HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-02; Planning Commission; ; GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) - VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLANThe City of Carlsbad Planning Division
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ltemNo. 0
Application complete date: N/A
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 2, 2018 Project Planner: Scott Donnell
Project Engineer: N/ A
SUBJECT: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -
VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN -Request for a recommendation to adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
a recommendation to approve a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment,
Zone Change, Master Plan, and Local Coastal Program Amendment for the Village and
Barrio Master Plan. The request also includes a recommendation to repeal the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual. The Notice of Intent (NOi) to adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was published in the newspaper February 12, 2016, and sent to the State
Clearinghouse (SCH#2016021056) for a 30-day public review (February 16, 2016-March
16, 2016). The Village and Barrio are generally west of interstate 5 and between Laguna
Drive and Tamarack Avenue in the city's Northwest Quadrant and Local Facilities
Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7293 RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7294 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a General Plan
Amendment (GPA 16-01), Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 16-01), Zone Change (ZC 16-01), Master Plan (MP
14-01), and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 14-01), based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein, and RECOMMEND APPROVAL of errata dated April 18, 2018.
II. OVERVIEW
At its April 18, 2018, meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Village and Barrio
Master Plan. The Commission opened the public hearing, received public comment from 18 speakers,
and closed the public testimony portion of the meeting. Then, the Commission voted to continue
discussion of the master plan to its May 2, 2018, meeting.
Since the printing of the staff report, the city has received additional public comments on the master
plan. Those comments are attached.
Additionally, staff has updated the master plan website, www.carlsbadca.gov/villagebarrio. to include
links to the April 18 staff report and meeting video. Staff has split the report into multiple parts to
improve its use.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. April 18, 2018, Planning Commission staff report (previously distributed and available online)
2. Public comments received since printing the April 18, 2018, Planning Commission staff report
ATTACHMENT 2
April 10,2018 VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN COMMENTS
Planning Commissioners,
I am in Europe visiting villages hundreds of years old that have been redeveloped many times. We only
have one village and this plan should encourage redevelopment into a flower that draws people from
Carlsbad and beyond as it has for the past 100 years. The suggested changes to the Master Plan are
looking 30-50 years ahead.
Master plan comments;
Page 1-20 Using Grand Promenade as an open space park for events requires the entire width be
available for event use. A cycle track defeats one of the main purposes of creating the Grand
Promenade. It also has short blocks with many stops and placing bi directional bicycle traffic on one side
will be dangerous or motorists.
For the Village to be funded by Village Events and compete with other local Main Streets and be weaned
off City General Fund subsidy we must create the funding capacity for the group assisting the master
plan area. This group or groups need areas to operate farmers markets, auto shows, craft fairs, music
festivals that can raise funds and attracts pedestrian traffic to the village.
Promote the Grand Promenade test blocks immediately, ideally as submitted. A detailed plan for use
within 6 months was submitted to engineering a year ago.
Page 2-9*******Provide boundary for ground floor commercial on figure 2-2. NO PARKING OR
RESIDENTIAL ON FIRST FLOOR {60 FEET DEEP) from any street AND MINIMUM COMMERCIAL HEIGHT
required in this area. Otherwise developers will use the first floor for parking and provide token
commercial on some frontage taking a loss to get residential parking for residential units which can go
everywhere in the village but the core commercial area. Commercial cannot be added in the residential
areas but residential can go in 90% on the village and barrio.
Page2-20
Page 2-21
2.6 B Sidewalk Cafes 5 make 8 feet and in drawing 8 feet.
2.65 number 5 make 8 feet. All sidewalks in the core area {green cross hatch) should be
8 feet wide. All other sidewalks may be 5 feet wide.
PARKING
1. Bank of America and other lots are already used in the evening, without permission by
restaurant patrons and employees. With the increased redevelopment proposed and
encouraged, buildings such as Bank of America will be redeveloped and that parking will be lost,
and additional need will be created by the purchase of in-lieu parking for the commercial space
on the first floor and perhaps the office space on the upper floors. Eventually we will run out of
spaces which will choke off mixed use development which we are trying to encourage.
2. The study is now out of date as many new restaurants have opened since the initial survey of
available spaces. While we are successful, this is encouraging 10-20 year adaptive reuse of
buildings, converting from retail to restaurant without paying for parking. This discourages
rebuilding of older buildings with office or residential at this time due to the savings of adaptive
reuse of parking, while new buildings must provide at least residential parking on side and pay
for the commercial uses.
3. Since we want both adaptive reuse and new buildings to occur concurrently, we need a better
formula both to encourage new buildings and get more income into the in-lieu fee fund.
4. The in-lieu feet fund should not be used to lease parking. The fees are a one time source of
revenue and if parking is not purchased or built, we will run out of money and parking just like
the National Debt. Buy land, build a garage, or subsidize others building a garage. All of you own
h~mes and invest for a reason and your city government should operate in a similar manner.
5. *******Offering a financial incentive to developers can give us the Municipal Parking we need
on a permanent basis. Leasing spaces on properties that will soon be developed just kicks the
can down the road, and not very far.
6. ********If we offer $25,000 per Municipal Parking space built and maintained by a developer,
substandard space can be efficiently used in the village and new units can be build smaller and
more affordable to buyers. A minimum of 25 spaces to be provided to make use of the
incentive. A similar paragraph to this one must be in the parking section of the Master Plan to
encourage developers to add municipal parking to their projects early in the planning process.
There are several landowners interested in parking and the financial incentive must be stated in
the new master plan to encourage the preferred use of the in-lieu fees collected which is
permanent Municipal Parking.
Encouraging a change in use without providing parking is a taking of another landowner's
property as we know that new customers will park in another owners parking lot. This has been
demonstrated by the Village Faire taking measures to discourage outside use of their spaces by
converting to 1 hour and valet parking for their customers only.
Subsidizing the creation of Municipal Parking by a public private partnership would encourage
redevelopment by the Village Faire and NCTD of their surfaced parking into a mixed use parking
PS Please take a few minutes to drive or walk to look over the Grand Madison, under
construction at the Packard Dental site at Grand and Madison. Walk the alley and note that you
cannot see cars or pedestrians as you exit on the alley onto Grand Avenue. We asked that this
be corrected in the new plan, and it has been addressed. But it has been discussed with staff for
years and should have been incorporated into this and the proposed building on Carlsbad Village
Drive and State Street. Cutting the 1st floor only at 45 degrees 10 feet along the alley and
Carlsbad Village Drive gives the pedestrians and driver some sight line of the sidewalk and cars.
Staff members who are different for each project, need rules for the architects to follow so
these points are not missed in reviewing each large project.
Gary Nessim
Imagine Carlsbad
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
E!annln9
Scott Donnell
FW: comments on V-8 mp for Commissioners
Friday, April 13, 2018 9:19:34 AM
PC 4-2018.odf
FYI -This email came in today.
Michele
From: Robert Wilkinson [mailto:bob@wdesigngroup.net)
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 9:16 AM
To: Planning <Planning@CarlsbadCA.gov>
Subject: comments on V-B mp for Commissioners
Please see that the attached comments on the Village-Barrio master plan get to all of
the planning commissioners before next week's hearing, thank you
Respectfully,
Robert Wilkinson
Wilkinson Design Group
Land Planning +
Landscape Architecture
bob@wdesigngroup.net
P.O. Box 4237
Carlsbad Ca, 92018-4237
760 434 2152
OUR COMMENTS ON THE JANUARY 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OF THE V-B MP
MOST OF THESE REQUEST ARE FOR THE THREE USE DISTRICTS THAT MAKE UP
THE COMMERCIAL CORE OF THE VILLAGE -VC; HOSP & FC
CORNER PROPERTIES
The current draft MP has not yet taken the steps needed to respond to the community's
desire to maintain and truly enhance the Villages as our "Special Place/District" as thought
of by the community and labeled by the city. This fact was recently illustrated by the put
pouring from the community that produced the denial of approval for the new development
at the corner of State and CVD. This strong community voice may well rise again as
another corner site gets its newly approved development at Grand and Madison. As that
development takes shape, form and character it will be upsetting from what the community
wants to see in new development in the Village.
As now stated in the MP these two developments illustrate that corner properties are extra
important as leading edges that are focal within the street-scene. To that we ask that the
new MP go further and contain the following standard for all properties on the corner of the
main streets in the core area;
FORTH FLOOR SETBACK
The forth floor setback stated in Section 2. 7 .1 page 2-39 be increased to 40 feet from both
street edge pis. Producing a maximum plate height of 35 feet within this setback area.
Additionally we should require that only a small percentage of this 35 foot roof edge critical
to the appearance of the building is allowed to have a flat roof (30%), with the remaining
area to have a more traditional angled roof line.
CORNER PLAZA OPEN SPACE
The corner plaza space required in section 2.7.1 on page 2-37 be expanded to all
intersection corners on both Grand and CVD from Harding to the boulevard. The additional
corner lots can provide a slightly sma ller plaza area than key locations in the current draft.
They provide a 300 sf area but all of these spaces must be free of any upper level
producing a ceiling. All of these plazas must be well integrated into the overall building
facade.
VILLAGE MAIN STREET-SCENE - A SERIES OF INDIVIDUAL STORE FRONTS
We request that an additional standard be added to Sections 2.71& 2.7.4. Add standards
that promote the look and feel of a "Village" that has been built over a greater span of time
rather than the current development cycle. Require that any property with a.street frontage
of over 60 linear feet have it's street edge facade broken down into multiple facades with
different looks. The intent is to get street scenes that has a series of smaller buildings
(village scale) and not having one expansive look along the street. We do hope to see that
the smaller properties are purchased and combined into larger developments so that we
can get the larger uses that are critical for a self contained neighborhood i.e. new grocery,
new hardware, pharmacy with their requirement for back of house truck service access.
However, these larger footprint uses do not have to appear large from the street.
Page1 of3
A COMMON VOCABULARY FOR ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
A critical guideline still missing in the current draft is the guidance of a design vocabulary
of a building's exterior appearance. Over the last year what we have achieved in terms of
quality and character from remodeled or new development in the Village has been hit and
miss at best. Adding this guideline will benefit all involved in the review and approval
process by providing a common vocabulary of what our objectives should be in new or
remodeled buildings. Without denying any architectural style lets provide a common
expectation of character driven architecture. Lets identify6 architectural styles common and
fitting to our setting and in written and graphic form provide 6 objectives for each style we
all agree will benefit in enhancing the overall character the community desires for the core
area of our downtown Village. This should be viewed as a helpful tool for all involved in the
review and approval process.
SETBACK FOR ON SITE STREET LEVEL PARKING IN MIXED USE PROJECTS
Table 2-1 & figure 2-2 illustrate well the restriction of residential uses on the ground floor
within the hatched area of the Village Core . This a request we made to protect a viable
and thriving "Main Street" commercial environment. However this only gets us part way in
that protection.
Currently, mixed use development in this area has produced a common model, were the
building industry responds to a hot residential market along the immediate coast and builds
as many million dollar homes on the upper levels as _it can park (Grand Madison). Since
our standards continue to require all residential parking to be onsite this requirement eats
up too much of a small property's street level area and pushes commercial uses into
shallow "boutique" spaces. This is not a well balanced "Mixed Use" development as it limits
the street level commercial uses and dilutes the opportunity for a vibrant "Main Street". In
response the MP needs to include a setback with a 50 foot average for all parking, other
than handicapped, on-site at street level within all of the area hatched in Figure 2-2 on
page 2-9. A setback from all street edge property lines.
The Master Plan must make it know that we expect the use of some of the more creative
parking solutions seen recently here. That is the use of a lift on small lots that carry all
parking to a sub level and/ or individual lifts that stack a homes two cars placing one below
grade. We all need to remember that development here in the Village may and should look
different from most all other areas of Carlsbad as we strengthen it as a transit oriented
neighborhood were use of the car is on a more limited basis.
STREET TREES
To its credit the MP makes many statement of the ultimate importance of quality streets to
achieve a quality Village. To that end we request that the MP makes a statement that a
concerted effort needs to be made over the next year to collect interest and input from the
community on a master street tree program that selects themed species and planting
locations / practices.
Page 2of3
MINIMUM SIDE WALK WIDTHS
We request that the standard in Section 2.6 .5 AREA WIDE RIGHT OF WAY USES pages
2-19 to 2-21 be modified to provide a wider minimum than the proposed 5 feet of clear
sidewalk. The MP proposes 5 foot width for as much as 40 linear feet (two car spaces) is
not adequate for a pedestrian oriented area, it is barely adequate today and the sidewalks
are going to get more and more active in the near future. A 5ft width will create a bottle
neck chock point for any active walkway and can alter the path strollers will use in moving
around the Village. This can easily mean some shops /store fronts get less activity We
want street edge cafes but not at the expense of a first class pedestrian network around the
Village. Lets not build in 2nd class standards. We recommend a min of 6ft width for a max
of 10 feet in length and a 8 foot width if the length is over 10 feet.
We hope to hear these issues brought up and discussed with staff at the hearing and then
have the issues effect the recommendations the Commission makes to the Council.
Thank you ,
Robert Wilkinson
Page 3of3
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Dear Scott,
sjchoueiry@ca.rr.com
Scott Donnell
Village and Barrio Plan
Saturday, April 14, 2018 10:38:05 AM
I am not sure if this the right avenue to comment on the Village and Ban'io current Master Plan.
I live on 3'515 Madison St. l have been keeping an eye on the portion of the plan to provide access to the beach thru
the rail crossing at Chestnut Ave. Looking thru the current Master Plan (Draft) it seems that this project is given the
least priority in the implementation section. I think this should be re-evaluated and given a higher priority. The
access to the beach thru this crossing will greatly improve overall beach accessibility and reduce the hassle of
having to walk all the way to Carlsbad Village Dr or Tamarack.
I hope the city will consider expediting the implementation of this project in order to help the community and
visitors alike in having better access to the beach areas.
Thank you for your consideration.
Joe Choueiry
From:
Cc:
Subject;
Date:
Attachments:
Council Internet Email
Scott Donnell: Qon.Nei.!
FW: CBV Draft Master Plan Feedback
Monday, April 16, 2018 3:02:54 PM
CBV Draft Plan Comments FABRIC Inv.odf
From: Brendan Foote [mailto:brendan@fabricinvestments.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 2:58 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>; Matthew Hall
<Matt.Hall@carlsbadca.gov>; Claudia Huerta <Claudia.Huerta@carlsbadca.gov>; Keith Blackburn
<Keith.Blackburn@carlsbadca.gov>; Cori Schumacher <Cori.Schumacher@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Michael
Schumacher <michael.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: CBV Draft Master Plan Feedback
Hi All,
Hope this email finds you well!
I was planning on attending the Wednesday night Council Meeting in order to express my views on
the draft Village Master Plan, but baby #2 had other ideas and we are going to be in delivery that
day.
Hence, I have attached a summary of my comments upon review of the latest draft.
I currently own property in the Village at 2659 State Street and also have the Antique Mall (on State
St) under control and am in planning mode on that site. I consider myself a community developer -I
tend to work on boutique projects and invest significant effort into align ing my projects with the
community in which they reside. Looking at scale, design, activation, integration and sustainability
are several of the driving forces behind what I do on a daily basis.
As a local developer, I am all for preserving the quaint coastal character of Carlsbad Village and other
like communities. I am also for progress and creating spaces that the community can enjoy. I thin k
the plan, in its draft form, al lows for both of these things to happen simultaneously. Preserving the
45' height limitation is one of the biggest elements that I see as important. Th is allows for developers
to provide much needed housing while creating architecturally significant and unique projects (not
big boxes).
If you have any questions on the attached, please let me know. I look forward to working with you all
going forward to create a dynamic Vi llage.
Take care,
Brendan Foote I principal
(m) 619.840.7721
www.fabricinvestments.com
FABRIC
INVESTMENTS
Carlsbad Village [DRAFT] Master Plan Feedback
Below is feedback as it relates to the Draft Village Master Plan from the perspective of a private
developer with three active projects in the Village. Hopefully this input is helpful as you
consider all angles of this plan update. For me, these are the most critical issues:
1. Must Preserve 45' height limitation in the Village.
It is essential that the 45' height limitation be preserved in the updated Village Master Plan .
Allowing for a 45' height limit by no means determines that the Village will become too dense.
For proper scale in a coastal village such as CBV and in order to allow for a proper variety of
uses, it is important that the height limitation not be reduced. In many cases, given the trending
demand for high ceilings and open spaces, 45' could still mean three story buildings. With land
prices on the rise, a general housing shortage County-wide and the potential for the City to
realize an increased property tax basis over the next several cycles, its vital that developers can
continue to build up to 45'.
2. Parking Flexibility and Regulations.
In a transitional era where transit is evolving, it's vital that City's look forward and consider
flexible parking requirements for new development. Preserving the existing parking regulations,
in-lieu fee options and not imposing net new parking additions on existing properties that are
not being expanded is very important. Let the market reasonably determine the amount of
parking that is needed. Developers will not abuse parking regulations if the market doesn't
respond well to their lack of parking. Look for opportunities to encourage bike sharing, car
sharing and other efficient transportation options within new developments.
Ref: Table 2-4: Allow for shared parking arrangements for different uses within a mixed-use
development. Opportunities such as utilizing shared parking for office and a restaurant whereas
the office is likely to utilize the majority of the spaces during the day and restaurant in the
evening. Developers should be able to propose shared parking arrangements for compatible
uses. This is important!
Parking requirements for restaurants are getting increasingly prohibitive. If the parking
requirement for a restaurant hovers around the 1:170sf ratio, that's pretty unattainable in most
scenarios. It's even more prohibitive for smaller, boutique restaurants/cafes. Imagine a 1000 sf
cafe needing 6 off-street parking spaces -there are virtually no options. Furthermore, only
front of house space in a restaurant should be considered when determining the parking
requirements (not sure if that was made clear).
State Street retail should benefit from NCTD lot. There should be compromises available on
State Street retail parking requirements given the evening availability of the NCTD lot.
Smart Growth. Local Investments
FABRIC
INVESTMENTS
Table 2-4 -The ability to utilize stackers, lifts and other advanced parking efficiency solutions -
why is this on a case-by-case basis? What does that mean? Challenging to plan for unknowns.
Definitely should preserve the parking regulation that if you acquire an existing building and are
not expanding its square footage, you should not be required to provide additional off-street
parking. Same goes with intensifying the use of an existing building while not expanding its
footprint. To avoid mass vacancy, retail space should have some flexibility in uses without
having the burden of additional parking requirements or burdensome permitting processes.
'
Studio Residential units should be parked at .5 spaces/unit, not 1. Studios are becoming the
millennials ability to reside in the communities they desire without necessarily worrying about
rising housing costs. Many of these dwellers are equally as efficient and resourceful with transit
and do not require cars and or parking stalls.
3. Density
Two main issues with the proposed density regulations:
A) Dwelling Unit per Acre for VC should be adjusted. 35 d.u./acre is simply too little to
justify a 3-4 story mixed use development on an acre of land. I would suggest that this
number be increased to at least 44 d.u./acre. With a County wide housing shortage,
there is no need to severely limit the dwelling unit counts as is being done. We already
have a height limitation and parking requirements that will serve to keep it from
becoming to residentially dense.
B) Minimum Dwellings Unit per Acre should not exist in the VC. As the Village grows, there
will be increased need for office and other commercial uses. In the VC, a developer
should be able to elect to build a straight commercial building to accommodate these
demands and not have to be subject to a minimum number of dwelling units.
Again, thank you for your consideration and I would be more than happy to speak with any
group discussing this plan and the community's diverse feedback.
Kind regards,
Brendan Foote I principal
Fabric Investments, Inc.
brendan@fabricinvestments.com
619-840-7721
Smart Growth. Local Investments
April 17, 2018
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92009
-r--;,;,..-*
CARLSBAD
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Re: Support for Planning Commission Recommendation of the Village and Barrio
Master Plan
Planning Commission,
On behalf of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, I respectfully urge the Planning
Commission to make a recommendation on the Village and Barrio Master Plan to the
City Council to facilitate approval of the plan later this spring.
The Village and Barrio are Carlsbad's first neighborhoods and both have been
undergoing revitalization projects recently with more planned in the future. The Village
and Barrio Master Plan will seek to create a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly, downtown
center and a rejuvenated Barrio, and can also improve the relationship between the two
distinct neighborhoods.
For over 95 years, the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce has worked to promote a
favorable business climate for the 1,600 businesses and more than 75,000 employees
in and around the City of Carlsbad. With nearly 400 of those businesses located in our
downtown center during this time of growth and revitalization, we believe that the timing
is critical to approve the new Village and Barrio Master Plan to replace the Carlsbad
Village Master Plan and Design Manual adopted in 1996.
We understand that portions of the Barrio and Village are in the Coastal Zone, and that
the master plan will require separate approval for those areas by the California Coastal
Commission before it is effective in the Coastal Zone, but for portions of the master plan
not in the Coastal Zone, Coastal Commission approval is not required, and plan
provisions will take effect following approval by the City Council.
Both neighborhoods are designated a "smart growth opportunity area." The proposed
Village and Barrio Master Plan embodies the principals of smart growth, with a mix of
commercial and residential land uses, a variety of housing choices, walkable
neighborhoods and multiple transportation choices. The master plan will help capitalize
on proximity to transit and other attributes that give the Village and Barrio this
designation, and direct future parking management needs. It will also help guide
decisions surrounding the option of trenching the coastal railroad tracks through the
Village and Barrio underground.
5934 Priestly Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760.931.8400 T I 760.931.9153 F
www.carlsbad.org
1
The new plan will establish the vision for the ideal future character and development of
the two areas and will set forth the strategy or "roadmap" for achieving that vision
through goals and policies, standards and guidelines, and an implementation plan.
2
The Village and Barrio Master Plan has been a work in progress for nearly four years
with tremendous input from the community through hands-on design sessions, an online
forum, technical sessions and numerous public meetings. The Chamber of Commerce
has spent considerable time studying the plan throughout the draft revisions and feels
that the latest, third draft, is ready for recommendation to the City Council by the
Planning Commission on April 18th.
We look forward to being a part of the ongoing effort and are excited to be part of a
brighter future for the Village and Barrio.
Sincerely,
Ted Owen
President & CEO
CC: Carlsbad City Council
5934PrlestlyDrive I Carlsbad,CA92008 I 760.931.8400 f I 760.931.9153F
www.c1flsbad.org
THE BAILEY LEGAL GROUP
Scott Donnell
Senior Pl anner
City of Carlsbad
25014 Las Brisas. Road South, Suite B
Murrieta, California 92562
Telephone: (951) 304-7566
Facsimile: (951) 304-7571
April 23, 2018
Community and Economic Development
1635 Faraday Avenue
·Car~sbad, CA 92008-7314 Via email and U.S. mail
Re: Carlsbad Zoning/Village & Barri o Mast er Plan
(Revised January 2018) -Publ ic Record
Dear Scott:
I want to complement you on a great presentation to the Planning
Commission on April 18, 2018, regarding the Village & Barrio Master Plan
("Master Plan"). ~ (
As you know, the staff report, together with the resolutions and
underlying documents (consisting of approximately 500 pages), were not
released un til a couple days before the Apri l 18 Planning Commission
meeting. For that reason, myself and many other speakers at the meeting
were not able to address in depth the staff report and the underlying
findings in that report.
As you know from my comments at t he Planning Commission meeting on
April 18, I support the proposed draft of the Master Plan, with the
exception of a couple items regarding: a) the proposed revised parking
standards (page 2-22, Master Plan 1-16-18); and b) "Minor Site Development
Plan" urtder section 6.3.3 (page 6.4, Master Plan -1-16-18).
I was pleased to hear you indicate at the meeting that the language
under the Minor Site Development Plan will be revised to clear up the
ambiguities in that section.
I have now had an opportunity to research and analyze the Municipal
Code Parking Standards for the "peer cities" (Dana Point, Encinitas,
Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Monterey, San Clemente, San Luis Obispo,
and Santa Monica) which you mention'.~d at the April 18 Planning Commission
meeting, and as referenced in the ~taff report (appendix c, Responses to
Comment s, at pg. RTC-11).
Preliminarily, I am not sure how Laguna Beach, Monterey, Santa Monica
and/or San Luis Obispo are considered "peer cities" as they are not similar
to Carlsbad's current Village & Barrio topography, amenities and/or current
---o; _ .. _,_.., .. _,,..-..., .............. ·•--..~~-. -., . ·~····-··-.--·--·--·--·---~ ..................... _, ___ ,,, ..
Page Two
April 23, 2018
density. However, assuming that these other cities are comparable to
Carlsbad, my research reflected that the current "parking standards" as
established in the peer cities respective Munici pal Codes, essentially
either meet or exceed the current parking standards now set forth in
Carlsbad's Municipal Code section 21.44.020 Table A.
Enclosed for your reference is another copy of the "Sample of Local
Minimum Parking Requirements (Revised 2/15/18)" which I sent ·to you under
my letter dated February 20, 2018. As you can see from the Parking
Summary, San Clemente and the City of Encinitas's parking standards are
significantly higher than current Municipal Code section 21 . 44. 020 Table A.
As to the· other "peer cities," I have prepared and enclose herewith
a "~ample 'Peer City' Minimum Parking Requirements, as of 4/23/18" for the
Cities of Dana Point, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Monterey (rental and
condo), San Luis Obispo and Santa Monica. ·
Based upon my research and calculations, it is readily apparent that
these other "peer cities" currently have Municipal Code parking standards
which essential'ly equal or exceed Carlsbad's current Code section 21 . 44. 020
Table A. In other words, these "peer cities" standards provide no support
or justifi cation to reduce by more than one-third Carlsbad's current
parking standards in the Village and Barrio .
. I unders tand tha t all these peer cities may have significant parking
issues or problems, and their "strategies" may be helpful in terms of
evaluating Carlsbad's situation. However, it makes absolutely no sense to
p r opose a reduced parking standard for Carlsbad which will only exacerbate,
in the lon·g run, an already difficult parking situation in the Village and
Barrio . -~
The proposed one-third reducti'bn in parking standards contained in the
1/16/18 Master Plan (page 2-22) will unavoidably create the· very problems
you are seeking to prevent and/or manage by· adop~ing strategies from other
peer cities with existing parking problems and already higher parking
standards. Thus, the Master Plan's proposal to reduce parking standards
makes absolutely no sense. In fact, if those reduced standards are
implemented, within ten years, the new structures being built with
inadequate parking will clearly create more problems than it solves, when
the Village and Barrio residents are forced to park on the streets instead
of on-site .1
In light of the above, I renew my request that the Master Plan not
adopt these highly reduced parking standards and; instead, retain the
current standards set forth in Carlsbad Municipal Code section 21.44.020
Table A. ·
1 About 85% of Southern California residents commute to work by car, and
nothing in the : Master Plan addresses this issue. Please see my 12/22/2015
letter, pgs. 2-3 under "Parking Requirements" Section "A Existing And Future
Needs" (Appendix C Resp~nses to Comme~ts, at pgs. RTC 15-16).
~~-----· .. ----· ...... ,---........-~--~ ··--··-, .. -· .... ·-···
! i ! I
I
I
I I
I
Page Three
April 23, 2018
Again, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation for your
professional courtesy and cooperati.on in working through this long process
to finalize the Master Plan and implement it as soon as possible, with
these slight revisions.
JLB:kg
Enclosures
cc: City Council (Email only)
Sincerely,
THE BAILEY
By: -~:-
Honorable Matt Hall, Mayor {matt.hall@carlsbadca.gov)
Honorable Keith Blackburn (keith.blackburn@carlsbadca.gov)
Honorable Mark Packard {mark.packard@carlsbadca.gov)
Honorable Cori Schumacher (cori.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov)
Honorable Michael Schumacher {michael.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov)
cc: Planning Commission Members {Email.only)
Honorable Marty Montgomery, Chairman
Honorable Velyn Anderson, Vice Chairman
Honorable Jeff Segall
Honorable Arthur Niel Black
Honorable Roy Meenes
Honorable Carolyn Luna
(c/o Planning Commission Clerk at planning@carlsb~dca.gov)
Pam Drew, Associate Planner (via email only)
Barrio Neighbors {via email only)
.. ,..:,
., . ......... .. ......... , ..• ~ ................ ,-· ~---····· .. ····· _,. ___ , ... .
Sample "Peer City" Minimum Parking Requirements As of 4/23/18
Below is a table listing the "peer" cities' general minimum parking requirements for multi-family housing, that
also references the Municipal Code section under which the requirements are established. For comparison
purposes, the required off-street parking spaces, including guest parking, was calculated for a hypothetical 120
unit development consisting of: 30 one bedroom units, 30 two bedroom units, and 60 three bedroom units. The
municipalities are listed from the lowest average required spaces per unit to the highest.
Dana Point
9.35.080(E)
Huntington Beach
231.04 Sched. A
Laguna Beach
25.52.012(G)
Monterey Rental
Monterey Condo
38-115 Sched. A
San Luis Obispo
17.16.060 Table 6
Santa Monica
Citywide Standard
9.28.0601
::;
Minimum Required Parking Spaces per Unit
Multi-Family Developments (by Unit Type,
Guest for all Units)
I BR 2BR
1.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3BR
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.5 ·
2.0
Guest
~:;-.20 p,er unit
,··
'··
... ·
.50 per unit
.25 per unit
-0-
-0-
:20 per unit
.20 per unit
Hypothetical 120 Unit
Development
Total Space_s Per
Spaces Unit
279 2.32
300 2.5
255 2.12
240 2.0
300 2.5
279 2.32
249 2.07
1 SmalI sections of the pier and ~own town area of Santa Monica do have lower parking
standards wider this Code. However, the pier and downtown areas of Santa Monica are not
comparable in topography, density, building height standards, amenities, etc., to the Village and
Barrio in order to make a fair comparison.
I • • ~ I I I I I i I
'.~ I I I
f ii
I ~
1.
~ I
1.
. ··---·----~-·-.. -_ ......... -....... •• ,.,. __ .,. .... ,. ,• ,. •••---·-•••oh-'-•··-·-• .... -,.,.._ ___ ••-•.,-• --· ........... ---····-.
. ~ n
. Sample of Local Minimmn f).·. -Icing Rcquiremca~ (Re,,ised 2/15118) '
Below is a table lisong .some local beach cities' general minimum parking requirements for multi-family
housing, that also refere~ the Municipal Code s~tion under which !he requirements are established. For
comparison purposes, the required off-slreet parking spaces, incJuding gllest parlting, was calculated for a
hypothetical 120 unit development consisting of: 30 one bedroom units, 30 two bedroom units, and 60 three
bedroom units. The municipalities are listed from the lowest average required spaces per unit to the highest
Oceanside
31.3103
Carlsbad
21.44.020
Table A
Solana Beach
17.52.040
San Clemente
17.64.050 Table
Encinitas
35.54.030
San Diego 142.0525
Table 142.05C1
Minimum Required Parking Sp3.C1:S per Unit
Multi-Family Developments (by Unit Type,
~for:aJI Units}
l BR 2BR 3BR ·· Guest
).5 2
f.S 2
2 I plus20% of
total onits
. 2 .25/unit
-1.5 2 2 -25/ariit
•.
1.5 2 2.5 ·" 0.333/unit
2· 2 2S .25/unit
a)Basic f.5 2.0
I.75
2.25
2.25 .... !:
120% of total off
street parking required b) Transit/low
inoomel l .25
c) Beach/school
impact 1.75
2.0
2.5
Proposed Draft Mastar Plan (Revised Jaauary 2018)
VfHage/Surroundin:Area 1 1.S 15
Barrio Center/ Peri-. I 1.5 IS
..
"
-8-
.25/unit
Hypothetical 120 Uoit
Development
Total
$paces
250
255
255
300
288
252
324
165
195
Spaces Per
Unit
2.08
2.12
2.12
2.45
2.5
2.4
2.1
2.7
1.37
l.~
Note: All of the above~merdythe numberofre(luired paik.gspaces. This list does not include the additional
· regulations citie$ ; mposc such as requiring that at Je,~I one ~pace per unit be covered. etc..
1 San Diego Code requires more parking for developments that are" .... at least partially within a
designated beach impact area .•. " and transit/afforoable housing areas so all~ cabla1ions are
provided.
2 San Diego OMt.e allows some fleidbility for comll\OP area/visitor parking to increase or
d~ ·based on the ara. affected by the devetopinent. .. . .
3 «-Developmaitquafifying for both a reduced paTking ratio (transit area or Pl!,Y lo,v i11cqnu:
parking ratio) :tod .~n •reascd pai:king ratio (Parking Impact Area) shall also ose the basic
parking ratio." (Fo!,)tuofe 1 for Ta~le 142.0SC)
.-, ... ----·-·· ... -----....
0084
I
I
I
I
l