HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-19; Planning Commission; ; SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV15-058) – PACIFIC WIND
The City of Carlsbad Planning Division
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
Application complete date: July 21, 2016
P.C. AGENDA OF: April 19, 2017 Project Planner: Austin Silva
Project Engineer: David Rick
SUBJECT: SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) – PACIFIC WIND – Request for approval of
a Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit and Minor Subdivision to allow for
the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction of a 93-unit apartment (92
affordable units) development, including development a standards modification, and a
street abandonment for a portion of Harding Street near the intersection of Carol Place,
in the Residential-Density Multiple Zone and within Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
The City Planner has determined that this project belongs to a class of projects that the
State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the
environment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement for the preparation of
environmental documents pursuant to Section 15194 (Affordable Housing) of the State
CEQA Guidelines. This project is not located within the appealable area of the California
Coastal Commission.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7233 APPROVING Site
Development Plan SDP 15-18, Coastal Development Permit CDP 16-04 and Minor Subdivision MS 16-01
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. BACKGROUND
At the April 5, 2017 Planning Commission hearing, the project was continued to the Planning Commission
hearing date of April 19, 2017 because the meeting was running late into the night. Public testimony on
the project was closed after all speakers were heard. The original staff report for the April 5, 2017 meeting
is attached. Staff has continued to receive correspondence regarding this project, both before and after
the public hearing. Some correspondence was sent the same afternoon of the meeting and staff was
unable to forward the comments to the Planning Commission. The correspondence that was not
transmitted to the Planning Commission is attached to this staff report.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7233
2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 5, 2017
3. Correspondence from the Public concerning Pacific Wind
1
The City of Carlsbad Planning Division
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
Application complete date: July 21, 2016
P.C. AGENDA OF: April 5, 2017 Project Planner: Austin Silva
Project Engineer: David Rick
SUBJECT: SDP 15‐18/CDP 16‐04/MS 16‐01 (DEV 15‐058) – PACIFIC WIND – Request for approval of
a Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit and Minor Subdivision to allow for
the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction of a 93‐unit apartment (92
affordable units) development, including development a standards modification, and a
street abandonment for a portion of Harding Street near the intersection of Carol Place,
in the Residential‐Density Multiple Zone and within Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
The City Planner has determined that this project belongs to a class of projects that the
State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the
environment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement for the preparation of
environmental documents pursuant to Section 15194 (Affordable Housing) of the State
CEQA Guidelines. This project is not located within the appealable area of the California
Coastal Commission.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7233 APPROVING Site
Development Plan SDP 15‐18, Coastal Development Permit CDP 16‐04 and Minor Subdivision MS 16‐01
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On January 29, 2013, the City Council authorized financial assistance ($7.4 million) to assist a developer
(Harding Street Neighbors, LP) to acquire existing duplex units located in the area of the Barrio consisting
of 27 parcels along Harding Street, Carol Place, and Magnolia Avenue, generally north of Tamarack
Avenue, south of Magnolia Avenue, east of Jefferson Street and west of Interstate 5. The development
site was later reduced to 22 parcels, although the units on five of the original 27 parcels that are not
proposed redevelopment will remain as affordable units. The funding agreement calls for acquisition and
redevelopment of the site to be completed by December 31, 2018.
The intent of the property acquisition was to consolidate the parcels and construct a high density
affordable housing development with 140 units. However, the development was scaled back to 93 units
due to the inability to acquire one of the privately held duplexes. The developer initially proposed a
development that included 120 units on a 4.8 acre site and abandoning a larger portion of Harding Street
and all of Carol Place. City staff was not supportive of abandoning Carol Place because of its need for
public use as it was observed by city staff that parents routinely use this street to park for pick‐up and
drop‐off at Jefferson Elementary School. The sidewalk on Carol Street also receives substantial use as
parents walk their children to and from school. The site has been reduced to 4.04 acres and consists of
22 parcels with 22 duplex buildings consisting of 44 rental housing units. The 22 duplexes are each located
on their own parcel and will be demolished to accommodate the proposed development.
4
SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) – PACIFIC WIND
April 5, 2017
Page 2
The applicant, Harding Street Neighbors, LP, comprised of a partnership between affiliates of C & C
Development and Innovative Housing Opportunities, is proposing to construct a 93-unit apartment (92
affordable units) project that is spread out over six buildings. One unit is for an apartment manager and
in not an affordable unit. The residential units will be located in five three-story buildings, and a one-story
community recreation building will be located on the corner of Jefferson Street and Carol Place.
Approximately 525 feet of the southerly end of Harding Street will be abandoned where it intersects with
Carol Place. As a result, Harding Street would end in a cul-de-sac approximately 225 feet east of Magnolia
Avenue and Carol Place would also end in a cul-de-sac where it currently intersects with Harding Street.
Access to the site would be provided through a gated entrance at the end of the cul-de-sacs on Carol Place
and on the north side of Harding Street.
The site is designed so that the apartment buildings are located away from the freeway so that noise
impacts from the freeway are reduced as much as possible. The parking is located along the easterly
portion of the site along with a maintenance building, which is tucked in the southeast corner of the
property. Outdoor amenities are scattered throughout the site including resident gathering areas, tot-
lots, a basketball court, and a neighborhood plaza at the northeast corner of Jefferson Street and Carol
Place in front of the community building. Innovative Housing Opportunities will provide programs and
services such as cooking and nutrition, health and wellness, financial planning, career skills, youth
leadership, youth and adult learning programs, strong family classes, and child development.
The buildings are attractively designed and include a use of multiple exterior building materials such as
smooth stucco, horizontal lap siding, composite shingle siding, hardi panels, stone veneer, and concrete
tile roofs. Architectural detailing enhances the buildings which include simulated wood corbels, simulated
wood brackets, decorative light fixtures, façade projections and recesses, covered building entries with
supporting wood posts with stone veneer bases, and varying roof planes.
Table A below includes the General Plan Land Use designations, zoning and current land uses of the
project site and surrounding properties.
TABLE A – SURROUNDING LAND USES
Location General Plan Designation Zoning Current Land Use
Site R-30 RD-M Two-family residential
North R-15/R-30 RD-M Two-family residential
South Visitor Commercial (VC) Commercial Tourist (C-T) Gas station/restaurant & bar
East Transportation Corridor Transportation Corridor Interstate 5 Freeway
West R-30 RD-M Duplexes
III. ANALYSIS
The proposed project is subject to the following ordinances, standards and policies:
A. General Plan;
B. Residential-Density Multiple (RD-M) Zone (C.M.C. Chapter 21.24);
C. Coastal Development Regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (C.M.C.
Chapter 21.201) and the Coast Resource Protection Overlay Zone (C.M.C. Chapter 21.203);
D. Parking Ordinance (C.M.C. Chapter 21.44);
E. Site Development Plan (C.M.C. Chapter 21.53.120);
F. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (C.M.C. Chapter 21.85);
G. State of California Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 2)
H. Growth Management (C.M.C. Chapter 21.90)
SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) – PACIFIC WIND
April 5, 2017
Page 3
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency
with the applicable regulations and policies. The project's compliance with each of the above regulations
is discussed in detail in the sections below.
A. General Plan
R-30 – Residential Land Use Designation
The R-30 Residential land use designation allows housing at a density between 23 and 30 dwelling units
per acre with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 25 dwelling units per acre. Table B below
includes the project site’s gross and net acreage, the number of dwelling units allowed by the General
Plan’s GMCP density and the proposed projects number of dwelling units and density.
TABLE B – DENSITY
Gross Acres Net Acres DUs Allowed at GMCP Density DUs Proposed and Project Density
4.04 4.04 101 93 units at 23 du/ac
The proposed 93-unit apartment project will be depositing eight units into the city’s Excess Dwelling Unit
Bank because it is below the Growth Management Control Point.
Housing Element
By providing an affordable apartment project with 92 of the units designated as affordable to low income
households, the proposed project helps achieve the city’s affordable housing goals as set forth in the
Housing Element of the General Plan. Per the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the City of
Carlsbad is expected to produce 693 housing units for low income households for the reporting period of
January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2020. As of the latest Housing Element Progress Report for 2015, 45
units for low income households have been permitted with 648 units remaining. The proposed affordable
apartment project will reduce the amount of remaining units by 92, and help the city achieve its affordable
housing goals. Further compliance with the General Plan is outlined in Table C below.
TABLE C – GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT GOAL/POLICY COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL/POLICY
Land Use Goal 2-G.3: Promote infill
development that makes efficient use
of limited land supply, while ensuring
compatibility and integration with
existing uses. Ensure that infill
properties develop with uses and
development intensities supporting a
cohesive development pattern.
The applicant is proposing to redevelop an
infill site in the Barrio that is underutilized
as it relates to density. The Barrio is an
appropriate location for dense
development because of its connection to
commercial services in the Village, as well
as easy access to nearby public transit and
Interstate 5. The project site is identified
in Figure 10-1 (Housing Element Sites
Inventory) of the General Plan as an
underutilized site for lower and moderate
income housing. Further, the project falls
within the density range (23 du/ac – 30
du/ac) for the R-30 General Plan Land Use
designation and is consistent with the
development standards of the RD-M zone.
SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) – PACIFIC WIND
April 5, 2017
Page 4
ELEMENT GOAL/POLICY COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL/POLICY
Housing Goal 10-G.3: Sufficient new,
affordable housing opportunities in all
quadrants of the city to meet the
needs of current lower and moderate
income households and those with
special needs, and a fair share
proportion of future lower and
moderate income households.
Policy 10-P.19: Address the unmet
needs of the community through new
development and housing that is set
aside for lower and moderate income
households consistent with priorities
set by the Housing and Neighborhood
Services Division, and as set forth in
the city’s Consolidated Plan.
Policy 10-P.20: Encourage the
development of an adequate number
of housing units suitably sized to meet
the needs of lower and moderate
income larger households.
The proposed project will provide 92
affordable housing units dedicated to low
income households. Low-income is
defined as households that earn 80
percent of the median income for the area.
Income limits are adjusted for household
size so that larger families may have higher
income limits.
The proposed affordable apartment
project will provide 92 affordable
apartments dedicated towards low-income
households, with 18 two-bedroom units
and 54 three-bedroom units being
provided, which constitutes 77.4% of the
total units. The larger units will meet the
needs of larger household sizes.
Mobility Goal 3-G.5: Implement transportation
demand and traffic signal techniques
to improve mobility.
Policy 3-P.5: Require developers to
construct or pay their fair share
towards improvements for all travel
modes consistent with the Mobility
Element, the Growth Management
Plan, and specific impacts associated
with their development.
Policy 3-P.8: Utilize transportation
management strategies, non-
automotive enhancements (bicycle,
pedestrian, transit, train, trails, and
connectivity), and traffic signal
management techniques as long-term
transportation solutions and traffic
mitigation measures to carry out the
Carlsbad Community Vision.
The applicant will be required to pay traffic
impact fees prior to issuance of building
permit that will go towards future road
improvements. Additionally, the
developer is required to pay a fair share
contribution of the total design and
construction cost to modify the traffic
signal and related pavement striping at the
intersection of Jefferson Street and
Tamarack Avenue to convert the signal to
eight phases with protected left turns in
northbound and southbound directions on
Jefferson Street.
SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) – PACIFIC WIND
April 5, 2017
Page 5
ELEMENT GOAL/POLICY COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL/POLICY
Mobility Policy 3-P.26: Identify and implement
necessary pedestrian improvements
on streets where pedestrians are to be
accommodated per Table 3-1, with
special emphasis on providing safer
access to schools, parks, community
recreation centers, shopping districts,
and other appropriate facilities.
Policy 3-P.32: Require developers to
improve pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity with the city’s bicycle and
pedestrian master plans and trails
master planning efforts. In addition,
new residential developments should
demonstrate that a safe route to
school and transit is provided to
nearby schools and transit stations
within a half mile walking distance.
The project has been conditioned to: (1)
Provide pedestrian and bicycle
improvements on Jefferson Street
including the replacement of the striped
crosswalk on Jefferson Street at the
intersection of Carol Place and Jefferson
Street, with a raised crosswalk approved
by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp), (2)
Install bike route signage for a Class III
bikeway route consistent with the City of
Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan on Jefferson
Street between Anchor Way and Tamarack
Avenue, (3) Upgrade as needed, the
pedestrian ramps at the northerly end of
Harding Street and the westerly end of
Carol Place to current American Disability
Act (ADA) standards, all subject to approval
by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp).
Public
Safety
Policy 6-P.28: Encourage physical
planning and community design
practices that deter crime and
promote safety.
The project has been designed to prevent
crime and has incorporated design review
recommendations from the Police
Department. For example, fencing and
walls are used around the perimeter of the
property to discourage access to
unmonitored areas and to define and
outline the property. Also, the parking
area will be gated and secured 24 hours a
day.
Noise Goal 5-G.2: Ensure that new
development is compatible with the
noise environment, by continuing to
use potential noise exposure as a
criterion in land use planning.
Policy 5.P.2: Require a noise study
analysis be conducted for all
discretionary development proposals
located where projected noise
exposure would be other than
“normally acceptable.”
A noise analysis was prepared by
BridgeNet International (September 4,
2015) and determined that a Sound
Transmission Class (STC) rating of 40 will
be needed for the glass window assemblies
in buildings two through six.
B. Residential-Density Multiple Zone (C.M.C. Chapter 21.24)
The proposed project is required to comply with all applicable land use and development standards of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code (C.M.C.) including the Residential Density-Multiple Family Zone (C.M.C. Chapter
21.24) and Site Development Plan (C.M.C. Chapter 21.53.120), which is discussed in more detail in
Sections C and D, respectively. Table D below summarizes compliance with the RD-M Zoning.
SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) – PACIFIC WIND
April 5, 2017
Page 6
TABLE D – RD-M COMPLIANCE
R-DM Standards Required Proposed Comply
Setbacks Front: 20’
Interior Sides: 5’
Rear: 10’
Front (fronting Jefferson St.): 27’
Interior Side (north): 17.5'
Interior Side (south): 10’
Interior Side (west): 14’7”
Rear: 10’
Yes
Lot Coverage 60% max 34.4% Yes
Building Height 35’ with minimum 3:12 roof
pitch or 24’ if less than a 3:12
roof pitch
34’11” w/4:12 roof pitch Yes
C. Coastal Development Regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (C.M.C.
Chapter 21.201) and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (C.M.C. Chapter 21.203)
Mello II Segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies.
The project is located in the Mello II Local Coastal Program Segment.
The subject site has an LCP Land Use Plan designation of Residential High (R-30), which allows for a density
of 23-30 du/acre and 25 du/acre at the Growth Management Control Point (GMCP). However, the project
density of 23 du/ac is consistent with the R-30 General Plan Land Use designation as discussed in Section
A above. Therefore the project is consistent with the Mello II Segment of the LCP.
The project consists of the demolition of 44 dwelling units and the construction of apartments with 92
affordable units. The proposed apartments are compatible with the surrounding development of one
story two-family structures and one-story commercial buildings. The three-story apartment building will
not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or the public right-of-way, nor otherwise
damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone. No agricultural uses currently exist on the previously graded
site, nor are there any sensitive resources located on the developable portion of the site. The proposed
apartments are not located in an area of known geologic instability or flood hazard. Since the site does
not have frontage along the coastline, no public opportunities for coastal shoreline access are available
from the subject site. Furthermore, the residentially designated site is not suited for water-oriented
recreation activities.
The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter
21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the City's Master Drainage Plan, Grading
Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Carlsbad Best Management Practices Design Manual and
Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants,
and soil erosion. No steep slopes or native vegetation is located on the subject property and the site is
not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction.
D. Parking (C.M.C. Chapter 21.44)
The required parking for the proposed 93-unit apartment project is shown in Table E below. The applicant
is requesting a development standards modification to provide less than the required amount of parking.
Justification for supporting a reduced parking requirement is discussed in Section E below.
SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) – PACIFIC WIND
April 5, 2017
Page 7
TABLE E – PARKING COMPLIANCE
Unit Type/Number of Unit Parking Ratio Spaces
Required
Spaces
Provided
Comply
1 bedroom (21) 1.5 spaces/unit 31.5 21 No (Standards
Modification is requested;
justification provided in
section E)
2 plus bedrooms (72) 2 space unit 144 144
Guest parking .25 space/unit 23.25 0*
Total = 199 165
*Parking is being provided based off the density bonus parking standards in which guest parking is factored into the parking
requirement for each unit type.
E. Site Development Plan (C.M.C. Chapter 21.53)
Section 21.53.120 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that a Site Development Plan (SDP) be processed for
an affordable housing project. The SDP for affordable housing projects may allow less restrictive
development standards than specified in the underlying zone or elsewhere, provided that the project is
in conformity with the General Plan and adopted policies and goals of the city, and it would have no
detrimental effect on public health, safety and welfare. Additionally, Program 2.2 of the General Plan’s
Housing Element “Flexibility in Development Standards,” describes how the Planning Division “may
recommend waiving or modifying certain development standards to encourage the development of low-
income housing.”
The applicant is requesting a modified development standard for the proposed affordable apartment
project to reduce the amount of required parking from 199 spaces to 165 spaces. The proposed standard
modification allows for additional site area for development and amenities for the affordable apartment
units.
The project’s consistency with the General Plan is discussed in Section A of this report, and the
modification to development standards will not have a detrimental effect on public health, safety, or
welfare for the following reasons:
The proposal to reduce the required parking spaces from 199 to 165 is supported by the project’s
proximity to goods and services as well as public transit. Studies acknowledge that affordable
housing in close proximity to transit and services are candidates for a lesser parking demand. The
project applicant is an affordable housing developer and manager that has other properties and
experience with onsite parking demand. That experience has shown that the absence of guest
parking spaces onsite at a rate of one per four dwellings is not a demand that needs to be satisfied.
The developer has submitted a parking summary showing the parking utilization for properties
they own throughout Southern California. That summary found that an average parking rate of
.64 spaces per one-bedroom unit, 1.41 spaces per two-bedroom unit, and 1.81 per three-
bedroom unit is needed. Based off these numbers, 137 parking spaces would be required of the
proposed development. Moreover, parking is managed at the properties in such a way that each
unit is assigned a parking permit to park one vehicle, and based upon need, a second parking
permit can be assigned for a two-bedroom or three-bedroom unit. The developer has found that
not every one bedroom unit utilizes a parking permit, and not every two-bedroom and three-
bedroom unit utilizes two parking permits. The excess parking that is not used through the permit
system becomes available as guest parking. The parking summary is attached for reference.
Additionally, parking studies were conducted by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers at similar
affordable housing developments (Glen Ridge Apartments and Hunter’s Point Apartments) for the
Quarry Creek affordable housing development what was approved with a parking reduction on
March 16, 2016. That parking study found that the Hunter’s Pointe property had 197 spaces
occupied out of the 378 parking spaces at the peak parking time at 9:00 P.M. on a Monday evening
with a parking rate of 1.17 spaces per unit. The parking study for the Glen Ridge apartments
indicates that at the peak parking time on a Sunday at 9:00 P.M., 124 spaces out of 150 were
SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) – PACIFIC WIND
April 5, 2017
Page 8
occupied with a parking rate of 1.59 spaces per unit. Using the parking rate for Hunter’s Pointe,
109 parking spaces would be required of the project, and 148 would be required using the parking
rate for Glen Ridge. The parking studies are attached for reference.
The City of San Diego published an Affordable Housing Parking Study (WilburSmith Associates) in
December 2011, for use in developing a regulatory framework for parking requirements in
affordable housing developments. Field observations were conducted at 21 sites, and a parking
model was developed based upon the findings in the analysis. It was recommended that the
parking model be used to create a look-up table of new affordable housing parking requirements.
The parking requirements were determined based on the type of affordable housing and its
context regarding transit availability and walkability. The parking model has three parking rates;
low, medium, and high. The low parking rate would be a location in a more suburban setting that
isn’t walkable and not accessible to transit. The high rate would be a setting in an urban location
that is walkable with access to transit. Taking the conservative approach and using the low
parking rate, the proposed project would require 158 parking spaces using the parking model in
the study. The parking model is attached for reference.
Further, although a density bonus has not been requested, the parking ratios for housing
developments identified in Table E of the Density Bonus ordinance are the same as the developer
is proposing (165 spaces) for this affordable apartment project. The project does qualify for a
density bonus if it were to be requested by the developer. Table F summarizes the parking rates
and requirements using the above-mentioned sources. A standards modification for reduced
parking is supported by the city’s Housing Policy Team and findings are included in the appropriate
Planning Commission resolution.
TABLE F – PARKING REQUIREMENTS
(total numbers resulting in fractional spaces have been rounded up)
Source Units Parking Rate Spaces Required
City of Carlsbad Municipal Code
(Chapter 21.44 – Parking)
1 BR 21 1.5 31.5
2 BR 18 2.0 36
3 BR 54 2.0 108
Visitor 93 total units .25 23.25
Total 199
City of Carlsbad Municipal Code
(Chapter 21.86 – Density Bonus
Parking Standards)
1 BR 21 1.0 21
2 BR 18 2.0 36
3 BR 54 2.0 108
Total 165
City of San Diego Affordable
Housing Parking Study
“Low/Suburban Rates”
1 BR 21 1 21
2 BR 18 1.3 23.4
3 BR 54 1.75 94.5
Visitor/Staff 93 total units .2 18.6
Total 158
C & C Development Owned
Properties
1 BR 21 .64 13.44
2 BR 18 1.41 25.38
3 BR 54 1.81 97.74
Total 137
Glen Ridge Parking Survey 1 BR 21 1.59 33.39
2 BR 18 1.59 28.62
3 BR 54 1.59 85.86
Total 148
SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) – PACIFIC WIND
April 5, 2017
Page 9
Hunter’s Pointe Parking Survey 1 BR 21 1.17 24.57
2 BR 18 1.17 21.06
3 BR 54 1.17 63.18
Total 109
F. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
For residential development of seven or more units, not less than 15 percent of the total units approved
shall be constructed and restricted both as to occupancy and affordability to lower-income households.
The proposed project will provide 98.9% percent (92 units) of the apartment units as affordable to very
low and extremely low income households. The developer will be required to enter into an Affordable
Housing Agreement with the city to provide and deed restrict 92 dwelling units as affordable to low-
income households for 55 years. This exceeds the intent and purpose of the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance.
G. California Subdivision Map Act (Title 7, Division 2)
The applicant is proposing to abandon approximately 525 feet of the southerly end of Harding Street
where it intersects with Carol Place. The proposed abandonment is being processed under the provisions
of Section 66445(j) of the Government Code of the State of California (Subdivision Map Act) which allows
for the abandonment to be recorded on the parcel map, forgoing compliance with the Streets and
Highway Code. The purpose for originally constructing this segment of Harding Street was to serve the
fronting subdivided housing units. Because these units will be demolished, thereby removing the purpose
for the street, and because the removal of the street does not create any safety concerns with the Fire
Department and Police Department, through access is no longer necessary. Additionally, according to the
traffic study prepared by Urban Crossroads (November 29, 2016), the abandonment will have a nominal
impact to the traffic expected to be diverted to Jefferson Street. Traffic counts were conducted on Harding
Street and Carol Place to determine cut-through vehicular traffic between Magnolia Avenue and Jefferson
Street, 24 hours a day, for a week straight (November 1, 2016 – November 7, 2016) when Jefferson
Elementary School was in session. It was found that an average of 171 vehicles per day would be rerouted
to Jefferson Street, which represents approximately 2.3% of the overall traffic on Jefferson Street.
Additionally, the rerouting of the traffic was evaluated in the peak hour intersection analysis and the
intersection of Jefferson Street and Magnolia Avenue was found to operate at acceptable levels of service.
H. Growth Management
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of
the city. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted
performance standards, are summarized in Table G below. The numbers in the table are based off a net
increase of 49 dwelling units for the site.
TABLE G – GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
STANDARD IMPACTS COMPLIANCE
City Administration 173.31 sq. ft. Yes
Library 92.41 sq. ft. Yes
Waste Water Treatment 49 EDUs Yes
Parks 0.34 acre Yes
Drainage 2.1 cfs Yes
Circulation 558 ADT (206 ADT net increase) Yes
SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058) – PACIFIC WIND
April 5, 2017
Page 10
Fire Station No. 1 Yes
Open Space 0 acres N/A
Schools Carlsbad (E=12.35/M=3.99/HS = 5.1) Yes
Sewer Collection System 10,780 GPD Yes
Water 12,500 GPD Yes
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 21159.21 and 21159.23 of the California Public
Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15194 Affordable Housing Exemption. The project meets
the criteria set forth in Section 15192 (Threshold Requirements for Exemptions for Agricultural Housing,
Affordable Housing, and Residential Infill Projects) and Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption) as
follows: the project site is less than five acres in size; the project is located in an incorporated city with a
population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile; there is no reasonable possibility that the
project would have a significant effect on the environment or the residents of the project due to unusual
circumstances or due to the related or cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable projects in the
vicinity of the project; the project site has been previously developed for qualified urban uses; the project
consists of the construction, conversion, or use of residential housing consisting of 100 or fewer units that
are affordable to low-income households; and the developer of the project is providing sufficient legal
commitments to the City of Carlsbad to ensure the continued availability and use of the housing units for
lower income households for a period of at least 55 years, at monthly housing costs deemed to be
“affordable rent” for very low and extremely low income households, as determined pursuant to Section
50053 of the Health and Safety Code. Satisfaction of these criteria also satisfies the requirements set forth
in CEQA Sections 21159.21 and 21159.23. A Notice of Exemption will be filed by the City Planner upon
final project approval.
The proposed apartment project is in compliance with the City of Carlsbad’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) in
that a multi-family housing development with less than 70 dwelling units does not meet the screening
threshold to require a greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis. The 93-unit apartment project has a net increase
of 49 units, and is therefore not subject to CAP measures. The California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA) has published screening thresholds to guide agencies in determining which projects
require greenhouse gas analysis and mitigation for significant impacts related to climate changes. With
this guidance, the city has determined that new development projects emitting less than 900 MTCO2e
annual GHG would not contribute considerably to climate change impacts, and therefore do not need to
demonstrate consistency with the CAP. A multi-family development of more than 70 dwelling units would
exceed the threshold and would be subject to CAP measures. Findings for the proposed exemption are
provided in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7233.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7233
2. Location Map
3. Disclosure Statement
4. C & C Development Workforce Housing Parking Summary
5. Hunter’s Point & Glen Ridge Parking Study
6. City of San Diego Affordable Housing Parking Study Lookup Table
7. Response Letter to John L. Bailey concerns dated February 22, 2017
8. Focused Traffic Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads, November 29, 2016)
9. Reduced Exhibits
10. Exhibits “A” – “RR” dated April 5, 2017
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 15-18, COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 16-04 AND MINOR SUBDIVISION MS 16-01 TO
ALLOW FOR THE DEMOLITION OF 44 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 93-UNIT APARTMENT (92 AFFORDABLE UNITS)
DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MODIFICATIONS,
AND A STREET VACATION FOR A PORTION OF HARDING STREET NEAR THE
INTERSECTION OF CAROL PLACE, IN THE RESIDENTIAL-DENSITY MULTIPLE
ZONE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: PACIFIC WIND
CASE NO.: SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 (DEV 15-058)
WHEREAS, Harding Street Neighbors, LP, “Owner/Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
PARCEL A:
LOTS 1 TO 9, INCLUSIVE, 11 TO 13 INCLUSIVE, AND 24 TO 33 INCLUSIVE,
OF PALM VISTA IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF NO. 2969,
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, MARCH 16, 1953. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY
CORNER OF LOT 13 OF PALM VISTA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO.
2969; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 13, SOUTH
19°17'11” EAST 161.15 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID
LOT 13, SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT
14; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 14, SOUTH
61°51'52” WEST 68.06 FEET; THENCE NORTH 08°26'25” WEST 42.85
FEET; THENCE NORTH 14°49'18” WEST 95.30 FEET; THENCE NORTH
25°13'44” WEST 26.19 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE
OF SAID LOT 13, SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 61°51'52” WEST 55.14 FEET
FROM SAID MOST NORTHERLY CORNER; THENCE ALONG SAID
NORTHWESTERLY LINE NORTH 61°51'52” EAST 55.14 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING. FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THOSE
PORTIONS OF LOTS 8, 9, 11 AND 12 AS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES AS DESCRIBED IN DEED
RECORDED AUGUST 24, 1967 AS FILE NO. 127829 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
OF SAID COUNTY.
APN(s): 204-292-01 (LOT 1); 204-292-02-00 (LOT 2); 204-292-10-00 (LOT
3); 204-292-11-00 (LOT 4);
204-292-12-00 (LOT 5); 204-292-13-00 (LOT 6); 204-292-14-00 (LOT 7);
204-292-17-00 (LOT 8);
204-292-18-00 (LOT 9); 204-292-20-00 (LOT 11); 204-292-21-00 (LOT 12);
204-292-22-00 (LOT 13);
204-291-27-00 (LOT 24); 204-291-26-00 (LOT 25); 204-291-25-00 (LOT
26); 204-291-24-00 (LOT 27);
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7233
PC RESO NO. 7233 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
204-291-23-00 (LOT 28); 204-291-19-00 (LOT 29); 204-291-20-00 (LOT
30); 204-291-21-00 (LOT 31);
204-291-22-00 (LOT 32); 204-291-14-00 (LOT 33)
PARCEL B:
THAT PORTION OF LOT 236 OF THUM LANDS, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 1681, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DECEMBER 9, 1915, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE CENTER LINE OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE,
DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 61°21' WEST, 446.86 FEET FROM ITS
INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTER LINE OF ADAMS STREET, SAID POINT
OF BEGINNING BEING THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND
CONVEYED BY THE SOUTH COAST LAND COMPANY TO DEAN F. PALMER,
BY DEED DATED MAY 5, 1927, AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1335, PAGE 384
OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND AS CONVEYED TO SAID PALMER
AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID LINE, SOUTH 28°39'
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 487.47 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO AN
INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED BY SOUTH COAST
LAND COMPANY TO LAURA JONES BY DEED DATED MAY 14, 1929, AND
RECORDED IN BOOK 1629, PAGE 431 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID
COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID PROLONGATION AND THE
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND SO CONVEYED TO SAID JONES,
SOUTH 61°21' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 536.38 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A
POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED BY
SOUTH COAST LAND COMPANY TO P.J. WHELDON AND MARY H.
WHELDON BY DEED DATED JULY 7, 1926, AND RECORDED IN BOOK
1180, PAGE 463 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG
THE SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND SO CONVEYED TO SAID
WHELDON AND ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION
THEREOF, NORTH 28°39' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 487.47 FEET, MORE OR
LESS, TO A POINT ON THE CENTER LINE OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE; THENCE
ALONG SAID CENTER LINE NORTH 61°21' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 536.38
FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF
THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 8
OF PALM VISTA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF NO. 2969, FILED IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
MARCH 16, 1953, SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 61°58'46” WEST, 71.99
FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE (1)
NORTH 22°36'42” WEST, 359.22 FEET; THENCE (2) NORTH 18°34'28”
WEST, 131.94 FEET TO A POINT IN THE CENTER LINE OF MAGNOLIA
AVENUE, LAST SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 61°54'01” EAST, 162.74 FEET
FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SAID CENTER LINE AN THE CENTER LINE
OF HARDING STREET, FORMERLY 5TH STREET, AS SAID STREET IS
PC RESO NO. 7233 ‐3‐
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHOWN ON THE RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF ALLES AVOCADO
ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF NO. 2027, FILED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 17,
1927.
APN(s): 204‐292‐16‐00
PARCEL E:
LOT 10 OF PALM VISTA IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 2969,
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, MARCH 16, 1953.
EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, PER GRANT DEED RECORDED MAY 9, 1967, AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 64674, OFFICIAL RECORDS
APN(s): 204‐292‐19‐0
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development Plan,
Coastal Development Permit, and Minor Subdivision as shown on Exhibits “A” – “RR” dated April 15, 2017,
on file in the Planning Division, SDP 15‐18/CDP 16‐04/MS 16‐01 – PACIFIC WIND as provided by Chapter
21.06, Chapter 21.53.120, Chapter 21.201.030, Chapter 20.24, and Chapter 20.28 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on April 5, 2017, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to
the Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, and Minor Subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission
APPROVES SDP 15‐18/CDP 16‐04/MS 16‐01 – PACIFIC WIND based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
PC RESO NO. 7233 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Findings:
Site Development Plan (SDP 15-18)
1. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the
Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated April 5,
2017 including, but not limited to the following:
A. Land Use Goal 2-G.3: Promote infill development that makes efficient use of limited land
supply, while ensuring compatibility and integration with existing uses. Ensure that infill
properties develop with uses and development intensities supporting a cohesive
development pattern. The applicant is proposing to redevelop an infill site in the Barrio that
is underutilized as it relates to density. The Barrio is an appropriate location for dense
development because of its connection to commercial services in the Village, as well as easy
access to nearby public transit and Interstate 5. The project site is identified in Figure 10-1
(Housing Element Sites Inventory) of the General Plan as an underutilized site for lower and
moderate income housing. Further, the project falls within the density range (23 du/ac –
30 du/ac) for the R-30 General Plan Land Use designation and is consistent with the
development standards of the RD-M zone.
B. Housing Goal 10-G.3: Sufficient new, affordable housing opportunities in all quadrants of the
city to meet the needs of current lower and moderate income households and those with
special needs, and a fair share proportion of future lower and moderate income households.
Housing Policy 10-P.19: Address the unmet needs of the community through new
development and housing that is set aside for lower and moderate income households
consistent with priorities set by the Housing and Neighborhood Services Division, and as set
forth in the city’s Consolidated Plan. The proposed project will provide 92 affordable
housing units dedicated to low income households. Low-income is defined as households
that earn 80 percent of the median income for the area. Income limits are adjusted for
household size so that larger families may have higher income limits.
C. Housing Policy 10-P.20: Encourage the development of an adequate number of housing units
suitably sized to meet the needs of lower and moderate income larger households. The
proposed affordable apartment project will provide 92 affordable apartments dedicated
towards low-income households, with 18 two-bedroom units and 54 three-bedroom units
being provided, which constitutes 77.4% of the total units. The larger units will meet the
needs of larger household sizes.
D. Mobility Goal 3-G.5: Implement transportation demand and traffic signal techniques to
improve mobility. Mobility Policy 3-P.5: Require developers to construct or pay their fair
share towards improvements for all travel modes consistent with the Mobility Element, the
Growth Management Plan, and specific impacts associated with their development. Mobility
Policy 3-P.8: Utilize transportation management strategies, non-automotive enhancements
(bicycle, pedestrian, transit, train, trails, and connectivity), and traffic signal management
techniques as long-term transportation solutions and traffic mitigation measures to carry out
the Carlsbad Community Vision. The applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees
prior to issuance of building permit that will go towards future road improvements.
Additionally, the developer is required to pay a fair share contribution of the total design
and construction cost to modify the traffic signal and related pavement striping at the
intersection of Jefferson Street and Tamarack Avenue to convert the signal to eight phases
with protected left turns in northbound and southbound directions on Jefferson Street.
PC RESO NO. 7233 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E. Mobility Policy 3-P.26: Identify and implement necessary pedestrian improvements on
streets where pedestrians are to be accommodated per Table 3-1, with special emphasis on
providing safer access to schools, parks, community recreation centers, shopping districts,
and other appropriate facilities. Mobility Policy 3-P.32: Require developers to improve
pedestrian and bicycle connectivity with the city’s bicycle and pedestrian master plans and
trails master planning efforts. In addition, new residential developments should demonstrate
that a safe route to school and transit is provided to nearby schools and transit stations within
a half mile walking distance. The project has been conditioned to: (1) Provide pedestrian
and bicycle improvements on Jefferson Street, including the replacement of the striped
crosswalk on Jefferson Street at the intersection of Carol Place and Jefferson Street with a
raised crosswalk approved by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp), (2) Install bike route
signage for a Class III bikeway route consistent with the City of Carlsbad Bikeway Master
Plan on Jefferson Street between Anchor Way and Tamarack Avenue, (3) Upgrade as
needed, the pedestrian ramps at the northerly end of Harding Street and the westerly end
of Carol Place to current American Disability Act (ADA) standards, all subject to approval by
a Certified Access Specialist (CASp).
F. Public Safety Policy 6-P.28: Encourage physical planning and community design practices
that deter crime and promote safety. The project has been designed to prevent crime and
has incorporated design review recommendations from the Police Department. For
example, fencing and walls are used around the perimeter of the property to discourage
access to unmonitored areas and to define and outline the property. Also, the parking area
will be gated and secured 24 hours a day.
G. Noise Goal 5-G.2: Ensure that new development is compatible with the noise environment,
by continuing to use potential noise exposure as a criterion in land use planning. Noise Policy
5.P.2: Require a noise study analysis be conducted for all discretionary development
proposals located where projected noise exposure would be other than “normally
acceptable.” A noise analysis was prepared by BridgeNet International (September 4, 2015)
and determined that a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 40 will be needed for the
glass window assemblies in buildings two through six.
2. That the requested development or use is properly related to the site, surroundings and
environmental settings, will not be detrimental to existing development or uses or to
development or uses specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed development or use
is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or traffic circulation, in that
the project site is located within an urbanized area and involves the redevelopment of a infill
lot which is located in close proximity to commercial/retail services, professional offices, social
and community services, and public transportation. The proposed 93-unit multi-family
residential use will not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the
area in which the use is located in that multi-family residential is a use permitted within the
Residential-Density Multiple (RD-M) Zone and is compatible with other residential uses
surrounding the project site. The proposed project density of 23 dwelling units per acre is within
the density range (23 du/ac – 30 du/ac) for the R-30 General Plan Land Use designation and the
development meets the development standards for the RD-M zone. According to the traffic
study prepared by Urban Crossroads (November 29, 2016) the abandonment of Harding street
will have a nominal impact to the traffic on Jefferson Street. Traffic counts were conducted on
Harding Street and Carol Place to determine cut-through vehicular traffic between Magnolia
Avenue and Jefferson Street, 24 hours a day, for a week straight (November 1, 2016 – November
7, 2016) when Jefferson Elementary School was in session. It was found that an average of 171
vehicles per day would be rerouted to Jefferson Street, which represents approximately 2.3%
PC RESO NO. 7233 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of the overall traffic on Jefferson Street. Additionally, the rerouting of the traffic was evaluated
in the peak hour intersection analysis and the intersection of Jefferson Street and Magnolia
Avenue was found to operate at acceptable levels of service.
3. That the site for the intended development or use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the use, in that the 93-unit apartment project complies with the development standards of the
Residential-Density Multiple (RD-M) Zone and Carlsbad Municipal Code, except for a requested
development standard modification to allow a reduction in the required number of parking
spaces. Justification for allowing the development standard modification is further discussed
in finding number six of this resolution.
4. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the
requested development or use to existing or permitted future development or use in the
neighborhood will be provided and maintained, in that the 93-unit apartment project complies
with all of the minimum development standards of the Residential-Density-Multiple (RD-M)
Zone and the Carlsbad Municipal Code, except for a requested development standard
modification to allow a reduction in the required number of parking spaces. Justification for
allowing the development standard modification is further discussed in finding number six of
this resolution. Landscaping throughout the project site will be provided consistent with the
requirements of the city’s Landscape Manual.
5. That the street systems serving the proposed development or use is adequate to properly handle
all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the 93-unit apartment project will take access
via Harding Street on Magnolia Avenue and Carol Place on Jefferson Street. According to a
traffic study prepared by Urban Crossroads (November 29, 2016), all of the study area
intersections were found to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) during one or both
the AM and PM peak hours. As the project is located across the street to Jefferson Elementary
School, the AM (7-9 AM) and PM (2-4 PM) were chosen to reflect school drop-off and pick-up
times. Furthermore, the intersection analysis results indicates that the addition of project
traffic is not anticipated to result in an LOS deficiency. Therefore, the surrounding streets and
intersections are designed to adequately handle the 206 Average Daily Trips (ADT) generated
by the project and the daily average of 171 vehicles added to Jefferson Street as a result of the
Harding Street abandonment.
6. That with the application of the development standard modification, the site is physically
suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is adequate in size and shape
to accommodate residential development at the density proposed. A development standard
modification is appropriate for the site in that:
A. The proposal to reduce the required parking spaces from 199 to 165 is supported by the
project’s proximity to goods and services as well as public transit. Studies acknowledge that
affordable housing in close proximity to transit and services are candidates for a lesser parking
demand. The project applicant is an affordable housing developer and manager that has
other properties and experience with onsite parking demand. That experience has shown
that the absence of guest parking spaces onsite at a rate of one per four dwellings is not a
demand that needs to be satisfied. The developer has submitted a parking summary showing
the parking utilization for properties they own throughout Southern California. That summary
found that an average parking rate of .64 spaces per one-bedroom unit, 1.41 spaces per two-
bedroom unit, and 1.81 per three-bedroom unit is needed. Based off these numbers, 137
parking spaces would be required of the proposed development. Moreover, parking is
managed at the properties in such a way that each unit is assigned a parking permit to park
one vehicle, and based upon need, a second parking permit can be assigned for a two-
PC RESO NO. 7233 -7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
bedroom or three-bedroom unit. The developer has found that not every one bedroom unit
utilizes a parking permit, and not every two-bedroom and three-bedroom unit utilizes two
parking permits. The excess parking that is not used through the permit system becomes
available as guest parking. The parking summary is attached to the staff report for reference.
Additionally, parking studies were conducted by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers at
similar affordable housing developments (Glen Ridge Apartments and Hunter’s Point
Apartments) for the Quarry Creek affordable housing development what was approved with
a parking reduction on March 16, 2016. That parking study found that the Hunter’s Pointe
property had 197 spaces occupied out of the 378 parking spaces at the peak parking time at
9:00 P.M. on a Monday evening with a parking rate of 1.17 spaces per unit. The parking study
for the Glen Ridge apartments indicates that at the peak parking time on a Sunday at 9:00
P.M., 124 spaces out of 150 were occupied with a parking rate of 1.59 spaces per unit. Using
the parking rate for Hunter’s Pointe, 109 parking spaces would be required of the project, and
148 would be required using the parking rate for Glen Ridge. The parking studies are attached
to the staff report for reference.
The City of San Diego published an Affordable Housing Parking Study (WilburSmith Associates)
in December 2011, for use in developing a regulatory framework for parking requirements in
affordable housing developments. Field observations were conducted at 21 sites, and a
parking model was developed based upon the findings in the analysis. It was recommended
that the parking model be used to create a look-up table of new affordable housing parking
requirements. The parking requirements were determined based on the type of affordable
housing and its context regarding transit availability and walkability. The parking model has
three parking rates; low, medium, and high. The low parking rate would be a location in a
more suburban setting that isn’t walkable and not accessible to transit. The high rate would
be a setting in an urban location that is walkable with access to transit. Taking the
conservative approach and using the low parking rate, the proposed project would require
158 parking spaces using the parking model in the study. The parking model is attached to the
staff report for reference.
Further, although a density bonus has not been requested, the parking ratios for housing
developments identified in Table E of the Density Bonus ordinance are the same as the
developer is proposing (165 spaces) for this affordable apartment project. The project does
qualify for a density bonus if it were to be requested by the developer. Table F of the staff
report summarizes the parking rates and requirements using the above-mentioned sources.
A standards modification for reduced parking is supported by the city’s Housing Policy Team.
7. That the proposed project helps achieve the city’s affordable housing goals as set forth in the
Housing Element of the General Plan by providing an affordable apartment project with 92 of
the 93 units designated as affordable to very low and extremely low income households. Per
the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the City of Carlsbad is expected to produce
912 housing units for very low income households for the reporting period of January 1, 2010
to December 31, 2020. As of the latest Housing Element Progress Report for 2015, 35 units for
low income households have been permitted with 877 units remaining. The proposed 92-unit
affordable apartment units will reduce the amount of remaining units and help the city achieve
its affordable housing goals.
8. That the Housing Policy Team has reviewed the applicant’s pro forma and has recommended
that the parking reduction is necessary to make the project feasible and to allow the project to
be developed to satisfy the City’s need to provide housing which is affordable to low-income
households.
PC RESO NO. 7233 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coastal Development Permit (CDP 16-04)
9. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and
all applicable policies in that the proposed building will not obstruct views of the coastline as
seen from public lands or the public right of way or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the
coastal zone. The project is consistent with the surrounding development of residential
buildings. No agricultural uses currently exist on the site, and the property is not within the
Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone that would require mitigation for conversion to urban uses.
There are no sensitive coastal resources within the property and the site is not located in an
area of known geologic instability or flood hazard.
10. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the
Coastal Act in that no public opportunities for coastal shoreline access are available from the
subject site and no public access requirements are conditioned for the project since it is not
located between the first public road and the ocean. The residentially designated site is not
suited for water-oriented recreation activities.
11. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
(Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the City's Master
Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, BMP Design Manual and Jurisdictional
Runoff Management Program (JRMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants, and soil
erosion. No steep slopes or native vegetation is located on the subject property and the site is
not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods, or
liquefaction.
Minor Subdivision (MS 16-01)
12. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as
conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any applicable
specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act,
and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the project implements the goals and
policies of the General Plan as discussed in finding number one of this resolution; is consistent
with all minimum requirements of Titles 20 and 21 governing lot size and configuration; and has
been designed to comply with all applicable city regulations.
13. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding
properties are designated for residential development on the General Plan and are designated
with a similar density of 23-30 dwelling units per acre.
14. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is
adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed, in
that all required minimum development standards and design criteria required by the
applicable zoning ordinances are incorporated into the project except for a requested
development standards modification to allow a reduction in the required number of parking
spaces. Justification for allowing the development standards modification is further discussed
in finding number six of this resolution.
15. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for
access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that the project has been
designed and conditioned such that there are no conflicts with established easements.
PC RESO NO. 7233 -9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation
Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
17. That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that units are designed to allow for solar
exposure and take advantage of prevailing breezes.
18. That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed by this
subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs against the public
service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental resources and that the proposed
housing can be adequately served by the existing public services and no new facilities are
required.
19. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in
that the project site has been previously developed and does not contain and sensitive
resources of habitat.
20. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California
Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project has been designed in
accordance with the Best Management Practices for water quality protection in accordance
with the city’s sewer and drainage standards and the project is conditioned to comply with the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
General
21. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual and Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 18.50).
22. The City Planner has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State
Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it is
therefore exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant
to Sections 21159.21 and 21159.23 of the California Public Resources Code (“CEQA) and the
implementing guidelines at Section 15194 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an affordable housing
project. In making this determination, the City Planner has found that the criteria listed in Section
15192 of the State CEQA Guidelines have been met.
Section 15194 states that CEQA does not apply to any development project that meets specific
criteria. Each of the criteria set forth in Section 15194 is set out below and an explanation
provided demonstrating how the project meets and satisfies the criteria. The criteria set out in
Section 15194 are the same criteria set forth in CEQA Section 21159.23 and the findings set forth
herein satisfy both Section 15194 of the CEQA Guidelines and CEQA Section 21159.23.
(a) The project meets the threshold criteria set forth in [CEQA Guidelines] section 15192.
The Section 15192 analysis is provided at the end of this discussion.
(b) The project meets the following size criteria: the project site is not more than five acres in
area.
Finding: The project site is 4.04 acres in size.
PC RESO NO. 7233 -10-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(c) The project meets both of the following requirements regarding location:
(1) The project meets one of the following location requirements relating to population
density:
A. The project site is located within an urbanized area or within a census-defined place
with a population density of at least 5,000 persons per square mile.
B. If the project consists of 50 or fewer units, the project site is located within an
incorporated city with a population density of at least 2,500 persons per square mile
and a total population of at least 25,000 persons.
C. The project is located within either an incorporated city or a census defined place with
a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile and there is no
reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the
environment or the residents of the project due to unusual circumstances or due to
the related or cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of
the project.
Finding: The project is located in the City of Carlsbad in an urbanized, developed area and falls
within the population density described in Section (c)(1)(C). The Project proposes the
replacement of existing residences with new multi-family residences. The City has reviewed a
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis and has concluded that project presents no significant impacts.
The City has not identified any unusual circumstances or cumulative impacts that would result in
significant impacts. Although the Project proposes the vacation of a portion of Harding Street,
the City has reviewed a circulation study that examines the impact of the proposed vacation and
determined that no adverse impacts would result to traffic circulation or parking.
(2) The project meets one of the following site-specific location requirements:
A. The project site has been previously developed for qualified urban uses; or
B. The parcels immediately adjacent to the project site are developed with qualified
urban uses.
C. The project site has not been developed for urban uses and all of the following
conditions are met:
1. No parcel within the site has been created within 10 years prior to the proposed
development of the site.
2. At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed
with qualified urban uses.
3. The existing remaining 25 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that
have previously been developed for qualified urban uses.
Finding: “Qualified urban use” means any residential, commercial, public institutional, transit or
transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15191(k)). The project satisfies criteria (2)(A) because the project site is currently
developed with residential uses which is a “qualified urban use.” The project also satisfies criteria
(2)(B) because the immediately adjacent parcels to the project site are developed residential uses
and a school, both of which are considered “qualified urban uses.”
D. The project meets both of the following requirements regarding provision of
affordable housing.
PC RESO NO. 7233 -11-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. The project consists of the construction, conversion, or use of residential housing
consisting of 100 or fewer units that are affordable to low-income households.
2. The developer of the project provides sufficient legal commitments to the
appropriate local agency to ensure the continued availability and use of the
housing units for lower income households for a period of at least 30 years, at
monthly housing costs deemed to be “affordable rent” for lower income, very
low income, and extremely low income households, as determined pursuant to
Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.
Finding: The Project consists of the construction of 92 units of affordable residential housing that
will be made available to low-income households. The development includes a unit for the
project’s resident managers. The project will be restricted to lower income households for a
period of 55 years by the Affordable Housing Agreement as well as the California Tax Credit
Allocation Committee and will be developed consistent with the City regulatory agreement for
this affordable housing development.
Section 15192 Compliance
CEQA Guidelines Section 15192 sets forth additional criteria which must be met for a project to
be exempt from CEQA. These criteria are the same as those set forth in CEQA Section 21159.21,
and the finding set forth herein satisfy the requirement of both CEQA Section 21159.21 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15192. In order to qualify for an exemption set forth in sections 15193, 15194
or 15195, a housing project must meet all of the threshold criteria set forth below.
(a) The project must be consistent with:
(1) Any applicable general plan, specific plan, or local coastal program, including any
mitigation measures required by such plan or program, as that plan or program existed
on the date that the application for the project pursuant to Section 65943 of the
Government Code was deemed complete; and
Finding: The project site is designated “R-30, Residential 23-30 du/ac” in the City’s General Plan
and Local Coastal Program. The project’s density is 23 du/acre and is consistent with the General
Plan and Local Coastal Program.
(2) Any applicable zoning ordinance, as that zoning ordinance existed on the date that the
application for the project pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code was
deemed complete, unless the zoning of project property is inconsistent with the general
plan because the project property has not been rezoned to conform to the general plan.
Finding: The project site is designated RD-M, Residential Density – Multiple and is consistent with
the development standards set forth in the Section 21.24 of the Carlsbad Zoning Code.
(b) Community-level environmental review has been adopted or certified.
Finding: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15191(c)(1), “Community-level
environmental review” includes an EIR certified on a lead agency’s General Plan. The City
conducted a comprehensive General Plan update in 2015 and certified an environmental impact
report in connection with the General Plan update. The project is consistent with the land uses
set forth in the General Plan. The process of revising the General Plan began nearly eight years
ago, including a two-year public involvement process called Envision Carlsbad. Envision Carlsbad
PC RESO NO. 7233 -12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
was an extensive community visioning and outreach effort that involved more than 8,000
residents, 100 community groups and organizations, scores of business owners and elected
officials and city staff members.
(c) The project and other projects approved prior to the approval of the project can be adequately
served by existing utilities, and the project applicant has paid, or has committed to pay, all
applicable in-lieu or development fees.
Finding: The project site is in an urbanized area already developed with residential uses served
by existing utilities which are sufficient to serve the proposed project. Any development fees for
utility connections will be paid by the project applicant, if required by the City.
(d) The site of the project:
(1) Does not contain wetlands, as defined in Section 328.3 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Finding: The project site is in an urbanized area already developed with residential uses and
adjacent to a school. No wetlands are present on the project site.
(2) Does not have any value as an ecological community upon which wild animals, birds,
plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and protection.
Finding: The project site is in an urbanized area already developed with residential uses and
adjacent to a school. It does not provide wildlife habitat.
(3) Does not harm any species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.) or by the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing
with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code), the California Endangered
Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and
Game Code.
Finding: The project site is in an urbanized area already developed with residential uses and
adjacent to a school. The project site does not provide habitat for any listed or protected species.
(4) Does not cause the destruction or removal of any species protected by a local ordinance
in effect at the time the application for the project was deemed complete.
Finding: The project site is in an urbanized area already developed with residential uses and
adjacent to a school. The project site does not provide habitat for any locally-protected species.
(e) The site of the project is not included on any list of facilities and sites compiled pursuant to
Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
Finding: The project site is not on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the
Government Code.
(f) The site of the project is subject to a preliminary endangerment assessment prepared by a
registered environmental assessor to determine the existence of any release of a hazardous
substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure of future occupants to
significant health hazards from any nearby property or activity. In addition, the following
steps have been taken in response to the results of this assessment:
PC RESO NO. 7233 -13-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(1) If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release shall be
removed, or any significant effects of the release shall be mitigated to a level of
insignificance in compliance with state and federal requirements.
(2) If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities
is found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to a level of
insignificance in compliance with state and federal requirements.
Finding: A Phase I environmental assessment was prepared, and no environmental conditions
requiring remedial measures were identified.
(g) The project does not have a significant effect on historical resources pursuant to Section
21084.1 of the Public Resources Code.
Finding: The project site is in an urbanized area already developed with residential uses and
adjacent to a school. None of the existing structures on the site are considered historical
resources pursuant to Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code.
(h) The project site is not subject to wildland fire hazard, as determined by the Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection, unless the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains
provisions to mitigate the risk of a wildland fire hazard.
Finding: The project site is in an urbanized area already developed with residential uses and
adjacent to a school.
(i) The project site does not have an unusually high risk of fire or explosion from materials stored
or used on nearby properties.
Finding: The project site is in an urbanized area already developed with residential uses and
adjacent to a school. There are no industrial or manufacturing uses adjacent to the project site
that would pose a risk of high fire or explosion.
(j) The project site does not present a risk of a public health exposure at a level that would exceed
the standards established by any state or federal agency.
Finding: The project proposes the development of 93 residential units on a site already developed
with residences.
(k) Either the project site is not within a delineated earthquake fault zone or a seismic hazard
zone, as determined pursuant to Section 2622 and 2696 of the Public Resources Code
respectively, or the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate
the risk of an earthquake or seismic hazard.
Finding: The project site is not within a delineated earthquake fault zone. The project site is in
an urbanized area already developed with residential uses and adjacent to a school.
(l) Either the project site does not present a landslide hazard, flood plain, flood way, or restriction
zone, or the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the
risk of a landslide or flood.
Finding: The project site is not within a landslide hazard, flood plain, flood way or restriction zone.
PC RESO NO. 7233 -14-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(m) The project site is not located on developed open space.
Finding: The project site is an urbanized area developed for residential uses.
(n) The project site is not located within the boundaries of a state conservancy.
Finding: The project is located in the City of Carlsbad; no State conservancy land is involved.
(o) The project has not been divided into smaller projects to qualify for one or more of the
exemptions set forth in sections 15193 to 15195.
Finding: The whole of the project is being considered in the application before the City. The
project proposes the development of 93 residential units on a 4.04 acre site.
The proposed apartment project is in compliance with the City of Carlsbad’s Climate Action Plan
(CAP) in that a multi-family housing development with less than 70 dwelling units does not meet
the screening threshold to require a greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis. The California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has published screening thresholds to guide agencies in
determining which projects require greenhouse gas analysis and mitigation for significant impacts
related to climate changes. With this guidance, the city has determined that new development
projects emitting less than 900 MTCO2e annual GHG would not contribute considerably to climate
change impacts, and therefore do not need to demonstrate consistency with the CAP. A multi-
family development of more than 70 dwelling units would exceed the threshold and would be
subject to CAP measures. The 93-unit apartment project has a net increase of 49 units, and is
therefore not subject to CAP measures.
23. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to
mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree
of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
NOTE: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading
or building permit, whichever occurs first.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented
and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained
according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein
granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke, or further
condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted;
record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained
by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Site Development
Plan/Coastal Development Permit/Minor Subdivision.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and
modifications to the Site Development Plan/Coastal Development Permit/Minor Subdivision
documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final
action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits.
Any proposed development, different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this
approval.
PC RESO NO. 7233 -15-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any
fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged,
this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such
condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council
determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and
costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly,
from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Site Development Plan/Coastal Development
Permit/Minor Subdivision, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether
discretionary or nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c)
Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including
without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of
electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal
proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval is not validated.
6. Prior to submittal of the building plans, improvement plans, grading plans, or final map, whichever
occurs first, developer shall submit to the City Planner, a 24" x 36" copy of the Site Plan,
conceptual grading plan and preliminary utility plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final
decision making body. The copy shall be submitted to the city planner, reviewed and, if found
acceptable, signed by the city's project planner and project engineer. If no changes were required,
the approved exhibits shall fulfill this condition.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Building
Division from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part
of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to
the issuance of building permits.
9. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within
24 months from the date of project approval.
10. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and
sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service
and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the
building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until
the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map.
11. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the
License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD
#1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone
1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If
the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall
become void.
PC RESO NO. 7233 -16-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of
Restriction executed by the owner of the real property to be developed. Said notice is to be filed
in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the City Planner, notifying all
interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Site
Development Plan/Coastal Development Permit/Minor Subdivision by Resolution No. 7233 on
the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file
containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or
restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The City Planner has the authority
to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon
a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest.
13. Developer shall submit and obtain City Planner approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan
showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape
Manual. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping and irrigation as shown on the
approved Final plans. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free
from weeds, trash, and debris. All irrigation systems shall be maintained to provide the optimum
amount of water to the landscape for plant growth without causing soil erosion and runoff.
14. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape plan
check process on file in the Planning Division and accompanied by the project’s building,
improvement, and grading plans.
15. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the
License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD
#1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone
6, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If
the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall
become void.
16. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance
as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of
Community Development and Planning.
17. No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When so
required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and the City Planner of
an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the approved plan.
18. Developer shall report, in writing, to the City Planner within 30 days, any address change from
that which is shown on the permit application.
19. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any units, the Developer shall enter into an Affordable
Housing Agreement with the City to provide and deed restrict 92 dwelling units as affordable to
lower-income households for 55 years, in accordance with the requirements and process set forth
in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall
be submitted to the City Planner no later than 60 days prior to the request to final the map. The
recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in
interest.
PC RESO NO. 7233 -17-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20. Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas enclosed by a six-foot-high
masonry wall with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the City Planner. Enclosure
shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
21. Developer shall submit and obtain City Planner approval of an exterior lighting plan including
parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on
adjacent homes or property.
22. The windows and doors on the first through third floors of buildings two through six shall have
an STC rating of 40 to reduce interior noise levels below 45 dBA CNEL, unless determined
otherwise through a noise analysis during building permit review.
Engineering
NOTE: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions below shall be satisfied prior to grading permit,
or building permit, whichever comes first; or pursuant to an approved construction schedule at
the discretion of the appropriate division manager or official.
General
23. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within
this project, developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the city engineer for the proposed
haul route.
24. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for
the development of the subject property, unless the district engineer has determined that
adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of permit issuance and will continue
to be available until time of occupancy.
25. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections and driveways in
accordance with City Engineering Standards. The property owner shall maintain this condition.
26. Prior to approval of the parcel map, the Developer shall provide proof that Caltrans has
reviewed the proposed development and any mitigation required has or will be implemented.
27. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the contractor shall submit a Construction Plan to the city
engineer for review and approval. Said Plan may be required to include, but not be limited to,
identifying the location of the construction trailer, material staging, bathroom facilities, parking
of construction vehicles, employee parking, construction fencing and gates, obtaining any
necessary permission for off-site encroachment, addressing pedestrian safety, and identifying
time restrictions for various construction activities. Said plan shall also address permit and
construction phasing for duplex, street and utility demolition and address utility service and
street access for the remaining units fronting Harding Street during demolition and
construction.
Fees/Agreements
28. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for recordation,
the city’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
PC RESO NO. 7233 -18-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for recordation
the city’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement.
30. Developer shall cause property owner to submit an executed copy to the city engineer for
recordation a city standard Permanent Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice
Maintenance Agreement.
Grading
31. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative
map, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall prepare and submit plans and
technical studies/reports as required by city engineer, post security and pay all applicable grading
plan review and permit fees per the city’s latest fee schedule.
Storm Water Quality
32. Developer shall comply with the city's Stormwater Regulations, latest version, and shall
implement best management practices at all times. Best management practices include but are
not limited to pollution control practices or devices, erosion control to prevent silt runoff during
construction, general housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices,
maintenance procedures, and other management practices or devices to prevent or reduce the
discharge of pollutants to stormwater, receiving water or stormwater conveyance system to the
maximum extent practicable. Developer shall notify prospective owners and tenants of the above
requirements.
33. Developer shall complete and submit to the city engineer a Determination of Project’s SWPPP Tier
Level and Construction Threat Level Form pursuant to City Engineering Standards. Developer shall
also submit the appropriate Tier level Storm Water Compliance form and appropriate Tier level
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
Developer shall pay all applicable SWPPP plan review and inspection fees per the city’s latest fee
schedule.
34. This project is subject to ‘Priority Development Project’ requirements. Developer shall prepare
and process a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP), subject to city engineer
approval, to comply with the Carlsbad BMP Design Manual latest version. The final SWQMP
required by this condition shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer with final grading
plans. Developer shall pay all applicable SWQMP plan review and inspection fees per the city’s
latest fee schedule.
35. Developer is responsible to ensure that all final design plans (grading plans, improvement plans,
landscape plans, building plans, etc.) incorporate all source control, site design, pollutant control
BMP and applicable hydromodification measures.
Dedications/Improvements
36. Developer shall cause owner to dedicate to the city and/or other appropriate entities easements
for public street & public utility purposes as shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made
by a certificate on the final map or separate recorded document. All land so offered shall be free
and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the city. Streets that are already
public are not required to be rededicated. Additional easements may be required at final design
to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
PC RESO NO. 7233 -19-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
37. Developer shall design the private drainage systems, as shown on the tentative map and site plan
to the satisfaction of the city engineer. All private drainage systems (12” diameter storm drain
and larger) shall be inspected by the city. Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan
check and inspection fees for private drainage systems.
38. Developer shall prepare and process public improvement plans and, prior to city engineer
approval of said plans, shall execute a city standard subdivision Improvement Agreement to install
and shall post security in accordance with C.M.C. Section 20.16.070 for public improvements
shown on the tentative map. Said improvements shall be installed to city standards to the
satisfaction of the city engineer. These improvements include, but are not limited to:
A. Remove segment of Harding Street improvements to be abandoned including applicable
utilities.
B. Convert Carol Place into a cul-de-sac with installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, street light,
street pavement and driveway approach as shown on the conceptual drainage and
improvement plan.
C. Convert Harding Street into a cul-de-sac with installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, street
light, street pavement and driveway approach as shown on the conceptual drainage and
improvement plan.
D. Install water services and fire hydrants as shown on the conceptual drainage and
improvement plan.
E. Install public sewer facilities including a man hole in Harding Street, Carol Place and
Magnolia Avenue and a new public sewer main in the Harding Street cul-de-sac. Said sewer
main and manholes in Harding Street and Magnolia Avenue shall be installed with lateral
connections to Lot 34 and 35 prior to abandonment of the existing sewer main in Harding
Street.
F. Replace the striped crosswalk on Jefferson Street at the intersection of Carol Place and
Jefferson Street with a raised crosswalk approved by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp).
G. Install bike route signage for a Class III bikeway route consistent with the City of Carlsbad
Bikeway Master Plan on Jefferson Street between Anchor Way and Tamarack Avenue.
H. Upgrade, as needed, the pedestrian ramps at the northerly end of Harding Street and the
westerly end of Carol Place to current American Disability Act (ADA) standards, all subject
to approval by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp).
Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees. Improvements
listed above shall be constructed within 36 months of approval of the subdivision or development
improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
39. The developer shall pay a fair share contribution of the total design and construction cost to
modify the traffic signal and related pavement striping at the intersection of Jefferson Street
and Tamarack Avenue to convert the signal to 8-phases with protected left turns in northbound
and southbound directions on Jefferson Street, as planned per the city’s current Capital
Improvement Program. Fair share shall be determined in accordance with the “Methodology
for Calculating Equitable Mitigation Measures” per Appendix B of the December 2002 Caltrans
Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies or other method deemed acceptable to the
city engineer. An estimated cost to redesign and construct the signal modifications shall be
provided by the developer subject to the approval of the city engineer.
40. Developer shall design, and obtain approval from the city engineer, the structural section for the
access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with city standards due to truck access
through the parking area and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500. Prior to completion of
grading, the final structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted together with
required R-value soil test information subject to the review and approval of the city engineer.
PC RESO NO. 7233 -20-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
41. Developer shall abandon the drainage easement recorded on Tract Map 2969 and a portion of
Harding Street per section 66434(g) of the Subdivision Map Act as shown on the tentative parcel
map. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, all public entities vested in the public easement
for Harding Street shall be notified of the proposed abandonment and no portion of the public
easement vested in another public entity shall be abandoned if the public entity objects to the
abandonment.
42. All above ground utility boxes such as electrical transformers shall be located on private
property and outside the public right-of-way subject to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
Non-Mapping Notes
43. Add the following notes to the final map as non-mapping data:
A. Developer has executed a city standard Subdivision Improvement Agreement and has posted
security in accordance with C.M.C. Section 20.16.070 to install public improvements shown
on the tentative map and site plan. These improvements include, but are not limited to:
1. Remove segment of Harding Street improvements to be abandoned including
applicable utilities.
2. Convert Carol Place into a cul-de-sac with installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, street
light, street pavement and driveway approach as shown on the conceptual drainage
and improvement plan.
3. Convert Harding Street into a cul-de-sac with installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk,
street light, street pavement and driveway approach as shown on the conceptual
drainage and improvement plan.
4. Install water services and fire hydrants as shown on the conceptual drainage and
improvement plan.
5. Install public sewer facilities including a man hole in Harding Street, Carol Place and
Magnolia Avenue and a new public sewer main in the Harding Street cul-de-sac. Said
sewer main and manholes in Harding Street and Magnolia Avenue shall be installed
with lateral connections to Lot 34 and 35 prior to abandonment of the existing sewer
main in Harding Street.
6. Replace the striped crosswalk on Jefferson Street at the intersection of Carol Place and
Jefferson Street with a raised crosswalk.
7. Install bike route signage for a Class III bikeway route consistent with the City of
Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan on Jefferson Street between Anchor Way and Tamarack
Avenue.
B. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the
appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available.
C. Geotechnical Caution: The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors
in interest has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action
that may arise through any geological failure, ground water seepage or land subsidence and
subsequent damage that may occur on, or adjacent to, this subdivision due to its construction,
operation or maintenance.
D. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object may be placed or permitted to
encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor as defined by City of Carlsbad
Engineering Standards or line-of-sight per Caltrans standards.
E. The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest has agreed
to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action that may arise through
PC RESO NO. 7233 -21-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
any diversion of waters, the alteration of the normal flow of surface waters or drainage, or
the concentration of surface waters or drainage from the drainage system or other
improvements identified in the city approved development plans; or by the design,
construction or maintenance of the drainage system or other improvements identified in the
city approved development plans.
F. There are no public park or recreational facilities to be located in whole or in part within this
subdivision. The subdivider is therefore obligated to pay park-in-lieu fees in accordance with
section 20.44.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and has either paid all of said park in-lieu
fees or agreed to pay all of said park-in-lieu fees in accordance with section 20.16.070 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Utilities
44. The developer shall agree to design landscape and irrigation plans utilizing recycled water as a
source and prepare and submit a colored recycled water use map to the Planning Division for
processing and approval by the district engineer.
45. Developer shall install potable water and/or recycled water services and meters at locations
approved by the district engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
46. The developer shall agree to install sewer laterals and clean-outs at locations approved by the city
engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans.
47. The developer shall design and agree to construct public water, sewer, and recycled water
facilities substantially as shown on the tentative map and site plan to the satisfaction of the
district engineer and city engineer.
48. The developer shall submit a detailed potable water study, prepared by a registered engineer that
identifies the peak demands of the project (including fire flow demands). The study shall identify
velocity in the main lines, pressure zones, and the required pipe sizes. Said study shall be
submitted concurrently with the improvement plans for the project and the study shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the district engineer.
Code Reminders
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the
following:
49. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Developer shall pay a Public Facility fee as required by
Council Policy No. 17.
50. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Developer shall pay the Local Facilities Management
fee for Zone 1 as required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90.050.
51. Developer shall pay a landscape plancheck and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
52. Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as required
by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
PC RESO NO. 7233 -22-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
53. This tentative map shall expire two years from the date on which the planning commission or city
council voted to approve this application.
54. Developer shall pay planned local area drainage fees in accordance with Section 15.08.020 of the
City of Carlsbad Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
55. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section
13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor
area contained in the staff report and shown on the tentative map are for planning purposes only.
56. Subdivider shall comply with Section 20.16.040(d) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code regarding the
undergrounding of existing overhead utilities.
57. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code
Section 17.04.320.
NOTICE TO APPLICANT
An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village
Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission’s
decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the appeal must be in
writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a determination on the appeal
prior to any judicial review.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest
them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the
protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent
legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT
APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading, or other
similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any
fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute
of limitations has previously otherwise expired.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
PC RESO NO. 7233 -23-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City
of Carlsbad, California, held on April 5, 2017, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JEFF SEGALL, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DON NEU
City Planner
TAMA
R
A
C
K
A
VPIOPICODR
I-5
JE
FFERSON
ST
MAGN
O
LI
A
A
V
HARDING
ST
CAME
L
LI
A
P
L
A N C H O R W Y
I-5TAMARACKNBONRAMP
I-5
TAMARACK
SB
OFF
RAMP
CARO
L
P
L
E
L
C
AMINO
RE
ALLA COSTA AV
A L G A R DCARLSBAD BL
SDP 15-18 / CDP 16-04 / MS 16-01
Pacific Wind
SITE MAP
SITE
ATIACHMENT3
( Cicyof
Carlsbad
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
P-1(A)
Development Services
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
(760) 602-4610
www.carlsbadca.gov
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will
require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission
or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project
cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co~partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county,
city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit. •
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner
must be provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. lEGAl names and addresses of All persons having a
financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership,
include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the
shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE
INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned
corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A
separate page may be attached if necessary.)
Person Todd Cootie Corp/Part Harding Street Neighbors, LP
Title Authorized Signatory Title _____________ _
Address 14211 Yorba St., Suite 200 Address Tustin, CA 92780
2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent)
P-1(A)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of All persons having any
ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal
ownership (i.e., partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the
ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of
all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE
THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A} IN THE
SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and
addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.)
Person Todd Cottle
Title Authorized Signatory
Address 14211 Yorba St., Suite 200
Tustin, CA 92780
Corp/Part Harding Street Neighbors, LP
Title _____________ _
Address, ____________ _
Page 1 of2 Revised 07/10
Workforce Housing Parking Summary
C&C Development currently owns and operates workforce housing communities throughout
Southern California. Due to our residents' low-income nature, we have found that our
communities' parkibg is uoderutilized when parked to even the State of California's affordable
parking requirements. Below, is a table representing the parking use at some of our different
properties in the region.
Average per unit
Pro erty Location Units 1 2 3 Pro erty Avera e
Citrus Circle Corona, CA 61 .86 I 1.63 1.16
Citrus Grove Orange, CA 57 1.67 2.11 1.81
Parkview San Marcos, CA 84 .47 1.21 1.62 1.17
Sen·ano Woods Orange, CA 63 1.64 1.95 1.74
Total Average .64 1.41 1.81 1.44
The a:ffordability levels for the properties range from 30% to 60% of Area Median Income.
The parking usage information from our existing communities is collected on an on-going basis.
Each household within the community is required to register their vehicle. The parking spaces
are numbered and assigned on an as needed basis.
CHELSEA PROPERTY PARKING SURVEY
IHunter's Pointe
Name of Property
lcarlsbad·
City
ltrom 6 L27L14 to 7LD1L14
Period of Survey
lGaby Ortiz
6/30/2014 Mon
7/1/2014 Tue
7/2/2014 Wed
7/3/2014 Thu
6/27/2014 Fri
6/28/2014 Sat
6/29/2014 Sun
Name of Person
Conducting Survey
Unit Type Count
3781 Studio 0 20%
Total Spaces 1BR 36 35%
2BR 60 40% I No I' 3BR 72 45%
Seniors Y/N Total Units 168 50%
Total BRs 372 55%
Exempt
Total Units
8:00AM 5:00PM 9:00PM
Number of Number of Number of
Cars Parked Cars Parked Cars Parked
181 172 .~97
184 150 191
182 145 187
188 147 196
138 150 178
153 126 162
142 153 169
Avg Cars Parked
Peak Cars Parked
Avg Cars per Unit {avg time
Avg Cars per Unit (peak time
Avg Cars per Bedroom (avg time
Avg Cars per Bedroom (peak time
Total Unused Spaces at Peak Time
Percentage of Parking Lot Unused at Peak Time
)
)
)
)
1{760) 744-5766
Office Phone
AMI Count
0
59
0
0
31
76
2
168
166.2
178.0
0.99
1.06
0.45
0.48
200.0
53%
CHELSEA PROPERTY PARKING SURVEY
Unit Type Count
IGien Ridge I 1501 Studio 20%
Name of Property Total Spaces 1BR 17 35%
2BR 29 40% I carlsbad I No 3BR 32 45%
City
lfrom 6 L27 L2014 to 7 L02 L2014
Period of Survey
Name of Person
Conducting Survey
Man
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Seniors Y/N Total Units 78 SO%
Total BRs 171 55%
60%
Total Units
8:00AM 5:00PM 9:00PM
Number of Number of Number of
Cars Parked Cars Parked cars Parked
74 82 95
65 76 102
72 84 97
74 81 122
68 80 119
84 67 108
72 54 ~12;41
)
Avg Cars Parked
Peak Cars Parked
Avg Cars per Unit (avg time
Avg Cars per Unit (peak time)
Avg Ca rs per Bedroom (avg time)
Avg Cars per Bedroom (peak time)
Total Unused Spaces at Peak Time
Percentage. of Parking Lot Unused at Peak Time
Office Phone
AMI Count
27
28
23
78
85.7
119.0
1.10
1.53
0.50
0.70
31.0
21%
Lookup Table Illustrating Affordable Housing Parking Requirements
Type of project A. B. c. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. Total requirement
Total Studio 1 BR 2BR 3 BR Subtota Visitor Staff Subtotal w/ with vacancy factor
units l.ow/Med Low/Med l.ow/Med l.ow/Med I for parking parking staff+ visitor adjustment (I3*J2)
/High /High /High /High units (G2*Al) (H2*Al) (F3-G3+H3) Vacancy adjJno vacancy adj.
(sum 83
-E3)
1. Units
Family 2. Rate N/A 1.0/0.6/ 1.3/1.1/ 1.75/1.4/ 0.15 0.05 1.1/1.0 Housing 0.33 0.5 0.75
3. Spaces
Uving 1. Units
Unit/ SRO
2. Rate 0.5/0.3/0.1 N/A N/A N/A 0.15 0.05 1.1/1.0
3.Spaces
Senior 1. Units
Housing
2. Rate 0.5/0.3/0.1 0.75/0.6/ 1.0/0.85/ N/A 0.15 0.05 1.1/1.0
0.15 0.2
3. Spaces
Studio -1 1. Units
bed-room
2. Rate 0.5/0.2/0.1 0.75/0.5/ N/A N/A 0.15 0.05 1.1/1.0
0.1
3. Spaces
Special 1. Units
Needs
2. Rate 0.5/0.2/0.1 0.75/0.5/ N/A N/A 0.15 0.10 1.1/1.0
0.1
3. Spaces
9-8 I Page
SOP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01-PACIFIC WIND
February 22, 2017
Page 2
2. "I also do not believe the abandonment or vacation of Harding Street meets the general
requirements of Part 3 of the Streets and Highways Code, sectfon 8320, et seq., not the
requirements for a "Summary Vacation" of that street under Part 4 of the Streets and Highways
Code, sections 8330, et seq., without requiring the dedication and construction of a "new"
realigned street. Accordingly, I would suggest that the City Attorney also review and weigh in on
the proposed abandonment of Harding Street before City Staff makes any recommendation or
decision on the issue;"
Staff response: You indicated that the abandonment or vacation of Harding Street does not meet
the general requirements of Part 3 of the Streets and Highway Code, Section 8320, et seq. nor the
requirements for a "summary vacation" of that street under Part 4. of the Streets and Highways
Code Section 8330, et seq. The applicant, is abandoning the street easement under the provisions
of Section 6644S(j) of the Government Code of the State of California (Subdivision Map Act) which
allows for the abandonment to be recorded on the parcel map, forgoing compliance with the
Streets and Highway Code procedures and findings. The procedures for vacating roads &
easements under the Subdivision Map Act is an alternative to vacations under the Streets and
Highway Code (Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San
Diego (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4111 1032).
3. "Jefferson and Carol Place/Harding Street are the only two main access points into and out of the
Barrio off of Tamarack between Interstate 5 and the railroad tracks. If Harding is vacated without
a replacement road, Jefferson Street will be the only access point into and out of the south side of
the Barrio. Should there be an accident or catastrophe which block Jefferson Avenue between
Anchor Way and Magnolia, there will be no access into or out of the southern part of the Barrio
neighborhood from or to Tamarack. Furthermore, during the school year Jefferson is heavily
impacted with traffic and street parking issues while children are picked up and dropped off at
Jefferson Elementary School. I believe the closing off of Harding Street without requiring a
replacement street poses a significant traffic, health, welfare, and public safety issues that will
directly impact emergency personnel and the public/residents access into and out of the Barrio
neighborhood from and to Tamarack. Therefore, I would suggest that these public safety "access
issues" should also be discussed with the appropriate police and fire department personnel. In
fact, I firmly believe thls "single" versus "double" access issue alone, for public safety reason,
should end the discussion about vacating or abandoning any part of Harding Street unless the
developer is wl/ling and able to dedicate and construct a replacement street;"
Staff response: The Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the development plan and no
concerns were raised with access to and from the project in the event of blocked roadways during
a neighborhood catastrophe. In the event that an unforeseen street blockage (i.e. water main
break, tanker truck chemical spill, etc.) were to occur on Jefferson Street between Anchor Way
and Magnolia Avenue, residents south of such blockage would be able to exit the area by
accessing Jefferson Street via Anchor Way or Jefferson Street. Residents north of the blockage
would be able to travel north via Harding Street or via Magnolia Avenue to Madison Street or
Roosevelt Street. For emergency vehicle access, such vehicles would be accessing such a
blockage, not attempting to pass through it. Nonemergency blockage or congestion, such as
during pick up and drop off of students at Jefferson Elementary School, is temporary and driver
protocol would be to pull over and allow for emergency vehicles to pass through.
4. ''The abandonment of Harding Street without an alternat;ve dedicated road to replace it would
essentially be a "gift" of public land/streets to this private developer. While I recognize that the
SOP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01-PACIFIC WIND
February 22, 2017
Page3
Oty may have a vested financial interest in the Project's success, it also has an overriding duty and
obligation to retain, preserve and maintain the public streets for the safe use and enjoyment of all
the local surrounding residents of the s;te, as well the public in general. The faithful and diligent
performance of these responsibilities to the residents of Carlsbad should take absolute priority
over and above the personal and financial interests of a private developer and/or City;"
Staff response: The portion of Harding Street exists for the purpose of serving the residences on
Harding Street. Because all the duplexes will be demolished fronting that portion of Harding
Street to be vacated, the street is no longer needed for their original serving purpose. Additional
street parking will continue to be available on surrounding streets. In addition, as previously
explained, the street is not needed to maintain any safe conditions or to provide secondary access
in the event of an evacuation of surrounding residents.
5. "Although the 165 resident parking spaces proposed for the roughly 93 affordable housing units
to be built on the site may be "Code complaint, 11 if the Project did not have the affordable housing
allowed reductions the parking spaces required under Municipal Code section 21.44.020 Table A
would be 199 {175.50 resident and 23.25 visitor). The development site currently has roughly 180
parking spaces consisting of garages, driveways and street parking to serve roughly 52 existing
units on Harding Street and Carol Place. In the evening {6 p.m. to 5 a.m.) essentially all of these
180 spaces are already inadequate to meet current demand. By almost doubling the number of
units on this proposed Project site with less available street and on~site parking spaces, will almost
certainly negatively impact the surrounding neighbors of this proposed "gated" community. 11
Staff response: The traffic analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads (November 2016) indicates that
there are 61 on-street parking spaces (Exhibit 1-3 A) on Harding Street and Carol Place serving the
existing 52 units, and 32 on-street parking spaces would be available after development of the
proposed project. The number of available parking spaces on Harding Street and Carol Place
under existing conditions were calculated based on using 20-foot long parking spaces at the ends
and 24-foot long parking spaces in between, which is consistent with city standards (C.M.C.
21.44.050). Each unit has a one-car garage and driveway space where someone can park.
However, there are 10 units that have driveways that are not long enough to accommodate a
parked vehicle without blocking the sidewalk. A more realistic number of parking spaces within
the development site would be 155 (61 on-street + 52 one-car garages + 42 driveway spaces).
Upon several site visits, staff observed that the one-car garages are being used for storage which
prevents people from being able to use the garage for parking and forcing cars to be parked in
the driveway or street, contributing to the number of vehicles parked on-street.
As mentioned to the response of your first concern, the proposed project i·s an affordable
apartment development. A regulatory agreement will be recorded against the property that will
require persons living in the units to be income-qualified, which will limit household sizes to
prevent overcrowding, and will require the development to be well-managed and for residents to
comply with any operational regulations. The income levels of the households and the limited
household.sizes help to ensure that the on-site parking will be adequate to meet the needs of the
residents, thereby reducing the impact on the street parking in the area. The proposed apartment
community will be well-managed and a parking permitting system will be in place. The Regulatory
Agreement does provide the city, however, with the opportunity to remove a management
company that does not enforce its rules and/or doesn't manage the development in a manner
consistent with the Agreement. The Regulatory Agreement allows the city more oversight of
SOP 15-18/COP 16-04/MS 16-01-PACIFIC WIND
February 22, 2017
Page 4
these developments and allows the city the opportunity to work closely with the owner to reduce
any negative impacts on the neighborhood.
6. "The surrounding neighbors and the public in general have the need and a right to access these
public streets for ingress, egress and parking purpose. By abandoning Harding Street and gating
off this development, the City will be doing a great disservice to all the surrounding neighbors and
the local community in general. On its face it appears inappropriate to give a significant "gift" of
public land to a private developer for its own personal use and financial gain to the detriment of
the surrounding neighbors and the community in general. More importantly, the current proposed
"gated" Project not only would effectively block all access of the community to a public street but
is In in direct conflict with the overall visions and proposals specifically outlined in the 4/16 Plan
and poses a significant threat to public safety. In other words, the Project site should remain
"open," not gated, so that the surrounding neighbors as well as the general public can continue to
have open unhindered access to Harding Street (or a replacement street) for ingress, egress and
parking purposes."
Staff response: The purpose for originally constructing Harding Street was to serve the fronting
subdivided housing units. Because these units will be demolished, therefore removing the
purpose for the street and because the removal of the street does not create any safety concerns
with the fire department, through access is no longer necessary. In addition, the demand for on-
street parking will be equally reduced with the demolition of the duplexes. As previously
mentioned, the new apartment complex will provide the minimum parking ·spaces required to
serve the new 93 apartment units. Therefore, the project will adequately reduce any parl<ing
overflow impacts to the surrounding neighborhood.
Please contact me at (760) 602-4631 or austln.silva@carlsbadca.gov, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
dHJ(/
AUSTIN SILVA, AICP
Associate Planner
AS:sc
Attachment: CEQA exemption justification
c: Todd Cottle, Harding Street Neighbors, LP, 14211 Yorba Street, Ste. 200, Tustin CA 92780
Don Neu, City Planner
David Rick, Project Engineer
Planning Commissioner Velyn Anderson
Planning Commissioner Neil Black
Planning Commissioner Patrick Goyarts
Planning Commissioner Stephen "Hap" L'Heureux
Planning Commissioner Marty Montgomery
Planning Commissioner Jeff Segall
Planning Commissioner Kerry Siekmann
File Copy
Pacific Wind Apartments
FOCUSED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PREPARED BY:
Aric Evatt, PTP
aevatt@urbanxroads.com
(949) 660-1994 x204
Pranesh Tarikere, PE
ptarikere@urbanxroads.com
(949) 660-1994 x205
NOVEMBER 29, 2016 (REVISED)
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ I
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... III
LIST OF EXHIBITS ..................................................................................................................... IV
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ V
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ................................................................................................ VII
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Analysis Scenarios ............................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Analysis Findings .............................................................................................................. 5
1.5 Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Modes ............................................................................ 5
1.6 Parking Survey .................................................................................................................. 6
1.7 Harding Street and Carol Place Cut-Through Traffic Survey ............................................ 6
1.8 Summary of MMLOS and Recommended Improvements ............................................... 8
1.9 On-Site Roadway and Site Access Improvements .......................................................... 11
2 METHODOLOGIES .......................................................................................................... 17
2.1 Level of Service ............................................................................................................... 17
2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis ........................................................................................ 17
2.3 Method to Evaluate Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Level of Service ............................... 19
2.4 Minimum LOS ................................................................................................................. 20
2.5 Deficiency Criteria .......................................................................................................... 20
2.6 Project Fair Share Calculation Methodology ................................................................. 20
3 AREA CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................ 27
3.1 Existing Circulation Network .......................................................................................... 27
3.2 General Plan Circulation Element .................................................................................. 27
3.3 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................................................ 27
3.4 Transit Service ................................................................................................................ 27
3.5 Existing (2016) Traffic Counts ......................................................................................... 33
3.6 Existing (2016) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis ........................................ 33
4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC ......................................................................................... 37
4.1 Project Trip Generation .................................................................................................. 37
4.2 Project Trip Distribution ................................................................................................. 37
4.3 Modal Split ..................................................................................................................... 37
4.4 Project Trip Assignment ................................................................................................. 40
4.5 Cumulative Development Traffic ................................................................................... 40
4.6 Horizon Year (2040) Forecasts ....................................................................................... 40
5 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................................. 45
5.1 Roadway Improvements ................................................................................................ 45
5.2 Existing plus Project Traffic Volume Forecasts .............................................................. 45
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
ii
5.3 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................... 45
6 EXISTING PLUS NEAR-TERM (2019) CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ............................ 49
6.1 Roadway Improvements ................................................................................................ 49
6.2 Existing plus Near-term (2019) Cumulative Traffic Volume Forecasts .......................... 49
6.3 Existing plus Near-term (2019) Cumulative plus Project Traffic Volume Forecasts ...... 49
6.4 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................... 49
7 HORIZON YEAR (2040) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 53
7.1 Roadway Improvements ................................................................................................ 53
7.2 Horizon Year (2040) Traffic Volume Forecasts ............................................................... 53
7.3 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................... 53
8 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND TRANSIT MODES ................................................................. 59
8.1 MMLOS Study Area ............................................................................................................ 59
8.2 Carlsbad Multi-modal Level of Service (MMLOS) .............................................................. 59
9 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 65
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
iii
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1.1: HARDING STREET AND CAROL PLACE 7-DAY TRAFFIC SURVEY
APPENDIX 3.1: EXISTING (2016) TRAFFIC COUNTS
APPENDIX 3.2: EXISTING (2016) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 5.1: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.1: EXISTING PLUS NEAR-TERM (2019) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.2: EXISTING PLUS NEAR-TERM (2019) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION
WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.1: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION
WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.2: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION
WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.3: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT, WITHOUT IMPROVEMENTS
CONDITIONS INTERSECTION WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.4: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT, WITH IMPROVEMENTS CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION WORKSHEETS
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
iv
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN...................................................................................... 2
EXHIBIT 1-2 LOCATION MAP .................................................................................................... 4
EXHIBIT 1-3A: AVAILABLE ON-STREET PARKING EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................. 9
EXHIBIT 1-3B: AVAILABLE ON-STREET PARKING WITH PROJECT ............................................. 10
EXHIBIT 1-4: SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS ......................... 15
EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS .......... 28
EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT .............................. 29
EXHIBIT 3-3: EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ................................................. 30
EXHIBIT 3-4: CITY OF CARLSBAD BICYCLE ROUTES .................................................................. 31
EXHIBIT 3-5: EXISTING TRANSIT ............................................................................................. 32
EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION ............................................................................. 41
EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..................................................................... 42
EXHIBIT 4-3: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATION MAP .................................... 43
EXHIBIT 5-1: EXISTING (2015) PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................................... 46
EXHIBIT 6-1: EXISTING PLUS NEAR-TERM (2019) CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC
VOLUMES .............................................................................................................................. 50
EXHIBIT 6-2: EXISTING PLUS NEAR-TERM (2019) CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC
VOLUMES .............................................................................................................................. 51
EXHIBIT 7-1: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES .......................... 54
EXHIBIT 7-2: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................. 55
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
v
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS .................................................................... 3
TABLE 1-2: WEEKDAY ON-STREET PARKING SURVEY SUMMARY .............................................. 7
TABLE 1-3: HARDING STREET AND CAROL PLACE TRAFFIC SURVEY SUMMARY ........................ 8
TABLE 1-4: SUMMARY OF MULTI-MODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE (MMLOS) ................................. 12
TABLE 1-5: PROJECT CONTRIBUTION TO INTERSECTIONS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH
PROJECT CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 13
TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS ...................................................... 17
TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS ................................................. 18
TABLE 2-3: MMLOS POINT SYSTEM AND LOS RATING ............................................................ 19
TABLE 2-4: PEDESTRIAN MMLOS CRITERIA ............................................................................ 23
TABLE 2-5: BICYCLE MMLOS CRITERIA ................................................................................... 24
TABLE 2-6: TRANSIT MMLOS CRITERIA ................................................................................... 25
TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2016) CONDITIONS ............................... 35
TABLE 4-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES ...................................................................... 38
TABLE 4-2: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ............................................................... 39
TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ....................................... 44
TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR E+P CONDITIONS ................................................... 47
TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS NEAR-TERM (2019) CUMULATIVE
CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................... 52
TABLE 7-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS ...................... 56
TABLE 7-2: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS, WITH
IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................................................... 57
TABLE 8-1: PEDESTRIAN MMLOS ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 60
TABLE 8-2: BICYCLE MMLOS ANALYSIS................................................................................... 61
TABLE 8-3: TRANSIT MMLOS ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 62
TABLE 8-4: PEDESTRIAN MMLOS ANALYSIS, WITH IMPROVEMENTS ...................................... 63
TABLE 8-5: BICYCLE MMLOS ANALYSIS, WITH IMPROVEMENTS ............................................. 64
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
vi
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
DIF Development Impact Fee
E+P Existing Plus Project
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
MOE Measure of Effectiveness
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
PCE Passenger Car Equivalent
PHF Peak Hour Factor
Project Pacific Wind Apartments
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SANTEC San Diego Traffic Engineering Council
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
viii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
1
1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the focused traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed
Pacific Wind Apartments (“Project”) located south of Magnolia Avenue and east of Jefferson
Street in the City of Carlsbad. The Project’s site plan is shown on Exhibit 1-1.
The purpose of this focused TIA is to evaluate the potential deficiencies to traffic and circulation
associated with the development of the proposed Project, and to recommend improvements
necessary to address peak hour operational deficiencies. As directed by City of Carlsbad staff,
this traffic study has been prepared in accordance with the Draft Interim City of Carlsbad Traffic
Impact Study Guidelines (April 2016), San Diego Traffic Engineering Council/Institute of
Transportation Engineers (SANTEC/ITE) Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) in San Diego
Region (March 2000),), and consultation with City staff during the scoping process. (1) (2) .
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project is located within the Village and Barrio Master Plan currently being studied by the
City. The Project is proposed to consist of 93 multi-family, rental residential units, on an existing
site which consists of 44 duplex residential homes. A conceptual site plan is shown on Exhibit 1-
1. The Project is anticipated to be developed in a single phase with an opening year of 2019.
Access to the Project site will be provided via Harding Street on Magnolia Avenue and Carol Place
on Jefferson Street. The existing connection of Harding Street to Carol Place will be eliminated
with the connection of Project.
Trips generated by the Project’s proposed land uses have been estimated based on trip
generation rates presented in (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the
San Diego Region (April 2002) (3) published by San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 558 trips per day with approximately
45 AM peak hour trips and 50 PM peak hour trips. The existing duplex homes at the site generate
a total of 352 trips per day with approximately 28 AM peak hour trips and 36 PM peak hour trips.
The net increase in trips from the proposed Project is anticipated to be 206 trips per day with
approximately 17 AM peak hour trips and 14 PM peak hour trips. The assumptions and methods
used to estimate the Project’s trip generation characteristics are discussed in detail in Section 4.1
Project Trip Generation of this report.
1.2 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
Consistent with the draft interim TIS guidelines, potential deficiencies to vehicular traffic and
circulation have been assessed for each of the following conditions:
Existing (2016) Conditions
Existing plus Project Conditions
Existing plus Near-term (2019) Cumulative Conditions
Existing plus Near-term (2019) Cumulative plus Project Conditions
Horizon Year (2040) Without Project Conditions
Horizon Year (2040) With Project Conditions
1
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
3
1.2.1 EXISTING (2016) CONDITIONS
Information for Existing conditions is disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions as they
existed at the time this report was prepared.
1.2.2 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
The Existing plus Project (E+P) conditions analysis determines traffic deficiencies that would
occur on the existing roadway system in the scenario of the Project being placed upon Existing
conditions.
1.2.3 EXISTING PLUS NEAR-TERM (2019) CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS
The Existing plus Near-term plus Cumulative conditions analysis determines the cumulative
condition impacts from “other” approved and “reasonable foreseeable” pending projects
(application on file or definitely in the pipeline) that are expected to influence the study area.
This is the baseline against which Project impacts are assessed.
1.2.4 EXISTING PLUS NEAR-TERM (2019) CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
The Existing plus Near-term plus Cumulative plus Project conditions analysis determines the
impacts of the proposed Project on top of existing conditions and near-term projects (along with
their committed or funded mitigation measures, if any).
1.2.5 HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
The Horizon Year conditions analysis determines the long-range (20+ years) future conditions
impacts.
1.2.6 HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
The Horizon Year conditions analysis determines the long-range (20+ years) future conditions
impacts with the addition of Project traffic.
1.3 STUDY AREA
To ensure that this TIA satisfies the City of Carlsbad’s traffic study requirements, Urban
Crossroads, Inc. discussed the scope of the TIA with City of Carlsbad staff prior to the preparation
of this report. The following 5 study area intersections shown in Table 1-1 were selected for this
TIA based on the City of Carlsbad’s input. The intersection locations are also indicated on Exhibit
1-2.
TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction
1 Jefferson St. / Magnolia Ave. City of Carlsbad
2 Jefferson St. / Anchor Way City of Carlsbad
3 Jefferson St. / Carol Pl. City of Carlsbad
4 Jefferson St. / Tamarack Ave. City of Carlsbad
5 Harding St. / Magnolia Ave. City of Carlsbad
3
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
5
1.4 ANALYSIS FINDINGS
This section provides a summary of the analysis results for Existing (2016), Existing plus Near-
term (2019) and Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions.
1.4.1 INTERSECTIONS
Existing (2016) Conditions
For Existing (2016) traffic conditions, all the study area intersections were found to operate at an
acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS “D” or better) during one or both the AM and PM peak hours. As the
Project is located adjacent to the Jefferson elementary School, the AM (7-9 AM) and PM (2-4 PM)
were chosen to reflect school drop-off and pick-up times.
E+P Conditions
The intersection analysis results indicates that the addition of Project traffic is not anticipated to
result in additional LOS deficiency.
Existing plus Near-term Cumulative (2019) Conditions
The intersection analysis results indicate that the addition of cumulative project traffic is not
anticipated to result in additional LOS deficiencies under Existing plus Near-term (2019) traffic
conditions.
Existing plus Near-term Cumulative (2019) plus Project Conditions
The intersection analysis results indicate that the addition of Project traffic is not anticipated to
result in additional LOS deficiencies under Existing plus Near-term (2019) plus Project conditions.
Horizon Year (2040) Without Project Conditions
For Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions, all the study area intersections were found to operate
at an acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS “D” or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours.
Horizon Year (2040) With Project Conditions
The intersection analysis results indicate that the addition of Project traffic is not anticipated to
result in additional LOS deficiencies under Horizon Year (2040) With Project conditions.
1.5 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND TRANSIT MODES
Based on discussions with City of Carlsbad staff, the following pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
segments were analyzed to reflect the entry point for each mode to the closest intersection or
transit stop.
Segments for bicycle/pedestrian Multi-modal Level of Service (MMLOS):
Harding St: Camellia Pl to Magnolia Ave
Magnolia Ave: Jefferson St to Harding St
Jefferson St: Carol Pl to Tamarack Ave,
5
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
6
Jefferson St: Anchor Way to Carol Pl.
Segments for transit MMLOS:
Harding St: Magnolia Ave to Chestnut Ave
Chestnut Ave: Harding St to transit stop
Jefferson St: Carol Pl to Tamarack Ave
Tamarack Ave: Jefferson St to transit stop
For pedestrian MMLOS, segments have been analyzed for the project side of the street only. For
bicycle MMLOS, have been analyzed for both sides of the street and each side of the street
should be assigned a separate level of service.
1.6 PARKING SURVEY
A weekday on-street parking survey was conducted from 7 AM to 7 PM on the following streets
adjacent to the Project.
Jefferson Avenue
Magnolia Avenue
Harding Street
Carol Place
The results of the parking survey are included in Table 1-2. As shown in Table 1-2, a maximum of
45 vehicles were observed to be parked on Harding Street between Magnolia Avenue and Carol
Place. It is likely that many of the vehicles parked on this segment would be from the 44 existing
duplex residential homes on the Project site. There appears to be adequate on-street parking on
other adjacent streets to accommodate the vehicles.
The number of available parking spaces on Harding Street and Carol Place under existing
conditions and with Project were calculated based on using 20-foot deep parking spaces at the
ends and 24-foot deep parking spaces in between. Exhibit 1-3A illustrates the available on-street
parking under existing conditions and Exhibit 1-3B illustrates the available on-street parking with
Project.
1.7 HARDING STREET AND CAROL PLACE CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC SURVEY
Traffic counts were conducted on Harding Street and Carol Place to determine cut-through
vehicular traffic between Magnolia Avenue and Jefferson Street, 24 hours a day, for 7 days. The
data was collected from November 1, 2016 to November 7, 2016 when the Jefferson Elementary
School was in session. There was one vacancy in the existing residential homes in the
neighborhood at the time of the traffic survey.
A video camera was set up to capture all vehicles entering Carol Place travelling eastbound from
Jefferson Street and all vehicles entering Harding Street travelling southbound from Magnolia
Avenue. Each vehicle was tracked as they drove through the segment to see if they went to a
house, parked on the street, or drove all the way through to Magnolia Avenue or Jefferson St,
6
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
7
TABLE 1-2: WEEKDAY ON-STREET PARKING SURVEY SUMMARY
Date of Survey: 5/18/2016
7
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
8
and were counted accordingly to where they ended up. The summary of the results of the traffic
survey is shown in Table 1-3. The traffic survey data is included in Appendix 1.1.
TABLE 1-3: HARDING STREET AND CAROL PLACE TRAFFIC SURVEY SUMMARY
Date Day Total
Cut-
through
Destination
within
Neighborhood
Cut-through
%
11/1/2016 Tuesday 364 173 191 48%
11/2/2016 Wednesday 400 179 221 45%
11/3/2016 Thursday 406 173 233 43%
11/4/2016 Friday 435 174 261 40%
11/5/2016 Saturday 381 138 243 36%
11/6/2016 Sunday 395 178 217 45%
11/7/2016 Monday 427 182 245 43%
Average (7 days) 401 171 230 43%
Average Weekday 406 176 230 43%
Average Weekend 388 158 230 41%
As shown on Table 1-3, based on an average of 7 days’ count data, the total number of vehicles
accessing Harding Street and Carol Place is 401 vehicles per day. Out of the 401 vehicles,
approximately 43% or 171 vehicles per day are cut-through traffic which would be rerouted to
Jefferson Street and Magnolia Avenue with the construction of Project. The daily vehicle trips on
Jefferson Street at Magnolia Avenue is approximately 7,300 vehicles (based on data provided by
the City). The additional 171 vehicles per day that would be rerouted with the construction of
the Project is approximately 2.3% of the traffic on Jefferson Street and is considered nominal.
Further, the rerouting of the traffic has been evaluated in the peak hour intersection analysis and
the intersection of Jefferson Street and Magnolia Avenue was found to operate at acceptable
level of service.
1.8 SUMMARY OF MMLOS AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
There are no vehicular LOS deficiencies in the study area intersections. However, the following
improvements would provide traffic calming, enhance pedestrian safety and enhance mobility in
the vicinity of the Project and Jefferson Elementary School.
Work with City of Carlsbad to determine the Project’s fair share toward the “Complete Streets”
project on Magnolia Avenue from Jefferson Street to Harding Street.
Provide a raised crosswalk on Jefferson Street at the entrance to Jefferson Elementary School near
Carol Place.
Contribute Project’s fair share towards the signal modification and improvements at the
intersection of Jefferson Street / Tamarack Avenue to provide 8-phase traffic signal with protected
left turns in northbound and southbound directions on Jefferson Street.
8
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
11
Provide signage on Jefferson Street between Anchor Way and Tamarack Avenue to indicate the
segment is designated as a Class III bikeway or a bike route consistent with City of Carlsbad
Bikeway Master Plan. Class III bikeway provides for shared use with motor vehicles and is
identified only by signing.
The methodology to evaluate pedestrian, bicycle and transit LOS are discussed in detail in Section
2.3 and MMLOS analysis for study area roadway segments are discussed in detail in Section 8. A
summary of MMLOS analysis without and with improvements are shown on Table 1-4.
When off-site improvements are identified with a minor share of responsibility assigned to
proposed development, the approving jurisdiction may elect to collect a fair share contribution.
Detailed fair share calculations, for the intersection of Jefferson Street and Tamarack Avenue has
been provided on Table 1-5.
Improvements included in a defined program and constructed by development may be eligible
for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where appropriate.
1.9 ON-SITE ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
Access to the Project site will be provided via Harding Street on Magnolia Avenue and Carol Place
on Jefferson Street.
Roadway improvements necessary to provide site access and on-site circulation are assumed to
be constructed in conjunction with site development and are described below. These
improvements should be in place prior to occupancy.
1.9.1 SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
The recommended site-adjacent roadway improvements for the Project are described below.
These improvements need to be incorporated into the project description prior to Project
approval or imposed as conditions of approval as part of the Project approval.
Harding Street – Harding Street is a north-south oriented roadway that runs currently through
the Project site. The street typology for Harding Street indicated in the City of Carlsbad Mobility
Element is Local/Neighborhood Street. Harding Street is proposed to be a cul-de-sac at the
Project access. Improvements to provide Project access are recommended along the Project’s
frontage consistent with City of Carlsbad standards as will be specified in the Project’s final
conditions of approval.
Carol Place – Carol Place is an east-west oriented roadway located along the Project’s southern
boundary providing access to the Project via Jefferson Street. The street typology for Harding
Street indicated in the City of Carlsbad Mobility Element is Local/Neighborhood Street. Additional
improvements to provide Project access are recommended along the Project’s frontage
consistent with City of Carlsbad standards as will be specified in the Project’s final conditions of
approval.
Exhibit 1-4 illustrates the following recommended site adjacent roadway and site access
improvements on Jefferson Street and Magnolia Avenue:
11
Table 1‐4
Score LOS Score LOS
Harding St: Casmelia Place to Magnolia Ave. (east
side)Village St. 95 A 95 A
Magnolia Ave:
Jefferson St. to Harding St. (south side)Village St. 85 B 90 A
Jefferson St: Anchor Way to Carol Pl. (east side) School St. 90 A 95 A
Jefferson St: Carol Pl. to Tamarack Ave. (east side) School St. 90 A 95 A
Score LOS Score LOS
Harding St: Casmelia Place to Magnolia Ave. (east
side)Village St. 90 A 90 A
Harding St: Casmelia Place to Magnolia Ave. (west
side)Village St. 90 A 90 A
Magnolia Ave:
Jefferson St. to Harding St. (south side)Village St.90 A 90 A
Magnolia Ave:
Jefferson St. to Harding St. (north side)Village St. 90 A 90 A
Jefferson St: Anchor Way to Carol Pl. (east side) School St. 50 E 65 D
Jefferson St: Anchor Way to Carol Pl. (west side) School St. 50 E 65 D
Jefferson St: Carol Pl. to Tamarack Ave. (east side) School St. 50 E 65 D
Jefferson St: Carol Pl. to Tamarack Ave. (west side) School St. 50 E 65 D
Segment Typology Score LOS
Harding St: Magnolia Ave. to Chestnut Ave.Village St. 95 A
Chestnut Ave: Harding St. to Transit Stop Village St. 95 A
Jefferson St: Carol Pl. to Tamarack Ave. School St. 95 A
Tamarack Ave: Jefferson St. to Transit Stop Neighborhood
Connector St.75 C
Transit LOS
Typology
Typology
Summary of Mult‐Modal Level of Service (MMLOS)
Segment
Without Mitigation With Improvements
Pedestrian LOS
Segment
Without Mitigation With Improvements
Bicycle LOS
12
Table 1‐5
#Intersection Existing Cumulative Project
2040 WP
Volume
Total New
Traffic
Project % of
New1
4 Jefferson St. / Tamarack Ave.
AM: 1,200 22 12 1,535 313 3.8%
PM: 1,321 32 10 1,688 335 3.0%
1
Project Contribution to Intersection for Horizon Year (2040) Traffic Conditions
Project percentage of total new traffic calculated. Higher Project percentage of is highlighted.
13
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
14
Work with City of Carlsbad to determine the Project’s fair share toward the “Complete Streets”
project on Magnolia Avenue from Jefferson Street to Harding Street.
Provide a raised crosswalk raised crosswalk on Jefferson Street at the entrance to Jefferson
Elementary School near Carol Place.
Provide signage on Jefferson Street between Anchor Way and Tamarack Avenue to indicate the
segment is designated as a Class III bikeway or a bike route consistent with City of Carlsbad
Bikeway Master Plan. Class II bikeway provides for shared use with motor vehicles and is identified
only by signing.
On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed
construction plans for the Project site.
Harding Street / Magnolia Avenue – Although not a new intersection, the Project access is
provided via this intersection. Maintain the existing northbound and westbound stop control
and the following existing intersection geometrics:
Northbound Approach: One shared left-through-right turn lane.
Southbound Approach: One shared left-through-right turn lane.
Eastbound Approach: One shared left-through-right turn lane.
Westbound Approach: One shared left-through-right turn lane.
Jefferson Street / Carol Place – Although not a new intersection, the Project access is provided
via this intersection. Maintain the existing westbound stop control and the following existing
intersection geometrics:
Northbound Approach: One shared through-right turn lane.
Southbound Approach: One shared left-through lane.
Eastbound Approach: N/A
Westbound Approach: One shared left -right turn lane.
Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans
and City of Carlsbad sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape
and street improvement plans.
14
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
16
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
16
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
17
2 METHODOLOGIES
This section of the report presents the methodologies used to perform the traffic analyses
summarized in this report. The methodologies described are consistent with draft interim City
of Carlsbad Traffic Impact Study guidelines (April 2016). (2)
2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using the term "Level of Service" (LOS). LOS
is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on several factors such as speed, travel time,
delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from LOS A,
representing completely free-flow conditions, to LOS F, representing breakdown in flow resulting
in stop-and-go conditions. LOS E represents operations at or near capacity, an unstable level where
vehicles are operating with the minimum spacing for maintaining uniform flow.
2.2 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The definitions of LOS for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic
signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control.
The LOS is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway.
The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms
of delay time for the various intersection approaches. (7)The HCM uses different procedures
depending on the type of intersection control.
2.2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Carlsbad requires signalized intersection operations analysis based on the
methodology described in the HCM. (7)Intersection LOS operations are based on an
intersection’s average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue
move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. For signalized intersections LOS is
directly related to the average control delay per vehicle and is correlated to a LOS designation as
described in Table 2-1.
TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS
Description
Average Control
Delay (Seconds),
V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of Service,
V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of Service,
V/C > 1.0
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable
progression and/or short cycle length. 0 to 10.00 A F
Operations with low delay occurring with good
progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.01 to 20.00 B F
17
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
18
Description
Average Control
Delay (Seconds),
V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of
Service, V/C ≤
1.0
Level of Service,
V/C > 1.0
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle
failures begin to appear.
20.01 to 35.00 C F
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C
ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures
are noticeable.
35.01 to 55.00 D F
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.
Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This
is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
55.01 to 80.00 E F
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or
very long cycle lengths
80.01 and up F F
Source: 2010 HCM
Study area intersections have been analyzed using the software package Synchro (Version 9.1,
Build 904). The peak hour traffic volumes have been adjusted using a peak hour factor (PHF) to
reflect peak 15 minute volumes. Common practice for LOS analysis is to use a peak 15-minute
rate of flow. However, flow rates are typically expressed in vehicles per hour. The PHF is the
relationship between the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume (e.g. PHF = [Hourly
Volume] / [4 x Peak 15-minute Flow Rate]). The use of a 15-minute PHF produces a more detailed
analysis as compared to analyzing vehicles per hour. It is unlikely that the PHF would decrease
from their current values and would more likely increase. However, in an effort to conduct a
conservative analysis and overstate as opposed to understate potential traffic impacts, existing
PHFs have been used for all analysis scenarios.
2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Carlsbad requires the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the
methodology described the HCM. (7) The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control
delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 2-2).
TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS
Description
Average Control
Delay Per Vehicle
(Seconds)
Level of
Service, V/C
≤ 1.0
Level of
Service, V/C
> 1.0
Little or no delays. 0 to 10.00 A F
Short traffic delays. 10.01 to 15.00 B F
Average traffic delays. 15.01 to 25.00 C F
Long traffic delays. 25.01 to 35.00 D F
Very long traffic delays. 35.01 to 50.00 E F
Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded. > 50.00 F F
Source: 2010 HCM
18
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
19
At two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled
movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection
as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the delay is computed as the average of
all movements in that lane. For all-way stop controlled intersections, LOS is computed for the
intersection as a whole.
2.3 METHOD TO EVALUATE PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND TRANSIT LEVEL OF SERVICE
The Carlsbad MMLOS approach identifies attributes of a location and identifies a qualitative LOS
grade based on the attributes of the pedestrian, bicycle or transit facility. Each attribute
contributes to a point system that, when the total points for all attributes are added together,
corresponds to a qualitative letter grade as shown in Table 2-3 below. The specifics for each
MMLOS component are further described below.
TABLE 2-3: MMLOS POINT SYSTEM AND LOS RATING
Point Score LOS
90-100 A
80-90 B
70-80 C
60-70 D
50-60 E
0-50 F
Source: City of Carlsbad.
2.3.1 PEDESTRIAN MMLOS
For pedestrian priority streets, the MMLOS criteria evaluates the quality of the pedestrian system
(e.g. number of vehicle lanes that need to be crossed and the speed of adjacent traffic) and the
friendliness of the infrastructure at intersections (e.g. pedestrian countdown heads, dedicated
pedestrian phases [e.g. a scramble phase], curb extensions, refuge median). In addition, the
connectivity and contiguity of the pedestrian system along street sections (particularly ADA-
compliant connectivity/contiguity) is a critical component of pedestrian priority streets. The
pedestrian level of service criteria are outlined below in Table 2-4.
2.3.2 BICYCLE MMLOS
For bicycle priority streets, the MMLOS criteria evaluates the quality of the bicycle system (e.g.
bicycle route, bicycle lanes, or bicycle pathway; presence of bicycle buffers from the vehicle travel
way), the amenities of the system (e.g. presence of bicycle parking), and the friendliness of the
infrastructure (e.g. bicycle detection at intersections, pavement conditions, presence of vehicle
parking). In addition, the connectivity and contiguity of the bicycle system along street sections
19
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
20
T is a critical component of pedestrian priority streets. Bicycle level of service criteria are outlined
below in Table 2-5.
2.3.3 TRANSIT MMLOS
For transit priority streets, the MMLOS criteria evaluates the transit vehicle right-of-way (e.g.
dedicated or shared, signal priority), hours and frequency of service (e.g. weekday/weekend
hours, peak period highway); performance (e.g. on-time or late); amenities and safety (e.g.
lighting, covered stop, bench, on-board bike/surfboard storage); and connectivity (e.g. to other
transit routes, employment areas, schools, visitor attractions, and other major destinations). The
transit level of service criteria are outlined below in Table 2-6.
2.4 MINIMUM LOS
The City of Carlsbad has established LOS D as the minimum level of service for its intersections.
Therefore, any intersection operating at LOS E or F will be considered deficient for the purposes
of this analysis.
2.5 DEFICIENCY CRITERIA
2.5.1 INTERSECTIONS
A project is determined to significantly impact an intersection if the addition of the project-
generated trips results in a change in LOS from acceptable to unacceptable. However, if an
intersection is operating at an unacceptable LOS “E” or “F” prior to the addition of the project-
generated traffic, then a significant impact is identified as follows:
An increase in delay of more than 2.0 seconds at a deficient intersection would result in
a significant impact.
2.5.2 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND TRANSIT
The following criteria are used to identify pedestrian, bicycle and transit system impacts:
Pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities within the study area (which varies by mode)
where LOS E or F is identified under scenarios with the proposed project; or
Identification of any “gaps” in the pedestrian, bicycle and transit system networks, and
any transit facility where headways that exceed 30 minutes.
The pedestrian, bicycle and transit evaluation is presented in Section 8 Pedestrian, Bicycle and
Transit Modes of this report.
2.6 PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
In cases where this report identifies that the proposed Project would have a cumulative
deficiency to a roadway facility, and the recommended improvement is a fair share monetary
contribution, the following methodology was applied to determine the fair share contribution. A
project’s fair share contribution at an off-site study area intersection is determined based on the
20
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
21
following equation, based on Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies
(December 2002):
Project Fair Share % = Project Traffic / (Horizon Year (2040) Total Traffic – (Existing Traffic +
Cumulative Traffic))
The Project fair share contribution calculations were presented previously in Section 1.8
Recommended Improvements of this report.
21
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
22
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
22
Identity Streets Village StreetsArterial Connector StreetsNeighborhood Connector StreetEmployment/ Transit Connector Street Coastal Streets School StreetsLocal/ Neighborhood Street Arterial Streets Industrial StreetsCriteria Points Sidewalk meets ADA unobstructed width requirements25Ramps and landings within segment meet ADA requirements20Sidewalk segments meet ADA requirements (cross slopes and trip hazards)15Meets recommended sidewalk width for typology and adjacent land uses along frontage according to Mobility Element103 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge15Less than 3,000 per lane per day5Speed limit below 40 mph5Meets apparent standard stopping sight distance at all intersections and pedestrian crossings5Permanent traffic calming devices installed on segments posted at 30 mph or below5********Existing crosswalks meet MUTCD standards20Crosswalk is high visibility (continental markings)5Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, pork chop island)10Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians (pedestrian‐friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown heads, signage, etc.)5RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted5*Street lights meet city standards5On‐street parking or landscaping provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and travel way5Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational spaces)5*******Street trees5Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5*******Decorative lighting5******* Criteria applicable*Criteria applicable with approvalCrossing characteristicsOther ElementsTable 2‐4Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria (each side of the street gets individual score)"MMLOS = D" Standard Applies"MMLOS = D" Standard Does Not ApplyTypologyAccessibility and functionality Street characteristics23
Identity Streets Village StreetsArterial Connector StreetsNeighborhood Connector StreetEmployment/ Transit Connector Street Coastal Streets School StreetsLocal/ Neighborhood Street Arterial Streets Industrial StreetsCriteria Points Speed limit is 25 mph30*Speed limit is 30 mph20*Residential street with ADT < 100020*********Street with ADT < 4,00010*********Class I facility (off‐street path), Class IV (cycle track), or multiuse path25*Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on‐street bicycle lanes)10*Class III facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only)5*Bicycle buffer is provided5*Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan 20Bikeway is at least 6' wide from face of curb 10Bicycle facilities have signage and striping in place that meet design guidelines 20Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes)5Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates)5Bikeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master Plan along segment5Bike lanes exist on both sides of all intersections along roadway segment10No on‐street parking10Back‐in angled parking5*Parallel parking with door‐side buffered bike lane5*Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at intersections5Bicycle racks are provided along segment10* Criteria applicable*Criteria applicable with approvalTable 2‐5Bikeway1 DesignConnectivity/ ContiguityAdjacent Vehicle ParkingOther ElementsUntil the city develops design guidelines, use the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000, and AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012)1: Bikeway- A generic term for any road, street, path, or way which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other tansportation modes (AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities)Bicycle MMLOS Criteria"MMLOS = D" Standard Applies "MMLOS = D" Standard Does Not ApplyTypologyStreet CharacteristicsFacility (points earned for each side of the street) 24
Arterial StreetsEmployment/ Transit Connector Street Industrial Streets Identity Streets Village StreetsArterial Connector StreetsNeighborhood Connector Street Coastal Streets School StreetsLocal/ Neighborhood StreetCriteria Points No greater than 1/4 mile walk to the nearest transit stop40No greater than 1/2 mile walk to the nearest transit stop20No greater than 1 mile bicycle ride to the nearest transit stop10ADA compliant connections to transit stops20Multiple transit routes stop on segment10Route provides a direct link to a COASTER station or mobility hub30Route provides for a single transfer to reach a COASTER station or mobility hub15Dedicated right of way5*******Transit priority during peak hours5**********Headways of 15 minutes between 6:30‐8:30 am and 4‐6 pm on weekdays20Headways of 30 minutes between 6:30‐8:30 am and 4‐6 pm on weekdays10Headways of 1 hour between 6:30‐8:30 am and 4‐6 pm on weekdays5No more than 2 hour headways between 6 am and 7 pm on weekdays5No more than 2 hour headways between 9 am and 5 pm on weekends5Covered bus stops20*Bench 20Well‐lit stop that provides a sense of security20Trash cans5Bus stop located within a block of commercial services 5Bike parking available at the bus stop10*Buses that provide on‐board bike racks5Documented TDM measures are in place that promote ridesharing60On demand service is subsidized for trips to transit service60Segment within FLEX service area60 Criteria applicable*Criteria applicable with approvalRidesharing Potential Table 2‐6ConnectivityTransit priorityServiceAmenitiesBicycle AccommodationsNo Existing Transit Route Located within 1/4 Mile Walk from Roadway Section (or by approval of the City Traffic Engineer)Transit and Ridesharing MMLOS Criteria"MMLOS = D" Standard Applies"MMLOS = D" Standard Does Not ApplyTypologyExisting Transit Route Located within 1/4 Mile Walk from Roadway SectionAccess25
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
26
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
26
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
27
3 AREA CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of the existing circulation network, the City of Carlsbad General
Plan Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations, roadway
segment capacities, freeway mainline operations, and traffic signal warrant analyses.
3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
Pursuant to discussion with City of Carlsbad staff, the study area includes a total of 5 existing
intersections as shown previously on Exhibit 1-2.
Exhibit 3-1 illustrates the study area intersections located near the proposed Project and
identifies the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic
controls.
3.2 GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
As previously noted, the Project site is located within the City of Carlsbad. Exhibit 3-2 shows the
City of Carlsbad General Plan Street System.
3.3 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Field observations conducted in May 2016 indicate significant pedestrian activity and nominal
bicycle activity within the study area. Existing pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the Project
site are illustrated on Exhibit 3-3. Exhibit 3-4 illustrates the City of Carlsbad General Plan Bicycle
Routes.
3.4 TRANSIT SERVICE
The vicinity of study area is currently served by the North County Transit District (NCTD), with
bus service along Tamarack Avenue (see Exhibit 3-5). As shown on Exhibit 3-6 the vicinity of study
area is currently served by Route 325. Transit service is reviewed and updated by NCTD
periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs. Changes in land use
can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service
where appropriate.
27
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
33
3.5 EXISTING (2016) TRAFFIC COUNTS
The AM peak hour traffic volumes were determined by collecting count data over a two hour
period from 7:00 to 9:00 AM in May 2016. Similarly, the PM peak hour traffic volumes were
identified by counting traffic volumes in the two hour period from 2:00 to 4:00 PM in May 2016.
The weekday AM and PM peak hour count data is representative of typical school drop-off and
pick up peak hour traffic conditions in the vicinity of Jefferson Elementary School. There were
no observations made in the field that would indicate atypical traffic conditions on the count
dates, such as construction activity or detour routes.
The following peak hours were selected for analysis:
Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM)
Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM)
The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix
3.1. These raw turning volumes have been flow conserved between intersections with limited or
no access and where there are currently no uses generating traffic.
Existing weekday ADT volumes on arterial highways throughout the study area are shown on Exhibit
3-7. Existing ADT volumes are based upon factored intersection peak hour counts collected by
Urban Crossroads, Inc. using the following formula for each intersection leg:
PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 10.41 = Leg Volume
It should be noted that for those roadway segments for which 24-hour tube count data was
collected in close proximity to the Project site, a comparison between the PM peak hour and daily
traffic volumes indicated that the peak-to-daily relationship of approximately 9.6 percent would
sufficiently estimate average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for planning-level analyses. As such, the
above equation utilizing a factor of 10.41 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area roadway
segments assuming a peak-to-daily relationship of approximately 9.61 percent (i.e., 1/0.0961 =
10.41). Existing weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour intersection volumes are also shown on
Exhibit 3-7.
3.6 EXISTING (2016) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based
on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis of this
report. The intersection operations analysis results are summarized in Table 3-1 which indicates
that all existing study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable LOS during the
peak hours.
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Existing (2016) traffic conditions are
provided in Appendix 3.2.
33
Table 3‐1
Northbound Southbound Eastbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Jefferson St. / Magnolia Ave.AWS 0100000100109.710.6 A B
2 Jefferson St. / Anchor Way CSS 01001001000016.1 18.3 C C
3 Jefferson St. / Carol Pl.CSS 01d01001000013.5 13.2 B B
4 Jefferson St. / Tamarack Ave.TS 01001012012023.8 25.6 C C
5 Harding St. / Magnolia Ave.CSS 01001001001012.1 14.9 B B
1
2
3 CSS = Cross‐street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All‐way Stop
Delay and LOS calculated using Synchro (version 9.1, build 9046) based on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane
Intersection Analysis for Existing (2016) Conditions
Intersection Approach Lanes1
Westbound
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles
to travel outside the through lanes.
Delay (Secs.)2 Level of
ServiceTraffic
Control3Intersection#
35
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
36
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
36
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
37
4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
This section presents the traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the Project, as well as the
Project’s trip assignment onto the study area roadway network. The Project is located within the
Village and Barrio Master Plan currently being studied by the City. The Project is proposed to
consist of 93 multi-family, rental residential units, on an existing site which consists of 44 duplex
residential homes. The Project is anticipated to be developed in a single phase with an opening
year of 2019.
Access to the Project site will be provided via Harding Street on Magnolia Avenue and Carol Place
on Jefferson Street. The existing connection of Harding Street to Carol Place will be eliminated
with the connection of Project.
4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a
development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon
forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the
specific land uses being proposed for a given development. Trips generated by the Project’s
proposed land uses have been estimated based on trip generation rates presented in (Not So)
Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002) published
by San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) as shown in Table 4-1. (3)
A summary of the Project’s trip generation are shown subsequently on Table 4-2. As shown on
Table 4-2, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 558 trips per day with
approximately 45 AM peak hour trips and 50 PM peak hour trips. The existing duplex homes at
the site generate a total of 352 trips per day with approximately 28 AM peak hour trips and 36
PM peak hour trips.
The net increase in trips from the proposed Project is anticipated to be 206 trips per day with
approximately 17 AM peak hour trips and 14 PM peak hour trips.
4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions or traffic routes
that will be utilized by proposed Project traffic. The potential interaction between the planned
lane use and surrounding regional access routes are considered, to identify the route where the
Project traffic would distribute. The Project trip distribution was calculated based on adjusted
long-range (2040) forecast volumes provided by SANDAG. The Project trip distribution is shown
on Exhibit 4-1.
4.3 MODAL SPLIT
The traffic reducing potential of public transit, walking or bicycling have not been considered in
this TIA. Essentially, the traffic projections are "conservative" in that these alternative travel
modes might be able to reduce the forecasted traffic volumes.
37
Table 4-1
Units2 In Out Total In Out Total
DU 0.13 0.51 0.64 0.56 0.24 0.80 8
DU 0.10 0.38 0.48 0.38 0.16 0.54 6
_____________
2 DU= Dwelling Units
Project Trip Generation Rates1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
DailyLand Use
Townhomes / Condominiums
Apartments
1 Source: SANDAG "(Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates For The San Diego Region", April 2002
___________________________________________________________________________________________
38
Table 4-2
Quantity Units
1 In Out Total In Out Total
44DU6 2228251136352
93DU9 3645351550558
3 14 17 10 4 14 206
Project Trip Generation Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
DailyLand Use
1 DU= Dwelling Units
Existing Duplex Homes
Proposed Apartments
NET TRIPS
___________________________________________________________________________________________
39
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
40
4.4 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon
the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system
improvements that are currently in place or that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy
of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns,
net new Project weekday average daily traffic (ADT) and peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibit
4-2.
In addition, cut-through traffic from intersection of Harding Street / Magnolia Avenue to
Jefferson Street via Harding Street and Carol Place was counted during weekday AM and PM peak
hours. Approximately 16 trips during the AM peak hour and 18 trips during the PM peak hour
were manually rerouted through Jefferson Street and Magnolia Avenue for “with Project”
conditions to account for removal of Harding Street connection from Magnolia Avenue to Carol
Place with the construction of Project.
4.5 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines require that other reasonably foreseeable
development projects which are either approved or being processed concurrently in the study
area also be included as part of a cumulative analysis scenario. A cumulative project list was
developed for the purposes of this analysis through consultation with planning and engineering
staff from the City of Carlsbad.
Exhibit 4-3 illustrates the cumulative development location map. A summary of cumulative
development projects and their proposed land uses are shown on Table 4-3. The traffic
generated by individual cumulative projects was manually added to the Existing (2016) traffic to
obtain Existing plus Near-term (2019) Cumulative traffic volumes. The Project traffic was added
to the Existing plus Near-term (2019) Cumulative volumes to calculate Existing plus Near-term
(2019) Cumulative plus Project traffic volumes.
4.6 HORIZON YEAR (2040) FORECASTS
The Horizon Year conditions analysis determines the long-range (20+ years) future conditions
impacts. The Horizon Year (2040) Without Project forecasts were calculated based on growth
rate between Existing (2008) and 2040 projected future volumes provided by SANDAG Series 12
model. The growth rate for Tamarack was utilized for the purposes of this analysis based on
discussions with City staff. A growth rate of approximately 27% (1% per year compounded for 24
years) was applied to the Existing (2016) traffic volumes to calculate the Horizon Year (2040)
Without Project traffic volumes.
Horizon Year (2040) With Project traffic volumes were calculated by adding the Project traffic to
the Horizon Year (2040) Without Project volumes.
40
3
1
2
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme,
Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster
EXHIBIT 4-3: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP
Pacific Wind Apartments Trip Generation Evaluation
_N
09839- CD.mxd
43
Table 4‐3
No.Project Name Land Use
1 Harding Veterans Housing Apartments 26 DU
2 895 Tamarack Commercial Retail 2.701 TSF
3 Magnolia Townhomes Condo / Townhomes 16 DU
1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Unit
Summary of Cumulative Development Projects
Quantity1
44
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
45
5 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the traffic forecasts for Existing plus Project (E+P) conditions, and the
resulting peak hour intersection operations.
5.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for E+P conditions are
consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1.
5.2 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus Project traffic. Weekday ADT and peak hour
intersection volumes for E+P traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 5-1.
5.3 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
E+P peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on
the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TIA. The intersection
analysis results are summarized in Table 5-1, which indicates that the addition of Project traffic
is not anticipated to result in any LOS deficiencies.
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for E+P traffic conditions are included in
Appendix 5.1 of this TIA.
45
Table 5‐1
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Jefferson St. / Magnolia Ave.AWS 9.7 10.6 A B 9.9 11.0 A B 0.2 0.4
2 Jefferson St. / Anchor Way CSS 16.1 18.3 C C 16.4 18.7 C C 0.3 0.4
3 Jefferson St. / Carol Pl.CSS 13.5 13.2 B B 14.0 13.7 B B 0.5 0.5
4 Jefferson St. / Tamarack Ave.TS 23.8 25.6 C C 23.8 25.6 C C 0.0 0.0
5 Harding St. / Magnolia Ave.CSS 12.1 14.9 B B 12.7 15.8 B C 0.6 0.9
1
2 CSS = Cross‐street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; aws = All‐way Stop
Delay and LOS calculated using Synchro (version 9.1, build 9046) based on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method.
Intersection Analysis for Existing plus Project Conditions
Existing (2016)E+P
Delay (Secs.)1 Delay (Secs.)1Level of
Service
Level of
Service
Change in
DelayTraffic
Control2Intersection#
47
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
48
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
48
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
49
6 EXISTING PLUS NEAR-TERM (2019) CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
This section discusses the traffic forecasts for Existing plus Near-term (2019) Cumulative
conditions, and the resulting peak hour intersection operations.
6.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Existing plus Near-term
(2019) Cumulative traffic conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1.
6.2 EXISTING PLUS NEAR-TERM (2019) CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus traffic from pending and approved but not yet
constructed known development projects in the area. The details of near-term projects included
in this analysis were previously discussed in Section 4.5 Cumulative Development Traffic.
Weekday ADT, AM and PM peak hour volumes which can be expected for Existing plus Near-term
(2019) Cumulative Without Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 6-1.
6.3 EXISTING PLUS NEAR-TERM (2019) CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME
FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volume plus traffic from pending and approved but not yet
constructed known development projects in the area and the addition of Project traffic.
Weekday ADT, AM and PM peak hour volumes which can be expected for Existing plus Near-term
(2019) Cumulative plus Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 6-2.
6.4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
6.4.1 EXISTING PLUS NEAR-TERM (2019) CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Level of service calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their
operations under Existing plus Near-term (2019) Cumulative conditions with existing roadway
and intersection geometrics consistent with those described under Section 6.1 Roadway
Improvements. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 6-1, which indicates
that the addition of cumulative project traffic is not anticipated to result in any deficiencies.
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Existing plus Near-term (2019) Cumulative
traffic conditions are included in Appendix 6.1 of this TIA.
6.4.2 EXISTING PLUS NEAR-TERM (2019) CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
As shown on Table 6-1, no additional study area intersection is anticipated to experience
unacceptable LOS (i.e., LOS E or worse) with the addition of Project traffic under Existing plus
Near-term (2019) Cumulative plus Project conditions
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Opening Year Cumulative (2019) With
Project traffic conditions are included in Appendix 6.2 of this TIA.
49
Table 6‐1
Level of Level of
Service Service
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Jefferson St. / Magnolia Ave.AWS 9.8 11.0 A B 10.1 11.4 B B 0.3 0.4
2 Jefferson St. / Anchor Way CSS 16.4 18.7 C C 16.7 19.2 C C 0.3 0.5
3 Jefferson St. / Carol Pl.CSS 13.7 13.5 B B 14.2 13.9 B B 0.5 0.4
4 Jefferson St. / Tamarack Ave.TS 23.8 25.7 C C 23.8 25.8 C C 0.0 0.1
5 Harding St. / Magnolia Ave.CSS 12.2 15.5 B C 12.8 16.4 B C 0.6 0.9
1
2 CSS = Cross‐street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; aws = All‐way Stop
Delay (Secs.)1 Delay (Secs.)1
Delay and LOS calculated using Synchro (version 9.1, build 9046) based on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method.
Delay
Intersection Analysis for Existing plus Near‐term Cumulative (2019) Conditions
2019 Without Project 2019 With Project
Change inIntersectionTraffic
Control2#
52
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
53
7 HORIZON YEAR (2040) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
This section discusses the traffic forecasts for Horizon year (2040) conditions, and the resulting
peak hour intersection operations. The Horizon Year conditions analysis determines the long-
range (20+ years) future conditions impacts. Since the proposed Project is consistent with the
City of Carlsbad General Plan land use, the TIA only analyzes this condition (i.e., a separate
Horizon year plus Project analysis is not required).
7.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Horizon Year (2040) traffic
conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1.
7.2 HORIZON YEAR (2040) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
The Horizon Year (2040) forecast methodology was previously discussed in Section 4.6 Horizon
Year (2040) Forecasts.
Weekday ADT, AM and PM peak hour volumes which can be expected for Horizon Year (2040)
Without Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 7-1.
Weekday ADT, AM and PM peak hour volumes which can be expected for Horizon Year (2040)
With Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 7-2.
7.3 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Level of service calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their
operations under Horizon year (2040) conditions with existing roadway and intersection
geometrics consistent with those described under Section 7.1 Roadway Improvements. The
intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 7-1, which indicates that all the study area
intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS.
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Horizon Year (2040) Without Project traffic
conditions are included in Appendix 7.1 of this TIA.
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Horizon Year (2040) Without Project traffic
conditions are included in Appendix 7.2 of this TIA.
Intersection of Jefferson Street / Tamarack Avenue was also evaluated with protected left turn
phasing for northbound and southbound left turn movements on Jefferson Street with an 8-
phase traffic signal per discussions with City staff. As shown on Table 7-2, the intersection of
Jefferson Street / Tamarack Avenue is anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS “D” during both
AM and PM peak hours with an 8-phase traffic signal under Horizon Year (2040) Without and
With Project traffic conditions. The Project does not have a significant impact with regards to
vehicular delay and LOS. Although the vehicular LOS reduces from C to D, the pedestrian safety
near the school is enhanced with the improvement. The intersection operations analysis
worksheets for Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions, With
Improvements are included in Appendix 7.3 and Appendix 7.4, respectively.
53
Table 7‐1
Level of Level of
Service Service
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Jefferson St. / Magnolia Ave.AWS 11.5 14.5 B B 11.9 14.7 B B 0.4 0.2
2 Jefferson St. / Anchor Way CSS 21.2 25.7 C C 21.4 25.8 C D 0.2 0.1
3 Jefferson St. / Carol Pl.CSS 16.2 15.9 C C 16.6 16.2 C C 0.4 0.3
4 Jefferson St. / Tamarack Ave.TS 24.4 25.9 C C 24.4 26.0 C C 0.0 0.1
5 Harding St. / Magnolia Ave.CSS 13.5 17.6 B C 13.6 17.6 B C 0.1 0.0
1
2 CSS = Cross‐street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; aws = All‐way Stop
Intersection Analysis for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions
#Intersection Traffic
Control2
2040 Without Project 2040 With Project
Delay (Secs.)1 Delay (Secs.)1 Change in
Delay
Delay and LOS calculated using Synchro (version 9.1, build 904) based on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method.
56
Table 7‐2
Northbound Southbound Eastbound
LTRLTRLTRLTRAMPMAMPM
4 Jefferson St. / Tamarack Ave.
‐ Without Improvements TS 01001012012024.425.9C C
‐ With 8‐Phase Traffic Signal4 5 TS 1 101 1012012051.953.7DD
4 Jefferson St. / Tamarack Ave.
‐ Without Improvements TS 01001012012024.426.0C C
‐ With 8‐Phase Traffic Signal4 5 TS 1 101 1012012052.053.8DD
1
2
3 CSS = Cross‐street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All‐way Stop
4 Intersection of Jefferson St. / Tamarack Ave. also evaluated with protected left turns for NBL and SBL with an 8‐phase traffic signal per discussions with City staff.
5 The Project does not have a significant impact with regards to vehicular delay and LOS. Although the vehicular LOS reduces from C to D with improvements, the pedestrian
safety near the school is enhanced with the improvement.
Delay and LOS calculated using Synchro (version 9.1, build 9046) based on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method.
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles
to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane
Intersection Analysis for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions, With Improvements
#Intersection Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1
Delay (Secs.)2 Level of
ServiceWestbound
Hotizon Year (2040) Without Project
Hotizon Year (2040) With Project
57
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
58
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
58
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
59
8 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND TRANSIT MODES
This section discusses pedestrian, bicycle and transit evaluation based on City of Carlsbad MMLOS
criteria and discussions with City of Carlsbad staff.
8.1 MMLOS STUDY AREA
Based on discussions with City of Carlsbad staff, the following pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
segments were analyzed to reflect the entry point for each mode to the closest intersection or
transit stop.
Segments for bicycle/pedestrian Multi-modal Level of Service (MMLOS):
Harding St: Camellia Pl to Magnolia Ave
Magnolia Ave: Jefferson St to Harding St
Jefferson St: Carol Pl to Tamarack Ave,
Jefferson St: Anchor Way to Carol Pl.
Segments for transit MMLOS:
Harding St: Magnolia Ave to Chestnut Ave
Chestnut Ave: Harding St to transit stop
Jefferson St: Carol Pl to Tamarack Ave
Tamarack Ave: Jefferson St to transit stop
For pedestrian MMLOS, segments have been analyzed for the project side of the street only. For
bicycle MMLOS, have been analyzed for both sides of the street and each side of the street
should be assigned a separate level of service.
8.2 CARLSBAD MULTI-MODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE (MMLOS)
The methodology to evaluate bicycle, pedestrian and transit LOS were discussed previously in
Section 2.3. The MMLOS table evaluating pedestrian, bicycle and transit LOS are shown on Tables
8-1, 8-2 and 8-3, respectively.
The MMLOS analysis for pedestrian and bicycle LOS, with improvements are shown on Tables 8-
4 and 8-5, respectively.
59
Table 8‐1
Harding St:
Casmelia Place to
Magnolia Ave.
(east side)
Magnolia Ave:
Jefferson St. to
Harding St. (south
side)
Jefferson St:
Anchor Way to
Carol Pl. (east
side)
Jefferson St:
Carol Pl. to
Tamarack Ave.
(east side)
Village Street Village Street School Street School Street
YYYY
Criteria Points
Sidewalk meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 25
Ramps and landings within segment meet ADA
requirements 20
Sidewalk segments meet ADA requirements (cross slopes
and trip hazards)15
Meets recommended sidewalk width for typology and
adjacent land uses along frontage according to Mobility
Element
10
3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 15
Less than 3,000 per lane per day 5
Speed limit below 40 mph 5
Meets apparent standard stopping sight distance at all
intersections and pedestrian crossings 5
Permanent traffic calming devices installed on segments
posted at 30 mph or below 5
Existing crosswalks meet MUTCD standards 20
Crosswalk is high visibility (continental markings)5
Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width
(pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, pork chop island)10
Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians
(pedestrian‐friendly signal phasing, pedestrian
countdown heads, signage, etc.)
5
RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5
Street lights meet city standards 5
On‐street parking or landscaping provides 'buffer'
between pedestrians and travel way 5
Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline
(pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts
and recreational spaces)
5
Street trees 5
Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5
Decorative lighting 5
Total Points 95 85 90 90
Pedestrian LOS A B A A
Crossing
characteristics
Other Elements
Pedestrian MMLOS Analysis
"MMLOS = D" Standard Applies
Analysis Segment
Typology
Accessibility and
functionality
Street
characteristics
Subject to Pedestrian MMLOS Standard (Y/N)
60
Table 8‐2Harding St: Casmelia Place to Magnolia Ave. (east side)Harding St: Casmelia Place to Magnolia Ave. (west side)Magnolia Ave:Jefferson St. to Harding St. (south side)Magnolia Ave:Jefferson St. to Harding St. (north side)Jefferson St: Anchor Way to Carol Pl. (east side)Jefferson St: Anchor Way to Carol Pl. (west side)Jefferson St: Carol Pl. to Tamarack Ave. (east side)Jefferson St: Carol Pl. to Tamarack Ave. (west side)Village Street Village Street Village Street Village Street School Street School Street School Street School StreetYYYYYYYYCriteriaPoints Speed limit is 25 mph30 Speed limit is 30 mph20Residential street with ADT < 100020Street with ADT < 4,00010Class I facility (off‐street path), Class IV (cycle track), or multiuse path25Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on‐street bicycle lanes)10Class III facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only)5Bicycle buffer is provided5Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan 20Bikeway is at least 6' wide from face of curb 10Bicycle facilities have signage and striping in place that meet design guidelines 20 Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes)5Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates)5Bikeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master Plan along segment5Bike lanes exist on both sides of all intersections along roadway segment10No on‐street parking10Back‐in angled parking5Parallel parking with door‐side buffered bike lane5Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at intersections5Bicycle racks are provided along segment10Total Points9090909050505050Bicycle LOSAAAAEEEE1: Bikeway- A generic term for any road, street, path, or way which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other tansportation modes (AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities)Bicycle MMLOS AnalysisAnalysis SegmentTypologyStreet CharacteristicsFacility (points earned for each side of the street) "MMLOS = D" Standard AppliesBikeway1 DesignConnectivity/ ContiguityAdjacent Vehicle ParkingOther ElementsUntil the city develops design guidelines, use the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000, and AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012)Subject to Bicycle MMLOS Standard (Y/N)61
Table 8‐3
Harding St:
Magnolia Ave to
Chestnut Ave
Chestnut Ave:
Harding st. to
Transit Stop
Tamarack Ave:
Jefferson St. to
Transit Stop
Jefferson St:
Carol Pl. to
Tamarack Ave.
Village Street Village Street
Neighborhood
Connector Street School Street
NNNN
Criteria Points
No greater than 1/4 mile walk to the nearest transit stop 40
No greater than 1/2 mile walk to the nearest transit stop 20
No greater than 1 mile bicycle ride to the nearest transit
stop 10
ADA compliant connections to transit stops 20
Multiple transit routes stop on segment 10
Route provides a direct link to a COASTER station or
mobility hub 30
Route provides for a single transfer to reach a COASTER
station or mobility hub 15
Dedicated right of way 5
Transit priority during peak hours 5
Headways of 15 minutes between 6:30‐8:30 am and 4‐6
pm on weekdays 20
Headways of 30 minutes between 6:30‐8:30 am and 4‐6
pm on weekdays 10
Headways of 1 hour between 6:30‐8:30 am and 4‐6 pm on
weekdays 5
No more than 2 hour headways between 6 am and 7 pm
on weekdays 5
No more than 2 hour headways between 9 am and 5 pm
on weekends 5
Covered bus stops 20
Bench 20
Well‐lit stop that provides a sense of security 20
Trash cans 5
Bus stop located within a block of commercial services 5
Bike parking available at the bus stop 10
Buses that provide on‐board bike racks 5
Total Points 95 95 95 75
Transit LOS AAAC
Connectivity
Transit priority
Service
Amenities
Bicycle
Accommodations
Access
Transit MMLOS Analysis
"MMLOS = D" Standard Does Not Apply
Analysis Segment
Typology
Existing Transit Route Located within 1/4 Mile Walk from Roadway Section
Subject to Transit MMLOS Standard (Y/N)
62
Table 8‐4
Harding St:
Casmelia Place to
Magnolia Ave.
(east side)
Magnolia Ave:
Jefferson St. to
Harding St. (south
side)
Jefferson St:
Anchor Way to
Carol Pl. (east
side)
Jefferson St:
Carol Pl. to
Tamarack Ave.
(east side)
Village Street Village Street School Street School Street
Criteria Points
Sidewalk meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 25
Ramps and landings within segment meet ADA
requirements 20
Sidewalk segments meet ADA requirements (cross slopes
and trip hazards)15
Meets recommended sidewalk width for typology and
adjacent land uses along frontage according to Mobility
Element
10
3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 15
Less than 3,000 per lane per day 5
Speed limit below 40 mph 5
Meets apparent standard stopping sight distance at all
intersections and pedestrian crossings 5
Permanent traffic calming devices installed on segments
posted at 30 mph or below 5 5
Existing crosswalks meet MUTCD standards 20
Crosswalk is high visibility (continental markings)5
Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width
(pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, pork chop island)10
Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians
(pedestrian‐friendly signal phasing, pedestrian
countdown heads, signage, etc.)
5
RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5
Street lights meet city standards 5
On‐street parking or landscaping provides 'buffer'
between pedestrians and travel way 5
Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline
(pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts
and recreational spaces)
5
Street trees 5
Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5
Decorative lighting 5
Total Points 95 90 95 95
Pedestrian LOS AAAA
Crossing
characteristics
Other Elements
Pedestrian MMLOS Analysis, With Improvements
"MMLOS = D" Standard Applies
Analysis Segment
Typology
Accessibility and
functionality
Street
characteristics
63
Table 8‐5Harding St: Casmelia Place to Magnolia Ave. (east side)Harding St: Casmelia Place to Magnolia Ave. (west side)Magnolia Ave:Jefferson St. to Harding St. (south side)Magnolia Ave:Jefferson St. to Harding St. (north side)Jefferson St: Anchor Way to Carol Pl. (east side)Jefferson St: Anchor Way to Carol Pl. (west side)Jefferson St: Carol Pl. to Tamarack Ave. (east side)Jefferson St: Carol Pl. to Tamarack Ave. (west side)Village StreetVillage Street Village Street Village Street School StreetSchool Street School Street School StreetCriteria Points Speed limit is 25 mph30Speed limit is 30 mph20Residential street with ADT < 100020Street with ADT < 4,00010Class I facility (off‐street path), Class IV (cycle track), or multiuse path25Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on‐street bicycle lanes)10Class III facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only)5Bicycle buffer is provided5Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan 20Bikeway is at least 6' wide from face of curb 10Bicycle facilities have signage and striping in place that meet design guidelines 20 Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes)5Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates)5Bikeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master Plan along segment5Bike lanes exist on both sides of all intersections along roadway segment10No on‐street parking10Back‐in angled parking5Parallel parking with door‐side buffered bike lane5Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at intersections5Bicycle racks are provided along segment10Total Points9090909065656565Bicycle LOSAAAADDDDBikeway1 DesignConnectivity/ ContiguityAdjacent Vehicle ParkingOther ElementsUntil the city develops design guidelines, use the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000, and AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012)1: Bikeway- A generic term for any road, street, path, or way which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other tansportation modes (AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities)Bicycle MMLOS Analysis, With Improvements"MMLOS = D" Standard AppliesAnalysis SegmentTypologyStreet CharacteristicsFacility (points earned for each side of the street) 64
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
65
9 REFERENCES
1. San Diego Traffic Engineering Council / Institute of Transportation Engineers. Guidelines for
Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) in San Diego Region. March 2000.
2. City of Carlsbad. Draft Interim Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. April 2016.
3. San Diego Association of Governments. (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation
Rates for the San Diego Region. April 2002.
4. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Washington, D.C. : National
Academy of Sciences, 2010. 978-0-309-16077-3.
5. City of Carlsbad Bicycle Master Plan. ALTA Planning + Design. City of Carlsbad : s.n., December
2007.
6. City of Carlsbad Pedestrian Master Plan. ALTA Planning + Design. City of Carlsbad : s.n., August
2008.
7. City of Carlsbad General Plan Update Mobility Element. City of Carlsbad.
65
Pacific Wind Apartments Focused Traffic Impact Analysis
09839-10 Focused Traffic Study Rev
66
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
66
INFORMATIONAL SITE PLANCOMMUNITY BLDG. - FLOOR PLANSCOMMUNITY BLDG. - COLORED FRONT ELEVATIONCOMMUNITY BLDG. - FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONSCOMMUNITY BLDG. - LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONS, ROOF PLANBUILDING 2 - GROUND FLOOR PLANBUILDING 2 - SECOND FLOOR PLANBUILDING 2 - THIRD FLOOR PLANBUILDING 2 - COLORED FRONT ELEVATIONBUILDING 2 - FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONSBUILDING 2 - LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONS, ROOF PLANBUILDING 3 & 6 - GROUND FLOOR PLANBUILDING 3 & 6 - SECOND FLOOR PLANBUILDING 3 & 6 - THIRD FLOOR PLANBUILDING 3 & 6 - COLORED FRONT ELEVATIONBUILDING 3 & 6 - FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONSBUILDING 3 & 6 - LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONS, ROOF PLANBUILDING 4 - GROUND FLOOR PLANBUILDING 4 - SECOND FLOOR PLANBUILDING 4 - THIRD FLOOR PLANBUILDING 4 - COLORED FRONT ELEVATIONBUILDING 4 - FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONSBUILDING 4 - LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONS, ROOF PLANBUILDING 5 - GROUND FLOOR PLANBUILDING 5 - SECOND FLOOR PLANBUILDING 5 - THIRD FLOOR PLANBUILDING 5 - COLORED FRONT ELEVATIONBUILDING 5 - FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONSBUILDING 5 - LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONS, ROOF PLANTRASH ENCLOSUREMAINTENANCE BUILDINGCARPORTSCONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANLANDSCAPE NOTES, LEGEND & OPEN SPACE DETAILSEXISTING TREE SURVEY AND DETAILSCONCEPTUAL WATER CONSERVATION PLANCONCEPTUAL MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITYCONCEPTUAL REMOVAL PLANCONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT PLANMINOR SUBDIVISION HARDING STREET PARCELPROPOSED PROJECT OVERLAY PLANCONCEPTUAL FIRE MASTER PLANSHEET INDEXOWNER/DEVELOPER:HARDING STREET NEIGHBORS, LPCONTACT: TODD COTTLE 14211 YORBA ST., SUITE 200BUSINESS: (714) 288-7600TUSTIN, CA 92780OWNER/DEVELOPER:INNOVATIVE HOUSING OPPORTUNITESCONTACT: ROCHELLE MILLS 19772 MACARTHUR BLVD., SUITE 110BUSINESS: (949) 863-9740IRVINE, CA 92612ARCHITECT / PLANNER:BASSENIAN / LAGONICONTACT: TERESSA OEHRLEIN 2031 ORCHARD DRIVEBUSINESS: (949) 553-9100NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660CIVIL ENGINEER:SO CAL CIVIL SOLUTIONS, INC.CONTACT: JOHN DEYKES 26131 VIA OCEANOBUSINESS: (949) 322-3657MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:M. ZAKI DESIGN, INC..CONTACT: MOHAMED ZAKI 4670 SARATOGA AVE. #3BUSINESS: (619) 255-1802SAN DIEGO, CA 92107OUR TEAMSP - 1A - 1.1A - 1.2A - 1.3A - 1.4A - 2.1A - 2.2A - 2.3A - 2.4A - 2.5A - 2.6A - 3.1A - 3.2A - 3.3A - 3.4A - 3.5A - 3.6A - 4.1A - 4.2A - 4.3A - 4.4A - 4.5A - 4.6A - 5.1A - 5.2A - 5.3A - 5.4A - 5.5A - 5.6A - 6.1A - 7.1A - 8.1LP - 1LP - 2LP - 3LP - 4LP - 5C - 1C - 2C - 3C - 4C - 5ARCHITECTURALLANDSCAPECIVILC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\DESIGN\4263COVER SHEET.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 3J:\GROUP13\69514263\DESIGN\4263COVER SHEET.DWGC O V E R S H E E TSDP 15-18 /CDP 16-04 /MS 16- 01
15.0'16.0'19.1'60.0'60.0'
20.4'
21.1'
20.5'22.2'10.8'18.0
'17.5'24.0'
24.0'28.0'28.0'14.7'10.0'21.0'23.7'tel. +1 949 553 9100fax +1 949 553 05482031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100Newport Beach, CA USA 926602031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100tel. +1 949 553 9100fax +1 949 553 0548Newport Beach, CA USA 92660N o r t
hScale : 1"= 30'J e f f e r s o n S t r e e tGated EntryM a g n o l i a A v e n u e
5 Freeway10' Rear SetbackRecreationBuildingSite Summary:General Plan LandUse Designation : R-30Zoning Designation : RD-MNo. of Existing Homes : 44Site Area : ± 4.04 AcresDensity : ± 23.0 Homes/AcreTotal Homes : 93 1-Bed Units : 21 (22.6%) 2-Bed Units : 18 (19.4%) 3-Bed Units : 54 (58.0%)H2-BedE.V.A.22-Bed3-Bed3-Bed2-Bed2-Bed3-Bed3-Bed1-Bed3-Bed30'x15'MaintenanceBuildingHC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 1 . 3 1 . 1 7Copyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 1 7 5I N F O R M A T I O N A L S I T E P L A N0 30 6015SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"SP-13-Bed1-Bed3-Bed1-Bed3-Bed1-Bed1-BedC a r o l P l a c e H a r d i n g S t r e e tH3456Parking Required : 1:1 Spaces/1-Bed Units : 21 x 1 = 21 2:1 Spaces/2&3-Bed Units : 72 x 2 = 144 Total Spaces Required = 165Parking Provided :Carport Spaces Provided : 93Uncovered Spaces : 72 Total Spaces Provided : 165Site Coverage : 34.4% Building Coverage : 43,243 sq.ft. Carport Coverage : 17,370 sq.ft. Total : 60,613 sq.ft. (1.39 Acres)1Tot-Lot(2-5 yr.)1-Bed3-Bed3-Bed3-Bed2-Bed3-Bed3-Bed3-Bed2-Bed3-Bed3-Bed3-Bed3-BedLaundry Room onFirst Floor1-Bed. onSecond Floor1-Bed. onFirst Floor1-Bed. onSecond FloorTot-Lot(5-12 yr.)123456789101112131415242322212019252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566697071726867161718123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233505152535455565758No parkingallowed in thecul-de-sac bulbTrash EnclosureCarportsTrash Enclosure596061626364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485868788899091929334353637383940414243444546474849HHHalf Basketball CourtMS 16-01Fire TruckFire TruckFire Truck
Fire Truck
Swing GatesSliding Gate
50'-0"57'-6"PAN.OPERABLEACCORDIAN WALLCHILDREN'SLEARNING159142XOFFICE 2132110XOFFICE 1132110XLOBBY16482XTEACHINGKITCHEN196238XCOMMUNITYROOM196258XSTOR.D.W.D.W.D.O.REF.ELEVATORSTOR.MEN'SSLOPINGCEILINGNOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONPORCH279 SQ. FT.TOTAL3,344 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR753 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR2,591 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEADULTLEARNING /READING203370XDN22 ROPEN TOBELOWELEVATORC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 1.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 2 48J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 1.DWGF l o o r P l a n sS E C O N D F L O O RF I R S T F L O O RA-1.1C O M M U N I T Y B U I L D I N G (B L D G. 1)WINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW.
FRONT12'-1"9'-1"± 33'-0" REARC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 2 . 0 6 . 1 7J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 1 ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 2 48J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 1 ELEV.DWGE l e v a t i o n sA-1.3C O M M U N I T Y B U I L D I N G (B L D G. 1)OA. FLAT CONCRETE TILEB. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOORC. SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOD. HORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGE. COMPOSITE SHINGLESF. COMPOSITE SHUTTERG. DECORATIVE GABLE END DETAILH. SIMULATED WOOD, SHAPED FOAMCORBELI. WOOD RAFTERJ. STONE VENEERK. BRICK TRIML. FOAM TRIMM. DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTUREN. HARDI PANELO. WOOD POSTP. METAL RAILINGQ. DECORATIVE CHIMNEY CAPR. WOOD FASCIAS. VINYL WINDOWSANEHDJKRLS
LEFT12'-1"9'-1"± 33'-0"RIGHTROOF PLANPITCH: 7.5:12RAKE: 12"EAVE: 18"ROOF MATERIAL: FLAT CONCRETE TILE3.5:12
3.5:12C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 1 ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 2 48J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 1 ELEV.DWGC O M M U N I T Y B U I L D I N G (B L D G. 1)E l e v a t i o n sA-1.4
KIT.REF.D.W.MASTER BED110140XMASTER BED116143XREF.KIT.PATIOWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.LIVING /DINING215119XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110140XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XPATIOPATIOWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATH156'-8"81'-6"6'-10"28'-10"28'-10"6'-10"4'-3 1/2"24'-5"37'-9"8'-7"2'-3 1/2"UP16 R
UP16 R
UP16 RLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING120230XMASTER BED110140XSTORAGESTORAGESTORAGEACACACACACACUP16 R
UTILITY CLOSET UTILITY CLOSETW/HW/HF/R5'-0"5'-0"8'-7"1 - BED722 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.LIVING /DINING120230XPATIOSTORAGEWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.D.W.LIVING /DINING215119XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110140XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBED 3106104XPATIOPATIOWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.LIVING /DINING215119XMASTER BED110140XSTORAGESTORAGEBED 3106104XM.E.P.CHASEM.E.P.CHASEACUP16 R ACM.E.P.CHASEM.E.P.CHASEMAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
UP16 R
D.W.MASTER BED116143XREF.KIT.PATIOWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.MASTERBATHLIVING /DINING120230XSTORAGE1 - BED722 SQ. FT.37'-9"8'-7"24'-5"C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 2A-2.1G r o u n d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW.
OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWUP16 R
UP16 R
UP16 R
ACDN16 R
DN16 R DN16 R
UP16 R
DN16 R1 - BED722 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.ACACACACACKIT.REF.D.W.MASTER BED110140XMASTER BED116143XREF.KIT.PATIOWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.LIVING /DINING215119XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XPATIOPATIOWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING120230XMASTER BED110143XSTORAGESTORAGESTORAGELIVING /DINING120230XPATIOSTORAGEWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.D.W.LIVING /DINING215119XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBED 3106104XPATIOPATIOWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.LIVING /DINING215119XMASTER BED110143XSTORAGESTORAGEBED 3106104XM.E.P.CHASEM.E.P.CHASE1 - BED722 SQ. FT.PATIOSTORAGEACD.W.MASTER BED116143XREF.KIT.PATIOWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.MASTERBATHLIVING /DINING120230XSTORAGELIVING /DINING120230XMASTER BED116143XMASTERBATHWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.KIT.D.W.REF.DN16 RDN16 R OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWACC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 2A-2.2S e c o n d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW.
DN16 R
DN16 R
DN16 R
DN16 R
OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOW3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.1 - BED722 SQ. FT.OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWACACACACACACKIT.REF.D.W.MASTER BED110140XMASTER BED116143XREF.KIT.PATIOWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.LIVING /DINING215119XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XPATIOPATIOWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING120230XMASTER BED110143XSTORAGESTORAGESTORAGELIVING /DINING120230XPATIOSTORAGEWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.D.W.LIVING /DINING215119XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBED 3106104XPATIOPATIOWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.LIVING /DINING215119XMASTER BED110143XSTORAGESTORAGEBED 3106104XM.E.P.CHASEM.E.P.CHASEC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 2A-2.3T h i r d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW.
FRONT8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"34'-11"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.REAR8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"34'-11"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 2 . 0 6 . 1 7J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP ELEV.DWGA-2.5E l e v a t i o n sB U I L D I N G 2A.FLAT CONCRETE TILEB. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOORC. SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOD. HORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGE. COMPOSITE SHINGLESF. SIMULATED WOOD, SHAPED FOAMBRACKETG. DECORATIVE GABLE END DETAILH. SIMULATED WOOD, SHAPED FOAMCORBELI. WOOD RAFTERJ. STONE VENEERK. BRICK TRIML. FOAM TRIMM. DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTUREN. HARDI PANELO. WOOD POSTP. METAL RAILINGQ. DECORATIVE CHIMNEY CAPR. WOOD FASCIAS. VINYL WINDOWSLFDHCAENNNHPOKJLS
LEFT34'-11"8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.RIGHT34'-11"8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.ROOF PLAN2PITCH: 7.5:12 U.N.O.RAKE: 12"EAVE: 18"ROOF MATERIAL: FLAT TILE3:123:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:123:123:12
3:12C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 2 COMP ELEV.DWGA-2.6E l e v a t i o n sB U I L D I N G 2
LIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.PATIOPATIO81'-6"77'-4"2'-3 1/2"37'-9"23'-11"4'-3 1/2"6'-10"33'-10"33'-10"6'-10"9'-1"UP16 R UP16 RAC
ACLIVING /DINING120230XD.W.REF.KIT.MASTERBATHMASTER BED116144XWALK-INCLOSET11 L.F.PATIOSTORAGEUTILITY CLOSETUTILITY CLOSET
STORAGESTORAGEW/HW/HF/RACACLIVING /DINING120230XD.W.REF.KIT.MASTERBATHMASTER BED116144XWALK-INCLOSET11 L.F.PATIOSTORAGE1 - BED722 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 3 & 6A-3.1G r o u n d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW.
LIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.DECKDECKOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWUP16 R UP16 R
DN16 RDN16 R
ACLIVING /DINING120230XD.W.REF.KIT.MASTERBATHMASTER BED116144XWALK-INCLOSET11 L.F.DECKSTORAGEACLIVING /DINING120230XD.W.REF.KIT.MASTERBATHMASTER BED116144XWALK-INCLOSET11 L.F.DECKSTORAGEACAC1 - BED722 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.BED 3106104XBED 3106104XSTORAGESTORAGEC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP.DWGA-3.2S e c o n d F l o o rB U I L D I N G 3 & 6WINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW.
LIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.DECKDECKOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWDN16 R DN16 R OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWLIVING /DINING120230XD.W.REF.KIT.MASTERBATHMASTER BED116144XWALK-INCLOSET11 L.F.DECKSTORAGELIVING /DINING120230XD.W.REF.KIT.MASTERBATHMASTER BED116144XWALK-INCLOSET11 L.F.DECKSTORAGEACACACAC1 - BED722 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.BED 3106104XBED 3106104XSTORAGESTORAGEC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP.DWGA-3.3T h i r d F l o o rB U I L D I N G 3 & 6WINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW.
FRONT8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"
34'-11"
7'-0"
Hdr. Ht.
7'-0"
Hdr. Ht.
7'-0"
Hdr. Ht.
35'-0" Max. Ht.REAR8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"
34'-11"
7'-0"
Hdr. Ht.
7'-0"
Hdr. Ht.
7'-0"
Hdr. Ht.
35'-0" Max. Ht.C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 2 . 0 6 . 1 7J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP ELEV.DWGB U I L D I N G 3 & 6A-3.5E l e v a t i o n sA.FLAT CONCRETE TILEB. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOORC. SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOD. HORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGE. COMPOSITE SHINGLESF. SIMULATED WOOD, SHAPED FOAMBRACKETG. DECORATIVE GABLE END DETAILH. SIMULATED WOOD, SHAPED FOAMCORBELI. WOOD RAFTERJ. STONE VENEERK. BRICK TRIML. FOAM TRIMM. DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTUREN. HARDI PANELO. WOOD POSTP. METAL RAILINGQ. DECORATIVE CHIMNEY CAPR. WOOD FASCIAS. VINYL WINDOWSLFDHCANNNHPOJ
LEFT34'-11"8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.RIGHT34'-11"8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.ROOF PLAN3 & 6PITCH: 7.5:12 U.N.O.RAKE: 12"EAVE: 18"ROOF MATERIAL: FLAT TILE3:123:123:12
3:12
3:12
3:12C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 3 COMP ELEV.DWGB U I L D I N G 3 & 6A-3.6E l e v a t i o n s
LIVING /DINING215125XKIT.REF.D.W.PAN.LINENBED 2106104XMASTER BED110140XBA.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.BED 2106104XBA.MASTER BED110140XPAN.LINENREF.KIT.D.W.LIVING /DINING215125XPATIOWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.LIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.PATIOPATIOPATIOMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHPATIOPATIOBED 2110100XBED 2110100XLIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XBA. 2BA. 2BED 3106104XBED 3106104XPAN.PAN.KIT.KIT.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.MASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHPATIOPATIOBED 2110100XBED 2110100XLIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XBA. 2BA. 2BED 3106104XBED 3106104XPAN.PAN.KIT.KIT.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.167'-5"4'-3 1/2"29'-9"37'-9"37'-9"37'-9"2'-3 1/2"81'-6"6'-10"33'-10"6'-10"33'-10"9'-1"8'-7"UP16 R UP16 R
UP16 R UP16 R
STORAGE STORAGESTORAGE STORAGEACACACACACACACACUTILITY CLOSET UTILITY CLOSETW/HW/HF/RSTORAGESTORAGE2 - BED909 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 4A-4.1G r o u n d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW.
LIVING /DINING215125XKIT.REF.D.W.PAN.LINENBED 2106104XMASTER BED110140XBA.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.BED 2106104XBA.MASTER BED110140XPAN.LINENREF.KIT.D.W.LIVING /DINING215125XDECKWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.LIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.DECKDECKDECKMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHDECKDECKBED 2110100XBED 2110100XLIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XBA. 2BA. 2PAN.PAN.KIT.KIT.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.MASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHDECKDECKBED 2110100XBED 2110100XLIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XBA. 2BA. 2PAN.PAN.KIT.KIT.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWUP16 R UP16 R
UP16 R UP16 R
STORAGE STORAGESTORAGE STORAGESTORAGESTORAGEACACACACACACACACDN16 R
DN16 R DN16 R
DN16 R2 - BED909 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.BED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 4A-4.2S e c o n d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW.
LIVING /DINING215125XKIT.REF.D.W.PAN.LINENBED 2106104XMASTER BED110140XBA.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.BED 2106104XBA.MASTER BED110140XPAN.LINENREF.KIT.D.W.LIVING /DINING215125XDECKWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.LIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.DECKDECKDECKMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHDECKDECKBED 2110100XBED 2110100XLIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XBA. 2BA. 2PAN.PAN.KIT.KIT.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.MASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHDECKDECKBED 2110100XBED 2110100XLIVING /DINING215125XLIVING /DINING215125XBA. 2BA. 2PAN.PAN.KIT.KIT.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWDN16 R DN16 R
DN16 R
OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWSTORAGE STORAGESTORAGE STORAGESTORAGESTORAGEACACACACACACACACDN16 R2 - BED909 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.BED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 4A-4.3T h i r d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW.
FRONT8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"34'-11"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.REAR8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"34'-11"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 2 . 0 6 . 1 7J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP ELEV.DWGB U I L D I N G 4A-4.5E l e v a t i o n sA.FLAT CONCRETE TILEB. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOORC. SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOD. HORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGE. COMPOSITE SHINGLESF. SIMULATED WOOD, SHAPED FOAMBRACKETG. DECORATIVE GABLE END DETAILH. SIMULATED WOOD, SHAPED FOAMCORBELI. WOOD RAFTERJ. STONE VENEERK. BRICK TRIML. FOAM TRIMM. DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTUREN. HARDI PANELO. WOOD POSTP. METAL RAILINGQ. DECORATIVE CHIMNEY CAPR. WOOD FASCIAS. VINYL WINDOWSOFHNCAELPJLNNDKS
LEFT34'-11"8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.RIGHT34'-11"8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.3:12ROOF PLAN4PITCH: 7.5:12 U.N.O.RAKE: 12"EAVE: 18"ROOF MATERIAL: FLAT TILE3:123:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 4 COMP ELEV.DWGB U I L D I N G 4A-4.6E l e v a t i o n s
KIT.REF.D.W.PAN.LINENBED 2102104XMASTER BED110140XBA.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.BED 2102104XBA.MASTER BED110140XPAN.LINENREF.KIT.D.W.PATIOWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.LIVING /DINING215119XD.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110140XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.PATIOPATIOPATIOMASTER BED110140XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHPATIOPATIOBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBA. 2BA. 2BED 3106104XBED 3106104XPAN.PAN.KIT.KIT.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.PATIOPATIOMASTER BED110140XMASTER BED110140XBA.BA.BED 2102104XBED 2102104XKIT.KIT.REF.REF.D.W.D.W.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.PAN.PAN.LINENLINEN159'-11"81'-6"6'-10"33'-10"33'-10"6'-10"4'-3 1/2"29'-9"37'-9"37'-9"29'-9"2'-3 1/2"9'-1"9'-1"UP16 R
UP16 R
UP16 R
LIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XMASTER BED110140XMASTER BED110140XSTORAGE STORAGESTORAGE STORAGEACACACACACACACACUP16 R
UTILITY CLOSET UTILITY CLOSETW/HW/HF/R2 - BED909 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.2 - BED909 SQ. FT.C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 5A-5.1G r o u n d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW.
KIT.REF.D.W.PAN.LINENBED 2106104XMASTER BED110140XBA.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.BED 2106104XBA.MASTER BED110140XPAN.LINENREF.KIT.D.W.DECKWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.DECKDECKDECKMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.MASTERBATHMASTERBATHDECKDECKBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBA. 2BA. 2PAN.PAN.KIT.KIT.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.DECKDECKMASTER BED110140XMASTER BED110140XBA.BA.BED 2106104XBED 2106104XKIT.KIT.REF.REF.D.W.D.W.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.PAN.PAN.LINENLINENOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWUP16 R
UP16 R
UP16 R
LIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XSTORAGE STORAGESTORAGE STORAGEACACACACACACACACDN16 R
DN16 R DN16 R
UP16 R
DN16 R2 - BED909 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.2 - BED909 SQ. FT.BED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 5A-5.2S e c o n d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW.
KIT.REF.D.W.PAN.LINENBED 2106104XMASTER BED110140XBA.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.BED 2106104XBA.MASTER BED110140XPAN.LINENREF.KIT.D.W.DECKWALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.KIT.KIT.PAN.PAN.BA. 2BA. 2MASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XBED 2110100XBED 2110100XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.DECKDECKDECKMASTER BED110143XMASTER BED110143XWALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET15 L.F.DECKDECKBED 2110100XBED 2110100XBA. 2BA. 2PAN.PAN.KIT.KIT.D.W.D.W.REF.REF.DECKDECKMASTER BED110140XMASTER BED110140XBA.BA.BED 2106104XBED 2106104XKIT.KIT.REF.REF.D.W.D.W.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.WALK-INCLOSET12 L.F.PAN.PAN.LINENLINENOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWDN16 R
DN16 R
DN16 R
DN16 R
OPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWOPEN TOBELOWMASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTERBATHMASTERBATHLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XSTORAGE STORAGESTORAGE STORAGEACACACACACACACACLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119XLIVING /DINING215119X2 - BED909 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.3 - BED1,124 SQ. FT.2 - BED909 SQ. FT.BED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XBED 3106104XC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP.DWGB U I L D I N G 5A-5.3T h i r d F l o o rWINDOWS / DOORS ON THE 1ST - 3RD FLOORSOF BUILDING 2 - 7 WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADEDFROM STC 26 TO STC 40, UNLESS DETERMINEDOTHERWISE THROUGH THE REQUIREDINTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS DURING BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW.
FRONT8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"34'-11"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.REAR8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"34'-11"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 2 . 0 6 . 1 7J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP ELEV.DWGB U I L D I N G 5A-5.5E l e v a t i o n sA.FLAT CONCRETE TILEB. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOORC. SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOD. HORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGE. COMPOSITE SHINGLESF. SIMULATED WOOD, SHAPED FOAMBRACKETG. DECORATIVE GABLE END DETAILH. SIMULATED WOOD, SHAPED FOAMCORBELI. WOOD RAFTERJ. STONE VENEERK. BRICK TRIML. FOAM TRIMM. DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTUREN. HARDI PANELO. WOOD POSTP. METAL RAILINGQ. DECORATIVE CHIMNEY CAPR. WOOD FASCIAS. VINYL WINDOWSORHNDCEALPJLNHHNKSF
LEFT34'-11"8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.RIGHT34'-11"8'-1"8'-1"8'-1"7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.35'-0" Max. Ht.ROOF PLAN2 & 5PITCH: 7.5:12 U.N.O.RAKE: 12"EAVE: 18"ROOF MATERIAL: FLAT TILE3:123:123:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP ELEV.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 4 8 16J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263BLDG 5 COMP ELEV.DWGB U I L D I N G 5A-5.6E l e v a t i o n s
4 BIN TRASH ENCLOSURE4 YD. BIN(GARBAGE)12" WHEEL STOP17'-0"17'-0"4 YD. BIN(GARBAGE)4 YD. BIN(GARBAGE)4 YD. BIN(GARBAGE)STUCCOPAINTEDCORRUGATEDMETAL GATEW/3 - HINGES8'-1"
6'-8"CONCRETE FLATTILE ROOF5'-4"STUCCO8'-1"
6'-8"STUCCO8'-1"RIGHTSTUCCO8'-1"
6'-8"CONCRETE FLATTILE ROOFC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263 TRASH.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 2 48J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263 TRASH.DWGLEFT ELEVATIONFLOOR PLANFRONT ELEVATIONT R A S H E N C L O S U R EA-6.1RIGHT ELEVATIONSREAR ELEVATION
MAINTENANCE BUILDING30'-0"15'-0"STUCCO9'-1"CONCRETE FLATTILE ROOFSTUCCO9'-1"STUCCO9'-1"RIGHTSTUCCO9'-1"CONCRETE FLATTILE ROOFC A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263 MAINTENANCE BUILDING.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 2 48J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263 MAINTENANCE BUILDING.DWGLEFT ELEVATIONFLOOR PLANFRONT ELEVATIONM A I N T E N A N C E B U I L D I N GA-7.1RIGHT ELEVATIONREAR ELEVATION
18'-0"9'-0"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-0"2'-0"
20'-0"WOOD POST9'-1"CONCRETE FLATTILE ROOF12'-11"WOOD POST9'-1"12'-11"RIGHT9'-1"WOOD POST12'-11"
9'-1"C A R L S B A D , C AP A C I F I C W I N D A P A R T M E N T S0 6 . 1 6 . 1 6J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263 CARPORT.DWGCopyright 2014 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects6 9 5 . 1 4 2 6 30 2 48J:\GROUP13\69514263\X4263 CARPORT.DWGLEFT ELEVATION6 STALL CARPORT PLANREAR ELEVATIONC A R P O R TA-8.1RIGHT ELEVATIONFRONT ELEVATION
I I,
April 17, 2017
Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners;
RE: Carlsbad/Pacific Wind Project (SOP 15-18/CDP 16-
04/MS 16-01)
Attachments:
City Council Agenda Bill from 1 /29/13-
PACI FIC WIND CONTRACT and 2017 Carlsbad Housing
Element Report
I am sorry I won't be able to attend your next meeting, and I
want to be sure you read my recommendations on th~
project and they are added to the public record.
Just like each one of You, WE want a
Future Carlsbad that is: Walkable, Livable,
and Quaint.
1.) Please would you vote to: Ap_prove a Building
Moratorium for the BarrioNillage area until the
VILLAGE/BARRIO MASTER plan for the area is
complete AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
2.)Second, conduct an EIR as required by CEQA. that
does not allow the piece meal of a property that the
two attached citv documentations show it will be
tamer.
A. Please look at the City Council Resolution No. 2013-,
026: the Environmental Review section, where it
states the project will be larger than 100 units. It is
clear that the objective by the developer and staff is
1
to first build fewer than 100 units, in order to not
have to comply with CEQA.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15194 -
Affordable Housing.
This proposed project was reviewed pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City
Planner has determined that the proposed project is exempt
from additional environmental review per Section 15194
(affordable housing exemption) of CEQA because the project
site is 1) no larger than five acres, 2) is in an urbanized area,
and 3) the project site has been previously developed for
qualified urban uses (residential). The project also consists
of the construction, conversion, or use of residential housing
consisting of 100 or fewer units that are affordable to low-
income households, and the developer will legally commit to
ensure the continued availability and use of the housing units
for lower income households for a period of at least 30 years
at monthly costs deemed to be affordable rent for lower
income households.
The future larger (higher density) apartment development will
require separate environmental review and approval, if it is
determined that the subject project will proceed. The
environmental review for the new construction project will be
completed at a later date and represent a review of the
project at the time it is proposed.
?
B. The 2017 Carlsbad Housing Element Study, that is
attached, page 2 also states the Pacific Wind
Development will include a total of 114-118 units.
---·~---~-·--·-----·-·· •-•• '··-·---~ -•--··---~-~-.•. -. ...... --~.---.~ -·-----···. .. . . . -.. •-' ... ---. · •..• ··--.,,. f ..•• -···-·~-•. , .• ·····-.. ··--
Interstate 5._ A mix of older single-family homes, condominiums, and apartments exist in the Barrio,
and a number of the properties are underutilized and absentee-owned,--_. _Furthermore, the
connection between the Barrio and the commercial services in the Village, as well as easy access to
nearby train and bus services and Interstate 5, make the Barrio area appropriate for more dense
residential uses.
Though property values in the Barrio area remain high, the neighborhood could benefit from
additional investment. _Since 2000, the city has made a number of substantial public improvements
in the area totaling more than $28 million, including utility undergrounding, storm drain and street
improvements, and park and senior center enhancements. In early 2018, the city will complete a
new community center and community garden in the area as well, an additional $8.6 million
investment. carlsbad considers the area appropriate for redevelopment at standards and densities
similar to the maximum densities approved for the Village._ Therefore, the city believes consideration
of a lot size smaller than 0.24 acre, as is the minimum in locations outside_the Village and Barrio areas,
is acceptable. _In the Barrio, the minimum parcel size included in the sites inventory for lower and
moderate income housing is 0.16 acre, except for the Harding Street Neighbors, LP parcels described
below, and the average is M80.44 acre •
. Harding Street Neighbors, LP {Pacific Wind)
On January 29, 2013, the City Council authorized financial assistance ($7.4 million) to assist a
developer acquire existing duplex units located in an area of the Barrio comprised of 27 parc~ls along
Harding Street, carol Place and Magnolia Avenue, generally north of Tamarack Avenue, south of
Magnolia Avenue, east of Jefferson Street and west of Interstate s._ The Intent of the property
acquisition is to consolidate the parcels and construct a new<~ high density (minimum 23
dwelling units/acre (du/acl) lower income affordable housing development._ This project, "Pacific
Wind," was formally submitted to the city in 2015 and proposes 93 units.
Twenty-six of the 27 parcels :r-we-A~-we-ef-:t:-he--2--7-paFEe.Js-associated with the property acquisition
have been acquired and all units have undergone minor rehabilitation and are rent-restricted;
twenty-one (80%) of the parcels are smaller (.13 to .15 acre) than the minimum parcel size for the
Barrio (.16 acre); however, based on the approved funding agreement and Intent to consolidate the
lots for the purpose of constructing affordable housing, #:!€5e-2+3 of the 26 acquired parcels are
included togetheLin the sites inventory~pendix B, Table B-3} and combined can accommodate
93.:i4Q lower income housing units, based on the proposed site plan. _The funding agreement calls for
acquisitiofl-afl&-redevelopment of the site to be completed by December 31, 2018.
Due to challenges created by the one parcel not acquired, three of the lots the devel;per did a~quire
will not be redeveloped at this time, and existing duplexes on them are P.lanned to be substantially
rehabilitated instead. Acquisition of the remaining parcel may enable a second construction phase
on this and the three parcels on which units will be rehabilitated. This will potentially add 21 to 25
lower income units to Pacific Wind, or a total of 114 to 118 units.
Other Lot Consolidation Oooortunities
3. Do not give away almost $1, 7500,000 in public
land to the developer for free, that is the value, as
you can read in the attached city council document
on page 49.
4. Keep Harding Street open for public use, keep
the duplexes on one side of the street that back
up Jefferson Street, and fix them up: $75,000
each, as required by the contract if the proposed
development is not approved. Put any potential units
with parking beneath on freeway side of the acquired
lot.
5. The Developer has already breached the
contract:
Section 3 .2 Commencement of Construction of New Larger
Development.
The Borrower shall cause the commencement of construction of
the improvements for a new, larger development or for substantial
rehabilitation of the existing units no later than December 31,
2016. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term
11 commencement of consumption II shall mean the date the
Borrower commences, or causes the commencement of, physical
demolition and new construction or physical rehabilitation work on
the Property pursuant to a building permit or other similar permit.
6. If you vote against the proposed plan: there are currently
50 affordable units, we don't lose those! And the
developer is required to fix them up.
n mor ni and disturb an existing
neighborhood, when more units can be built in
another part of the city?
REASON: THE DEVELOPER, NOT THE CITY, WILL
MAKE $25,000,000 IN FEDERAL CREDITS OVER 10
YEARS! -PAGE 56 IN ATTACHED DOC.
PLUS ALL OTHER PROFITS AND DEVELOPER
FEES THEY WILL RECEIVE.
8. This area does not have public transportation to
work. There is also very few options that are in
walking distance for any new or current residence to
work.
9. With the current units, that are affordable units, there
is already a parking problem. (Over flow parking at
Jefferson Elementary School and on Jefferson and
Magnolia streets.) Thus, the need for EIR and
parking study to be completed .
. .. -.
10. Ignore the non-statistical numbers of only four
examples that the developer gives for under usage
of parking spaces in affordable units. There needs
be a much larger sample to draw a conclusion, and it
must be a random sample. Moreover, there needs
be a statistical analysis done by a third party. Thus,
no break on parking should be given to developer.
Thank you, Deb Johnson 3784 Jefferson St.
April 5, 2017
Chair and Carlsbad Planning Commission Members:
My name is Marianne Bremseth and I live at 520 Anchor Way, Carlsbad, CA. My family and I have lived
in Carlsbad since 1987. I am against the approval of the Pacific Wind Project because of the following
reasons:
Inadequate parking for residents of the Pacific Winds complex will increase the number of residents and
guests seeking parking spaces on surrounding streets. The proposal of 1.fparking space per unit is
ludicrous. This is insufficient given planned 21 one BR units, 18 two BR units and 54 three BR units. This
is only phase one of a two phase project contemplating additional units. Lack of parking with phase one
will only be made worse with additional units. The overflow in finding parking spots for residents and
guests will put undue stress onto surrounding streets.
Traffic congestion on surrounding streets that are two lanes only. Traffic jam on Jefferson during school
hours of the Jefferson Elementary School already exists. Traffic from the Pacific Winds Project will be
diverted to Jefferson and Anchor Way and surrounding streets due to Harding Street will no longer in be
available and one only exit to the project on Carol Place.
Safety of area residents and school children will be at risk. Carlsbad Planning Commission and City
Council are accountable for the safety of its residents and this plan if approved as submitted will
compromise our safety.
Please do not approve the Pacific Winds Project until the Barrio Grand Plan is fully approved. I request
the Planning Commission staff do a complete parking study to include the hours of 7 PM-7 AM.
Marianne Bremseth
520 Anchor Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760 434-6287
· ... _._..,_:
April 5, 2017
Carlsbad Planning Commission
The Pacific Wind Site plan should not be approved before the Village and Bario Plan is
completed and approved. It might be financially advantageous for the developer to get their
project done prior to the Village/Bario Plan but that may not be in the best interest for the
current and future residents who live in these areas.
With respect to traffic, the requirements for parking are at the very low end. Without the
developer providing adequate parking the public streets will be subsidizing overflow. The
residents of Anchor Way have seen their share of cut through speeding traffic from morning
and evening commuters trying to avoid the snarl at the intersection of Jefferson and Tamarack.
Jefferson is a traffic back up in the mornings. Cars waiting to drop their children, waiting for
pedestrians to cross, waiting to turn at Anchor Way, Carol Place, out of the school parking lot,
out of the Am/Pm. After this project is completed Tamarack will still be a two lane road but all
this issues will be compounded with yet more cars. Adding a left turn light will be insignificant
in remedying too many cars for this road. I might also add that I did not see any mention in
your report as to impacts of increased enrollment at Jefferson school.
I appreciate the concept of trains, pedestrian walkways, and bikes and realize young singles
may utilize them. But residents living in this area, particularly seniors will have a difficult time
walking across the freeway and carrying groceries back from Vons. The 3 bedroom units may
house 3-4 children. I don't see a young mother carrying her groceries back either. We need to
be realistic about who is going to drive a car and prepare for the worst, not the best.
Lets wait until the Bario Plan is done so everything goes together and future traffic problems
can be averted. Not the other way around.
Renee Huston
540 Anchor Way
Carlsbad CA 92008
Planning Commission Members:
Honorable Velyn Anderson, Chairman
Honorable Marty Montgomery
Honorable Arthur Niel Black
Honorable Kerry Siekmann
Honorable Stephen "Hap" L' Heureux
Honorable Jeff Segall
Honorable Patrick Goya~ts
(Via email only c/o Planning Commission Clerk at
planning@carlsbadca.gov )
Re: Project SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 -Pacific Wind
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
Please let this correspondence serve as the undersigned's formal
request that the Planning Commission deny approval of the Site Plan for
the Pacific Wind Project SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01, to allow for the
demolition of 44 residential uni ts and the construction of a 93-uni t
apartment development ( 92 affordable uni ts) without further review. Among
other issues, the City's planning staff has wrongfully determined that the
Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
under section 15194 of the California Code of Regulations. As a threshold
matter, in order for the Project to avail itself of this particular
exemption, the Project must also meet the criteria in section 15192.
The undersigned is a resident and/or stakeholder of Carlsbad and takes
issue with the approval of the Project because of the procedural and
substantive defects and unique impacts of the Project on the public heal th,
safety, and welfare. Further, the Project will have substantive impacts
on the environment and the quality of life for the surrounding neighbors,
schools, and the community at large.
The basis of my concerns are as follows: (a) Conflicts with
transportation, circulation, economy, noise, and air quality elements and
goals of General Plan; (b) The change in use may create patterns of
transportation and circulation that conflict with Plan goals for open
pedestrian, bicycle and traffic movement through the neighborhood; ( c) Loss
of parking spaces and the abandonment of street access may create patterns
of transportation that conflict with Plan goals and the needs of the
surrounding neighbors and the overall community; (d) The Project may have
a negative impact on the local economy and tax revenues; and (e) The change
in transportation and circulation patterns may have adverse air quality
impacts.
Furthermore, the proposed changed to the Harding Street Assemblage
that make up the Project site: (a) does not meet all the criteria set forth
in section 15192; (b) does meet the criteria set forth in section 15194;
and (c) It is apparent the developer is splitting this Harding Street
Assemblage to fit into the exemptions of CEQA, in violation of California
Code of Regulations, section 15192 (o) and 15194 (d) (1).
This letter is intended to initiate further discussion and involvement
by the comrnuni ty and should not be considered exhaustive. The undersigned
respectfully reserves the right to conduct further investigation and
include those facts and conclusions that are properly part of a complete
review of the Project.
undersigned on future communications and notices
Thank for your atte tion t this matter.
cc: City Council Members:
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)
Austin Silva, Associate Planner
(Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov)
Don Neu, City Planner
(Don.Neu@carlsbadca.gov)
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California
Austin Silva
Planning Division
Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov
RE: Project SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 -Pacific Wind
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
Please let this correspondence serve as the undersigned's formal request that the Planning
Commission deny approval of the Site Plan for the Pacific Wind Project, SDP 15-18/CDP 16-
04/MS 16-01, to allow for the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction of a 93-unit
apartment development (92 affordable units) without further review. Among other issues, the
City's planning staff has wrongfully determined that the Project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") under section 15194 of the California Code of
Regulations. As a threshold matter, in order for the Project to avail itself of this particular
exemption, the Project must also meet the criteria in section 15192.
The undersigned is a resident and/or stakeholder of Carlsbad and takes issue with the
approval of the Project because of the procedural and substantive defects and unique impacts of
the project on the public health, safety, and welfare. Further, the Project will have substantive
impacts on the environment and the quality of life for the surrounding neighbors, schools, and
the community at large.
1
The basis for the concerns are as follows:
( 1) Conflicts with transportation, circulation, economy, noise, and air quality elements and
goals of General Plan;
(a) The change in use may create patterns of transportation and circulation that
conflict with General Plan goals;
(b) Loss of parking spaces may create patterns of transportation that conflict with
General Plan goals;
( c) The Project may have a negative impact on the local economy and tax revenues;
( d) The change in transportation and circulation patterns may have adverse air quality
impacts.
(2) Improper exemption from California Environmental Quality Act for affordable housing.
The changing nature of the parcel, with attendant changes in trip generation, queuing, parking
requirements, and urban decay, should have prompted some initial environmental review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et
seq.
(a) The Project does not meet the criteria set forth in section 15192;
(b) The Project does meet the criteria set forth in section 15194;
i. The developer may increase the size of the Project in the future to over 100
units.
(3) Potential deviations from the City's design review guidelines.
This letter is intended to initiate further discussion and involvement by the community
and should not be considered exhaustive. The undersigned respectfully reserves the right to
conduct further investigation and include those facts and conclusions that are properly part of a
complete review of the project.
Please include the undersigned on future communications and notices regarding this
project. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best Regards,
~~~
[NAME(S)]
[ADDRESS(ES)]
[NAME(S)]
[ADDRESS(ES)]
~k-\
[NAME(S)]
[ADDRESS(ES)]
37lS v-efW'~ Br
Qw(S~Cld_ C,,\ 9~J)--
3,tS <.Ja+eR...SQ;-, ST
a,..,r\~~ CA-~2..o~~
~ ~
3'1 tS ~a,,-, st
Cb.v'lS~
Cb'\--9'"20~c?
S~oM~
~-------------------------------------
,,
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California
Austin Silva
Planning Division ~
Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov
#
RE: Project SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 -Pacific Wind
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
:Pl~ase let thi,s corre~pondence serve as cthe undersigned's formal request that the Planning
Commission deny approval of the Site Plan for the Pacific Wind Project, SDP 15-18/CDP 16-
04/MS 16-01, to allow for the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction of a 93-unit
apartment development (92 affordable units) without further review. Among other issues, the
City's planning staff has wrongfully determined that the Project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") under section 15194 of the California Code of . .
Regulations. As a threshold matter, in order for the Project to avail itself of this particular
exemption; the Project must also meet the criteria in section 15192.
· The undersigned is a reside~t and/or stakeholder of Carlsbad and takes issue with the
approval of_ the Project Because of the procedural and substantive defects and unique impacts of
the project on the public health, safety, and welfare. Further, the Project will have substantive
impacts on the environment and the quality of life. for th~ surrounding neighbors, schools, and
the community at large.
1
The basis for the concerns are as follows:
(1) Conflicts with transportation, circulation, economy, noise, and air quality elements and
goals of General Plan;
( a) The change in use may create patterns of transportation and circulation that
conflict with General Plan goals;
(b) Loss of parking spaces may create patterns of transportation that conflict with
General Plan goals;
( c) The Project may have a negative impact on the local economy and tax revenues;
( d) The change in transportation and circulation patterns may have adverse air quality
impacts.
(2) Improper exemption from California Environmental Quality Act for affordable housing.
The changing nature of the parcel, with attendant changes in trip generation, queuing, parking
requirements, and urban-decay, should have prompted some initial environmental review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et
seq.
(a) The Project does not meet the criteria set forth in section 15192;
(b) The Project does meet the criteria set forth in section 15194;
i. The developer may increase the size of the Project in the future to over 100
units.
(3) Potential· deviations from the· City's· design review guidelines.
This letter-is intended to initiate further discussion and involvement by the community
and should not be considered exhaustive. The undersigned respectfully reserves the right to
conduct further investigation and include those facts and conclusions that are properly part of a
complete review of the project.
Please include the undersigned on future communications and notices ~arding this
project. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best Regards,
[NAME(S)] [NAME(S)]
· [ADDRESS(ES)] [ADDRESS(ES)] kJ11 P~ ~ E1e1A}J M (.,/NWY
I sl/3 1:::--~l'f;~ 13'{3 folc-6.s-r Af/E, .
[NAME(S)]
[ADDRESS(ES)]
Planning Corn.mission of the City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California
Austin Silva
Planning Qivision ~
Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov
RE: Project SOP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS I 6-0 I -Pacific Wind
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
lll~~ let.this co~~pondence serve a.s ,the undersigned's formal request that the Planning
Commission deny approval of the Site Plan for the Pacific Wind Project, SOP 15-18/CDP 16-
04/MS 16-01, to allow for the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction of a 93-unit
apartment development (92 affordable units) without further review. Among other issues, the
City's planning staff has wrongfully determined that the Project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") under section 15194 of the California Code of . .
Regulations. As a threshold matter, in order for the Project to avail itself of this particular
exemption; the Project must also meet the criteria in section 15192. -
· The undersigned is a reside~t and/or stakeholder of Carlsbad and takes issue with the
approval of the Project Because of the procedural and substantive defects and unique impacts of
the project on the public health, safety, and welfare. Further, the Project will have substantive
impacts on the environment and the quality of life. for th~ surrounding neighbors, schools, and
the community at large.
1
l .,.,.
/·
I
The basis for the concerns are as follows:
(1) Conflicts with transportation, circulation, economy, noise, and air quality elements and
goals of General Plan;
(a) The change in use may create patterns of transportation and circulation that
conflict with General Plan goals;
(b) Loss of parking spaces may create patterns of transportation that conflict with
General Plan goals;
( c) The Project may have a negative impact on the local economy and tax revenues;
( d) The change in transportation and circulation patterns may have adverse air quality
impacts.
(2) Improper exemption from California Environmental Quality Act for affordable housing.
The changing nature of the parcel, with attendant changes in trip generation, queuing, parking
requirements, and urban 'decay, should have prompted some initial environmental review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et
seq.
(a) The Project does not meet the criteria set forth in section 15192;
(b) The Project does meet the criteria set forth in section 15194;
i. The developer may increase the size of the Project in the future to over 100
units.
(3) Potential deviations from the City's designre;viewguidelines.
This letter-is intended to initiate further discussion and involvement by the community
. and should not be considered exhaustive. The undersigned respectfully reserves the right to
conduct further investigation and include those facts and conclusions that are properly part of a
complete review of the project.
Please include the undersigned on future communications and notices ~arding this
project. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best Regards,
[NAME(S)]
[ADDRESS(ES)]
-3cx5cp· ~f.r-( st
[NAME(S)]
[ADDRESS(ES)]
tfC)OZ i/t~,,a,,,,,1u~~
? 1c1 a H-,;5J I ei.1/\o1 J5
' 2
9d~ W~l\ID ~F( ~.
,1;:;,._~ (u ~,e c r 4,/ /c ,_· _
?((Zq/'(Mt/~ C,-f-
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California
Austin Silva
Planning Division
Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov
RE: Project SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 -Pacific Wind
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
Please let this correspondence serve as the undersigned's formal request that the Planning
Commission deny approval of the Site Plan for the Pacific Wind Project, SDP 15-18/CDP 16-
04/MS 16-01, to allow for the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction of a 93-unit
apartment development (92 affordable units) without further review. Among other issues, the
City's planning staff has wrongfully determined that the Project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQ A") under section 15194 of the California Code of
Regulations. As a threshold matter, in order for the Project to avail itself of this particular
exemption, the Project must also meet the criteria in section 15192.
The undersigned is a resident and/or stakeholder of Carlsbad and takes issue with the
approval of the Project because of the procedural and substantive defects and unique impacts of
the project on the public health, safety, and welfare. Further, the Project will have substantive
impacts on the environment and the quality of life for the surrounding neighbors, schools, and
the community at large.
1
The basis for the concerns are as follows:
(1) Conflicts with transportation, circulation, economy, noise, and air quality elements and
goals of General Plan;
(a) The change in use may create patterns of transportation and circulation that
conflict with General Plan goals;
(b) Loss of parking spaces may create patterns of transportation that conflict with
General Plan goals;
( c) The Project may have a negative impact on the local economy and tax revenues;
( d) The change in transportation and circulation patterns may have adverse air quality
impacts.
(2) Improper exemption from California Environmental Quality Act for affordable housing.
The changing nature of the parcel, with attendant changes in trip generation, queuing, parking
requirements, and urban decay, should have prompted some initial environmental review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et
seq.
(a) The Project does not meet the criteria set forth in section 15192;
(b) The Project does meet the criteria set forth in section 15194;
i. The developer may increase the size of the Project in the future to over 100
units.
(3) Potential deviations from the City's design review guidelines.
This letter is intended to initiate further discussion and involvement by the community
and should not be considered exhaustive. The undersigned respectfully reserves the right to
conduct further investigation and include those facts and conclusions that are properly part of a
complete review of the project.
Please include the undersigned on future communications and notices regarding this
project. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best Regards,
2
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California
Austin Silva
Planning :Qivision ~
Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov
,
RE: Proiect SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 -Pacific Wind
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
Pl~ase let tlri.s cc:>.1Tespondence secye ~,the imdersigned'sfonnal request that the Planning
Commission deny approval of the Site Plan for the Pacific Wind Project, SOP 15-18/CDP 16-
04/MS I 6-01, to allow for the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction of a 93-unit
apartment development (92 affordable units) without further review. Among other issues, the
City's planning staff has wrongfully determined that the Project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") under section 15194 of the California Code of
Regulations. As a threshold matter, in order for the Project to avail itself of this particular
exemption~ the Project must also meet the criteria in section 15192. ·
· The undersigned is a reside~t and/or stakeholder of Carlsbad and takes issue with the
approval of_ the Project oecause of the procedural and substantive defects and unique impacts of
the project on the public health, safety, and welfare. Further, the Project will have substantive
impacts on the environment and the quality of life. for th~ surrounding neighbors, schools, and
the community at large.
1
/
I
The basis for the concerns are as follows:
(1) Conflicts wi_th transportation, circulation, economy, noise, and air quality elements and
goals of General Plan;
(a) The change in use may create patterns of transportation and circulation that
conflict with General Plan goals;
(b) Loss of parking spaces may create patterns of transportation that conflict with
General Plan goals;
( c) The Project may have a negative impact on the local economy and tax revenues;
( d) The change in transportation and circulation patterns may have adverse air quality
impacts.
(2) Improper exemption from California Environmental Quality Act for affordable housing.
The changing nature of the parcel, with attendant changes in trip generation, queuing, parking
requirements, and urban 'decay, should have prompted some initial environmental review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et
seq.
(a) The Project does not meet the criteria set forth in section 15192;
(b) The Project does meet the criteria set forth in section 15194;
i. The developer may increase the size of the Project in the future to over 100
units.
(3) Potential deviations from the City',s designreviewguidelines.
This letter-is intended to initiate further discussion and involvement by the community
. and should not be considered exhaustive. The undersigned respectfully reserves the right to
conduct further investigation and include those facts and conclusions that are properly part of a
complete review of the project.
Please include the undersigned on future communications and notices ~arding this
project. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best Regards,
[NAME(S)]
[ADDRESS(ES)]
M·'Cliv. ( l AyJV-A~
··y,~'>\--f'1 A-0 ,'> d/V >f-
Co_n_ \v:PA~, 0A
tl ~OGY
[NAME(S)]
[ADDRESS(ES)]
[NAME(S)]
[ADDRESS(ES)]
5,,,.ei,t f::_,,._7 e.,,-/
~w:rsJv·v~
[~l$h~ t:za t, i·
Planning Commission Members:
Honorable Velyn Anderson, Chairman
Honorable Marty Montgomery
Honorable Arthur Niel Black
Honorable Kerry Siekmann
Honorable Stephen "Hap" L' Heureux
Honorable Jeff Segall
Honorable Patrick Goyarts
(Via email only c/o Planning Commission Clerk at
planning@carlsbadca.gov )
Re: Project SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01 -Pacific Wind
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
Please let this correspondence serve as the undersigned's
formal request that the Planning Commission deny approval of the Site
Plan for the Pacific Wind Project SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01, to
allow for the demolition of 44 residential units and the construction
of a 93-uni t apartment development ( 92 affordable uni ts) without
further review. Among other issues, the City's planning staff has
wrongfully determined that the Project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") under section 15194 of the
California Code of Regulations. As a threshold matter, in order for
the Project to avail itself of this particular exemption, the Project
must also meet the criteria in section 15192.
The undersigned is a resident and/or stakeholder of Carlsbad
and takes issue with the approval of the Project because of the
procedural and substantive defects and unique impacts of the Project
on the public health, safety, and welfare. Further, the Project will
have substantive impacts on the environment and the quality of life
for the surrounding neighbors, schools, and the community at large.
The basis of my concerns are as follows: (a) Conflicts with
transportation, circulation, economy, noise, and air quality elements
and goals of General Plan; (b) The change in use may create patterns
of transportation and circulation that conflict with Plan goals for
open pedestrian, bicycle and traffic movement through the
neighborhood; (c) Loss of parking spaces and the abandonment of
street access may create patterns of transportation that conflict
with Plan goals and the needs of the surrounding neighbors and the
overall community; (d) The Project may have a negative impact on the
local economy and tax revenues; and (e) The change in transportation
and circulation patterns may have adverse air quality impacts.
Furthermore, the proposed changed
Assemblage that make up the Project site:
to the Harding Street
(a) does not meet all the
criteria set forth in section 15192; (b) does meet the criteria set
forth in section 15194; and (c) It is apparent the developer is
splitting this Harding Street Assemblage to fit into the exemptions
of CEQA, in violation of California Code of Regulations, section
15192 (o) and 15194 (d) (1).
This letter is intended to initiate further discussion and
involvement by the community and should not be considered exhaustive.
The undersigned respectfully reserves the right to conduct further
investigation and include those facts and conclusions that are
properly part of a complete review of the Project.
Please include the undersigned on future communications and
:~~~~~~ regarding this Projec~attention to this
Signature
M<Ctt-Pte.L M~
N~\S Je-tfe/9:>v' .s.t-Co.JJ (S<octO
Ho~e/Mailing Address
m,cU-vt 0t:3et ep t-t_Ct.k'.l oa. CJD~
Email Address
cc: City Council Members:
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)
Austin Silva, Associate Planner
(Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov)
Don Neu, City Planner
(Don.Neu@carlsbadca.gov)
1
Farah Nisan
From:Don Neu
Sent:Thursday, April 06, 2017 10:34 AM
To:Austin Silva; Farah Nisan
Subject:FW: Pacific Wind Project
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Council Internet Email
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 8:24 AM
To: Don Neu <Don.Neu@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: FW: Pacific Wind Project
Hi Don,
This email was sent last night, after we closed.
Andi
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Chris Ferra [mailto:cmferra@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 5:31 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Pacific Wind Project
Hello,
I wanted to attend the planning commission meeting today, but am not feeling well. I live nearby where this project is
proposed to be built at 3527 Roosevelt Street, and am strongly opposed to it.
This project seems to be very ill conceived (much like the Starbucks on Tamarack) and appears to give no thought to the
already existing street parking issues in the area. Factor in the traffic issues that occur when the nearby school gets out
on weekdays this sounds like a congestion nightmare.
I implore the council to reject this project.
Best regards,
Chris Ferra
Sent from my iPhone
1
Farah Nisan
From:Kathryn Antonacci <kathryn.antonacci@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Wednesday, April 05, 2017 3:36 PM
To:Planning
Subject:4/5/17 Planning Commission Meeting
My name is Kathryn L. Antonacci.
I live at 825 Avocado Lane, Carlsbad
I am out of town today and unable to attend the planning commision meeting this evening. I have a number of
serious concerns about the proposed Pacific Winds project near harding/magnolia/Jefferson.
I am extremely concerned about the access across from Jefferson Elementary and the gating and closing of the
road. Traffic is not being adequately addressed and the parking required is not near enough.
I would respectfully request that the planning commission make no decision on this project until further study
of traffic and parking is done.
I would appreciate this being forwarded to the appropriate people as I could not locate a direct link on the city
website.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Kathryn L. Antonacci
Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone
1
Farah Nisan
From:vannienessa1599@gmail.com
Sent:Wednesday, April 05, 2017 2:23 PM
To:Planning
Subject:Planning Commission Mtg- April 5th
Since I am unable to attend tonight's planning commission meeting, I would like this email to serve as my "speaker card".
Chair, and Planning Commissioners, my name is Vanessa Rivera and I live at 3527 Roosevelt St. I am against the approval of the
PACIFIC WIND PROJECT because of the amount of traffic in the neighborhood as is. With the school traffic and the neighborhood
traffic, this development would only mean longer wait times to get in and out of the neighborhood via Jefferson to Tamarack. This
will be in addition to the headache that this new Starbucks that is due to open (which has already caused monumental delays) is
causing for us. Jefferson can not handle this added stress of a whole new community. We do not have the infrastructure to
accommodate such a project! Parking is already thin on these streets and if you think the overflow would not affect Roosevelt, you
are mistaken. As commissioners, the community and existing residences should be in your best interests and the majority is against
this development. Please be mindful of us as you make your decision. Please keep Carlsbad Village quaint and charismatic as it is!
The community will be extremely disappointed and does not plan to back down if this gets approved.
Thank you for your time,
Vanessa Rivera
1
Farah Nisan
From:Austin Silva
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:40 PM
To:Farah Nisan
Subject:Pacific wind wrong date for community notice
From: Deb Johnson [mailto:debj11@icloud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 3:35 PM
To: Austin Silva <Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Pacific wind wrong date for community notice
Austin-
In fair treatment I want you to present the following to the planning commissioners:
The developer gave less than a week notice on community meeting!
They had the wrong date on it!
And I called their office for many people to get it changed since the date was printed with different dates and
wrong day of the week.
They said " no"
They didn't listen to input the folks that were there.
They only wanted to sell the project! Show a fancy power point not taking notes and making changes.
Deb Johnson, MPA
>
City of Carlsbad April 8, 2017
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad Panning Commissioners APR 1 2 20 17
Dear Commissioners, Planning Division
As a volunteer and Ministry Leader, Community Organizer and President for a Faith-Based
Organization (Congregations for Civic Action) in North County-Community Leaders addressing
concerns of our communities, advocacy or activism, One-on-one conversations with members of our
communities to understand the most important ~eeds and worries among our families. The top concern
we hear is about the cost of housing, alongside relations with police and concern for the safety and
opportunity for our young.
I've been a voice addressing these concerns in Carlsbad and of our families living in the Barrio area
"Housing Conditions" & "Affordable Housing" The Barrio is the oldest community with homes and
apartments build in the 40's /50's The only complaint voiced at the 4/05/2017 meeting was on parking.
What they fail to recognize, property owners themselves have contributed to the parking dilemma.
Property owners have long since added to the problem by garage conversions into living rental units
and or multiple dwellings added to existing homes "as rentals" with no parking, but on the streets.
Legal or not. These same prope1ty owners are motivated by self-interest and for this reason alone are
against any new apartments or development in the Barrio.
The problems with the apartments are numerous, plumbing, electrical and mold, all of which are, safety
and health issues for our families. Over the years apartment owners have done there best to maintain
them, but ''they are old. Families living in apartments are not concern with parking but of safe and
healthy living environment/conditions for their families.
It has not been an easy task, but the city of Carlsbad has done a phenomenal job in addressing the
problems and needs of affordable housing for all Carlsbad residents. State Law and "Housing
Element"
I have given you a background of our community organizing work -long as it is. I am in suppmt of
Pacific Wind Affordable housing in the Barrio for reasons mentioned and of those below.
1) C&C Development insuring residents will not be displaced.
2) C&C Development rental assistant package is fair.
3) Those same residents will be first to be pre-qualify and move back in, to a much better apartment.
4) Those earning 60-80% AMI ($30-60,000) This is not homeless people, those with no work, these are
our neighbors, teachers, public workers, construction workers, and many who service our hotels and
restaurants.
5) Businesses who want to relocate to a city are concerned with the skill workforce, and whether the
work force can afford to live here.
6) Affordable housing is an economic necessity
Let's look beyond the negativity of the self-interest but of all the positives for the community and the
City of Carlsbad. I ask for your approval and support the Pacific Wind Affordable Housing.
Thank you.
Socmro Anderson ~
Congregations for Civic Action
People with Purpose Cc: Mayor Matt Hall