HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 97-01; STARBUCKS COFFEE; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (14)City of
Housing & Redevelopment Department
May 7, 1997
JEFFREY RASAK
3252 HOLIDAY COURT
SUITE 225
SAN DIEGO, CA. 92037
RE:
Dear Jeff:
APPLICATION FORMS - RP/CDP 97-01
Enclosed please find an application that I completed for you to document the change in permit from an
administrative to a minor redevelopment/coastal development permit for the Starbucks project at 2924
Carlsbad Boulevard. Please review the forms to ensure their accuracy and then sign where noted on the
forms. Also enclosed is a "Disclosure Form" which I need for you to complete and sign as well. Please
retum all of the documents to my office as soon as possible.
It is my suggestion that you have the architect revise the project plans to reflect the accurate dimensions
you received from the surveyor on the size of the property and the space provided for the parking area. I
will need seven (7) copies of the revised plans by May 21, 1997.
If you are able to obtain a "letter of commitment" or a written agreement from the business owner at
Witchcreek Winery to share a dumpster for trash collection and removal, please provide me with a copy
of the document as soon as possible. I would like to include the information in the staff report to the
Design Review Board. Also, if Starbucks can provide me with written information on their anticipated
traffic pattems and types (i.e., pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle, etc.), it would be quite helpful. I contacted
Starbucks directly to obtain information on the amount of tables and chairs to be located inside and
outside the business.
As we have already discussed, the public hearing on the minor redevelopment/coastal development
permit has been set for May 29, 1997 at 6:00pm in the City Council Chambers located at 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive. I believe that the primary issues will be related to traffic and parking impacts on
surrounding properties. Therefore, I believe it is critical that both Starbucks and you, as the property
owner, be prepared to address these issues. Also, please make sure that your architects have spoken
directly with Pat Kelley (438-1161, X4503) of the City's Building Department to ensure that the project
can meet its handicap accessibility requirements as currently designed. I have mentioned this several
times before that you could be stopped at the building permit stage if your project can't meet the
handicap accessibility requirements; this includes the parking requirement for a van-accessible handicap
space. These requirements are reviewed in detail during plan check for the building permit. They are not
reviewed as part of the land use (redevelopment) permit.
If you have any comments and/or questions this correspondence, please contact my office at 434-2935.
JSincerely,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Senior Management Analyst
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ®
MEMORANDUM
VIA FACSIMILE & U. S. MAIL
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Debbie K. Fountain
City of Carlsbad
Housing and Redevelopment Department
Jeffrey C. R
Sterling D
April 24, 1997
Corporation
Starbucks C6ffee (ARP 97-01)
2924 Carlsbad Boulevard
Carlsbad, California
With reference to the above Application, enclosed please find a copy of Michael J.
Curren's Survey for the subject property located at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad,
California. As you can see from the attached Survey, the building is situated 0.12 feet
inside the northern property line. The actual width of the building is 26.85 feet. The
land area (available for parking) from the south elevation of the building to the southern
property line is 48.03 feet. According to the applicable development standards imposed
by the City of Carlsbad for this Administrative Permit Application, only 47.5 feet of land
area is required from the south building elevation to the southern property line to
provide for the required number of parking spaces (1 handicap, 1 compact and 3
regular size spaces). 1 trust the enclosed Survey performed and certified by a licensed
California surveyor is dispositive on the issue of parking for this Application.
If you have any questions or require any additional information in support of our
Application, please let me know. Thank you Debbie.
cc: Richard Cambridge with attachments
Michael Pontious with attachments
Steve Ishino with attachments
Nancy Johnston with attachments
Rick Silverberg with attachments
JCR/tr
Sterllng/Projects/Carlsbad/fountalS
04/23/1997 11:41 6194880782 ::'JPREN DUFFV PAGE 02
MICHAEL J. CURREN
Licdneed Land Surveyor
2966-3^ Mission Blvd.
San Di«go, Ca. 92109
(619) 488^0762
1 50.00
\
\
a
0
o
I"
c£)
o o
l\
1-STORY BLOCK
CS4
0
\
\
N
N
N
\
0.D9
0.04
o o
b o
Im) HAEL J. CURREN
Licensed Land Surveyor
2965-3F Mission Blvd.
San Diego, Ca. 92109
(619) 488-0782
O
to
ci
:>
•<L
40'
<:) X
<3l
>:
20'
20'
o c
in
^0
• ^X' \R0M p(PE(pPEN)-l.C)0'0FF5ET
LfcAD4l>l5C"LS 2jl(;,%''e.ao'0Fr5tT
^ ROSE ENTERPRISES ^
HeatthcarB Budness Analysts
Tetephone 760-414-2990 Fax 760-632-8398
April. 14, 1997
Dear Design Review Board Member,
Today numerous protest appeals and a protest petition with hundreds signatures were
submitted to the Director of Housing and Redevelopment,. We are seeking a reversal of
the Director's decision to approve a change in land use at 2924 Carlsbad Blvd. and grant a
permit to Starbucks, (ARP-97-01).
We are confident that the Design Review Board will acknowledge the obstacles and come
to a just decision in the best interest of the Carlsbad Village area. Following are the
concems we feel the city has overlooked.
• Using all paper products Starbucks generates tons of trash, thus an agreement for
waste containment and removal is imperative, a promise to secure an agreement in not
sufficient. According to Coast Waste officials we spoke to April 8 " We have no
arrangement with anyone at 2924 Carlsbad Blvd ...waste removal from that
property is impossible due to access problems. We cannot pick-up from Cadsbad
Blvd., alley access in the only way...there is NO alley at this location." If Starbucks
was able to find another waste removal company they would still have the problem of
where to put the trash receptacle. The only place is in one of the 5 parking spaces
taking up a minimum of 20 sq ft of a 170 sq ft parking space.
According to the plan blueprints for the proposed Starbucks the total parking space
required by law is 3 inches short. The city has overlooked inadequate parking in the
past which has created parking and traffic problems in this area. Another like variance
will only compound the existing problems.
SANDAG estimates Starbucks will bring in 375 cars per day, 37.5 cars per hour. That
is 10 cars everylS minutes using 4 parking spaces. Since it takes 4 min. to pull in
and park-6min to order make and pay for a coffee drink- 5 min to pull out and exit the
parking lot that leaves 6 cars every 15 min looking for parking in the overburdened
Village Fair Parking lot. This area of Carlsbad Blvd. is designated a "major high
pedestrian walkway" in the Village Master Plan. This "walkway" will experience 1000
interruptions a day-100 per hour crossing the "pedestrian walkway" - by the cars
looking for parking. These numbers of course do not include the cars currently
utilizing that one driveway entry to the parking lot on Carlsbad Blvd. We believe the
City Engineering Department needs to reconsider it's determination as "satisfactorily
meeting standards".
According to Rick Silverman, leasing agent for the property, "I get at least 15 calls a week
about leasing this property . . . the owner of the property will completely remodel the
building, inside and out, regardless of who leases the property." Mr. Silverman also said,
"...we would prefer a business like a medical office." We agree with this sentiment. The
previous tenet, a chiropractic practice, was a compatible business being closed at the
Village Fare's peek hours .weekends, holidays and summer evenings.
Obviously, 2924 Carlsbad Blvd. in inappropriate and inadequate for Starbucks.
There are many other, better suited properties in Carlsbad. Areas in the Village where 375
additional vehicles would be welcomed, where there is alley access for trash removal, and
where the major Pedestrian walkway will not be rendered unusable.
Sincerely,
Teri Gardner-Reed
cc: Bill Compas
Peggy Savary
Kim Welshols
Larry Scheer
Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment
Ron Ball, City Attomey
Marty Orenyak, Community Development Dkector
Ray Patchett, City Manager
John Reed M.D.
Board Certified Telephone 760-436-2856/619-605-8673
Anesthesiologist
1326 Rainbow Ridge Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
To: Director, Housing and Redevelopment, City of Carlsbad
Re: Appeal of Administrative Permit decision, Starbuck*s Coffee (APR 97-01)
Date: 4/12/97
Members of the Design Review Board,
I am appealing to you to correct the oversights of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director and DENY the request for change in land use fi'om medical office to Coffee
House at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard. In the following pages I will detail the specific
inadequacies of the building and parking design which are blatantly inconsistent with the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual. I will make reference to specific pages in the
Design Manual and the Carlsbad Municipal Code, as well as to correspondence from the
Housing and Redevelopment Department, in detailing these inadequacies. After reviewing
the facts, I am confident you will agree with me that a permit should not issued.
INADEQUATE PARKING SPACE: The proposed change in land use would
increase the parking space requirement to one handicapped space, three regular sized
spaces, and one compact space (Manual pg 6-2). The widths of these spaces are defined
by State Law, the allowance of one compact space per five spaces (20%) is per Carlsbad
Municipal Code. The combined widths of these spaces exceeds the designated space on
the currently submitted plans. As currently designed, starting the parking spaces right at
the building's edge and movmg southward to the property's edge, the allocated space is
inadequate to accommodate the required number and type of parking spaces. In
correspondence dated March 31,1997 (Attached), the Housing and Redevelopment
Department stated that the current structure would be partially demolished to decrease the
square footage from approximately 1400 sq. ft. to 1000 sq. ft., so 5 parking spaces are all
that is required. As the building plans clearly show, all reductions in square footage are at
the front of the building to provide a setback, and DO NOT increase available parking
area.
The plans, as submitted and approved, have attempted to comply with parking and
setback requirements by decreasing total floor space, and they have been reviewed by the
Director who concludes that 5 spaces are requked, yet the Director has overlooked the
fact that the required parkmg does not fit onto the subject property. By approving the
Administrative Permit based upon the current design plan, the Director has granted a de
facto variance in parking stall size or number. It is not within the scope of duty for the
Director to grant variances (Manual, chapter 7), and all projects requiring a variance must
request a Minor or Major Redevelopment Permit and therefore be reviewed by this Board.
INADEQUATE SETBACKS: Setback criteria for the subject property are defined in
the Manual (pg 3-23). As submitted and approved, the current plan has absolutely NO
PROVISION for a side setback. Parkmg would be right up against the building side,
making use of the space next to the building difficult to use, as the driver's side door
would open against the building wall. This side of the building is being visually
incorporated into the front by cutting off the comer of the building and making a diagonal
entrance. The visual prominence of this side of the building is therefore enhanced. The
view of this side of the building is unobstructed for a substantial distance down Carlsbad
Blvd., and is a prominent visual landmark for all Northbound traffic. The current plan, as
submitted and approved, enhances the aesthetic visual importance of the building's side,
but does not enhance its aesthetic value by providing landscaping or open space (as
required by the Manual), between parking area and the building. While setbacks are to be
determined on a case by case basis, the importance of establishing the Village image at this
visually prominent location cannot be overlooked, even for an existing structure.
TRAFFIC: A change in land use from a medical office to a Coffee House would result in
a greater intensity of use of a curb cut, through a major pedestrian walkway, along
Carlsbad Blvd. between Grand Ave and Carlsbad Village Drive. As stated in the Design
Guidelines (Manual pg 4-5), curb cuts are to be avoided along major pedestrian areas,
SPECIFICALLY on Carisbad Blvd. between Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive.
"Exceptions to the curb cut prohibition may be considered where no other
access to parking is possible or where conflicts are likely to be minimal."
While a medical office, a MAXIMUM of twenty vehicles PER WEEKDAY and
NO VEHICLES on WEEKENDS utilized this curb cut to visit the office, and conflicts
with pedestrians were likely to be minimal. The San Diego Association of Govemments
survey of traffic pattems and parking utilization estimates that for coffee houses and
similar businesses in San Diego County, an AVERAGE of 325 vehicles will utilize this
curb cut PER WEEKDAY, and that WEEKEND TRAFFIC SHOULD BE EVEN
GREATER. This would create a tremendous source of conflict between pedestrians and
vehicles, a situation which the Manual states is quite clearly and specifically to be
prohibited.
Although the curb cut already exists, its current utilization is within the limits
determined by the design guidelines. By approving the pemiit request, the Director has
disregarded any need for a traffic impact study, disregarded verbatim guidelines as
setdown in the design manual, and has shown no regard for the safety of pedestrians and
drivers alike. In response to my pointing out this oversight, the Department's response was
to stress that the City's Engineering Department considered Carlsbad Blvd. "to be a major
thoroughfare for traffic purposes" and that "The Engineering Department has reviewed the
proposed plan and determined that it has satisfactorily met the various engmeering
standards for an existing building. "(Attached)
I do not doubt that the building was built to code when erected, however several
calls to the Engineering Department last week made it clear that they were never asked to
evaluate what impact greater utilization of this curb cut, especially in the face of
inadequate parking, would have on the pattem of traffic on "a major thoroughfare" such as
Carlsbad Blvd. I agree with the Engineering Department in describing Carlsbad Blvd. as a
"major thoroughfare". Common sense would dictate that conflicts with pedestrians and the
inadequacy of parking in this area would create an intolerable traffic problem affecting
both Carlsbad Blvd. and Carlsbad Village Drive. The guidelines are quite clear here, and
have obviously been completely disregarded.
TRASH: The current design, as submitted and approved, has no provisions for garbage
and refuse storage and disposal. As an existing stmcture, a trash receptacle is not required.
However, per Carlsbad Municipal Code (Section 6, Health and Sanitation) and Coast
Waste Management (the City's designated licensee for transporting garbage) commercial
refuse must be placed in either a commercial type can or a dumpster. The receptacles must
be accessible from the outside and unobstmcted by parking, to allow for pickup. The
receptacle CANNOT be set outside for pickup and then retrieved later. As currently
designed and approved, their does not exist an area designated for garbage storage which
is accessible from the outside. The only access for trash pickup would be from the parking
area, as there is no access to the north side, the rear abuts landscaping on another
property, and trash pick-up is not allowed along the front on Carlsbad Blvd. As currently
designed, the only area accessible would be between the front door and the beginning of
the parking stalls, but no such designation exists. This is of considerable importance as
STARBUCKS only uses disposable containers, and the amount of trash generated daily
will be considerable, and since the trash cannot be stored remotely from the building, it
will have to be removed daily (County Health Code).
Per the Department (Attached)
" the property owner and/or tenant (STARBUCKS) must make appropriate
arrangements to dispose of trash in a manner which does not have a
detrimental impact on surrounding properties. A special condition will be
placed on the permit which will require the property ovmer and tenant to
dispose of business related trash in an appropriate manner."
As of 4/12/97, no arrangement has been made v^th any licensed refuse transporter to
agree to pick up on a daily basis " in an appropriate manner". Coast Waste informed me
that without an alleyway access or a remote dumpster, they will be unable to service any
business at this location, especially on a daily basis. Having a garbage truck come through
your parking area daily to pick up another businesss trash would have a negative impact
on the surrounding properties. Without any evidence that a trash collection solution can be
reached, and without any evidence that a program is being developed with a Ucensed
refuse transporter, the Director has approved this permit. At best this decision is
premature and should have been made only AFTER an agreement with the surrounding
tenants and Coast Waste had been created and approved by the parties involved.
I feel very strongly that the proposed land use change would have a significant
negative impact on the Village and that the Design Manual Guidelines clearly show that
this type of high traffic, high intensity use is inappropriate for this site. I implore you to do
what the Director failed to do; protect the integrity and safety of this unique area's
environment and deny this request for land use change.
Sincerely,
April 8, 1997
TO: ARP 97-01, STARBUCKS FILE
FROM: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
INFORMATION RELATED TO DR. REED'S PROTEST TO THE PERMIT
Dr. Reed contacted me on the moming of April 8, 1997 and left a telephone message
indicating that he had not received a response from me to his letter ofMareh 27, 1997
regarding the Starbucks project. I retumed Dr. Reed's call and left a message on his voice
mail at approximately 12:00pm on April 8, 1997 stating that I did send a written response
to his letter to the mailing address noted on his correspondence. However, the letter was
retumed to my office on April 7, 1997 by the Post Office with a note of "insufficient
address" stamped on the envelope. In the aftemoon of April 7*, I placed the letter in a
new envelope and mailed it to an altemate address of 1326 Rainbow Ridge, Encinitas,
Ca. 92024 provided by Terri Gardner Reed. I indicated to Dr. Reed that he would
probably receive the letter either today or tomorrow.
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
April 7,1997
TERRI GARDNER REED
1326 RAINBOW RIDGE
ENCINITAS, CA. 92024
RE: RESPONSE TO CONCERNS REGARDING STARBUCKS, CARLSBAD
Dear Ms. Reed:
I was attempting to respond to Dr. Reed's letter dated March 27,1997. However, the
address on the letterhead is insufficient according to the Post Office. I am making an
assumption that Dr. Reed is related to you. Therefore, I am making another attempt to
forward my response to him at the address you provided to me during our discussions on
the same topic.
If you or Dr. Reed have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at
434-2935. Or, if the letter should not have been forwarded to you, please also let me
know for my records.
Sincerely,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Senior Management Analyst
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037
April 2, 1997
TO: ARP 97-01 FILE, STARBUCKS
FROM: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
CONTACT FROM PROPERTY MANAGER REPRESENTATIVE FOR VILLAGE
FAIRE SHOPPING CENTER
On Monday, March 31,1997,1 was contacted by Michelle Hessman, who is a property
manager/ovmer representative for the Village Faire Shopping Center. She expressed concem that
the notice to obtain comments on the project to convert the medical office to a coffee house
(Starbucks) at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard did not get to her until Monday, March 31, 1997
because the address was "incorrect". The company she works for has moved their offices. The
notice was sent to the previous office address and was then forwarded to her. I asked her if she
noted the address change with the County Assessor's Office. She said that they had not. I
explained that public comment or hearing notices are mailed to the property owner with the
address noted on the County Assessor's Records. I told her if her company wants notices mailed
directly to them, they need to change the mailing address for the property with the County
Assessor's Office. I gave Ms. Hessman the telephone number for the County Assessor's Office.
Ms. Hessman was concemed that Starbucks patrons will be using the Village Faire parking lot. I
explained that the project will provide for 5 spaces on its ovm parking lot. She indicated that the
property is the building only and has none of its ovm parking. I explained that her comment was
incorrect. I explained that the current property ovmer ovms two parcels - one where the building
is located and the parcel adjacent and south of it. A copy of the site plan was faxed to Ms.
Hessman on March 31Also, a copy of a letter outlining the ovmers of Village Faire's plans to
improve the property in question for the parking lot and related improvements for joint use
purposes was faxed to Ms. Hessman for her infonnation.
Ms. Hessman was also concemed about the design of the building and that the tower features
would block visibility to Village Faire. I explained that the tower features were not significant
enough to block visibility. A copy of the proposed building elevation was faxed to Ms. Hessman
on March 31^
Ms. Hessman asked that a condition be placed on the project to obtain an access easement
agreement with Village Faire. I told her that the condition would not be reasonable because the
property in question has its ovm access and can meet its ovm parking requirement on its site. I
encouraged her, however, to contact the property ovmer and discuss the easement with him.
Ms. Hessman indicated that she would contact me again with any questions or additional
comments. No additional questions or comments received as of this date.
Michelle Hessman - 350 S. Grand Avenue, 46* Floor, Los Angeles, Ca. 90071
(213) 633-5878 -Fax
STERLING
DEVELOl'MENT CORI^OI^ATION
April 2, 1997
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Ms. Debbie Fountain
Senior Management Analyst
City of Carlsbad
Housing and Redevelopment Department
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Protest Letters
Starbucks Coffee House ARP 97-01
2924 Carlsbad Boulevard
Carlsbad, California
Dear Debbie:
With regard to Sterling Development Corporation's proposed redevelopment of the
above captioned property, thank you for providing me with a copy of the three protest
letters received by the City of Carlsbad from Adam Jester, Patty Blank and John Reed.
I have carefully reviewed each of the letters submitted and provide the following
comments and/or response.
1) Parking
The parking requirement for coffee houses in the City of Carlsbad as set forth in
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual (approved by the California Coastal
Commission in September, 1996) is 1:200. In accordance with the State of
California, Disabled Access Requirements (Chapter 31, Division III and IV),
where possible, van accessible parking (handicap) should also be provided. In
order to comply with applicable City Parking Ordinances and the preferred State
priority for van accessible parking, the gross leaseable area of the proposed
redevelopment has been reduced from 1,300 square feet to 1,000 square feet.
As such, a total of five (5) parking spaces is required, including one (1) handicap
or van accessible space. As noted on our revised site plan, the proposed
redevelopment will include a total of five (5) parking spaces, including one (1)
handicap parking space, alt of which is within the subject property. Please note
that we will be re-striping our portion of the parking lot. The site plan currently
shows existing striping (except for the new handicap space). As such, it appears
on the site plan as though our fifth space slightly encroaches onto a portion of
the contiguous Village Faire parking stall. This is not the case. In conclusion,
since the proposed redevelopment meets all of applicable parking
requirements/standards, as promulgated by the City of Carisbad and the State of
La Jolla Corporate Center • 3252 Holiday Court, Suite 225 • Ea jolla, California 92037 • (619) 546-8841 EAX (619) 546-8807
Regional Offices - Sacramento, California • Portland, Oregon
Ms. Debbie Fountain
City of Carlsbad
April 2, 1997
Page 2
California, I see no legitimate reason for denial of our Application or an appeal
on this issue.
2) Trash
Steriing Development Corporation has contacted Coast Waste Management and
has obtained the necessary information to answer the questions which have
been raised regarding trash collection for the property. More specifically, we
intend to contract with Coast Waste Management to pick-up refuse curb-side five
(5) times per week. Under their "Commercial Can Route", we are allowed up to
six (6) trash containers (32 gallons each), all ofwhich will be picked up five times
per week. The service charge for this collection is $125.00 per month. We
intend to provide architecturally compatible trash receptacles, most of which will
be tocated within the leased premises and patio area. Based upon the small
size of the premises (1,000 square feet) we feel this service will be more than
adequate.
I trust the foregoing is responsive to the issues raised related to this redevelopment
project. Since, however, many of the issues set forth in the protest letters appear to be
borne out of a fear of competition, I have not addressed those matters. It is important
to note, however, that none of the three protest letters acknowledge that this proposed
redevelopment project does, in fact, meet the objectives of the community and the City
of Carisbad Housing and Redevelopment Department. The proposed project eliminates
a "blighted" condition on a key corner in the Village and replaces the same with a new,
architecturally compatible building. The proposed project also creates approximately 5
to 10 new jobs in the City of Carlsbad as well as additional sales tax revenues and
property tax increment. I believe this project is a textbook example of effective
redevelopment which not only meets public policy goals, but serves community needs.
The existence of a new Starbucks Coffee house at this location will, undoubtedly, be a
catalyst for other quality redevelopment in the Village.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to call me.
JCR/rmI
•
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
March 31, 1997
PATTY BLANK
VINAKA, SUITE 211
300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
RE: STARBUCKS COFFEE, ARP 97-01, CITY OF CARLSBAD
Dear Ms. Blank:
Thank you for your letter dated March 24,1997 regarding the proposal for a new coffee
house to be located at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard within the City of Carlsbad. Your
comments are appreciated and the concem you expressed for your business as well as
others at Village Faire is understood by staff. I wanted to assure you that staff has taken
great care in reviewing the application submitted by the new ovmer of the property at
2924 Carlsbad Boulevard, which requests conversion of the existing medical office
building into a coffee house. Staff has required redesign of the project several times in
order to address the development standards outlined within the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual. Staff has determined that the project is now consistent with all
applicable standards.
To assist you in understanding the Housing and Redevelopment Director's decision, the
following response is provided to the specific development issues you raised within your
correspondence.
Land Use. For the purposes of issuing a land use permit, it is sometimes difficult to
separate business operators from the actual land use. However, the Redevelopment
Agency is legally obligated to review the "land use" proposed by the applicant. We are
not permitted to base our land use decision on the entity who ovms the business (e.g.
corporate vs. family ovmed). However, we can place reasonable conditions on the project
based on operational issues which present a concem to the Redevelopment Agency. The
"land use" proposed is a coffee house which allows for patrons to purchase coffee "to go"
or to drink at the site. This use is identical to many other coffee houses in the Carlsbad
Village Area. A coffee house is a permitted use for the subject property. Consequently,
the proposed use is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
Trash. A trash receptacle is not required for existing buildings. However, you are correct
in that the property owner and/or tenant (Starbucks) will need to make appropriate
arrangements to dispose of trash in a manner which does not have a detrimental impact
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ^
P. Blank
March 31,1997
Page 2
on surrounding properties. A special condition will be placed on the permit which will
require the property owner and tenant to dispose of business-related trash in an
appropriate manner. Since the property ovmer is ultimately responsible for the trash issue,
your concem has been shared with him. It is my understanding that the property
owner/tenant will work directly with Coast Waste Management to develop a program to
remove trash from the site as frequently as possible, in a manner which is consistent with
other existing businesses which do not have large trash dumpsters on site.
Parking Requirements. A portion of the existing building on the site will actually be
demolished as part of the proposal submitted by the property ovmer. The building will be
physically reduced in size from its current 1400 square feet (approximately) to 1000
square feet. As set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, the parking
requirement for coffee houses (and other quick stop food stores) is 1 space for every 200
square feet of floor space. Therefore, the actual parking requirement for the proposed
coffee house is 5 spaces total. The proposal includes 4 regular parking spaces and 1
handicap parking space; this meets the parking requirement. State regulations require the
property ovmer to provide a handicap space, which is considered a legal parking space for
meeting the on-site parking requirements for the project. Since the property ovmer is able
to meet the required on-site parking standard for the proposed project, there is no
requirement for the ovmer to enter into a joint use parking agreement with Village Faire,
or obtain a variance from the City as related to the required parking. The Redevelopment
Agency, however, will place a special condition on the project which requires that
employees of the coffee house use public parking within the Village Redevelopment
Area. The parking on the site must be designated for customers only. Although I realize
that this response probably does not address your concem, we are required to apply the
same standards to this project as any other similar land use in the area.
Traffic and Land Use. Carlsbad Boulevard is considered by the City's Engineering
Department to be a major thoroughfare for traffic purposes. The Village Circulation
System has been established to accommodate heavy traffic for the variety of land uses
which have been deemed appropriate for Carlsbad Boulevard and the Village Area as a
whole. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed plan and determined that
it has satisfactorily met the various engineering standards for an existing building.
Summarv of Staff Response
Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency staff has reviewed the regulations outlined within the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual and applied them to the proposed project as
appropriate. The property ovmer has been given no special considerations. The Housing
and Redevelopment Director is granting no variances as part of the administrative
redevelopment permit.
P. Blank
March 31,1997
Page 3
Redevelopment Agency staff does have the best interest of the Village in mind when we
review proposed projects and requests for pemiits. On every project, we make an effort to
identify all of the possible concems associated with a specific project and then take action
to require property and business ovmers to address those concems. We, however, must
still be reasonable in our requests and be consistent in our application of the development
requirements for projects. It would not be appropriate to apply different standards to the
Starbucks project. If the project is approved, staff will make an effort to include
conditions which will hopefully address your concems as related to actual operations.
Thank you again for your comments. If the project is uhimately approved, you will
receive a second notice initiating the appeal period. You may appeal the Director's
decision to the Design Review Board, if you are not satisfied with the responses provided
within this correspondence.
Sincerely,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Senior Management Analyst
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
March 31,1997
ADAM JESTER
VINAKA, SUITE 211
300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
RE: STARBUCKS COFFEE, ARP 97-01, CITY OF CARLSBAD
Dear Mr. Jester:
Thank you for your letter dated March 24,1997 regarding the proposal for a new coffee
house to be located at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard within the City of Carlsbad. Your
comments are appreciated and the concem you expressed for your business as well as
others at Village Faire in terms of parking and traffic is understood by staff. Although I
know that staffs response to your concems will not be satisfactory, I wanted to assure
you that staff has taken great care in reviewing the application submitted by the new
ovmer of the property at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard, which requests conversion of the
existing medical office building into a coffee house. Staff has required redesign of the
project several times in order to address the development standards outlined within the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Staff has determined that the project is now
consistent with all applicable standards.
To assist you in understanding the Housing and Redevelopment Director's decision, the
following response is provided to the specific development issues you raised within your
correspondence.
Trash. A trash receptacle is not required for existing buildings. However, you are correct
in that the property owner and/or tenant (Starbucks) will need to make appropriate
arrangements to dispose of trash in a manner which does not have a detrimental impact
on surrounding properties. A special condition will be placed on the permit which will
require the property ovmer and tenant to dispose of business-related trash in an
appropriate manner. Since the property ovmer is ultimately responsible for the trash issue,
your concem has been shared with him. It is my understanding that the property
owner/tenant will work directly with Coast Waste Management to develop a program to
remove trash from the site as frequently as possible, in a manner which is consistent with
other existing businesses which do not have large trash dumpsters on site.
Parking Requirements. A portion of the existing building on the site will actually be
demolished as part of the proposal submitted by the property owner. The building will be
physically reduced in size from its curtent 1400 square feet (approximately) to 1000
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ^
A. Jester
March 31, 1997
Page 2
square feet. As set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and as you stated
in your letter, the parking requirement for coffee houses (and other quick stop food
stores) is 1 space for every 200 square feet offloor space. Therefore, the actual on-site
parking requirement for the proposed coffee house is 5 spaces total. The proposal
submitted for approval includes 4 regular parking spaces and 1 handicap parking space;
this meets the on-site parking requirement. State regulations require the property owner to
provide a handicap space, which is considered a legal parking space for meeting the on-
site parking requirements for the project.
You are correct in your notation that the fifth parking space is "dissected" by the
property line between the subject property and Village Faire property, by approximately 6
inches. The architect simply noted the existing parking situation at the site with the
addition ofthe required handicap space. A condition will be placed on the project which
requires the property owner to restripe the portion of the parking lot owned by the
applicant to ensure that the entire number of required parking spaces are actually on the
property identified for the subject project. The property ovmer has indicated that he will
be able to comply with the condition and continue to provide the required number of
spaces at the required size set forth by the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Since the property ovmer is able to meet the required on-site parking standard for the
proposed project, there is no requirement for the owner to enter into a joint use parking
agreement with Village Faire, or obtain a variance from the City as related to the required
parking. The Redevelopment Agency, however, will place a special condition on the
project which requires that employees of the coffee house use public parking within the
Village Redevelopment Area. The parking on the site must be designated for customers
only.
Village Faire did receive concessions on their parking requirements, which may now be
representing a problem for you and other tenants within the shopping center. This is the
primary reason that the Village Master Plan was revised to no longer allow reductions in
parking standards. As currently written, property owners must meet their parking
requirement or find an altemate permitted solution which results in the creation of
additional parking in the Village - either public or private.
For your information as well, I wanted to share with you that North County Transit
District will begin construction on an expanded parking lot for the Commuter Rail
Station in mid-April. This new parking lot will provide for approximately 180 new public
parking spaces. It is our hope that this parking lot will alleviate some of the problems that
Village Faire is experiencing as a result of a lack of parking for Commuter Rail patrons.
We will try to keep you informed on the progress of the parking lot construction through
articles in the Village Voice.
A. Jester
March 31, 1997
Page 3
Traffic and Land Use. Carlsbad Boulevard is considered by the City's Engineering
Department to be a major thoroughfare for traffic purposes. The Village Circulation
System has been established to accommodate heavy traffic for the variety of land uses
which have been deemed appropriate for Carlsbad Boulevard and the Village Area as a
whole. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed plan and determined that
it has satisfactorily met the various engineering standards for an existing building.
Summarv of Staff Response
Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency staff has reviewed the regulations outiined within the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual and applied them to the proposed project as
appropriate. The property owner has been given no special considerations. The Housing
and Redevelopment Director is granting no variances as part of the administrative
redevelopment permit.
Redevelopment Agency staff does have the best interest of the Village in mind when we
review proposed projects and requests for permits. On every project, we make an effort to
identify all of the possible concems associated with a specific project and then take action
to require property and business owners to address those concems. We, however, must
still be reasonable in our requests and be consistent in our application of the development
requirements for projects. It would not be appropriate to apply different standards to the
Starbucks project, which are not set forth in the Village Master Plan or the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. Ifthe project is approved, staff wiil make an effort to include conditions
which will hopefully address your concerns as related to actual operations.
Thank you again for your comments. If the project is ultimately approved, you will
receive a second notice initiating the appeal period. You may appeal the Director's
decision to the Design Review Board, if you are not satisfied with the responses provided
within this correspondence.
Sincerely,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Senior Management Analyst
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
March 31, 1997
JOHN REED, M.D
320 SANTA FE DRIVE
ENCINITAS, CA. 92024
RE: STARBUCKS COFFEE, ARP 97-01, CITY OF CARLSBAD
Dear Dr. Reed:
Thank you for your letter dated March 27, 1997 regarding the proposal for a new coffee
house to be located at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard within the City of Carlsbad. Your
comments are appreciated and your concem for the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment
Area is commendable. I can assure you that staff has taken great care in reviewing the
application submitted by the new ovmer of the property at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard,
which requests conversion of the existing medical office building into a coffee house.
Staff has required redesign of the project several times in order to address the
development standards outlined within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Staff
has determined that the project is now consistent with those standards.
To assist you in understanding the Housing and Redevelopment Director's decision, the
following response is provided to the specific development issues you raised within your
correspondence.
Land Use. For the purposes of issuing a land use permit, it is sometimes difficult to
separate business operators from the actual land use. However, the Redevelopment
Agency is legally obligated to review the "land use" proposed by the applicant. We are
not permitted to base our land use decision on the entity who owns the business (e.g.
corporate vs. family ovmed). However, we can place reasonable conditions on the project
based on operational issues which present a concem to the Redevelopment Agency. The
"land use" proposed is a coffee house which allows for patrons to purchase coffee "to go"
or to drink at the site. This use is identical to many other coffee houses in the Carlsbad
Village Area. A coffee house is a permitted use for the subject property. Consequently,
the proposed use is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
Trash. A trash receptacle is not required for existing buildings. However, you are correct
in that the property owner and/or tenant (Starbucks) must make appropriate arrangements
to dispose of trash in a manner which does not have a detrimental impact on surrounding
properties. A special condition will be placed on the pennit which will require the
property ovmer and tenant to dispose of business-related trash in an appropriate manner.
Since the property ovmer is ultimately responsible for the trash issue, your concem has
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ^
J. REED
March 31, 1997
Page 2
been shared with him. It is my understanding that the property ovmer/tenant will work
directly with Coast Waste Management to develop a program to remove trash from the
site as frequently as possible, in a manner which is consistent with other existing
businesses which do not have large trash dumpsters on site.
Parking Requirements. A portion of the existing building on the site will actually be
demolished as part of the proposal submitted by the property ovmer. The building will be
physically reduced in size from its current 1400 square feet (approximately) to 1000
square feet. As set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, the parking
requirement for coffee houses (and other quick stop food stores) is 1 space for every 200
square feet of floor space. Therefore, the actual parking requirement for the proposed
coffee house is 5 spaces total. The proposal includes 4 regular parking spaces and 1
handicap parking space; this meets the parking requirement. State regulations require the
property ovmer to provide a handicap space, which is considered a legal parking space for
meeting the on-site parking requirements for the project. Since the property ovmer is able
to meet the required on-site parking standard for the proposed project, there is no
requirement for the ovmer to enter into a joint use parking agreement with Village Faire,
or obtain a variance from the City as related to the required parking. The Redevelopment
Agency, however, will place a special condition on the project which requires that
employees of the coffee house use public parking within the Village Redevelopment
Area. The parking on the site must be designated for customers only.
Signage. Although the property ovmer has shown signage for the Starbucks Coffee
House on the plans for the administrative redevelopment permit, signage will not be
approved as part of the land use permit. The property ovmer or the tenant (Starbucks)
will be required to obtain approval of a separate sign permit from the Redevelopment
Agency/City of Carlsbad before any signs may be placed on the building. The proposed
signs must conform to the requirements of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual
for both type and amount in order to obtain approval from the xA.gency/City. Starbucks
will not be permitted to install an "interior illuminated boxed display sign". Starbucks
may, however, be permitted to have wall signs which provide for individual solid metal
letters, or individual internally illuminated letters made of matte translucent plexiglass
faces and opaque dark metal sides. However, the total amount of signage will be limited
to 1 square foot of signage for each lineal foot of building street frontage.
Traffic and Land Use. Carlsbad Boulevard is considered by the City's Engineering
Department to be a major thoroughfare for traffic purposes. The Village Circulation
System has been established to accommodate heavy traffic for the variety of land uses
which have been deemed appropriate for Carlsbad Boulevard and the Village Area as a
whole. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed plan and determined that
it has satisfactorily met the various engineering standards for an existing building.
J. REED
March 31, 1997
Page 3
Permit Type. Per the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, the proposed project
requires an administrative redevelopment permit. The administrative permit can be
approved, conditionally approved or denied by the Housing and Redevelopment Director,
after a comprehensive review to determine whether or not the project meets current
development standards for existing buildings. The Design Review Board reviews appeals
of the Housing and Redevelopment Director's decision and new constmction projects
only. The appropriate permit type has, in fact, been required for the proposed project.
Summarv of Staff Response
As you have done, Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency staff has reviewed the regulations
outlined within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and applied them to the
proposed project. The property ovmer has been given no special considerations. The
Housing and Redevelopment Director is granting no variances as part of the
administrative redevelopment permit.
Redevelopment Agency staff does have the best interest of the Village in mind when we
review proposed projects and requests for permits. The Village Master Plan and Design
Manual was developed with the assistance of a Citizens Advisory Committee made up of
property and business ovmers, as well as residents of the Village Area. Staff is very proud
of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and what has been accomplished within
the Village since the Redevelopment Agency was formed in 1981. Please be assured that
staff does not take its responsibility lightly as we implement and enforce the regulations
of the Master Plan document. If the project is approved, staff will make an effort to
include conditions which will hopefully address your concems as related to operations.
Thank you again for your comments. If the project is ultimately approved, you will
receive a notice initiating the appeal period. You may appeal the Director's decision to
the Design Review Board, if you are not satisfied with the responses provided within this
correspondence.
Sincerely,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Senior Management Analyst
I Z.:M'5 PM
John Reed M.D.
Board Certified Telephone 760-436-2856/619-605-8673
Anesthesiologist
320 Santa Fe Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
To: Debbie Fountain
Senior Analyst, Housmg and Redevelopment,
City of Carlsbad
Re: Proposed approval of Administrative Permit, Starbuck*$ Coffee ARP 97-01
Date: 3/27/97
Dear Director,
It is imperative that you re-analyze the proposal of Starbucks Coffee. In my
analysis, the proposed change of land use at this highly visible and cmcial comer in the
Village of Carlsbad will create far worse problems than the current aesthetically challenged
stmcture now causes. Other less traffic and trash intensive tenants could easily be found
for such a prime piece of real estate, whom would be more in line with the Village Area
Redevelopment Plan.
Attached is a copy of the specific issues which I beheve you will agree are in direct
conflict with the Village Area Redevelopment Plan. These specific issues alone should be
adequate for you to protect the integrity of our Village by denying this permit.
Additionally, it would appear that the proposal as it stands would require the
granting of a variance and /or the approval of a joint/shared parking agreement. In either
case the proposal would require approval of the Design Review Board. It would appear to
me that the wrong type of permit has been applied for, and that a Minor Redevelopment
Permit request would have been the appropriate route.
A lot of time and taxpayer money has gone into the creation of the Village
Area Redevelopment Plan. The Housing and Redevelopment Agency exists because the
people of Carlsbad are willing to put their tax dollars behind this plan, its implementation
and enforcement. As one of the most rapidly growing cities in the nation it is imperative
that we do not make hasty decisions in the name of bringmg Corporate capitol investment
to the Village. Carlsbad Village is a growing and desirable place to conduct business.
Starbuck's investment will be limited to aesthetic tenant hnprovements done by a
constmction firm from San Bernadino County. There will be NO reinvestment in the
community as all profits will go to the Seattle Corporate Headquarters. The Village area is
currently well served by several family ovmed coffee houses which all go to great lengths
to provide a unique and inviting "end destination". Starbuck's proposal would only provide
a highly visible generic to-go facility, with all its attendant trash and traffic problems, right
on the most visible edge of the Village. This type of business is in direct conflict with the
design and spirit of the Village Area Redevelopment Plan.
Starbucks' main interest in this site is to further name recognition by illimiinating
the Coast Highway v^th their Trademarked green lettered name. As designed, this generic
Starbucks location is primarily for advertising and rapid to-go service with a minimum of a
"relaxing destination" or "unique environment" feel. By allowing this type business in this
cmcial area of the Village, you allow the Village to decline to the level of a generic strip
mall. Please take the time to re-evaluate the impact this proposal will have on the
Community you serve.
John Reed MD
Specific Conflicts of Proposal ARP 97-01 witfi The
Village Redevelopment Area Master Plan and Design
Manual
The Proposed STARBUCKS outlet is a " Quick stop food store" by definition (Page 6-2,
H&R manual).
The proposed business site is situated in Land use District 9, within the Coastal Zone.
The Proposed site fronts on a Major Pedestrian Route (Page 8-2, H&R manual).
As a quick stop food store in Land Use District 9, the proposed use" must be
appropriate to the Village and to the site", and must be" designed to be
compatible with the Village environment"(H&R manual, pg 2-56).
As noted in the manual, the proposed use is automobile oriented necessitating a high
turnover of pari<ing spaces , with little commercial benefit to the rest of the Village (H&R
manual pg 2-56). The parking In the Village Faire is already very pressured, a quick
stop food store at this location would only be to the detriment of the current
businesses of the Village Faire, and their customers. Tiierefore this is an
inappropriate site.
As designed and currently managed, all purchases are packaged in disposable 'TO
GO" containers, creating a trash and litter problem for the entire Village. In the
current design there is no space dedicated for a trash receptacle (Dumpster) and
trash pickup. Full trash bags would have to be stored inside the building and set out on
Carisbad Blvd. for collection. These would be full of smelly wet restaurant refuse,
right on our most prominent public area, a major Pedestrian Route. Ttjis design is
inappropriate for the site and is incompatible with the Viltage environment.
The area of Carisbad Blvd. which this site fronts Is designated as a "Major Pedestrian
Route"(page 8-2, manual). As a quick stop food store, there will be an average of 25
vehicles/hr { SANDAG ) using a single curb cut across a major pedestrian route (H&R
Manual pg 8-2) This is nearly one vehicle every other minute. Pedestrians would be
constantly harassed by the egress of vehicles. Autos waiting to enter the lot while giving
right of way to pedestrians, would block traffic on Carlsbad Blvd, This is inappropriate
to the site and incompatible with the Village environment
Paricing space requirements for the proposed usage is One {l)space/200 gross square
feet ( H&R Manual pg 6-2) Footage to include ALL USABLE AREA,(Carisbad Municipal
code). As designed, the usable area is 1400 sq. feet= 7 legal size spaces required,
only 4 legal spaces are currently proposed. Even taking a minimal assessment of sq.
footage as 1000 sq. ft., the four legal spaces are inadequate per current guidelines.
Therefore this design is inappropriate to the site.
As this proposal is in an area where the "In Lieu Fee Program" is not applicable, the only
option Is a shared space agreement with the Village Faire, the only parking available
within 300 ft(H&R manual, pg 6-5). Any Parking space Lease agreement with Village
Faire Management would mostly probably be challenged in court in a Class Action
Suit on behalf of all current and future tenants, a situation which is incompatible
with a "Village"environment, and would hinder further redevelopment efforts.
As proposed the sole signage would be of the boxed, internally illuminated individual
letter type, a style not specifically disallowed, but certainly discouraged within the
Viltage. Nothing in the proposed signage is of any character remotely suggesting a
Village atmosphere. The thirty (30) individual letters dominate the visible storefront and
side of the building, and as currently designed are far in excess of the allowable, as
determined by the linear footage of the proposed structure which directly fronts on
Carlsbad Blvd. (H&R manual, pg 5-3). Therefore this design is incompatible with the
Village environment.
CITY or CARLSBAO
lli«25 3 w)PH'97
3/24/97
CityofCarlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
2965 Roosevelt Street
Carlsbad CA 92008
Attention: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Dear Ms. Fountain,
I am writing to voice my comments and concems over the proposed conversion of a medical oflEice to a coffee
house (Starijucks APR 97-01) at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard. There are three major concems that I have. One being
traflBc problems on Carlsbad Blvd., another being the storage and removd of trash, and of course the parking.
I believe that with a business the cdiber of Strarbucks on the comer of Carlsbad Boulevard and Grand Avenue,
with only one entrance, serious traflSc problems will occur. With only a West entrance oflF of North bound
Carlsbad Boulevard, all people traveling South bound must make a U-tura at the intersection of Carlsbad
Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Dr.. This intersection is perhaps the busiest in downtown Carl^)ad. As it is now, I
have seen traffic backed up form Carlsbad Village Dr. to Grand Avenue along the coast. Do we really want
gridlock on the Coast Highway coming through the "Village of Carlsbad"? I also believe that the entrance into the
paridng lot can also be very dangerous. As you probably well know, the Village Faire parking lot is fiill most of the
time with numerous cars driving around looking and waiting for a space. If there is even one car waiting for a
space in the proposed parking area it can block the entrance, creating what I think is a very dangerous situation on
Carload Boulevard.
On the plans for the proposed conversion I see no area for trash disposal. A business such as Starbucks, that
uses only to-go wares, will need a specified area for trash. We cannot aflford to have them use our dumpsters at the
Village Faire. We already have had problems with over full trash dumpsters. Myself along with every tenant in the
ViUage Faire pay a large sum of money each month for maintenance in and around the Center. I can foresee
problems arising where our maintenance man may take more time to clean our Center and parking lot because of
the added Starbucks' trash. More time for the maintenance man results in more money paid by the Village Faire
Tenants. Something must be done about the tra^ situation.
Last and by fer not least, the parking problems. I understand that the city must be unbais in inforcing codes,
however, I would like to think that they wiU not let certain things slip by, so to speak. I just ask that the codes be
followed by the book t>ecause of the already existing parking problem at the ViUage Faire. With the Center half
empty, there is already a fiiU parking lot on a regular basis. How can the Center attract new tenants if there is
nowhere for them to park? I understand that "coffee shops" need one (1) parking space for every 200 square feet,
therefore, the proposed will need five (5) spaces (4 standards and 1 handicap). On the plans I noticed that the
property Une actuaUy dissected the fifth parking space, leaving less than one whole parking space; Therefore,
leaving less than what is required by the city. I just ask that the Housing and Redevelopment Department take a
close look at the parking problems.
As I have pointed out there are several problems that may need to be resolved with this proposal. The traffic,
the trash disposal, and the paridng are just a few of the problems that this proposal, if passed, could cause. I tmst
that The City of Carlsbad as well as The Housing and Redevelopment Department will take a closer look at the
problems I have outlined in this letter. Thank you for your time.
ARP 97-01
STARBUCKS COFFEE HOUSE
COMMENTS RECEIVED TO DATE
March 17,1997
The following comments have been made verbally to date regarding the proposed
conversion of property at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard from a medical office to a coffee
house (Starbucks Coffee):
• 2/6/97: Barbara Osbome (720-1221) - owner of Salon 21 at Village Faire (300
Carlsbad Village Drive). Ms. Osbome indicated that many ofher clients currently
complain that they can't find parking at Village Faire. She believes that a Starbucks
will make the problem worse because the customers will park in the Village Faire
parking lot. She stated that the worst time for finding parking is between 11:30am and
3:00pm during the week and after 4pm Thursday through Saturday.
. 2/6/97 (or thereabouts): Adam Jester (720-7890) - 300 Carlsbad Village Drive #211-
ovmer of Vanaka Coffee House. Mr. Jester wanted to protest approval of the
Starbucks Coffee House. Staff indicated that the permit had not yet been approved
and that the project was still under review to determine whether or not it meets the
applicable development standards, such as parking. Mr. Jester stated that Village
Faire already has a parking problem and that Starbucks will make it worse. He
indicated that the City should not approve the proposed project.
• 2/7/97 (or thereabouts): Terri Gardner Reed (436-2856) - 1326 Rainbow Ridge,
Encinitas, Ca. 92024. Ms. Gardner Reed is concemed about the parking for the
Starbucks. She is regular at Vanaka and feels that Starbucks would be detrimental in
terms of parking and taking business away from Vanaka. She said that Vanaka is run
by a successful man and she and her friends enjoy having coffee at the location in
Village Faire. She does not believe that the parking requirement set forth for coffee
houses is appropriate for a Starbucks.
• 2/7/97 (or thereabouts): Ron Schwab (729-4131) - operator of Neimans Restaurant.
Concemed about the parking for Starbucks. There is already a problem at Village
Faire and Neimans. He wants to make sure that no concessions are given to Starbucks
and that they park the use appropriately. The parking requirement for coffee houses
was shared with Mr. Schwab. He did not believe that it was adequate for Starbucks,
but said if they meet the standard the City should approve the use. He indicated that
he thought a Starbucks would be good for the Village. He simply did not think the
proposed location was best. He indicated that he was told by Village Faire that they
owned the property where the parking was at for the Chiropractor. Staff shared that
the information was not correct; 5 to 6 of the spaces are on property ovmed by Mr.
Rasak, not Village Faire. Mr. Schwab said if that is tme then Starbucks should be
approved if this number of spaces meets the parking requirement.
2/19/97: Bill Hartman. Mr, Hartman indicated that he is a 20 year resident of
Carlsbad. He said he saw the article in the paper about the businesses opposing the
new proposed Starbucks. Mr. Hartman said that a Starbucks would be great for the
Village and just wanted to let the City know his opinion. He stated that of the people
he has spoken to about the Starbucks, most like it. Mr. Hartman felt that Starbucks
would bring a lot of class to the area. He also likes that they are open early and he can
get a cup of coffee before 6 am.
'J
'if 3X
Post Ot-nu. BOA V)T}
•
CAl<l.^>bAl>, CAUJ-C'KMA
92006-0262
•
619-4 J4-3522
•
March 7, 1989
Dr. Harold A. Jensen, DC
2924 CarlBbad Boulevard
CarlBbad, California 92008
RE: MUTUAL SHARING OF PARKINS AREA
Deer Dr. Jensen:
As per our conversation of recent date, this letter
is to meiBorialize our understanding of the mutual
sharing of the parking spaces on our adjoining
properties.
As I mentioned to you in our conversation, we have
very much enjoyed the, good working relationship .
that we have always shared with you and fully hope
and expect to have that relationship continue in
the future.
—2
We are now in tlie process of beginning to rebuild
the parking area which covers the northwesterly
corner of our property. These improvements will be
made at our full cost and expense, and we,will
improve the parking area on your property as well;
as ours/ according to the standards and requirements
of the City of Carlsbad,
In the past we have mutually shared these parking
areas and in that, patients could feel free to park
in our parking area and customers of ours could
feel free to park in yours; it is cur intention to
continue with that mutual use once the new parking
area is completed.
Also, ae we discussed, in the past, it was our
understanding that if either party wished to
terminate this mutual use of the parking areas that
either party would have the absolute rights upon
notice to do so. It is our intention to continue
to have that right in the future.
I hope that this letter serves as an accurate
representation of what our understanding is, if i^
does, please sign a copy of this letter enclosed
^
~-^Dr Harold A, Jensen
March 7, 1989
Page Two
for this purpose for our files and you mey retain the originl of
this letter for yours.
Once again, we can't think of anyone we would rather have ao a
neighbor and we are looking forward to a continuation of this
relationship.
Sincerely,
S. W. Densham
SWD:djm
Approved as to form and content.
Date; .3/x/r9
STERLING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
February 19, 1997
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Ms. Debbie Fountain
Senior Management Analyst
City of Carlsbad
Housing and Redevelopment Department
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Administrative Redevelopment Permit Application
Starbucks Coffee House, ARP 97-01
2924 Carlsbad Boulevard
Carlsbad, California
Dear Debbie:
With reference to the above subject, thank you for your correspondence dated February
6, 1997, including a list of additional items that need to be provided to the City of
Carlsbad as well as issues that need to be resolved in order to secure project approval.
With regard to items numbered 1-5 on page 1 of your letter, I have asked Conco
Construction to include all of the requested information on a revised site plan to be
resubmitted to the City later this week. Please note that while we have changed the
signage on our plans which were submitted for the administrative redevelopment permit
to conform with the signage noted on the plans submitted by Starbucks for their tenant
improvements, Starbucks will be processing the sign permit application directly with the
City.
With regard to the outstanding issues set forth on page 2 of your letter, please note my
comments below, which correspond with your numbered headings.
1) Parking - 1:200 Coffee Houses
As recommended in your February 6, 1997 letter, we have revised the site plan
to provide for the required parking standard of 1 space for each 200 square feet
of gross buiiding floor space. Please note that we have now eliminated or
removed the identified outdoor seating area located on the south side of the
building as well as removing one of the building columns designed for the south
elevation. These modifications to the site plan provide for six (6) dedicated on-
site parking spaces. Since the gross building floor space will actually decrease
La Jolla Corporate Center • 3252 Holiday Court, Suite 225 • La Jolla, California 92037 • (619) 546-8841 FAX (619) 546-8807
Regional Offices - Sacramento, California • Portland, Oregon
Ms. Debbie Fountain
City of Carlsbad
February 19, 1997
Page 2
as a result of the redesign to the front door or entryway, we may actually be
"overparked". Also, as I promised you, I have enclosed a copy of the legal
description for the property and the corresponding tax assessors parcel map
#1661 which verifies the size and dimensions of our property. Please note on
the enlarged copy of the Parcel Map that parcels 4 and 5 together are 75 feet of
frontage on Carlsbad Boulevard with 50 feet of depth. I believe these
documents along with our field survey put to rest any debate or discrepancy over
the size of our property and the number of dedicated, on-site parking spaces.
2) Front Doors/Entryway
We agree with Staffs conclusion that the entryway proposed for the south side
of the building creates a pedestrian-vehicle conflict. As such, we have revised
our site plan to provide for a "corner entrance" as drawn and submitted to us by
Staff.
3) Column Design/Storefront
As referenced above and in order to provide one (1) additional parking space on
the property, we have revised the site plan to eliminate the column designed for
the south building elevation. Additionally, we have followed Staffs suggestion
and extended the storefront (window area) and canvas awning another 4 to 5
feet to the east to replace the lost column.
4) Roofline
In order to secure formal approval of our Application for a Facade Improvement
Grant, we have again redesigned our roofline to include an additional theme
tower on the building (proportionately smaller in size). The "second" theme
tower will be located at the southeast corner of the building/roofline and will
match the larger theme tower over the entryway. We trust this design change
will be acceptable to Staff and will facilitate your approval of our much needed
Facade Improvement Grant Application.
5) Reciprocal Parking/Village Faire
Inasmuch as the proposed Starbucks Coffee project self-parks and does not
require a reciprocal parking agreement with Village Faire to meet the parking
standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, approved by
the California Coastal Commission in September 1996, I have asked Conco
Ms. Debbie Fountain
City of Carlsbad
February 19, 1997
Page 3
Construction to eliminate and remove all references on the site plan to any such
reciprocal drive/parking area. Notwithstanding the foregoing and in response to
your request, I have enclosed herewith a conformed copy of the Reciprocal
Parking Agreement dated March 7, 1989 between Dr. Jensen and Village Faire.
Since this agreement is not of record and does not run with the land, I do not
believe this agreement to be in force or effect or binding on either party.
Finally, with respect to the Building Code Reminders set forth on page 3 of your letter, I
have been assured by Conco Construction that these matters will be addressed and
that the project will be in compliance with all applicable Codes.
On behalf of Sterling Development Corporation, thank you, Evan and the City Staff for
your cooperation and assistance. We look fon/vard to receiving project approval shortly
after our amended filing which we anticipate making this Friday. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please call me.
Very truly yours,
JCR/rmI
CC: Richard Cambridge
Conco Construction (w/attachments)
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
February 6, 1997
JEFFREY RASAK CONCO CONSTRUCTION
3252 HOLIDAY COURT P.O. BOX 1582
LA JOLLA, CA. 92037 APPLE VALLEY, CA. 92307
RE: STARBUCKS COFFEE HOUSE, ARP 97-01
Dear Jeff and CONCO Construction:
Thank you for submitting your application for a land use change for your property located at 2924
Carlsbad Boulevard from a doctor's office to a new coffee house (Starbucks). Your administrative
redevelopment permit application was received for processing on January 14, 1997 and has been
deemed complete for further processing as of the date of this correspondence. Although your application
has been deemed complete for further processing, there are some changes/corrections to the plans as well
as some issues which will need to be resolved before the Housing and Redevelopment Director will be
able to provide you with final approval of your application.
As I mentioned previously, your application and plans were forwarded to the Engineering, Planning and
Building Departments for their review. Based on the subject review, the following corrections and/or
changes must be made to the plans you originally submitted for approval (dated 12/10/96). Also, the
issues which need to be addressed are outlined below for your consideration. Issue resolution will most
likely also result in corrections or changes to your plans. Once you have made the appropriate changes
and/or corrections, please resubmit four (4) final copies of your plans to my office for continued
processing and final approval:
Additional Information Required on Plans:
1. Please indicate the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for the proposed project on the site plan. A copy of
the ADT charts used by the City of Carlsbad is attached for your reference.
2. Please include property boundary information (i.e., legal description, property line bearings and
distances, etc) directly on the site plan for the project.
3. On the site plan, please provide a Location Map for the project.
4. The signage on the plans submitted for the administrative redevelopment permit do not match the
signage noted on the plans submitted for the building permit. You must either correct the plans
submitted for the redevelopment permit to reflect the proposed signage as indicated on the building
permit plans. Or, you will be required to submit a separate sign permit at a later date for the building
signage. To obtain approval of the signage as part of the redevelopment permit, you must provide a
separate plan which indicates all of the signage to be incorporated into the project and complete the
attached sign permit application.
5. Please indicate on the site plan that no grading is proposed. Also, please indicate the existing
topography and drainage pattems for the site.
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ®
Starbucks Letter
February 6, 1997
Issues to be Resolved:
1. The project will be required to meet parking standards for a coffee house which amounts to 1 space
for each 200 square feet of gross building floor space. This parking standard is set forth in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual and was approved by the Califomia Coastal Commission in
September, 1996. We will be unable to use an altemate (mixed use) parking standard without
specific approval by the Califomia Coastal Commission; this approval would add substantial time to
the processing ofthe permit with no guarantee of approval. Therefore, it is requested that you revise
the plans for the project to reflect the parking requirement of 1:200 for coffee houses. A review of
your plans indicates that you have the ability to provide for the 6 required parking spaces on the site
with some adjustments to the site plan and building design. To provide the additional parking space,
you will need to remove the identified outdoor seating area located on the south side of the building.
You also will be required to remove one of the columns designed for the south side of the building.
Design issues for the building are discussed in more detail below. For information purposes, staff
would like to share with you that we are beginning to receive telephone calls (from Village Fair
tenants) protesting the project (Starbucks). The opponents indicate that the project does not have
adequate parking. Consequently, it is very important that we comply strictly with the established
parking requirements in order to have a defensible approval of your project.
2. The entryway proposed for the south side of the building creates a pedestrian-vehicle conflict which
staff is unable to support for approval. The doors for the entrance open directly into the path of
vehicles exiting the site. It is not an acceptable situation and needs to be resolved in order for you to
obtain approval of the requested redevelopment permit. Staff has 2 suggestions for resolving this
issue. First, you can redesign and reconstruct the driveway to and from your property to relocate it to
the south by approximately 5 feet. This would allow for adequate sidewalk area on the south side of
the building to accommodate the entrance to the site. To relocate the driveway, you will need to
obtain separate approval of an encroachment permit from the Engmeering Department. Second, you
can redesign the front entrance to eliminate the pedestrian/vehicle conflict. Staff suggests a comer
entrance as indicated on the attached plans. Under this suggestion, you would need only one set of
doors and you might be able to provide some outside seating within the entryway which would be
covered by the building roof/tower feature. Based on a quick review of the plans submitted by
Starbucks for a building permit, it does not appear that a comer entrance would be detrimental to the
coffee house operations. Staff believes that the second suggestion is your best option. However, you
can review the issue further and make an altemate proposal for staffs review.
3. In order to accommodate an additional parking space on your property, you will need to eliminate
the column designed for the south side of the building (as shown on the attached plans). Staff
suggests that you simply extend the storefront (window area) and canvas awning another 4 to 5 feet
to the east to replace the lost column. This will provide for an attractive design of the south side of
the building.
4. Staff continues to have concem regarding the design of the south side of the building, specifically
related to the roofline. We appreciate the significant effort you have made in your proposed design to
improve the appearance of the existing building and are pleased with the storefront window
treatment, the awnings, the decorative columns and the tower feature at the southwest comer of the
building. The only design issue which remains a concern for staff is the continuing "linear look" of
the rear portion of the south elevation of the building. Under the current design proposal, there is
approximately 35 feet of straight roofline on the south side of the building. Staff would like for you
to reconsider this roofline design and add features which would "break up" the design. For example,
you may want to extend, or increase the size of, the existing tower stmcture to consume additional
Starbucks Letter
February 6, 1997
space on the south elevation or add some type of additional roof feature similar to the tower on the
south side elevation. The bottom line is that we are looking for a varying roofline which presents
additional visual interest.
5. The project plans indicate that there is a "reciprocal drive area" and a "reciprocal parking area".
Please submit complete copies of the executed documents which created these reciprocal agreements
between you and the Village Faire property owners.
Building Code Reminders;
1. The stmcture will need to be upgraded to meet current UBC Structural Requirements for the
proposed use.
2. Any roof mounted equipment will need to comply with City Policy 80-6, which is attached for
review.
3. The Public Assembly Use represented by the project may require a second exit at the rear of the store
(if seating/dining area exceeds 750 square feet. The Building Department will need to review tenant
improvement plans concurrent with a shell plan to determine if a second exit at the rear of the store
is, in fact, required.
4. Suggestion: If a roof seating area is being considered for some future date, construction activity
should occur at this time to ensure that the structure can support the future seating area.
A copy of your plans with staffs "red-lined" comments is enclosed with this correspondence for your
review and consideration. As stated above, once you have made the required changes and/or corrections
to the project plans, please resubmit four (4) copies of the revised plans to my office for continued
processing. Once you have submitted your revised plans and staff has deemed them acceptable, we will
be able to proceed with the public review and comment period on your proposed project. Once the public
review and comment period is complete and staff has verified that the appropriate corrections (if any are
required) have been made to the project plans, a final approval can be granted and we can then complete
the process by issuing the final notice to announce the appeal period of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director's decision. As I have mentioned in previous conversations, the total public review and comment
period is approximately 20 days. No action can be taken to approve a building permit until the
redevelopment permit is issued following completion of the comment and appeal periods. Therefore, you
are encouraged to make the required corrections/changes to your project plans and retum them as quickly
as possible so that we may continue the process.
If you have any comments and/or questions or would like to meet regarding this correspondence, please
contact my office at 434-2935.
(Sincecely,
DEBBIE FOUNTABV
Senior Management Analyst
c: Community Development Director
Senior Planner - B. Hunter
Associate Engineer - M. Shirey
Principle Building Inspector - P. Kelly
MEMORANDUM
January 23, 1997
TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST - DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
FROM: Associate Engineer - Michael J. Shirey
ARP 97-01: STARBUCKS
COMPLETENESS REVIEW AND INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT
Engineering Department staff have completed a review of the above-referenced project for
application completeness and have determined that the application and plans submitted for the
project are complete and suitable for continued review. Prior to staff making a
determination on the project, the following engineering issues of concern must be adequately
resolved/addressed:
ENGINEERING ISSUES OF CONCERN
Traffic and Circulation:
1. The site plan indicates that there is a reciprocal drive aisle and parking area for
this proposed project. However, a sign is currently located within this parking
area which indicates that the parking area is privately owned and parking is
solely for Village Faire customers. (The sign states: Village Faire Customer
Parking Only-Tow Away Zone-4 Hour Limit.) Do actual reciprocal access and
parking agreements exist for this parking area, between the owners of Village
Faire and this parcel? The applicant must provide documentation that reciprocal
access and parking agreements do exist. If they do not exist, there will not be
adequate parking for this land use on this parcel and staff will not be able to
support the project. Please be advised, this is a maior staff issue of concern.
2. Please indicate the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for the proposed project on the
site plan.
Land TitieMappinp:
1. Property boundary information (i.e., legal description, property line bearings and
distances, etc.) must be placed on the site plan.
2. Please indicate a Location Map for the project on the site plan.
ARP 97-01: STARBUCKS PAGE: 2
COMPLETENESS REVIEW AND INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT
D. FOUNTAIN MEMO; JANUARY 23,1997
Grading and Drainaae:
1. Please indicate on the site plan that no grading is being proposed.
2. Please indicate on the site plan the existing topography and drainage patterns
for the site.
If you or the applicant have any questions, please either see or call me at extension 4388.
MICHAEL J. SHIRI
Associate Engineer - Laifd Use Review