HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 87-12; Jefferson Building; Redevelopment Permits (RP)STAFF REPORT
DATE: APRIL 6, 1988
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: RP 87-12 JEFFERSON BUILDING - Major Redevelopment
Permit for two-story office building with underground
parking at 2815 Jefferson Street, in Subarea 1 of the
Village Redevelopment Area.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board adopt Design Review Board
Resolution No. 113ND APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by
the Planning Director and recommend APPROVAL to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of RP 87-12, based on the findings and
conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 113.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting approval of a major redevelopment
permit for an 8800 square foot professional office building,
located as described above, on the south side of the Psoriasis
Center property. The building would be two-stgryj- with redwood
sjjiing^ cedar shingles, pane windows with wooden"trimj, open~
balconie_S—with wooden rails, and some_ stucco on the side and rear
walls. Butterscotch irr~color, the bun^ding will also incorporate
white and light^ brown colors in the tri^m." The front of the
building features a doorway at street level, planter__boxes, a
balcony, and an upstairs^ porch. Toward the rear~of the building
on the south side, an interjjor_,ccLurtyard has been created, which
will be open from the second story to the patio below.
Parking^ will be underground; 30 spaces would be provided. A
layer of used brick will be placed on the walls leading into the
garage to soften that typical concrete appearance.
The project is located in an area where a variety of uses are
prevalent — as mentioned earlier, the Psoriasis Center is next
door to the north; further north is the Austirv-^Pacific office
building. To the south is a three-story senior housing project
under construction and other office buildings. To the east are
small scale offices mixed in with residential. Both multi-family
and single family^ residential are interspersed throughout the
area.
The property lies in subarea 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area
which is the central business district and, as such, functions as
a f inajiglal—and coimer^ial area. Professional offices are a
permitted use. The Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan
APRIL 6, 1988
RP 87-12 JEFFERSON BUILDING
PAGE 2
covers the Redevelopment Area. The General Plan designation is
Residential Medium High/Office and zoning is Village-
Redevelopment .
III. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1. Does the project meet the goals of Subarea 1 and comply with
the Village Design Manual development standards?
2. Does the project meet the standards in the Carlsbad Zoning
Ordinance, including compliance with the Growth Management
Program?
Discussion
Subarea 1
The primary goal of Subarea 1 is to provide uses which are in
concert with a central business area such as offices, commercial
retail, and restaurants. Development should be oriented, to
pedestriaji_-4:ra^f ic, have open space amenities, and generally
portray a village atmosphere. The proposed project complies with
these goalsT^^TOe design of the structure, and in particular the
east elevation, is very "street:-friejidly". The front door is at
street level, the bu i ldi^~~artjxiu 1 a tes, there are windows at a
pedestrian level and window boxes and landscaping lend warmth to
the street scene along Jefferson. The front yard landscaped
setbagk is almost_^^feet (23 feet on subject property, 10.5 feet
of^^ctty right-of-way) — that, in addition to the interior
courtyard feature, will provide adequate open space amenities for
the public as well as the tenants occupying the building.
Unfortunately, the large evergreen tree in the front yard of the
house which currently occupies the lot cannot be saved because it
falls in the middle of the new driveway. To compensate, the
project has been conditioned to plant larger s^iae- trees than
norma'^'^y would- be required in the jiew^^ront yard—setback.
Overall, the scale of the building Q2 feet). the design as
described pi^eviously, the materials, "tKe^ features that relate to
the street, and the landscaping depict a village atmosphere and
will be compatible with the goals of Subarea 1.
Development Standards/Zoning Ordinance
Other technical standards relate to parking, setbacks, building
height and coverage, and landscaping. Thirty parking spaces
would be provided, in accordance with code. The building is
6)
APRIL 6, 1988
RP 87-12 JEFFERSON BUILDING
PAGE 3
^y
adequately set back per R-P (Residential-Professional) standards,
23 feet in front, 13 feet m the rear, and 6.5 feet on each side
yard. The concrete block retaining wall, wHTch is part of the
underground parking garage, extends three feet above grade within
the side and rear setbacks. This is necessary because the
parking structure can only be undergrounded 8 feet in order to
meet an acceptable 11 percent grade for the ramp. Since the
underlying zone is V-R, which allows some flexibility in
setbacks, and since the building itself is set back
appropriately, it is staff's opinion that setback requirements
have been met. That wall would be painted a color complimentary
to the structure. The area between the wall and the building
would generally be open to the parking below, i.e., by a grate,
to provide ventilation.
Building height, 32^feet to the top of a pitched roof, is within
code. The Design Review Manual has as a guideline that lot
coverage should not exceed 80 percent. Lot coverage is about 85
percent, but is deceiving because that includes the underground
parking which is wider than the building but cannot be seen. The
landscaped area is adequate and includes, in addition to what is
shown on the landscape plan, the courtyard area which will have
seating areas. In summary, the project complies with the goals
and standards of the Design Review Manual and the technical
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
There are two other conditions that will be discussed. The first
one relates to the office building (Austin-Pacific) several lots
to the north at Jefferson and Arbuckle which originally was
approved with wood siding. The subsequent change to stucco
substantially altered the character of that building, somewhat
negatively in that it now looks like it should be located in an
industrial area. That building is no longer compatible with the
"village" style architecture. In order to ensure compatibility, a
condition has been added that should the proposed project request
any changes to the building materials, the project would be
brought back to the Design Review Board.
The second condition relates to the landscape requirements. It
was mentioned earlier that the large evergreen tree, which is a
hclJ^y__ormesa^ could not be saved because of its unfortunate
Tocation in ^the^iddle of the proposed driveway. The driveway is
located as such because that location yields the highest parking
space scenario, i.e., two aisles of parking rather than one
aisle, which in turn allows a higher square footage yield in the
building. The large statuesque oak tree is estimated to be 3 0-
40 years old and is one of several prominent trees along this
portion of Jefferson Street. This tree should be replaced with a
APRIL 6, 1988
RP 87-12 JEFFERSON BUILDING
PAQE 4 ,
large, similar specimen to compensate for this loss. The project
has been conditioned to provide one 7JX=lnch box treg similar to
the one lost and the remaining proposedTrees to be 36 inch box
specimens.
The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 was approved on
September 1, 1987. The proposed project complies with that plan
in terms of being well within the future estimated square footage
for office in the Redevelopment Area. Thus, the impacts of that
office use were considered in the facilities analysis.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined this project will have no
significant impacts on the environment and, therefore, has issued
a Negative Declaration on February 26, 1988. The Negative
Declaration was issued based on field checks by staff and the
fact that the site is already developed with a residence and
associated buildings, there are no sensitive resources on or
adjacent to the site, and the project would be located in an
urban, developed area with structures of similar sizes and uses.
In addition, no comments were received in response to the notice
for a Negative Declaration.
Summary
The project, as proposed and conditioned, will meet the goals set
forth in the Design Review Manual and complies with technical
standards. Staff recommends approval of RP 87-12.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 113
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 113ND
3. Location Map
4. Background Data Sheet
5. Disclosure Form
6. Environmental Documents
7. Exhibits "A" - "D", dated March 18, 1988
NER:dm
3/14/88
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
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 113ND
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT ESTABLISHING AN OFFICE
BUILDING AT 2815 JEFFERSON STREET.
APPLICANT: JEFFERSON HOUSE
CASE NO.: RP 87-12
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 6th day of
April, 1988, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial
study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Design Review
Board considered all factors relating to the Negative
Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review
Board as follows:
i
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing,
I the Design Review Board hereby recommends APPROVAL of the
i Negative Declaration according to Exhibits "ND" and "PII",
dated February 26, 1988, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
The initial study shows that there is no substantial
evidence that the project may have a significant impact on
the ehvironment.
The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated
by the proposed project.
There are not sensitive resources located onsite or located
so as to be significantly impacted by this project.
1
2 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
J Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
^ the 6th day of April, 1988, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MATTHEW HALL, Chairman
CARLSBAD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
CHRIS SALAMONE
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RESO NO. 113ND -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
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 113
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT
TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH
UNDERGROUND PARKING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2815
JEFFERSON STREET.
APPLICANT: KEVIN KELSO
CASE NO.; RP 87-12
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the
City of Carlsbad and referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal
Code, the Design Review Board did, on the 6th day April,
1988, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said
application on property described as:
PARCEL 1: The southeasterly 50 feet of the
northwesterly 241 feet of Lot 48 of Seaside Lands,
except the southwesterly 120 feet. PARCEL 2: The
southeasterly 15 feet of the northwesterly 191 feet of
Lot 48 of Seaside Lands, except the southwesterly 120
feet. Both parcels are according to the Map thereof No.
1722, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, July 28, 1921.
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering
all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring
to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to RP
87-12.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
(A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
(B) That based on the evidence presented at public hearing,
the Board recommends APPROVAL of RP 87-12, based on the
following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
Findings:
1. The project complies with the overall goals of Subarea 1
of the Village Design Manual and the development
1 standards of the V-R Zone.
20
22
3. The project is consistent with all City public facility
policies and ordinances since:
2 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density
of the development since the site is adequate in size
^ and shape to accommodate commercial development at the
^ density proposed.
4
5
^ a. The Design Review Board has, by inclusion of an
appropriate condition to this project, ensured building
„ permits will not be issued for the project unless the
City Engineer determines that sewer service is
available, and building cannot occur within the project
° unless sewer services remains available, and the Design
Review Board is satisfied that the requirements of the
^ Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been
met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this
project.
^•^ b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or
12 will be required as conditions of approval.
c. The applicant has agreed and is required by the
•'•^ inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public
facilities fee. Performance of that contract and
•^^ payment of the fees will enable this body to find that
public facilities will be available concurrent with need
as required by the General Plan.
•^^ 4. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding
future land uses since surrounding properties are
designated for office development on the General Plan.
IS 5. This project will not cause any significant
environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration has
been issued by the Planning Director on February 26,
1988 and approved the Design Review Board on April 6,
1988. In approving this Negative Declaration the Design
Review Board has considered the initial study, the staff
^•^ analysis, all required mitigation measures and any
written comments received regarding the significant
effects this project could have on the environment.
23 6. The applicant is by condition, required to pay any
increase in public fa'cility fee, or new construction
24 tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional reguirements established by a Local
25 Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter
21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure
26 continued availability of public facilities and will
mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
27
7. This project is consistent with the City's Growth
28 Management Ordinance as it has been conditioned to
comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
o
Conditions:
*^ Planning Conditions
^ 1. Approval is granted for RP 87-12, as shown on Exhibits
"A"-"D" dated March 18, 1988, incorporated by reference
^ and on file in the Redevelopment Office. Development
^ shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise
noted in these conditions.
7
2. The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible
^ 24"x36", 100 scale mylar copy of the site plan as
° approved by the Design Review Board. The site plan
Q shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City.
^ The plan copy shall be submitted to the City Engineer
prior to issuance of building permits or improvement
plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
3. This project is approved upon the express condition that
p building permits will not be issued for development of
the subject property unless the City Engineer determines
that sewer facilities are available ap the time of
•^^ application for such sewer permits and will continue to
be available until time of occupancy.
15
10
4. This project is also approved under the express
condition that the applicant pay the publip facilitj.es
fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 and as
amended from time to time, and any development fees |
established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter
21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance
adopted to implement a plan and to fulfill the
^8 I subdivider's agrement to pay the public facilities fel
j dated December 3, 1987, and the agreement to pay the
•^^ Growth Management Fee dated December 3, 1987, copies of
which are on file with the City Clerk and are
incorporated by reference. If the fees are not paid
_ this application will not be consistent with the General
Plan and approval for this project shall be void.
20
22
23
24
25
27
28
5. Water shall be provided to this project pursuant to the
Water Service agreement between the City of Carlsbad and
the Costa Real Water District, dated May 25, 1983.
6. This project shall comply with all conditions and
mitigation measures which may be required as part of the
Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any
amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of
2o building permits.
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
p 65913.5 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.
^ 8. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners,
shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from
^ view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets, pursuant to Building Department Policy No. 80-
° 6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Redevelopment
^ and Building.
9. An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall
° be submitted Redevelopment and Planning Director
approval. All lighting shall be designed to reflect
^ downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or
property,
10. The applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate
conditions or overcrowding as part of building permit
application These fees shall be based on the fee
^2 schedule in effect at the time of building permit
13 application.
11. The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and
irrigation plan which shall be submitted to and approved
by the Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to the
15 issuance of grading or building permits, whichever
occurs first.
1^
'\/^) ) All proposed trees shown on the approved landscape plan
•^'^ %yy (Exhibit"D") shall be 36 inch box specimen size except
for one which shall be a 70 inch box specimen similar in
18 style to the destroyed evergreen. Shrubs shall be five
gallon minimum size, applicant shall submit, with the
final landscape plan, a program to protect existing
trees proposed to be saved during construction. Final
landscape plan shall also show the canopies at a mature
diameter, which may reduce the number proposed in the
2-1- front yard.
19
20
26
22 13, All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy
and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and
23 debris.
24 14. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a
minimum be designed in conformance with the City's Sign
25 Ordinance and shall reguire review and approval of the
Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to installation
of such signs.
27 15. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed
on all new and existing buildings so as to be plainly
28 visible from the street or access road; color of
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
identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their
background color.
16. The project shall provide upgraded bus facilities, i.e.
a bench at Jefferson and Home northbound to the
satisfaction of the North County Transit District.
17. This project is specifically approved with the use of
wooden siding building materials. Any change from the
building materials. Any change from the building
materials that have been approved will be subject to
additional discretionary review by the Design Review
Board.
18. The three foot high concrete block extending above the
parking garage around the side and rear walls of the
building shall be painted a color complimentary to the
building, to the satisfaction of the Redevelopment
Director.
19. If building permits for this project are not issued
"i^ within one year from the date of approval, then this
approval shall be considered null and void.
20. Medical or dental uses shall not be allowed in this
building unless square footage is reduced
^ proportionately to accommodate required parking for
medical use.
21. Roof water shall drain to the street by a system of rain
gutters and drainage channels to be approved by the City
Engineer.
22. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall provide the City
with proof that a janitorial service will take the trash
on a daily basis, as well as an alternative to that,
such as Coast Waste Management's ability to pick up
trash more than once a week if necessary, so that more
than 4 cans of trash do not accumulate between pick-ups.
Engineering Conditions:
23. The grading for this project is defined as "controlled
grading" by Section 11.06.170(a) of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. Grading shall be performed under the
observation of a civil engineer whose responsibility it
shall be to coordinate site inspection and testing to
ensure compliance of the work with the approved grading
plan, submit required reports to the City Engineer and
verify compliance with Chapter 11.06 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code.
24. No grading shall occur outside the limits of the project
unless a letter of permission is obtained from the
owners of thee affected properties.
25. A separate grading plan shall be submitted and approved
1 and a separate grading permit issued for the borrow or
disposal site if located with the city limits.
26. All slopes within this project shall be no steeper than
3 2:1.
^ 27. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any
proposed construction site within this project the
^ developer shall submit to and receive approval from the
City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The
° developer shall comply with all conditions and
„ requirements the City Engineer may impose with regard to
' the hauling operation.
S 28. Additional drainage easements and drainage structures
shall be provided or installed as may be required by the
^ City Engineer.
10 29. The owner of the subject property shall execute a hold
harmless agreement regarding drainage across the
11 adjacent property prior to the approval of the building
or grading permit for this project.
30. Unless a standard variance has been issued, no variance
13 from City Standards is authorized by virtue of approval
of this project.
14 ^ ^
31. The developer shall comply with all the rules,
15 regulations and design requirement of the respective
sewer and water agencies regarding services to the
1" project.
17 32. Prior to occupancy of any portion of this project, the
developer shall repair/replace curb, gutter, or sidewalk
18 i or A.C. pavement found to be defective during
! construction of this project.
19 ! ^
20
21
33. All telephone power service to this project shall be
undergrounded to facilitate future conversions of
overhead facilities.
34. The developer shall be responsible for coordination with
22 S.D.G.&E., Pacific Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
23 35, The entire water system for subject project shall be
evaluated by Costa Real Municipal Water District in
24 detail as assurance that adequate capacity for domestic
landscaping and fire flow demands are addressed and
25 resolved.
26 36. The Developer's Engineer shall schedule a meeting with
the Water District's Engineer and the City Fire Marshall
27 and review the preliminary water system layout prior to
preparation of the water system improvement plans. If
28 applicable, the developer shall be responsible for the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
major facility charge which will be collected at time of
issuance of building permit.
Fire Department;
37. Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete
building plans shall be submitted to and approved by the
Fire Department.
38. Additional public and/or site fire hydrants shall be
provided if deemed necessary by the Fire Marshall.
39. The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of a site plan
showing locations of existing and proposed fire hydrants
and onsite roads and drives to the Fire Marshal for
approval.
40. All required fire hydrants, water mains and
appurtenances shall be operational prior to combustible
building materials being located on the project site.
41. All fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, extinguishing
systems, automatic sprinklers, and other systems
pertinent to the project shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval prior to construction.
42. Building exceeding 10,000 sq. ft. aggregate floor area
shall be sprinklered or have four-hour fire walls with
no openings therein which shall split the building into
10,000 sq. ft. (or less) areas.
////
////
////
////
20 ////
21 ////
22 ////
23 ////
24 ////
25 ////
26 ////
27 ////
28 ////
7
(li
^ PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
2 Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held
2 on the 6th day of April, 1988, by the following vote, to wit:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MATTHEW HALL, Chaiman
^2 CARLSBAD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
13
14
1^ CHRIS SALOMONE,
Housing and Redevelopment Director
ATTEST:
////
////
////
////
////
EXHIBIT "ND"
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859
PLANNINGDEPARTMENT W4AVjfm (619)438-1161
Citp of Carl£(bab
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 2815 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Two story office building, 8800 square feet
with underground parking. Located in Subarea 1 of the Village
Redevelopment Area.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the
above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad.
As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration
that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project.
Justification for this action is on file in the Planning
Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is
on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning
Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance.
MICHAEL J. Hlr^lZMILiER
DATED: February 26, 1988 _iJ/yi4^:^^
MICHAEL J. H1:J1ZMI(
CASE NO: RP 87-12 Planning Director
APPLICANT: JEFFERSON BUILDING
PUBLISH DATE: February 26, 1988
(9
EXHIBIT"PII"
ENVIRONMENTAI. IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. RP 87-12
DATE: 2-17-88
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: Kevin Kelso
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3350 Ridgecrest Dr
Carlsbad. CA 92008
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED:
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
December 9. 1987
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written
under Section III - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
X£S MAYBE NO
Earth - Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Unstable earth conditions
or in changes in geologic
substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements,
compaction or overcovering
of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering of
modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or
off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel or a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
X
XES MAYBE NO
2. Air - Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration
of aunbient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
c. Alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
3. Water - Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course
or direction of water movements,
in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patters, or the rate and
amount of surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not
limited to, temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through
interception.of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public
water supplies?
-2-
XES MAYBE NO
4. Plant Life - Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, microflora and aguatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of plants?
d. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop?
5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including reptiles,
fish and shellfish, benthic organisms,
insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier
to the migration or movement of
animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly
increase existing noise levels?
7. Light and Glare - Will the proposal sig-
nificantly produce new light or glare?
8. Land Use - Will the proposal have
significant results in the alteration of
the present or planned land use of an
area?
-3-
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species? X
XES MAYBE NO
9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset - Does the proposal
involve a significant risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions?
11. Population - Will the proposal signif-
icantly alter the location, distribu-
tion, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area?
12. Housing - Will the proposal signif-
icantly affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation - Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular
movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
c. Impact upon existing transportation
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterbome, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
-4-
YIS IJAXBE NO
14. Public Services - Will the proposal have
a significant effect upon, or have signif-
icant results in the need for new or
altered governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy - Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities - Will the proposal have
significant results in the need for new
systems, or alterations to the following
utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste ^nd disposal?
17. Human Health - Will the proposal have
significant results in the creation of
any health hazard or potential health
hazard (excluding mental health)?
-5-
XES MAYBE NO
18. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have
significant results in the obstruction
of any scenic vista or view open to the
public, or will the proposal result in
creation of an aesthetically offensive
public view?
19. Recreation - Will the proposal have
significant results in the impact upon
the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
20. Archeological/Historical - Will the
proposal have significant results in
the alteration of a significant
archeological or historical site,
structure, object or building?
21. Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed proiect such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter-
nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
a) The project is too small to be phased.
b) The design is consistent with the guidelines of the Village
Design Manual.
c) The scale of the project has been reduced.
d) There are other office buildings in the vicinity.
e) N/A
f) N/A
g) N/A
-6-
XES MAYBE NO
22. Mandatorv findings of significance -
a. Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, or curtail the diversity
in the environment? ;
b. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (A
project may impact on two or more
separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is
significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? ____
III. DISCrUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project will not result in any significant, environmental
impacts because:
(1) The site is developed already with a residence and
associated buildings.
(2) There are no sensitive resources on or adjacent to
the site.
(3) The project is located in an urban, developed area
with structures of similar sizes and uses.
(4) The project is lower than the allowed maximum height
limit of 35* (Coastal)
-7-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRQNMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
-8-
IV. piffTERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date Sigpejture
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-9-
• MTTTfiATiNG MEASURES (Continued)
VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date . Signature
-10-
APwE»UCK.L£
HOME
I
0
u
I
>
o
0
z
c
Tl
m
0
z
1
>
Z
ELM
GENERAL PLAN
RISIOINTIAL
W. LOWDE.N5ITY(0-H)
W-M LO« MEDIU.M OE.NSirV (0-4)
R.M MEDILM DENSITY (•••8)
ILMH MEDILM HIGH DENSITY(8-H)
RH HIGH DENSITY (H-JJ)
COMMIRCIAL
lUU I.NTENSIN^ UGIONAL MTAIL (cf. Ptaza Camlno Real) RRE EXTENsrv-E REGIONAL R£TA1L (eg Car Country Cartsbad)
RS REGIONAL SERVICE
C COMML NITY COMMEHCUL
N NEIGHBORHOOD CO.MMERCUL
TS TR.\VEL SERVICES COMMERCIAL
O PROFESSIONAL REUTED
CBD CENTRAL BLSINESS DISTRICT
PI PLANNED INDLSTUAL
G <;OVERNMENT FACIUTIES
L Pl BLIC L TIUTIES
RC RECRE.ATION CO.M.MERCLAL SCHOOLS
E ELEMENTARY
; JI NIORHIGH
H HIGH SCHOOL
P PRAATE
OS OPEN SPACE
NRR NON RESIDENTLAL RESERVE
ZONINQ
RISIOINTIAL P C PLANTVED COMMl-NITY ZONE
RA R£SIDE.NTlAL AGRJCLLTt RAL ZON'E
R E RL R.AL RESIDE-NTLU. ESTATE ZONE
R-1 ONT FAMILY RESIDE.NTL^L ZON'E
R- 2 TUO FA.MILY RESIDE.NTUL ZONE
R J Ml LTIPLE FA.MILY RESIDE.NTIAL ZONI R-JL UMITED ML LTI F.O<aY RESIDE.NTLM ZONE
RD-M R£SIDE.vnALDE.NSirv MULTIPLE ZONE
RD H R£SIDE.NTL\L DENSITY HIGH ZONE
R.MHP RESIDENTLAL MOBILE HOME PARK ZONE
R P RESIDENTIAL PROFESSIONAL ZONI
RT RESIDE.NTUL TOL RIST ZONE
RW RESIDE-NTIM. WATERWAY ZONE
COMMIRCIAL
O OFFICE ZONE
C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONI
C 2 GEN1RAL COMMERCLU. ZONE
CT COM.MERCIAL TOLRIST ZONE
C M HEAVY COMMERCLM LLMITED INDtSTRlAL ZONE
M INDLSTTUAL ZONE
P- M PLANNED INDL STRIAL ZONI
OTHIR
F P FIOODPLMN OVERUY ZONI
L C LLMITED CONTROL
OS OPENSPACE P L! PLIUC LTILTTY ZONI
/
City of Carlsbad
JEFFERSON BUILDING RP 87-12
BACKGROUND DATA SHEBT
CASE NO: RP 87-12
APPLICANT: Jefferson Building
REQUEST AND lOCATION: Maior Redevelopment Permit for a two-storv
office building with underground parking at 2815 Jefferson Street.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1; The southeasterly 50 feet of the
northwesterlv 241 feet of Lot 48 of Seaside Lands, except the
southwesterly 120 feet and Parcel 2: The southeasterlv 15 feet of the
northwesterlv 191 feet of Lot 48 of Seaside lands, both parcels
according to the Map thereof No. 1722. filed in the Office of the
Countv Recorder of San Diego. Julv 28. 1921. APN: 203-110-29
Acres .30
Land Use Designation
Density Allowed
Existing Zone _
Proposed No. of Lots/Units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
RMH/O
n/a
n/a
V-R
Density Proposed
Proposed Zone
n/a
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning
Site
North
South
East
West
V-R
V-R
V-R
R-P-O/R-3
V-R
Land Use
SF Residence
Office/Residential
Office/Residential
Office/Residential
Office/Residential
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water*Costa Real Sewer Carlsbad EDU * s 5
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated 12-3-87
(*The City of Carlsbad will provide water service to all projects in
Carlsbad except those located in the Olivenhain and San Marcos Sewer
Districts.)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
JC Negative Declaration, issued 2-26-88
E.I.R. Certified, dated
Other,
DISCLOSURE FORM
APPLICANT
Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication)"
Business Address ' * ~
Telephone Number
AGENT:
Name
Business Address
Telephone Number
MEMBERS:
Name (individual, partner, joint
venture, corporation, syndication)
Home Address
Business Address
Telephone Number Telephone Number
Name Home Address
Business Address
Telephone Number Telephone Number
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/We understand that if this project is located in the Coastal Zone, 1/we will apply
for Coastal Commission Approval prior to development.
I/We acknowledge that in the process of reviewing this application, it may be
necessary for members of City Staff, Planning Commissioners, Design Review Board
members, or City Council members to inspect and enter the property that is the
subject of this appiication. I/We consent to entry for this purpose.
I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this disclosure
is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be relied upon
as being true and correct until amended.
APPLICANT
BY
Agent, Owner, Partner
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859
(619) 438-1161
Citp of Carldbab
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 2815 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Two story office building, 8800 square feet
with underground parking. Located in Subarea 1 of the Village
Redevelopment Area.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the
above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad.
As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration
that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project.
Justification for this action is on file in the Planning
Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is
on file in the Planning Department, 2 07 5 Las Palmas Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning
Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: February 26, 1988
CASE NO: RP 87-12
MICHAEL J. H^ZMltJ^ER
Planning Director
APPLICANT: JEFFERSON BUILDING
PUBLISH DATE: February 26, 1988