carlsbad's redevelopment program has been derived from two
primary sources: (1) the proceeds from tax allocation bonds supported by tax increment revenues, and (2) loans
from the City to the Redevelopment Agency. These funds have been used to cover the cost of constructing
streetscape improvements, providing added parking resources, improving housing conditions, and paying for
ongoing operating expenses. Although the redevelopment project produces approximately $ 2 million in tax
increment revenues, nearly all of these revenues are currently committed to the repayment of the tax allocation
bonds and city loans. Thus only limited funding is available for ongoing implementation activities.
Although limited revenues currently act as a constraint on implementation, it is reasonable to expect significant
increases in tax increment revenues over time. Such increases are likely to be generated by annual percentage
increases in property values, increases resulting from property sales, and rehabilitation and new construction.
A substantial increase in the size of the existing redevelopment project or the creation of a new redevelopment
5-3
project ( merged into the existing project ) could also produce a substantial mcrease in annual tax increment
revenues and funding available for implementation.
Although funding for some redevelopment activities may not be immediately available, funds for low and
moderate income housing assistance are currently accessible. State Law requires that twenty percent of all
annual tax increment collections must be set aside for that purpose and utilized within five years of collections.
Since Carlsbad as a whole has a median household income in excess of$ 40,000, housing assistance may
include units for families with household incomes of up to $ 50,000.
Acquisition Limits
Successful implementation of the Master Plan for Carlsbad Village may require the acquisition of some private
property. Although it is anticipated that nearly all of such acquisition will be accomplished on a voluntary,
opportunity by opportunity, basis some resort to the use of eminent domain may be required.
When the Redevelopment Plan for the Village was adopted, a twelve-year time limit was established on the
Agency's ability to acquire property through eminent domain. Since one of the most significant powers granted
cities through California Redevelopment Law is the use of eminent domain to remove blight and support private
investment initiatives through assistance in development parcel assembly, the loss of this power limits Agency
implementation options. While the City could amend the Redevelopment Plan to extend that authority, the
benefits of that action would need to be weighed against the potential consequences of re-opening the issue of
tax increment distributions.
California Coastal Commission
The revised Village Master Plan and Design Manual will need to be reviewed and approved by the Coastal
Commission as an amendment to Carlsbad's Local Coastal Plan ( LCP ). Certain Commission policies may
limit land uses west of the A. T. & S.F. Railroad tracks.
Special Development Standards
Since the Village is the oldest developed section of Carlsbad, small parcel sizes often with narrow but deep
proportions pose unique development problems not encountered elsewhere in the City. In addition the built-out
nature of the area poses obstacles to the assembly of these lots into more easily developable parcels. Therefore,
to stimulate new development to eliminate blight and upgrade the Village area, special standards different from
those used elsewhere in the City may need to be adopted.
Market Constraints
The general condition of the economy, the special problems currently associated with real estate financing, the
lack of larger development parcels and the relatively high cost of land in the Village all suggest that near-term
real estate development within Carlsbad Village will be modest in quantity.
5-4
Some units might have to be made available for nightly rental in accordance with California Coastal
Commission policies.
Site H could over time become a series of mixed-use developments ( i.e., residential over commercial ). They
would reinforce the linkage discussed in Strategy 3 as well as take advantage of their location adjacent to the
future commuter rail station. Parking for the Village Faire complex on leased parcels within this area is only
one of many issues which would need to be worked out.
Carlsbad Village Master Plan
& Implementation Strategy
5-25
Cannon Design Group
Keyser Marston Associates
John B. Dykstra & Associates
JHK & Associates
• Visually Reduce Street Widths
Several streets in the Village areas are far wider than needed to handle the current traffic volumes. A
visit to most any city which has a "village character" will reveal that streets are relatively narrow and
heavily landscaped. A reduction in the barrier of wide streets will assist in the overall image of the
Village. This could be accomplished by repeating the street median treatments already installed on
Roosevelt and Madison Streets or by adding planting pockets with trees in the existing parking areas
on each side of the designated streets.
• Reinforce the Existing Parkway System
The Village area at one time had a fairly strong parkway system ( i.e., a landscaped strip between the
curb and sidewalk ) but much of it has been lost to new development To the degree possible, it should
be recovered, reinforced and extended, to soften the area's urban design character.
• Add Historical Markers
A variety of graphic signs would be placed around the Village to show early images of the City and
convey the richness of the area's heritage.
STRATEGY20
REGULA TE THE SIZE OF BUILDINGS
TO MAINTAIN A VILLAGE
CHARACTER
The City of Carmel encourages a village scale and atmosphere by controlling the size of development. The
Downtown Ordinance limits building site coverage, maximum site size, maximum allowable floor area ratio
( i.e., total building area compared to parcel site area), maximum single structure size, building heights, second
story setbacks, driveway widths and building length along the front of a parcel. The ordinance encourages
small lot development and gives the Design Review Board a head start in dealing with larger developments.
STRATEGY21
PROVIDE ARCHITECTURAL
FACADE AND SIGNAGE DESIGN
ASSISTANCE
The Agency can encourage property owners to make improvements to their buildings by providing some initial
design assistance at no cost to the owner. This allows the property or business owner to consider improvements
without the intimidation and financial commitment of having to hire an architect or graphic designer without
first having a clear picture of the scope of improvements. This process might be tied to a grant or loan program.
With respect to signage, just getting new signs for a significant number of Village businesses would do a great
deal to increase the area's "village atmosphere."
5-27
Organization
STRATEGY22
STRENGTHEN THE DOWNTOWN
ASSOCIATION
The current Association is good but has limited membership and financial resources. It needs to be strengthened
and made a stronger partner in the downtown revitalization process with some specific responsibilities. One
responsibility might be for a Downtown Improvement District discussed below. Another could be the hiring
of a Downtown Coordinator whose full or part-time job would be to represent the Association's interests and
coordinate their activities. Many downtown associations in California fund such a position.
Other activities for the Downtown Association might be the preparation, printing and updating of a higher
quality Business Map and Directory than that currently distributed. They might also establish a summertime
"market night" to include a farmers' market, food vendors, craft vendors and entertainment. San Luis Obispo
has a very successful ''Thursday Night Market" which draws large crowds to their downtown area where many
businesses remain open on those nights.
STRATEGY23
ESTABLISH A PARKING AND
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
California State Law contains provisions which allow a city to establish a Parking and Business Improvement
District. Hearings are held and a district becomes effective unless written protests are received from owners
of businesses which would pay fifty percent or more of the assessments in the proposed area. Funds from the
assessments can be used for a) the funding of specific public improvements, b) providing parking, c) supporting
business area promotions and d) maintaining public improvements. The City Council appoints an Advisory
Board to make recommendation on the expenditure of revenues so the business community can strongly
influence the use of the funds. While the current business community might not wish to participate in such a
district now, it is not unreasonable to expect their participation if the Agency continues to financially support
revitalization efforts in the area.
5-28
Strategies and Goals Comparative Matrix Table 5-
C) -"' C") ~ .,, co "'-co 0) ~ -~ ~I -"' C") ~ .,, co "'-co 0) -------..... -..... "' ::i,.,. 2' 2' 2' ~ ::i,.,. 2' ::i,.,. ::i,.,. ::i,.,. ~ ::i,.,. ::i,.,. ::i,.,. ::i,.,. ::i,.,. ::i,.,. ::i,.,. 2' ::i,.,. ::i,.,. ::i,.,.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r t i .... .... .... ----tJ) tJ) r tJ) tJ) l l l tJ) 0) tJ) tJ) I tJ) tJ) tJ) tJ) tJ) tJ) tJ) tJ) tJ)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(/) (/) Cl) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) I
Goal 1 : Encourage New Development In the Village Area • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . Objective 1.1 -Remove blighting conditions • • • • • ()-. Objective 1.2 -Maximize development potential commuter rail station • • • • . Objective 1.3 -Development standards appropriate to unique conditions • • • • • . Objective 1.4 -Retain and increase resident-serving uses • • • • • • • . Objective 1.5 -Attract additional tourist-oriented development • • • • • • • • .. Objective 1.6 -Increase Agency tax increments • • • • • • • • • • •
Goal 2 : Improve Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation In the Village Area • • • • • • . Objective 2.1 -Establish sidewalks throughout lhe Village area • • Objective 2.2 -Integrate bicycle access and parking into circulation plan • • • • . Objective 2.3 -Add traffic control devices to improve circulation • . Objective 2.4 -Provide stronger linkage between Carlsbad Boulevard and State • • Streel •
Goal 3 : Preserve and Enhance the Village's Residential Neighborhoods • • • • • • • • • • . Objective 3.1 -Eliminate rurrent blighting conditions • • • • • • • • • . Objective 3.2 -Improve pedestrian circulation and security • • • . Objective 3.3 -limit commercial development to type and scale suitable to a • • • residential environment , ·-. Objective 3.4 -Improve the current housing stock in the Village • • \ . Objective 3.5 -Increase the number of residential units in the Village • • • • . Objective 3.6 -Provide a broad mix ol housing opportunities in the Village • • • •
Goal 4 : Enchance the Area's Village Character • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . Objective 4.1 -Encourage better utilization ol small sites • • . Objective 4.2 -Adopt standards and guidelines to achieve a village character • • • . Objective 4.3 -Improve the design review process • Objective 4.4 -Provide design assistance to property owners • Objective 4.5 -Improve the visual character ol the North State Street area • •
Goal 5 : Improve the Village's Competitive Position • • •
Objective 5.1 ...:. Increase the Village's attractiveness to Carlsbad residents • • • • • Objective 5.2 -Strengthen the current Downtown Business Association • • Objective 5.3 -Enhance the uniqueness ol the Village area • • • • • Objective 5.4 -Improve promotion ol the area's unique history • • •
APPENDIX A-2
LEVELS OF SERVICE AND
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
INTERSECTION CA ITY UTILIZATION MODEL
NS I-5 NB Ramps
EW: Carlsbad Village Drive
Winter 1991
PM PEAK
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS/ LANE GEOMETRY
0 0 0
I I t I
<--' V • -->
0 0 0
385 1 0
535 -----> 2 2 <-----
0 0 1
V V
1 0 1
<--, ,-->
I I
I I
405 0 250 I
t
North
LANE GROUP CAPACITY
Left Through Right
Turn Turn ----------------------------Default Capacity 1800 2000 1800 ----------------------------Northbound 0 0 1800
Southbound 0 0 0
Eastbound 1800 4000 0
Westbound 1800 4000 0
VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIO
Left Through Right
Turn Turn ----------------------------Northbound 0.0%
Southbound 0.0%
Eastbound 21.4%
Westbound 0.0%
EFFICIENCY LOST FACTOR
CAPACITY UTILIZATION
Percent Utilization
LEVEL OF SERVICE ---->
0.0%
0.0%
13.4%
.15.4%
0.1
60.7%
B
13.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
140
475
0
I NTERSECTION C \CITY UTILIZATION MODEL
Harding Street NS
EW Carlsbad Village Drive
Winter 1991
PM PEAK
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS/ LANE GEOMETRY
24 1
652 -----> 2
29 0
V
LANE GROUP CAPACITY
Default Capacity
Northbounq
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
16
I
I
<--'
<--,
0
0
47
Left
Turn
1800
0
0
1500
1500
VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIO
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Left
Turn
0.0%
0.0%
1. 6%
8.3%
EFFICIENCY LOST FACTOR
CAPACITY UTILIZATION
108
V
1
1
I
I .
89
Percent Utilization
LEVEL OF SERVICE ---->
336
I
I
'-->
0
0
,-->
59
Through
2000
1800
1800
4000
4000
Through
10.8%
25.6%
17.0%
, 23. 0%
0.1
60.8%
B
0 170
2 <-----749
1 124
V
I
I
North
Right
Turn
1800
0
0
0
0
Right
Turn
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
INTERSECTION ~ACITY UTILIZATION MODEL
NS State Street
EW: Carlsbad Village Drive
Winter 1991
PM PEAK
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS/ LANE GEOMETRY
14 1
431 -----> 2
36 0
V
LANE GROUP CAPACITY
Default Capacity
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
30
I
I
<--'
<--,
I I
1
0
35
Left
Turn
1800
0
0
1800
1800
VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIO
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Left
Turn
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
3.6%
EFFICIENCY LOST FACTOR
CAPACITY UTILIZATION
Percent Utilization
LEVEL OF SERVICE ---->
60
V
I I
1
1
70
175
I I
·-->
0
1
,-->
35
Through
2000
1800
1800
4000
4000
Through
5.8%
13.1%
11.7%
. 12. 3%
0.1
38.3%
A
0 130
2 <-----360
1 65
V
I I
North
Right
Turn
1800
1800
1800
0
0
Right
Turn
1.9%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
Appendix A-4
PARKING SPACE INVENTORY
The following tables detail the results of the parking space inventory conducted in the
study area in November 1991. These tables show the number of parking spaces by type, location
and restriction. Figure 1 shows the block numbering scheme used to identify each block. Table
1 details the on-street parking space inventory by block face and Table 2 details the off-street
parking inventory by block. Both tables include shading to indicate the Commercial Core Area
that was the focus of the occupancy and duration survey conducted for this study. This inventory
was used as a basis for calculating occupancy and duration rates detailed in the following
appendix, Appendix B-2.
Block Block General Public Parking
# Face Location Parallel 45• go•
6 South On-Street 8
6 East On-Street
6 West On-Street 10
7 East On-Street 7
8 North On-Street 14
8 South On-Street 4 9
8 East On-Street
8 West On-Street 21
9· South On-Street 3
9 East On-Street 7
9 West On-Street 8
10 North On-Street
10 East On-Street
10 West On-Street 36
11 North On-Street 6
Table 1 (continued)
ON-STREET PARKING SUPPLY
Time Restricted Parking
NP 3-5am,
Private Parking NP 3-5am 2 Hr Pkg 1 am-6pm
Parallel 45• go• NP 3-5am 1 3 Mon 3 min 20 min <Sun & Holidavs> 2 Hr 45•
-
6
2
Face
Sub Block
Total Total
0
8
0
6
0
10
0 34
7
0 7
14
0
13
0
0
0
21
0 48
3
0
7
0
8
0 18
0
0
2
0
36
0 38
6
0
Block Block General Public Parking
# Face Location Parallel 45* 90*
39 East On-Street 16
39 West On-Street 13
40 North On-Street 7
40 South On-Street
40 East On-Street 10
40 West On-Street 9
41 North On-Street 8
41 South On-Street 7
41 East On-Street 19
41 West On-Street 21
42 North On-Street 14
42 South On -Street 6
42 East On-Street 13
42 West On-Street 22
43 South On-Street 2
Table 1 (continued)
ON-STREET PARKING SUPPLY
Time Restricted Parking
NP 3-5am,
Private Parking NP 3-5am 2 Hr Pkg 1 am-6pm
Parallel 45* 90* NP 3-5am 1 3 Mon 3 min 20 min <Sun & Holidavs> 2 Hr 45*
15
5
Face
Sub Block
Total Total
0
16
0
13
0 41
7
0
0
0
10
0
9
0 26
8
0
7
0
19
0
36
0 70
14
0
6
0
13
0
27
0 60
2
0 2
Block Block General Public Parking
# Face Location Parallel 45* 90*
44 East On-Street 20
45 South On-Street 17
45 West On-Street 12
46 North On-Street 2
46 South On-Street
46 East On-Street 16
46 West On-Street 14
47 North On-Street
47 South On-Street 13
47 East On-Street 11
47 West On-Street 18
48 North On-Street 8
49 North On-Street 20
50 South On-Street 22
50 West On-Street 11
51 North On-Street 19
Table 1 (continued)
ON-STREET PARKING SUPPLY
Time Restricted Parking
NP 3-5am,
Private Parking NP 3-5am 2 Hr Pkg 1 am-6pm
Parallel 45* 90* NP 3-5am 1 3 Mon 3 min 20 min <Sun & Holidavs> 2 Hr 45*
2
Face
Sub Block
Total Total
20
0 20
17
0
12
0 29
2
0
0
0
16
0
14
0 32
0
0
13
0
11
0
18
0 42
8
0 8
20
0 20
22
0
13
0 35
19
Block
#
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Total
Table 2
OFF-STREET PARKING SUPPL V
PUBLIC PRIVATE
Unrestricted Unrestricted 2 Hr
72
99
274
380 2827 205
Block
Total
0
72
99
0
0
0
274
0
3412
APPENDIX A-5
CORE AREA PARKING OCCUPANCY
AND DURATION SURVEY
Appendix A-5
CORE AREA PARKING OCCUPANCY AND
DURATION SURVEY
The following graphics show the detailed results of the Parking Occupancy and Duration
Survey conducted by JHK & Associates on November 23 and November 26, 1991 in the
Commercial Core of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Study Area. The graphics show public
parking (both on-street and off-street parking) and private off-street parking. Public off-street
parking consists of the nine free village parking areas shown in Figure 1. Figures 2 through 5
detail weekday parking occupancy and duration, and Figures 6 through 9 detail the Saturday
results.
OCCUPANCY AND DURATION OF PARKING IN VILLAGE LOTS
LOTA
Spaces
33
33
8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00
SATIJRDAY
TUESDAY
0 2 8 16 15 16 13 16 17
6 15 23 22 23 24 26 26 24
SATURDAY AVG. OCCUPANCY: 35%
SATURDAY PEAK OCCUPANCY: 52%
SATURDAY A VG. DURATION: 2.1 HRS.
TUESDAY AVG. OCCUPANCY: 64%
TUESDAY PEAK OCCUPANCY: 79%
TUESDAY AVG. DURATION: 3.8 HRS.
LOT B
Spaces 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00
SATIJRDAY 30 3 9 20 24 21 28 26 24 19
TUESDAY 30 13 30 29 27 29 30 23 26 18
SATIJRDAY AVG. OCCUPANCY: 2% TUESDAY A VG. OCCUPANCY: 83%
SA TIJRDA Y PEAK OCCUPANCY: 8% TIJESDAY PEAK OCCUPANCY: 100%
SATURDAY A VG. DURATION: 1.3 HRS. TUESDAY AVG. DURATION: 2.6 HRS.
LOTC
Spaces 8:00 9:00
SATIJRDAY 29 6 8
TUESDAY 29 4 12
SATURDAY AVG. OCCUPANCY: 51%
SATIJRDAYPEAKOCCUPANCY: 66%
10:00
15
20
SATIJRDAY AVG. DURATION: 2.7 HRS.
11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00
17 19 19 19 16 14
23 25 23 23 19 21
TUESDAY AVG. OCCUPANCY: 64%
TIJESDA Y PEAK OCCUPANCY: 86%
TUESDAY AVG. DURATION: 3.8 HRS.
LOTD
Spaces 8:00 9:00
SATIJRDAY 39 1 1
TIJESDAY 39 4 3
SATIJRDAY AVG. OCCUPANCY: 2%
SATIJRDAY PEAK OCCUPANCY: 8%
10:00
3
2
SA TIJRDA YA VG. DURATION: 1.3 HRS.
11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00
3 0 0 0 0 1
2 1 1 1 2 2
TIJESDAY AVG. OCCUPANCY: 5%
TUESDAYPEAKOCCUPANCY: 10%
TUESDAY AVG. DURATION: 2.6 HRS.
OCCUPANCY AND DURATION OF PARKING IN VILLAGE LOTS (Cont.)
LOTE
Spaces 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00
SATURDAY 77 3 5 6 8 10 11 13 12 10
TIJESDAY 77 18 21 24 25 27 25 25 19 20
SATIJRDAY AVG. OCCUPANCY: 11% TUESDAY AVG. OCCUPANCY: 29%
SA TIJRDA Y PEAK OCCUPANCY: 17% TUESDAY PEAK OCCUPANCY: 35%
SATURDAY A VG. DURATION: 1.9 HRS. TIJESDA Y AVG. DURATION: 3.1 HRS.
LOTF
Spaces 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00
SATURDAY 15 1 5
TIJESDAY 15 9 11
SATIJRDAY AVG. OCCUPANCY: 57%
SATIJRDAYPEAKOCCUPANCY: 80%
SATURDAY A VG. DURATION: 2.6 HRS.
8 12 8 7 12 10 9
11 12 11 12 8 7 7
TIJESDA Y AVG. OCCUPANCY: 70%
TUESDAYPEAKOCCUPANCY: 80%
TIJESDA YA VG. DURATION: 2.4 HRS.
LOTG
Spaces
50
50
8:00
3
9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00
17
18
3:00
15
17
4:00
12
21
SATURDAY
TIJESDAY
9 15 17 17 19
6 13
SATURDAY AVG. OCCUPANCY: 28%
SATIJRDAY PEAK OCCUPANCY: 38%
SATURDAY A VG. DURATION: 4.0 HRS.
13 18 15 16
TUESDAY AVG. OCCUPANCY:
TUESDAY PEAK OCCUPANCY:
TIJESDA YA VG. DURATION:
LOTH
30%
42%
2.8 HRS.
Spaces
51
8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00
SATURDAY
TIJESDAY
1 5 15 18 20 21 19 15 14
51 4 14
SATIJRDAY AVG. OCCUPANCY: 28%
SATURDAY PEAK OCCUPANCY: 41 %
SATURDAY A VG. DURATION: 3.4 HRS.
18 23 26 27 24 26
TUESDAY AVG. OCCUPANCY: 41%
TUESDAYPEAKOCCUPANCY: 51%
26
TIJESDA Y AVG. DURATION: 3.7 HRS.
Appendix B
MARKET POTENTIALS
APPENDIX B· 1
DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS, 1980·1990
CARLSBAD VILLAGE MASTER PLAN ······-·········
ANNUAL
1980 1990 ANNUAL PERCENT
CENSUS CENSUS CHANGE CHANGE (1)
POPULATION .............
CENSUS TRACTS 179 ' 180 8,039 11 ,215 318 3.4X
CARLSBAD 35,490 63,126 2,764 5.9X
OCEANSIDE 76,698 128,398 5,170 5.3X
VISTA 35,834 71,872 3,604 7.2X
TRl·CITY AREA 148,022 263,396 11,537 5.9X
SAN DIEGO REGION (2) 1,861,846 2,498,016 63,617 3.0X
HOUSEHOLDS
CENSUS TRACTS 179 , 180 3,395 4,553 116 3.0X
CARLSBAD 13,586 24,995 1,141 6.3X
OCEANS IDE 29,022 46,741 1,772 4.9X
VISTA 13,690 25,371 1,168 6.4X
TRI ·CITY AREA 56,298 97,107 4,081 5.6X
SAN DIEGO REGION (2) 670,094 887,403 21,731 2.8X
TOTAL PERCENT
CHANGE CHANGE
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE
CENSUS TRACTS 179' 180 2.29 2.38 0.09 3.9X
CARLSBAD 2.54 2.47 (0.07) ·2.8X
OCEANSIDE 2.58 2.72 0.14 5.4X
VISTA 2.60 2.78 0.18 6.9X
TRI ·CITY AREA 2.58 2.67 0.09 3.5X
SAN DIEGO REGION (2) 2.62 2.69 0.07 2.7X
MEDIAN AGE
CENSUS TRACTS 179 ' 180 26.86 30.19 3.33 12.4X
CARLSBAD 32.10 35.20 3.10 9.7X
OCEANSIDE 28.40 30.80 2.40 8.5X
VISTA 29.60 29.70 0.10 0.3X
TR I ·CITY AREA 29.58 31.55 1.98 6.7X
SAN DIEGO REGION (2) 28.70 30.90 2.20 7.7X
(1) COU'OUNOED ANNUAL RATE Of GAOi/TH.
(2) SANOAG DEFINES REGION AS 18 LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ANO UNINCORPORATED AREA.
SOURCE: KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Jan·92
APPENDIX 8·4
PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN TOTAL EMPLOYMENT, 1980 TO 1990
CARLSBAD VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
TOTAL
TRACT 179 TRACT 180 TRACTS 179 & 180 CITY OF CARLSBAD REGION (1)
1980-1990 1980-1990 1980-1990 1980-1990 1980-1990
=--•---=---==--:rs: =-=--==::a:--==-=-=-----=-------===---=-= --s-:::-------------------=-==•=--z---::r
,R. FORESTRY, FISH . & MINING
CONSTRUCTION
MANUFACTURING
TRANSPORTATION, Cc»1HUNICATIONS, UTILITIES
IIHOLESALE TRADE
RETAIL TRADE
F.l.R.E.
SERVICES
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT (NON-GOVERNMENT)
-63.SX
70.3%
30.4%
-19.0X
·32.ZX
46.7%
50.7%
113.7%
56.9%
(1) SANOAG DEFINES REGION AS 18 LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ANO UNINCORPORATED AREA.
100.0X -34.9%
71.9% 70.5%
zoo.ox 36.8%
N/A -8.6%
255.6% -4.8%
69.9% 55.0X
166.1% 69.6%
69.6% 97.1%
82.0X 64.0X
SOURCE: SANOAG BASED ON DATA COMPILED BY PRIVATELY CONTRACTED SURVEY RESEARCH FIRM ANO KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
-40.9% 61.6%
87.5% 68.5%
114.4% Z0.6X
100.1% 29.0X
312. IX 61.7%
96.4% 42.6%
269.9% 71.4%
193.3% 64.4%
119.SX 49.6%
feb-92
APPENDIX 8·6
TAXABLE SALES BY AREA, 1970 ANO 1980-1990
CARLSBAD VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
(SOOO)
YEAR CARLSBAD OCEANS I OE
1970 S31, 187 S79,888
1980 S289,909 S253,443
1981 S337,472 S281,371
1982 S359, 774 S301,632
1983 S407,933 $332,904
1984 S482,963 S381,309
1985 S542,677 S419,468
1986 S571,855 S437,320
1987 S607,566 S509,510
1988 S703, 130 S573, 723
1989 $808,259 S629,623
1990 S849,284 S651,857
AVG. ANNUAL INCREASE 1970-1980 25.0X 12.ZX
AVG . ANNUAL INCREASE 1980·1990 11.3X 9.9%
AVG. ANNUAL INCREASE 1985-1990 9.4X 9.2X
SWRCE: KEYSER HARSTON ASOCIATES, INC.; CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
Feb·92
TRI-CITY
VISTA TOTAL COUNTY
S29, 743 S140,818 SZ,478,538
S113,931 S657,283 S9,364,087
S122,398 $741,241 SI0,463,409
S128,840 S790,246 S10,642,530
S137,011 S877,848 Sll,659,463
S160,291 $1,024,563 S13,685,Z35
S198,516 SI, 160,661 S15,307,319
S205, 182 Sl,214,357 S16,404,248
$236,359 SI ,353,435 $17,897,159
S267,235 Sl,544,088 S19,381,882
$311,222 Sl,749, 104 $21,271,346
S327,832 Sl,828,973 S21, 751,246
14.4X 16.7X 14.ZX
11.1X 10.8X 8.8X
10.6X 9.5X 7.3X
APPENDIX 8·9
HCAJSING INVENTORY ANO VACANCY, 1980·1990
CARLSBAD VILLAGE MASTER PLAN ...... -... ----....
1980 1990
CENSUS CENSUS
HCAJSING UNITS
CENSUS TRACTS 179 & 180 3,752 5,001
CARLSBAD 15,352 24,995
OCEANSIDE 32,733 46,741
VISTA 14,962 25,371
TRI ·CITY AREA 63,047 97,107
SAN DIEGO REGION (1) no,346 887,403
VACANT UNITS
CENSUS TRACTS 179 & 180 357 448
CARLSBAD 1,766 2,240
OCEANSIDE 3,711 4,368
VISTA 1,272 2,047
TRI ·CITY AREA 6,749 8,655
SAN DIEGO REGION (1) 50,252 58,837
PERCENT VACANT (2)
CENSUS TRACTS 179 & 180 9.5X 9.0X
CARLSBAD 11 .SX 9.0X
OCEANSIDE 11.3X 9.3X
VISTA 11.SX 8. lX
TRl·CITY AREA 10.7X 8.9%
SAN DIEGO REGION (1) 7.0X 6.6X
(1) SANDAG DEFINES REGION AS 18 LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND UNINCORPORATED AREA.
(2) SECOND HOMES AND TIME·SHARES ARE CCAJNTEO AS VACANT UNITS.
SOURCE: KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
feb·92
ANNUAL PERCENT
CHANGE CHANGE
125 33.3X
964 62.8X
1,401 42.8X
1,041 69.6X
3,406 54.0X
16,706 23.2X
9 25.SX
47 26.8X
66 17.7X
78 60.9%
191 28.2X
859 17.1X
NA ·0.6X
NA ·2.5X
NA ·2.0X
NA ·0.4X
NA ·1.8X
NA ·0.3X
APPENDIX B-11
HaJSING INVENTORY BY UNIT TYPE, 1980·1990
CARLSBAD VILLAGE MASTER PLAN ---·· -----.. -----
ANNUAL
1980 1990 ANNUAL PERCENT
CENSUS CENSUS CHANGE CHANGE (1)
SINGLE·FAKILY HaJSING UNITS ... ··----..
CENSUS TRACTS 179 & 180 1,314 1,651 34 2.3X
CARLSBAD 9,396 11,n1 833 6.6X
OCEANSIDE 18,348 32,104 1,376 5.8%
VISTA 9,105 14,950 585 5.1X
TRI ·CITY AREA 36,849 64,781 2,793 5.8X
SAN DIEGO REGIOII (2) 434,275 558,800 12,453 2.6X
HULTl·FAKILY HaJSING UNITS
CENSUS TRACTS 179 & 180 2,403 3,327 92 3.3X
CARLSBAD 5,on 8,236 316 5.0X
OCEANSIDE 11,200 15,797 460 3.5%
VISTA 4,478 10,244 5n 8.6%
TRl·CITY AREA 20,755 34,2TT 1,352 5.1X
SAN DIEGO REGION (2) 238,845 330,298 9,145 3.3X
TOTAL PERCENT
CHANGE CHANGE
PERCENT SINGLE-FAMILY HaJSING UNITS
CENSUS TRACTS 179 & 180 35.4% 33 .2% ·Z.2X ·6.2X
CARLSBAD 64.9% 68.3% 3.4X 5.ZX
OCEANSIDE 62.1% 67.0X 4.9% 7.9%
VISTA 67.0X 59.3% -7.7X ·11.5X
TRl·CITY AREA 64.0X 65.4% 1.4X 2.2X
SAN DIEGO REGION (2) 64.5% 62.9% ·1.7X ·2.6X
(1) CCJIPQJNDED ANNUAL RATE OF GROIITH.
(2) SANDAG DEFINES REGIOII AS 18 LOCAL JURISOICTIOIIS ANO UNINCORPORATED AREA.
SaJRCE: ICEYSER MARSTOII ASSOCIATES, INC.
Feb·92
APPENDIX 8·12
SINGLE·FAMILY VS. HULTl ·FAMILY PERMITS
CARLSBAD VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
CARLSBAD .... --........ ---................... ·-·-------·-
YEAR SINGLE· HULT!· X HULT!·
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
................... ---·--·----------...................
1960 281 141 33.41%
1981 266 216 44.81%
1982 169 242 58.88%
1983 606 754 48.33%
1984 1,105 802 42.06%
1985 1,264 1,547 55.03%
1986 1,212 1,353 52.75%
1987 444 215 32.63%
1988 293 1.32 31 .06%
1989 256 97 27.48%
1990 273 266 49.35%
1991 (*) 137 0 o.oox
AVERAGE PER YEAR 1980· 1990 579 524 47.51%
(*) THRWGH OCTOBER 1991.
SAN DIEGO COJNTY ..................................................
SINGLE· HULT!· X MULTI·
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY ---.............................. -------........
6,359 6,582 50.86%
3,294 5,369 61.98%
3,780 3,917 50.89%
10,694 10,614 49.81%
12,161 21,238 63.59%
12,792 26,329 67.30%
15,882 27,679 63.54%
15,407 15,920 50.82%
14,229 14, 164 49.89%
10,708 8,105 43.08%
6,621 9,175 58.08%
4,923 2,373 32.52X
10,175 13,554 57.12%
SOURCE: GREATER SAN DIEGO CHAMBER Of CCHIERCE; KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Feb·92
APPENDIX B-15
SURVH Of RENTAL APAUMENTS
CARLSBAD VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
YEAR UNIT RENT PER PAID VACANT PERCENT
NAME ANO LOCATION BUILT UNITS STORIES MIX TTPE SQ.FT. RENT SQ.FT. EXPENSES UNITS VACANT COHHENTS
RYAN APARTMENTS 1971 27 2 19 1B/1b 525 S525 S1.00 water, trash 3.70% LOI/ER ENO QUALi TT
2635 MADISON 8 2B/1b 980 S650 S0.66
CARLSBAD CABANA 1974 26 2 14 1B/1b 600 S585 S0.98 water, trash 3.85% LAUNDRY ROOM, POOL, 1 COVERED
2730 JEFFERSON 7 2B/1b 800 S675 S0.84 PARK I NG SPACE PER UN IT.
5 2B/1.5b 1,000 S700 S0.70
PARK PLACE APARTMENTS 1986 44 2 20 2B/2.5b 990 S865 S0.87 water, trash 2 4.55X
2605 JEFFERSON 24 2B/2b 970 S775 S0.80
LAGUNA PALMS APARTMENTS 1975 45 2 24 1B/1b 750 S575 S0.77 water, trash 2.22,: LAUNDRY ROOM, 1 COVERED
935 LAGUNA 21 2B/1b 900 S675 S0.75 PARK I NG SPACE PER UN IT.
ROOSEVELT MEADOlo'S 1984 34 2 34 2B/2b 850 S665 S0.78 water, trash 2.94% LAUNDRY ROOM, JACUZZI 3515-3563 TYLER ST
SPANISH LANDING 1985 24 2/3 2 1B/1b 710 S625 S0.88 water, trash 4.17X POOL, JACUZZI, LAUNDRY , f IRE·
315 ACACIA 22 2B/2b 875 sn5 S0.83 PLACES, SCf1E GARAGES
CARLSBAD SHORES 1984 23 2 1 STUDIO 490 S520 S1 .06 water, trash 0 O.OOX SCf1E UNITS FURNISHED .
360 CHESTNUT 10 1B/1b 700 S600 S0.86
12 2B/2b 900 S700 S0.78
CYPRESS cove 1985 31 2 1 1B/1b 700 S595 S0 .85 water, trash 3.23X POOL, JACUZZI, MOSTLY YOUNG
355 PINE 30 2B/2b 850 S715 S0 .84 PROFESSIONALS 111TH ROOM MATES.
SANDCASTLE SHORES 1985 64 2 50 2B/2b 900 S750 S0.83 water, trash 4 6.25% POOL, JACUZZI, LAUNDRY ROOM
SEC OF IIALNUT ANO LINCOLN 14 2B/1b 700 S695 S0 .99
OCEAN BREEZE APARTMENTS 1984 18 2 18 2B/2b 850 S665 S0.78 water, trash 0 o.oox SPA, REC ROOM, LAUNDRY ROOH.
475-495 CHESTNUT
PADRE APARTMENTS NA 24 2 4 STUDIO 450 S459 S1.02 water, trash 2 8.33% TUCK ·UNDER PARK( NG Ill TH
3316 HARDING 1990 REMOOELEO 20 1B/1b 600 S559 S0.93 GARAGES,
MAPLE COURT APARTMENTS 1988 9 2 4 2B/2.5b 1,150 S850 S0.74 trash only 0 o.oox 2 STORIES OVER GATED PARKING,
SIIC OF MAPLE ANO GARF I ELD 4 2B/2.5b 1,350 S1,200 S0.89 FIREPLACES, 11/0 HOOKUPS,
1 3B/2.5b 2,000 S1 ,500 S0.75 IIE T BAR, MI CROIIA VE
CARLSBAD COAST APARTMENTS 1970 n 2 10 STUDIO 415 S500 S1.20 water, trash 8 11 .11,: GATED PARKING, POOL, REC ROOH
357 CHESTNUT 30 1B/1b 625 S600 S0.96
32 2B/2b 870 S700 S0.80
TOTAL/AVERAGE 441 15 STUDIO 429 S490 S1.14 22 4.99%
120 18EO 635 S575 S0.90
305 2BED 894 sn1 S0.81
1 3BED 2,000 S1,500 S0.75
OVERALL AVERAGE 811 S679 S0.84
SCl.lRCE: ICEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Feb-92
APPENDIX 8·16
SURVEY Of SENIOR RENTAL APARTMENTS
CARLSBAD VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
NAME AND LOCATION
SET APARTMENTS
11 CHINQUAPIN
JEFFERSON HOJSE I
JEFFERSON AND OAIC AVENUE
JEFFERSON HOJSE II
2848 JEFFERSON
TOTAL/AVERAGE
YEAR
BUILT
1984
1984
1988
SOURCE: KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
feb-92 •
UNITS STORIES
36 2
48 3
57 3
141
MIX
36
48
50
7
134
7
UNIT
TYPE
1B/1b
1B/1b
18/lb
2B/1b
1B/1b
2B/1b
SQ.FT. RENT
525 S500
488 S525
500 S535
600 S635
502 S522
600 S635
RENT PER
SQ.FT.
S0.95
S1 .08
S1.07
Sl.06
S1.04
S1 .06
PAID
EXPENSES
water, trash
water, trash
water, trash
VACANT
UNITS
2
2
5
PERCENT
VACANT
5.56X
4.17X
1.75X
3.55X
COMMENTS
EAST Of 1-5, LAUNDRY,
NO AMENITIES, 62+ YEAR OLD;
62+ YEAR OLD; SOME COVERED
PARKING; ELEVATOR, 3-STORY.
REC ROOM; LAUNDRY ROOM
REC ROOM, LAUNDRY ROOM
62+ YEAR OLD; SOME COVERED
PARKING; ELEVATOR
APPENDIX B· 17
POPULATION ANO HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS, 1990-2000
CARLSBAD VILLAGE MASTER PLAN --------------··
ANNUAL ANNUAL
PERCENT PERCENT
CHANGE (2) CHANGE (2)
1980 1990 1980-1990 1995 (1) 1990-1995
.... ----.. ------------ --
CENSUS TRACTS 179 ANO 180
.. -------........ - -----.... --
POPULATION 8,039 11,215 3.4X 12,693 2.5X
HOUSEHOLDS 3,395 4,553 3.0X 5,153 2.5%
Cl TT OF CARLSBAD ----............ ----
POPULATION 35,490 63, 126 5.9X 76,555 3.9X
HOUSEHOLDS 13,586 24,995 6.3% 30,440 4.0X
OCEANSIDE, CARLSBAD, & VISTA
....... ---.......... ----·------
POPULATION 148,022 263,396 5.9X 318,979 3.9X
HOUSEHOLDS 56,298 97,107 5.6% -117,704 3.9X
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
.. --------------..
POPULATION 1,861,846 2,498,016 3.0X 2,810,509 2.4%
HOUSEHOLDS 670,094 887,403 2.8X 998,414 2.4%
(1) PROJECTIONS BASED 011 HISTORICAL GROWTH PATTERNS ANO ASSIME A DECLINING ANNUAL PERCENTAGE GROWTH RATE OVER TIME.
(2) COHPOJNOEO ANNUAL RATE OF GROWTH.
SOURCE: KETSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Feb-92
ANNUAL ANNUAL
PERCENT PERCENT
CHANGE (2) CHANGE (2)
2000 (1) 1995-2000 2005 2000 -2005 ----------------------
14,183 2.2X 15,661 2.0X
5,758 2.2X 6,358 2.0X
89,030 3. IX 102,212 2.BX
36, 135 3.SX 41,975 3.0X
370,958 3.1X 425,883 2.8X
136,885 3.1X 157,153 2.BX
3,133,570 2.2X 3,459,715 2.0X
1,113,179 2.2X 1,229,040 2.0X
APPENDIX B-21
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
CARLSBAD VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
AREA
CENSUS TRACT 179
CENSUS TRACT 180
TOTAL (179 & 180)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNTY OF SAN O I ECO
MEDIAN INCOME
1990
('89 S)
S23,093
S22,TT8
S22,9n
S43,47'9
S33,no
MAXIMUM
AFFORDABLE
RENT /MONTH ( 1)
S577
S569
S574
S1,087
S843
MAXHlJM
AFFORDABLE
Hc»1E PRICE (2)
S59, 100
S58, 100
S58,700
S122,200
S92,DOO
I MEDIAN CONDO·
MINIUM PRICE,
I C !TY OF CARLSBAD
( 1990) (3)
S148,000
S148,000
S148,000
S148,000
S148,000
(1) MAXIMUM RENT AFFORDABILITY OF 30X OF MEDIAN INCOME LESS UTILITY EXPENSE ESTIMATED AT S50 PER MONTH.
PERCENT OF
HOUSE HOLDS THAT CAN
AFFORD MEO I AN S
CARLSBAD CONDO (4)
15.9%
12.3X
14.SX
41.1X
28.3X
(2) MORTGAGE (PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST) IS AHORTIZEO OVER 30 YEARS AT 9.0X INTEREST , Hc»1E OIINERS ASSOCIATION DUES ARE ASSUHEO TO BE S100 PER MONTH, HONTHLY UTILITIES ARE
ESTIMATED AT S50, AND PROPERTY TAXES ARE 1.0X OF THE PURCHASE PRICE PER YEAR. TOTAL ANNUAL PAYMENT NOT TO EXCEED 30X OF MEDIAN INCc»1E. ASSUHE 10X OOIIN PAYMENT.
(3) SWRCE: SAN DIEGO BOARD OF REALTORS, AUQJST 1991.
(4) MINIMUM ANNUAL INCOME OF SS0,000 IS REQUIRED TO QUALIFY FOR A 90X LOAN TO VALUE OM A MEDIAN PRICED CONDO. KEY ASSUHPTIONS: MORTGAGE IS AHORTIZED OVER 30 YEARS AT 9.0X
INTEREST; HOME OWNERS DUES ARE S100 PER 11011TH; UTILITIES AVERAGE S50 PER MONTH; AND PROPERTY TAXES ARE 1.0X OF THE PURCHASE PRICE.
SWRCE: SANOAG ANO KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Feb-92
Qla.
Qlb.
Qlc.
HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY
CIC RESEARCH, INC.
DECEMBER 1991
Availability of apartments downtown for young people
(1) Poor 10.5%
(2) 10.5%
(3) 34.9%
(4) 16.3%
(5) Excellent 16.3%
Don't know 11.5%
Mean 3.2
Shopping facilities downtown
(1) Poor 5.9%
(2) 9.2%
(3) 27.3%
(4) 29.8%
(5) Excellent 27.0%
Don't know 0.8%
Mean 3.63
Availability of jobs downtown
(1) Poor 24.2%
(2) 21.9%
(3) 28.3%
(4) 5.4%
(5) Excellent 2.3%
Don't know 17.9%
Mean 2.26
B-22-1
Qld.
Q2a.
Q2b.
HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY
CIC RESEARCH, INC.
DECEMBER 1991
Condition of housing downtown
(1) Poor 8.2%
(2) 14.8%
(3) 34.9%
(4) 29.1%
(5) Excellent 10.7%
Don't know 2.3%
Mean 3.20
Enjoy the beach in downtown
(1) Strongly disagree 4.6%
(2) 3.1%
(3) 6.6%
(4) 13.0%
(5) Strongly agree 71.7%
Don't know 1.0%
Mean 4.46
Adequate grocery, drug, convenience stores
(1) Strongly disagree 8.2%
(2) 10.5%
(3) 20.7%
(4) 21.2%
(5) Strongly agree 39.0%
Don't know 0.5%
Mean 3.73
B-22-2
Q2c.
Q2d.
Q3.
HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY
CIC RESEARCH, INC.
DECEMBER 1991
Stores cater to visiting tourists
(1) Strongly disagree 6.9%
(2) 11.5%
(3) 31.4%
(4) 18.4%
(5) Strongly agree 29.3%
Don't know 2.6%
Mean 3.53
Enjoy downtown restaurants
(1) Strongly disagree 8.9%
(2) 7.9%
(3) 19.6%
(4) 20.9%
(5) Strongly agree 41.3%
Don't know 1.3%
Mean 3.79
How long have you lived in Carlsbad?
Less than 1 year 9.7%
1 to 2 years 16.6%
3 to 9 years 38.5%
10 years or more 35.2%
Mean 10.89 years
B-22-3
Q9b.
QlO.
Qll.
HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY
CIC RESEARCH, INC.
DECEMBER 1991
No. of bathrooms (renters)
Single-family owners 19.4%
1 51.0%
1.5 3.3%
2 22.7%
2.5 3.1%
3 0.5%
Mean (renters) 1.37 baths
Condition of complex/home (renters)
Single-family owners 19.4%
Excellent 24.7%
Good 35.5%
Fair 16.8%
Poor 3.6%
Mean (renters) 1.99
Monthly rental rate (renters)
Owners 27.3%
$100 to $499 2.0%
$500 to $799 24.2%
$800 to $1,000 30.6%
$1,001 to $1,249 10.5%
$1,250 to $1,499 2.3%
Don't know 3.1%
Mean (renters) $659.68
B-22-7
HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY
CIC RESEARCH, INC.
DECEMBER 1991
015. No. of people in household
1 26.5%
34.4%
14.8%
12.0%
2
3
4
5
6 and over
Mean
6.4%
5.7%
2.59
Cross-tab: Household's total annual income by persons per bedroom (*)
No. of persons per bedroom
Income Group <1 1-2 2-2
Under $7,500 8.7% 82.6% 8.7%
$7,500 to $14,999 5.4% 60.7% 33.9%
$15,000 to $24,999 9.2% 84.6% 6.2%
$25,000 to $34,999 10.0% 85.0% 5.0%
$35,000 to $49,999 11.5% 78.8% 9.6%
$50,000 or more 12.0% 88.0% 0.0%
Total/Mean 9.3% 79.0% 11.7%
Mean
1.41
2.15
1.43
1.36
1.34
1.13
1.51
(*) Person per bedroom = Number of persons in household (015) divided by
number of bedrooms (09a).
016. No. of people employed
0
1
2
3
4 and over
Mean
B-22-9
21.7%
30.4%
37.0%
7.1%
3.4%
1.42
HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY
CIC RESEARCH, INC.
DECEMBER 1991
Cross-tab: No. of people and employed in household by housing type
Type of No. of No. of
Housing (05) people (015) employed (016)
Single-family 3.09 1.48
Condo 1.94 1.43
Apartment 2.39 1.40
Retirement home 1.25 0.00
Duplex 2.64 1.21
Triplex/Fourplex 3.29 1.71
Mobil home 2.00 l...QQ
Mean 2.59 1.42
Cross-tab: Housing & household characteristics by rent or own (Q6)
How long in Carlsbad ( Q3) 7.79 19.13
How long in present home ( Q4) 3.57 14.37
No. of units in complex (Q7) 33.52 19.33
SF of unit (Q8) 949.93 1,230.63
No. of bedrooms (Q9a) 1.72 1.87
No. of baths (Q9b) 1.34 1.71
No. of people in household (Q15) 2.61 2.53
No. of people employed (Q16) 1.48 1.24
B-22-11
HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY
CIC RESEARCH, INC.
DECEMBER 1991
Cross-tab: Monthly rental rate by household's total annual income
Income Group (019)
Under $7,500
$7,500 to $14,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 or more
Refused
Total/Mean
Mean Rent (011)
$557.91
$629.72
$637.73
$653.73
$763.40
$756.88
$612.75
$659.68
Cross-tab: Total monthly housing cost (*) vs. housing affordability (**) by household's
total annual income (renters only)
Income Group (019)
Under $7,500
$7,500 to $14,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 or more
Total/Mean
Total Housing Cost
Below or at
Affordability
0.0%
1.8%
16.7%
73.2%
91.5%
JLl!%
37.1%
Above
Affordability
100.0%
98.2%
83.3%
26.8%
8.5%
100.0%
62.9%
(*) Total monthly housing cost = rent (Q11) + gas & electric (Q12a) + water
(Q13a).
(**) Housing affordability = income (Q19) divided by 12 months X 0.30
allocation.
B-22-13
APPENDIX 8·23
RESIDUAL LAND VALUE ANALYSIS: RETAIL SPACE (100X ON·SITE PARKING)
CARLSBAD VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SITE SIZE
BUILDING SIZE
PARKING
42,000 SF LAND
1 STORY
11,000 SF GSA
100.00X EFFICIENCY
55 SPACES
5.00 SPACES/1,000 SF GSA
350 SF /SPACE
DIRECT CONSTRUCT I ON
TENANT IMPROVEMENTS
ON-SITES AND DFF·SITES
PARKING-SURFACE
CITY FEES ' PERMITS
INDIRECTS INCLUDING FINANCING
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS EXCLUDING LAND
GROSS SCHEDULED RENT
(LESS) VACANCY AND BAO DEBT
EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME (EGI)
(LESS) OPERATING EXPENSES
MANAGEMENT FEE
CAM REIMBURSEMENTS
RESERVES
NET OPERATING I NCOHE
CAPITALIZED PROJECT VALUE
(LESS) COST OF SALE
(LESS) DEVELOPMENT PROFIT
TOTAL 1/ARRANTEO INVESTMENT
(LESS) DEVELOPMENT COSTS
RESIDUAL 1/ARRANTEO INVESTMENT ANO CARRYING COSTS
RESIDUAL 1/ARRANTEO INVESTMENT (1)
S40.00 /SF GSA
S12.00 /SF NRA
S3.50 /SF LAND
INCLUDED
S5.00 /SF GSA
30.00X DIRECTS
SI .50 /SF NRA NNN
5.00X GROSS RENTS
3.00X EGI
5. OOX VACANCY il
S0.15 /SF GSA
9.DOX CAP RATE
3.00X VALUE
12.00X VALUE
S3. 00 /SF NRA
TOTAL
$440,000
132,000
147,000
0
55,000
215,700
S774,000
$198,000
(9,900)
S188, 100
(S5,643)
(1,650)
(1,650)
$179,157
Sl,990,633
(59,719)
(238,876)
Sl,692;038
(774,000)
$918,038
$798,294
PER SF GSA
S40.00
12.00
13.36
0.00
5.00
19.61
S70.36
S18.00
(0.90)
S17.10
(S0.51)
(0.15)
(0.15)
S16.29
S180.97
(5.43)
c21.n>
S153.82
(70.36)
$83.46
sn.57 /SF GSA
S19.01 /SF LANO
(1) SUPPORTABLE LAND VALUE AFTER LANO CARRY (I.E., LANO VALUE il 12X INTEREST X 1 YEAR; IX PROPERTY TAXES X 1 YEAR; AND 2X LOAN FEE).
SOURCE:
DATE:
FILE:
KEYSER HARSTON ASSOCIATES INC.
09·Feb·92
CBD2RETAIL
APPENDIX B·24
RESIDUAL LANO VALUE ANALYSIS: RETAIL REHABILITATION
CARLSBAD VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SITE SIZE
BUILDING SI ZE
PARKING
7,000 SF LAND
1 STORY
6,650 SF GSA
100.00X EFFICIENCY
0 SPACES
0.00 SPACES/1,000 SF GSA
NA SF/SPACE
DIRECT CONSTRUCTION
TENANT IMPROVEMENTS
ON·SITES AND OFF·SITES
PARKING· SURFACE
CITY FEES & PERMITS
INDIRECTS INCLUOING FINANCING
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS EXCLUDING LAND
GROSS SCHEDULED RENT
(LESS) VACANCY AND BAD DEBT
EFFECTIVE GROSS INCCf4E (EGI)
(LESS) OPERATING EXPENSES
MANAGEMENT FEE
CAM RE IMBURSEMENTS
RESERVES
NET OPE RAT I NG I NCCf4E
\PIT ALI ZED PROJECT VALUE
·SS) COST OF SALE
ESS) DEVELOPMENT PROFIT
TOTAL 1/ARRANTED INVESTMENT
(LESS) DEVELOPMENT COSTS
RESIDUAL 1/ARRANTED INVESTMENT AND CARRYING COSTS
RES !DUAL I/ARRANT ED INVESTMENT ( 1)
S35.00 /SF GSA
s12.oo /SF NRA
S0.00 /SF LAND
NA
_S5.00 /SF GSA
30.00X DIRECTS
S1.50 /Sf NRA
10.00X GROSS RENTS
3.00X EGI
10.00X VACANCY iii
S0.15 /Sf GBA
9.00X CAP RATE
3 .00X VALUE
12.00X VALUE
TOTAL PER SF GBA --------.. ----- ------.. ---
$232,750 S35.00
79,800 12.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
33,250 5.00
93,765 14.10
$345,800 S52.00
NNN $119,700 $18.00
(11,970) (1.80)
$107,730 $16.20
($3,232) (S0.49)
S3.00 /Sf NRA (1,995) (0.30)
(998) (0.15)
$101,506 $15.26
SI, 127,840 $169.60
(33,835) (5.09)
(135,341 l (20.35)
$958,664 $144.16
(345,800) (52.00)
$612,864 S92.16
S532,925 $80.14 /Sf GBA
S76.13 /Sf LANO
(1) SUPPORTABLE PROPERTY VALUE AFTER PROPERTY CARRY (I.E., LAND VALUE iii 12X INTEREST X 1 YEAR; IX PROPERTY TAXES X 1 YEAR; ANO 2X LOAN FEE).
SOURCE:
DATE:
f I LE:
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES INC.
09·feb·92
CB02RETAIL
APPENDIX B·25
RESIDUAL LAND VALUE ANALYSIS: RETAIL (NO ON·SITE PARKING)
CARLSBAD VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SITE SIZE
BUILDING SIZE
PARKING
7,000 SF LAND
1 STORY
5,600 SF GBA
100.00X EFFICIENCY
0 SPACES
0.00 SPACES/1,000 SF CSA
NA SF/SPACE
DIRECT CONSTRUCT ION
TENANT IMPROVEMENTS
ON·SITES AND OFF·SITES
PARKING-SURFACE
CITY FEES & PERMITS
INDIRECTS INCLUDING FINANCING
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS EXCLUDING LAND
GROSS SCHEDULED RENT
(LESS) VACANCY ANO BAO DEBT
EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME (EGI)
(LESS) OPERATING EXPENSES
MANAGEMENT FEE
CAM RE IMSURSEMENTS
RESERVES
NET OPERA Tl NG I NCc:»4E
CAPITALIZED PROJECT VALUE
(LESS) COST OF SALE
(LESS) DEVELOPMENT PROFIT
TOTAL WARRAN TEO INVESTMENT
(LESS) DEVELOPMENT COSTS
RESIDUAL WARRANTED INVESTMENT ANO CARRYING COSTS
RESIDUAL WARRANTED INVESTMENT (1)
S40.00 /SF GBA
S12.00 /SF NRA
S3 .50 /SF LANO
NA
S5.00 /SF GSA
30.00X DIRECTS
S 1. 50 /SF NRA NNN
10.00X GROSS RENTS
3.00X EGI
10. OOX VACANCY .I
S0.15 /SF GBA
9.00X CAP RATE
3.00% VALUE
12.00X VALUE
S3. 00 /SF NRA
TOTAL
S224,000
67,200
24,500
0
28,000
94,710
S343, 700
S100,800
(10,080)
s9o,no
(S2, 722)
(1,680)
(840)
S85,478
S949, 760
(28,493)
(113,971)
$807,296
(343,700)
$463,596
S403, 127
PER SF GBA
$40.00
12.00
4.38 o.oo
5.00
16.91
S61.38
S18.00
(1.80)
S16.20
(S0.49)
(0.30)
(0.15)
S15.26
S169.60
(5.09)
(20.35)
S144.16
(61 .38)
S82.79
S71. 99 /SF GBA
S57.59 /SF LANO
(1) SUPPORTABLE LANO VALUE AFTER LAND CARRY (I.E., LAND VALUE .I 12X INTEREST X 1 TEAR; 1X PROPERTY TAXES X 1 TEAR; ANO 2X LOAN FEE).
SaJRCE:
DATE:
FILE:
KETSER HARSTON ASSOCIATES INC.
09·Feb·92
CBD2RETAIL
APPENDIX 8·27
RESIDUAL LAND VALUE ANALYSIS: RETAI L/RESIOENT I AL MIXEO·USE
CARLSBAD VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SITE SIZE
BUILDING SIZE
PARKING
(CONT '0.)
21,000 SF LANO
3 STORY (2 STORIES RESIDENTIAL OVER GROUND LEVEL RETAIL)
30,000 SF CBA (10,000 SF RETAIL AND 20,000 Sf RESIDENTIAL • 24 UNITS AT 850 Sf)
95.00X EFFICIENCY
9,500 SF RETAIL CLA
19,000 SF RESIDENTIAL CLA
24 APARTMENT UNITS
800 NET Sf PER UNIT
2.00 SPACES PER UNIT (APARTMENTS)
3.00 SPACES PER 1,000 SF CLA (RETAIL)
76 SPACES (BELO\I GRADE)
2.53 SPACES/1,000 SF CBA
350 SF /SPACE
SaJRCE:
DATE:
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES INC.
09·FH>·92
FILE: CB02RETAIL
APPENDIX 8·29
RESIDUAL LAND VALUE ANALYSIS: PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SPACE 111 TH STRUCTURED PARKING
CARLSBAD VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SI TE SIZE
BUILDING SIZE
PARKING
DIRECT CONSTRUCT ION
TENANT IMPROVEMENTS
ON-SITES ANO OFF-SITES
PARKING-STRUCTURED
CITY FEES ' PERMITS
INDIRECTS INCLUDING FINANCING
21,000 SF LAND
2 STORIES OVER PARKING
22,500 SF GBA
95.00X EFFICIENCY
75 SPACES (60 BELOII GRADE AND 15 AT GRADE)
3.3 SPACES/1,000 SF GBA
350 SF /SPACE
S40.00 /SF CSA
S12.00 /SF NRA
S3.00 /SF LANO
sa,ooo /SPACE
SS.00 /SF GBA
30.00X DIRECTS
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS EXCLLOING LANO
GROSS SCHEDULED RENT
(LESS) VACANCY ANO BAO DEBT
EFFECTIVE CROSS INCOME (EGI)
(LESS) OPERATING EXPENSES
OPERA Tl NG EXPENSES
MANAGEMENT FEE
RESERVES
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
NET OPERATING INCOME
CAPITALIZED PROJECT VALUE
(LESS) COST OF SALE
(LESS) DEVELOPMENT PROFIT
TOTAL IIARRANTEO INVESTMENT
(LESS) DEVELOPMENT COSTS
RESIDUAL IIARRANTED INVESTMENT AND CARRYING COSTS
RESIDUAL IIARRANTED INVESTMENT ( 1 l
St.65 /SF NRA HOO. GROSS
5.00% GROSS RENTS
S4.00 /SF NRA
3.00% EGI
S0.15 /SF GSA
8.SOX CAP RATE
3.00X VALUE
12.00% VALUE
TOTAL PER SF GSA ................. -----.. ------
S900,000 S40.00
256,500 11.40
63,000 2.80
600,000 26.67
112,500 5.00
545,850 24.26
S2,4n,850 S110.13
S423,225 S18.81
(21,161) (0.94)
S402,064 S17.87
(S85,500) (S3.80)
(12,062) (0.54)
(3,375) (0. 15) ~------
(S100,937) (S4.49)
S301, 127 S13.38
S3,542,669 S157.45
(106,280) c4.n>
(425,120) (18.89)
SJ,011,268 $133.83
c2,4n,ssoi (110.13)
S533,418 S23.71
S463,842 S20.62
S22.09
(1) SUPPORTABLE LANO VALUE AFTER LANO CARRY (I.E., LANO VALUE a 12X INTEREST X 1 YEAR; IX PROPERTY TAXES X 1 YEAR; ANO 2% LOAN FEE).
SOURCE:
DATE:
FILE:
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES INC.
09· Feb-92
CBOIOFFICE
/SF CBA
/SF LANO
APPENDIX 8· 33
RESIDUAL LAND VALUE ANALYSIS: CONDOMINIUMS
CARLSBAD VI llAGE MASTER PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SITE SIZE
PROJECT SIZE
UNIT SIZE
42,000 Sf LAND
23. 00 DU/ AC • MAX I MUM DENS I TT
2 STORIES
22 UNI TS
27, 789 Sf GBA
1, 263 Sf GROSS
95.00X EFFICIENCY
1,200 Sf NET
PARKING 52 SPACES (Z·CAR GARAGES PER UNIT, 8 GUEST SPACES)
2.36 SPACES/UNIT
400 Sf /GARAGE
TOTAL .. -·--------
DIRECT CONSTRUCTION S45.00 /Sf GSA S1 ,250,526
TENANT IMPROVEMENTS so.co /Sf NRA 0
ON·SITES AND Off·SITES S3.00 /Sf LAND 126,000
PARKING·2 CAR GARAGES S15.00 /Sf 132,000
CITT PERMITS & FEES S12,000 /UNIT 264,000
INDIRECTS INCLUOING FINANCING 30.00X DIRECTS 452,558
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS EXCLUOING LAND S2,225,084
GROSS SALES S135.00 /NET Sf S3,564,000
(LESS) COST Of SALE 6.00X GROSS SALES (213,840)
(LESS) DEVELOPMENT PROFIT 12.00X VALUE (427,680)
TOTAL \IARRANTED INVESTMENT S2,9ZZ,480
(LESS) DEVELOPMENT COSTS (2,225,084)
RESIDUAL \IARRANTED INVESTMENT AND CARRY I NG COSTS S697,396
RESIDUAL \IARRANTED INVESTMENT ( 1) S606,431
PER Sf GBA PER UNIT ---------------..... -----
S45.00 S56,84Z o.oo 0
4.53 5,727
4.75 6,000
9.50 12,000
16.29 20,571
S80.07 S101, 140
S128.25 S16Z,OOO
(7.70) (9,720)
(15.39) (19,440)
S105.17 S132,840
(80.07) (101,140)
SZS.10 S31, 700
SZl.82 SZ7,565
S14.44 /Sf LAND
(1) SUPPORTABLE LAND VALUE AFTER LAND CARRY (I.E., LAND VALUE AT 1ZX INTEREST X 1 TEAR; 1X PROPERTY TAXES X 1 TEAR; AND 2X LOAN FEE).
SOURCE:
DATE:
FILE:
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES INC.
09·feb·92
CBD3Pl.lLTI
APPENDIX 8·3S
RESIDUAL LANO VALUE ANALYSIS: THREE DUPLEXES
CARLSBAD VILLAGE HAST ER PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SITE SIZE
PROJECT SIZE
UNIT SIZE
PARKING
0 I RECT CONSTRUCT I ON
TENANT IMPROVEMENTS
ON-SITES ANO OFF·SITES
PARKING·2 CAR GARAGES
CITY PERMITS & FEES
INDIRECTS INCLUOING FINANCING
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS EXCLUDING LANO
GROSS SALES
(LESS) COST OF SALE
(LESS) DEVELOPMENT PROFIT
TOTAL \IARRANTEO INVESTMENT
(LESS) DEVELOPMENT COSTS
21,000 SF LANO (3 LOTS ,I 7,000 SF EACH)
12.45 OU/AC
2 STORIES
6 UNI TS
7,800 SF GBA
1,300 SF GROSS
100.0X EFFICIENCY
1,300 SF NET
12 SPACES (2·CAR GARAGE PER UN IT)
2.00 SPACES/UNIT
400 SF/GARAGE
S4S.OO /SF GBA so.co /SF NRA
S3.00 /SF LANO
S15.00 /SF
S12,000 /UNIT
30.00X DIRECTS
S120.00 /NET SF
6.00X GROSS SALES
12.00X VALUE
RESIDUAL \IARRANTEO INVESTMENT ANO CARRYING COSTS
RESIDUAL IIARRANTEO INVESTMENT ( 1)
TOTAL PER SF GBA PER UNIT -------- ----------··----------.. -----
S3S1 ,000 S4S .00 S58,500
0 0.00 0
63,000 8.08 10,500
36,000 4.62 6,000
72,000 9.23 12,000
135,000 17.31 22,500
S657,000 S84.23 S109,500
S936,000 S120.00 S156,000
(56, 160) (7.20) (9,360)
(112,320) (14.40) (18,720)
S767,S20 S98.40 $127,920
(657,000) (84.23) (109,500)
S110,520 S14.17 S18,420
S96, 104 S12.32 S16,017
S4.58 /Sf LANO
(1) SUPPORTABLE LANO VALUE AFTER LANO CARRY (I.E., LANO VALUE AT 12X INTEREST X 1 YEAR; IX PROPERTY TAXES X 1 YEAR; ANO 2X LOAN FEE).
SOORCE:
DATE:
FILE:
KEYSER HARSTON ASSOCIATES INC,
10·Feb·92
CBD3HULTI
APPENDIX 8·37
RECENT LANO ANO PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS
CARLSBAD VILLAGE HASTER PLAN
····---········-SALE LANO S PER SF
LOCATION DATE PRICE AREA (SF) OF LANO ZONING IHPROVEHENTS COHHENTS
ROOSEVELT STREET, SOJTH OF FEB. 1987 S185,000 11,040 S16.76 RP 2 SINGLE-STORY OFFICE BLOGS USE: OFFICE BUILDING 9,000 SF
LAGUNA DRIVE TO BE RAZED (S21/SF OF BUILDING AREA)
3030·3044 HARDING STREET SEPT. 1990 S290,000 7,000 S41.43 RP 2 SINGLE-STORY OFFICE BLOGS CONSTRUCTED IN 1951
3050 HAD I SON STREET MARCH 1991 S268,000 7,000 S38.29 VR 1 SINGLE· STORY OFF I CE BLOG CONSTRUCTED IN 1950 (APX)
381·385 CHRISTIANSEN IIAY HAY 1991 S375,000 6,600 S56.82 VR 2 SFR'S UNKNOIIN
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR., HAY 1990 S435,000 9,900 S43.94 C2 NONE UNKNOIIN
EAST OF CARLSBAD BLVD.
JEFFERSON EAST OF GRANO OCT. 1985 S150,000 7,000 S21.43 C2 SFR TO BE RAZED USE: COHHERCIAL BUILDING
S1/C OF JEFFERSON ANO GRANO HAY 1987 S500,000 21,000 S23.81 C2 SFR TO BE RAZED USE: OFFICE BUILDING 17,677 SF
(S28/SF OF BUILDING AREA)
901 CARLSBAD VILLAGE OR APRIL 1987 S462,000 21,000 S22.00 C2 NA USE: JACK IN THE BOX SITE
ROOSEVELT ST. NORTH OF MARCH 1989 S235,000 10,500 S22.38 C2 NONE INVESTHENT
1/ALNUT AVE .
STATE ST. NORTH OF OAK AVE. DEC. 1988 S230,000 11,992 S19.18 CH 2 SFR' S TO BE RAZED UNKNOIIN
NEC Of CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR HAY 1988 S440,000 14,000 S31.43 C2 SERVICE STATION
ANO HARDING
2933 ROOSEVELT STREET HAY 1989 S290,000 7,000 S41.43 C2 1 SINGLE-STORY RETAIL BLOG NA
2633, 2639 STATE STREET OCT. 1990 S500,000 10,892 S45.91 LH 2 SINGLE-STORY RETAIL BLDGS NA
NEC OF HAO I SON STREET ANO NOV. 1988 S333,000 13,939 S23.89 R·3 3 1/0CO SFR'S POTENTIAL FOR 4 UNITS
OAK AVENUE ( S83, 250/UN IT)
NEC OF CARLSBAD BL VO ANO JULY 1985 S480,000 12,770 S37.59 R·3 NONE 9·UNIT CONOc»41NIUM SITE
1/ALNUT AVENUE ( S53, 333/UN IT)
1/ALNUT AVE. BTIIN 1/ASHINGTON APRIL 1986 S110,000 5,000 S22.00 R·3 NONE 3·UNIT CONOc»41NIUM SITE
ANO LINCOLN ($36,667/UNIT)
\/EST SIDE OF OCEAN AT SEPT. 1988 SI ,595,000 15,400 S103.57 R·3 1·STORY 4·PLEX TO BE RAZED OCEAN FRONT SITE;
GRAND AVENUE 6·UNIT CONDc»41NIUM SITE
($265,833/UNIT)
1/ALNUT AVE ., SIi OF HAY 1989 $245,000 5,000 S49.00 R·3 1 SINGLE·STORY DUPLEX USE: EXPANSION FOR ADJACENT
1/ASHINGTON STREET BED AND BREAKFAST
-----------·-··············--···-········-
TOTAL/AVERAGE S7, 123,000 197,033 $36.15
SOJRCE: COHPS, INC., KEYSER HARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Feb·92
Appendix C
VILLAGE VISION
APPENDIX C-1
SELECTIVE INTERVIEWS
SUMMARY
distances. With respect to the rehabilitation of ex1snng residential units as
affordable housing, there seemed to be strong support although it was noted that the
housing was probably already "affordable" and therefore wouldn't contribute to
meeting the City's state-mandated requirements.
Others expressed strong opinions that new market rate housing should be built in
the Village to provide support for the businesses and to provide a mix of residents.
9. With regard to existing housing, it was noted that the Barrio area south of Oak
A venue was rather stable and that until recently most property was passed down
through families and rarely sold on the open real estate market While some
property assembly in the area was reported, it still seemed that not much land
speculation had occurred. Residents of the area appear to desire a downzoning of
property to encourage the preservation of single family homes and prohibit
apartment development, especially low cost housing. Townhouse scale development
might be acceptable if owner occupied. That issue should be explored further in the
evaluations related to the new Redevelopment Study Area to the south of the
Village.
Another important concept expressed was the creation of a uniquely Hispanic Center
featuring shops, markets, craft studios, restaurants and professional offices. A focus
along Roosevelt Street was suggested. The idea seems to have strong support well
beyond the hispanic community.
10. A good deal of discussion revolved around the Latino Theatre and its future role in
the Village. Most were enthusiastic concerning its reuse as a first run cinema
similar to other single screen cinema operations in the County and believed that its
use for cinema and perhaps other community uses (including the performing arts)
would be a strong catalyst for economic growth in the Village. Most, however,
recognize that the cost of renovation may be very high and do not yet have a
feeling whether any public assistance would be appropriate to bring about its reuse.
11. Another area of substantial discussion was the North State Street area. The mix of
uses were felt by many to be inappropriate to the emerging Carlsbad Village and
should be relocated. Others felt that the uses were generally not bad neighbors and
should be left but with some significant efforts to improve their visual appearance
(It was especially noted that the view from the railroad tracks which will become
more prominent in the future with increased rail passenger service projects a slum-
like image of Carlsbad).
12. The large number of Village medical offices was ·discussed. Convenience to public
transit, proximity to the Senior Center and other business services, the ease of
driving downtown and parking, and the shortage of other viable locations were put
forward as reasons for the current concentration. Apparently a great deal of interest
exists on the part of medical practitioners and developers for additional offices in
the area. To date, however, the City's parking standards have restrained some of
that demand.
3
It was noted that artists cannot currently live in Carlsbad given the high prices.
Consideration of some affordable housing targeted to artists as live/work
accommodations was suggested by some interviewees.
Some discussion was held regarding the need for a performing arts facility.
Currently the City shares the 410 seat Cultural Arts Center with the school district
but getting adequate access time is difficult. Even a small "black box" theatre
would apparently be a welcome addition to the community and might be considered
in the Village area. There are reportedly not many active theater groups in
Carlsbad today, but there are a number in the North County who might be drawn to
a performance facility.
20. The hotel market in Carlsbad is currently in poor economic health due to general
economic conditions and overbuilding along the Interstate 5 corridor. Occupancies
are reported down and room rates are being substantially discounted -at least in the
freeway-oriented motels. The beach hotels are apparently doing somewhat better.
One problem expressed is that Carlsbad is "on the way to San Diego" and visitors
seeking that destination don't really have a reason currently to stop in Carlsbad.
Little additional hotel development was expected in the near term by interviewees
given the overbuilding and difficulty in obtaining financing · but on a long term
basis, they felt that additional small hotels were likely and desirable. The opinion
was expressed, however, that any significant resort development would require ocean
views. Additional Small Inns were also suggested to accommodate tourists and
weekend visitors within the Village.
21. The history of the Village was discussed with several interviewees. Many photos
and other items exist in the Carlsbad Public Library, at the Historical Society office
in Magee Park, in Kay Christenson's home and at a central location in the Barrio.
A parcel of land for a historical museum in the Village has been donated to the
Historical Society by Mrs . Christenson but funds are not yet available for
construction. In addition, the hispanic community would like to display photos and
artifacts reflecting the history of the Barrio somewhere in the special complex
referenced in #9 above. It was also noted that Carlsbad is rich in archaeological
resources and considered one of the richest sources of pre-history fossils and
dinosaur bones in California.
With respect to architectural historic resources, the ones mentioned were the Twin
Inns, the Depot, the Magee House and other structures in Magee Park, the Royal
Palms (Fidel Norte), the Carlsbad by the Sea Retirement Home (previously the
Carlsbad Mineral Springs Hotel) and a number of bungalows in the Barrio. These
resources are generally spread out rather than clustered in one location.
22. The new walkway along the beach bluff immediately south of the Village has
apparently drawn many people to the area to stroll or jog. The opinion was
expressed that a way to draw these people into the Village is needed. One
suggestion was family-oriented activities including a carousel somewhere near the
5
there is a strong need to reestablish some positive momentum. It was noted that
recent economic conditions have resulted in property values actually decreasing
which negatively affects the area's tax increments.
28. Some comment was made that the City has emphasized public improvements in the
Village area over the past few years. And, that it is now time to emphasize
economic development though programs to more directly stimulate private
investment
29. Differences of op1mon existed as to the profile of a typical village merchant.
Generally, however, it seemed that it might be an individual sole proprietor with
one full time and perhaps one or two additional part time employees. This small
size has made it difficult to encourage programs of staying open later on some
evenings and other customer base enlargement techniques used by competing
shopping center businesses. The small size also often makes participation in
Merchants Association activities and programs difficult.
30. The Chamber of Commerce has in the past assisted Village businesses by walking
them though the City's approval process. They have also sponsored educational
programs to help developers better understand the approval process and the proper
submittal of applications.
31. The City's Transient Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) is currently at 10% with 2% of that
total committed to recreation facilities approved by the voters on a special ballot
measure. The remainder of the funds are placed in the City's General Fund. A set
amount of funds is not automatically devoted to the Chamber of Commerce,
Convention and Visitors Bureau or the arts community as is often done in some
other cities. One technique has been to allocate a base amount of funds to an
organization and then provide a dollar for dollar match of funds raised by the
organization.
32. Several different estimates of lease rates were expressed. Office rents appear to be
in the $1.30 to $1.60 per sq. ft. range and retail rents were estimated at about $ 1.50
although rents as low as $1.00 and as high as $2.00 per sq. ft were also mentioned.
Rental rates in the new Village Faire were generally higher with $2.00 per sq. ft.
mentioned.
33. The need to provide additional child care facilities was mentioned. Also noted was
the need for public restrooms in the Village.
34. The 1987 Beach Overlay Plan for the area south of the Village was discussed. One
element of that plan of relevance was the recommendation of a linear park along
the railroad corridor. In that context and others, the point was made to not forget
the strong appeal of the Buena Vista Lagoon as a people magnet and visual asset to
the Village.
7
APPENDIX C-2
WORKSHOPS SUMMARY
CARLSBAD
MASTER PLAN
and
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Workshop Summary
A total of 28 people attended the two workshops held on December 11 and 12, 1991. While the
turnout was lower than expected, those individuals who did attend engaged in a spirited
discussion of the issues. Much of the December 11 Village Workshop was dominated by the
issue of North State Street's future. Several of the Workshop participants will be affected by the
proposed commuter rail station and the County has already contacted many of the lessees on the
railroad right-of-way concerning relocation. Most owners and tenants from the North State Street
Area who attended the workshop expressed a strong desire to stay in their current locations and
a willingness to improve the visual appearance of their businesses. A separate breakfast meeting
was held on Friday with ten to twelve of the affected businesses to better understand the
businesses and their specific problems.
The December 12 Workshop which was devoted to the community at large was broader in terms
of discussion items although smaller in the number of participants. During both workshops, the
Planning Team gave an overview of their workscope and schedule, outlined the problems and
concerns which had emerged during early investigations, discussed possible broad alternative
visions for the Village, and showed slides which demonstrated some of the physical
characteristics of a village. In general, workshop participants felt that the Village should serve
the City of Carlsbad as their downtown area with a broad mix of uses. They felt that while
tourism uses were desirable, tourist-orientation should be secondary to community-serving uses.
And finally, most participants felt that while the City must face the need to provide affordable
housing, additional lower income housing in the Village Area was undesirable since the general
area already has the bulk of lower cost housing in Carlsbad.
A Workshop Questionnaire was distributed to each participant. Additional questionnaires were
given to those who had businesses in the Village and those who were residents of Carlsbad. Not
everyone completed the questionnaires so no broad generalizations can be drawn. Ten general
Workshop Questionnaires, eleven Business Owners' Surveys and five Carlsbad Residents'
Surveys were returned. A summary of tabulated results is attached for multiple choice questions.
Some highlights of the opinion questions are noted below:
Business Owners' Survey
12. In your view, what kind of image does Carlsbad have?
The responses were generally positive. Most felt that the image was good. Only one
respondent went beyond adjectives to define the image as an Antiques Center.
1
23. Please describe the profile of your typical customer.
Descriptions ranged from low middle income, to upper middle class (most mentioned) and
upper income. Other comments included "mostly women," "arts-oriented," "elderly," and
"some tourists."
The types of businesses represented by the questionnaire responders were as follows:
• Antique Furniture Restoration
• Art Gallery
• Automotive
• Construction and Industrial Supplies
• Custom Picture Framing, Art and Gifts
• Family Breakfast/Lunch
• Glass and Mirror Business
• Media Services
Carlsbad Residents' Survey
7. Which stores do you most often frequent in downtown Carlsbad?
• Big Bear Grocery
• Japanese Grocery
• Dry Cleaning on State Street
• Grand Deli
• World of Travel
• Stationery Store
• Gas Station
• Bank (2)
• Post Office
15. What is the single most important thing that would make downtown Carlsbad more
attractive to you?
Safe lighted sidewalks at night was listed twice while the finishing of the streetscape
improvements and stores staying open longer hours were also mentioned.
4