HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-08-03; City Council; 12344; Saint Francis CourtCIT\-3F CARLSBAD - AGENC:e BILL +3 @
‘LB “e TITLE:
MTG. ST. FRANCIS COURT - CUP 90-15
DEPT. PLN
fn I I I u ci RECOMMENDED ACTION:
3
If the Council concurs, both the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City
Council ADOPT Resolution No. 93-126 , APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the
Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution No. 93-&73 , APPROVING CUP 90-I 5.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On April 21, 1993 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended
approval (4-3 vote) of the above referenced conditional use permit application for a 76 unit
senior citizen housing project in compliance with Section 21 .I 8.045 of the Zoning Ordinance.
This project is also proposing to provide a percentage of the total units as affordable to the low
income range. The project’s location is a two lot in-fill site on the north side of Laguna Drive at
the northern terminus of Madison Street in the northwest quadrant. The site’s zoning is R-3,
which extends east and west along most of the adjacent Laguna Drive frontage. Multi-family
residential units exist east of the site and extend further north and east along Kremeyer Circle
and Laguna Drive. Directly north of the site is R-l zoning with the existing single family
residences of Buena Vista Circle. South of the site is the mixed use northern edge of the City’s
Village Redevelopment Zone.
The project is fully described in the attached staff report. The affordable percentage of the total
76 units will be 81% (61 units). No City financial assistance is being requested by the applicant
in order to provide these affordable units, however, the City’s incentive is in the form of allowing
the proposed 64 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) density on the subject site. Section 21 .I 8.045
allows senior citizen housing with a density of up to 75 du/ac subject to certain conditions and
findings. One of these is the provision for the City to take a financial equity position in the
project at the developer’s expense so that the project could be converted into 14 units if it fails
to comply with conditions of approval or function adequately in some manner. Fourteen units
would be allowed on the site if a non-senior citizen project were proposed. In addition to
compliance with the applicable code requirements, the applicant will process an Affordable
Housing Agreement through the Housing Commission and City Council prior to the issuance
of any grading or building permits to guarantee and finalize the affordable housing details.
The main issues raised at the Planning Commission centered around compatibility with the single
family zoning/existing residences to the north, the overall density of the proposed project, and
the need for affordable senior housing. As shown on the project’s exhibits and discussed in the
staff report, consideration was given in the project’s design to be sensitive to the single family
area to the north of the site. The allowed density is an issue related to the senior citizen
aspect of the project as currently allowed by City code. The project would take approximately
62 units out of the northwest quadrant’s excess unit bank consistent with the top two priorities
for use of excess units (affordable housing and senior units) per City Council Policy No. 43.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. &?; 3 ‘/Y
Since this project is a Conditional Use Permit, it will undergo the standard annual review to
ensure compliance with all conditions of approval and affordable housing requirements. This
allows flexibility in dealing with the project to ensure its compatibility with adjacent properties and
adequacy of onsite functions and operations. The proposed project complies with Section
21 .I 8.045 and all other applicable development standards and in some cases exceeds them.
The City’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), which is based on the needs outlined within the Housing Element, estimates that 966 Carlsbad seniors are lower-income (less
than 80% of county median) and in need of affordable housing. The proposed project will serve
a portion of the identified need in a location that is well suited for senior living because of its
proximity to services (e.g, Senior Center, shopping, medical offices, etc.). The affordable
housing units can be applied toward the City’s low income affordable housing goals as
expressed in the Housing Element. Both staff and the Planning Commission are recommending
approval of CUP 90-15.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On April 21, 1993 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Negative Declaration
issued by the Planning Director on May 9, 1991. The project is also in the Coastal Zone and
has been conditioned to obtain approval from the California Coastal Commission prior to the
issuance of any grading or building permits.
FISCAL IMPACTS
There will be no fiscal impacts to the City from the approval of this project.
EXHIBITS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
City Council Resolution Nos. 93- iA%d & 4 3 - aa?
Location Map
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3266 & 3267
Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 21, 1993
Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes dated April 21, 1993
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
EXHIBIT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 93-226
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SENIOR CITIZEN PROJECT * CONSISTING OF 76 UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAGUNA DRIVE AT THE TERMINUS OF MADISON STREET. CASE NAME: ST. FRANCIS COURT CASE NO: CUP 90-15
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal
Code, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th day of July, 1991,
and on the 21st day of April, 1993, hold duly noticed public
hearings as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearings, 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 Planning Commission
considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration: and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings of Planning CommissionResolution
No. 3266, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference constitute the findings of the City Council in this
matter and that the Negative Declaration is hereby approved.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the ..- 3rd day of AUGUST , 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin, Nygaard, Finnila
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk\
(SEAL)
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. 93-227
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL US-E PERMIT TO DEVELOP A SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROJECT CONSISTING OF 76 UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAGUNA DRIVE AT THE TERMINUS OF MADISON STREET. CASE.NAME: ST. FRANCIS COURT CASE NO: CUP 90-15
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City
of Carlsbad for a Conditional Use Permit, and;
WHEREAS, the Conditional Use Permit is for the development
of a senior citizen housing project consisting of 76 dwelling
units: and;
WHEREAS, the project site is on a two lot in-fill site on the
north side of Laguna Drive at the northern terminus of Madison
Street in the R-3 Zone within Local Facilities Management Zone 1,
and further described as:
Parcel A 'and B of'that portion of Lot 1, Township 12 South, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, 'State of California.
WHEREAS, at a public hearing, all public testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City
Council did consider all factors relating to CUP 90-15.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are correct.
2. That based on the evidence presented at the public
hearing, the City Council APPROVES Conditional Use Permit 90-15,
based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
. . .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Findinas:
1. That those findings adopted by the Planning Commission in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3267 are applicable and are
incorporated herein by reference.
Conditions:
1. All conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No.3267
are applicable and are incorporated herein by reference, with the
following modifications and additions to Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3267:
a) Condition No. 9 to be amended to read as follows:
“9. This conditional use permit is granted for a period of ten years. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director, or Planning Commission on the recommendation of the Planning Director, on .a yearly basis to determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not have a significant detrimental impact on surrounding properties or. the public health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that the use has such significant adverse impacts, the Planning Director shall recommend that the Planning Commission, after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional conditions to mitigate the significant adverse impacts. This permit may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has a significant detrimental affect on surrounding land uses and the public's health and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met. This permit may be extended for a reasonable period of time not to exceed ten years upon written application of the permittee made no less than 90 days prior to the expiration date. In granting such extension, the Planning Commission shall find that no substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the public's health and welfare will result because of the continuation of the permitted use. If a substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the public's health and welfare is found, the extension shall be considered as an original application for a conditional use permit. There is no limit to the number of extensions the Planning Commission may grant."
b) Condition No. 28(c) to be amended to read as follows:
"28(c) The rental lease shall be reviewed by the Planning Director and City Attorney prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, and annually thereafter as part of the project's annual review."
.
c
;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
cl Condition No. 30 to be amended to read as follows:
uIf, at any time, the City Council determines that the project is being operated in violation of this approval or any conditions thereof, the City Council may require the applicant to convert the project to a development which meets all standards of the' underlying R-3 zone per the recorded conversion plan shown on Exhibit "G", dated April 21, 1993 and July 17, 1991, or such other conversion as deemed appropriate to correct the violation(s) including the addition of on-site parking."
d) Add two new conditions to read as follows:
2. ItPrior to the issuance of any building permits, the sun deck located on the northern edge of the second story structure, shall have its fencing setback a minimum of 5 feet from the northern edge and enhanced with landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Directortll and
3. "The landscape plan as required by condition no. 14 of this resolution, shall be modified to enhance the screening of the northern building edges adjacent to the single family residences to the north. All screening plants shall be a minimum of 24 inch box and the landscape concept will utilize landscaping with uniform spreading to maximize screening effects."
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, the 3rd day of
AUGUST , 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
1 I AYES: Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin, Nygaard, Finnila
1 NOES: None
ABSENT: None
I ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
ALETBA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City C*rk
, (SEAL) v
3
EXHIBIT 2
LAGUNA
city of garlsbad
ST. FRANCIS COURT CUP 90-15
- EXtilBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3266
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CAI !FORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A SENIOR CITIZEN USE CONSISTtNG
OF A THREE STORY BUILDING WITH 76 UNITS ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF LAGUNA DRIVE AT THE TERMINUS OF
MADISON STREET.
CASE NAME: ST. FRANCIS COURT
CASE NO: CUP 90-15
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of July, 1991, and
9’1 ; j on the 21st day of April, 1993 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law
10 to consider said request, and
11
II WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
12 I
13 I testimony and arguments, examinin g the initial study, analyzing the information
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
ii submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according
to Exhibit “ND”, dated May 9, 1991, and “PII”, dated April 25, 1991, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinns:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may
have a significant impact on the enviromnent since the project site is an in-fill
location surrounded by existing single hmily and multi-family residential uses.
2. The site has been previously graded and contains no sensitive animal or plant
SptXkS.
2 ”
3 ,l
4 ,I
611
7’
iI 8 !i
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle the anticipated 304 ADTs generated by
the proposed project.
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly
impacted by this project. The project has been designed and conditioned to
eliminate any run4f drainage impacts to Buena Vita Lagoon.
5. A noise study was conducted pursuant to the Citfs Noise ‘Policy which concluded
that there will be no noise impacts from Interstate 5 to the project requiring noise
IllitigatiOXL
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of April, 1993, by
‘i
ii 1 !I
/i !
1
II
j! !I
II
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm &
Savary.
NOES: Commissioners: Hall, Erwin & Welshons.
r
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
& BAILEY NOtiE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 3266 -2-
City
NECA-RVE DECtJ.fUTlON
;z,n ‘ztr- . . 4,-L. .CDXESS; LOC.\T:OS: .J I 23 acre sire sn :he 3x5 s;te ci ::~.;:a 37:. *
Z;TCSiZe :ke :emnus gf kfadiscn Street at 670 Laguna Dive. A?%: 155-223.0a ‘1;
?TO,Zc: DESCFUP-ZON: The Trclposed project is for affordable seriot citizen hc*:s:;-;
:;r.s;sxg 3i a 3 sron; sxucxe WI L,;! 34 coral ur~rs (30 studio units, 48 one bedrooF -‘-I . . . -.-.> * 2nd b :.:r’o 'SediDOm urirsj &aced ;R :he R-3 Zme WI@ Local Fac:ljrles Alanage.~ez:.
Zone 1.
The Cip of Carisbad has conducted an environmental review of rhe above described projec:
;ursuant co rhe Guidelines for !mpiemenration of the California Entironmexal Quality AC: and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carisbad. & a result ofcsaid
:e\iew, a Negative Declaration (decfaracion that the project will not have a sigzifican:
:mpact on rhe environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification fzr :.k:s
actron is on file in the Planning Depafiment.
.A copy of the Negarive Declaration wirh supportive documents is on file in rhe Planning
3epartment, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from rhe
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Depanmenr wirhm
30 days of date of issuance. tf you have any questions, please calI Eric Munot in rhe
Planning Deparrmcnt at 438-l 161, extension 4441.
DATED: MAY 9,1991
CASE NO: Qup 90-15 Planning Director
PUBLISH DATE: MAY 9,1991
ENM:ih
207s Cu Palmu Orivo * Cartabrd. Calitofnca @200@-4680 l (el@) l 3&l ’ 6r
- . HCTIC~ ot COCIPLRTION L, ‘Z’ s:ac* : l or.-qeOWt. ‘-CC :T SC-WC. Pm. ‘2’. jtc--CJ. IA -8’. .-5. ;a’3
9rojcct ‘It!*: T+;p po- 13 - $1 reAYC: s :ljn*
.?fC A;c-c. ::-. “‘ .:rcac: Je-SW: :a:: 'Lllcz
-“a$' rjOree,j 5 :T3 :-ye: :*J) -3a.**5' I ._-*
* :ra-jaA; ' -. ;:I;9 . . . :xEr*: i4l :'E;;
. . . . . . . . . .._ ._.. JPCLEZ - :YlILI:
::.rr. IA" : :;< : :V h*a-9: :zmmr*:~: :AQ.SBAO
._.. -1, i:~~C-j. .r;,sr :a’ ,E WAC: jCU S’aEE’ -a. ..a& 4;-c5: t3
lj:tji:’ j :a’IC! "0. '?5~223-:6/:9 stc:, 24-z ‘Q. aaqt: -- 33>? . . . - . _ *' t5: s!a:c *w-v 8: : -5 .tct-rtr5: J1 :c:: x AU 4YO a&cur, /'$'A sA;xu
A: rg)r:s: ?I! .u&rl: Scnwlr:
___.__.__...._................... . ..~..............~........................~~.........~~..~.~..~~.~.~~_____.~~~
-MT 'YR
CEU: -_ rtw SaeLrmnr/S&stQA*r am: UOI
- EA
OTWR : - .o'-! :xn-! cap v tws
r ytp 3ec
- EL9 (Prlot SCd No.;
- Oraft EIS
- 6 -t1 ::cme-r - :tntr - otntr
-a -a+: E:S z COUSI . .._.._._.____..__.._..___.__......................-.........~~~~~~.~~~......-............~................._.._.....__.__.
Loeu ACTIQ TY4
;W*tl 0!8n JWtt -. SowlflC ottn .t-e’el DL tn -. -t = wsrtr *ttn AwlerlQI
- atwrttogrrcr
- itwat Pitn Eisflmm 0ttm-d unrt 5wekwnnr
- Site Ptan
- use hrmlt - cowrat Ptrr-r .mrmlrv pttn - Lad Oivtslon (Stiivirlon, l* L C’JWL .-St :t-
*we*1 *a, Trsct nao, tee.1 . . . ..-..........-........~...........................-..-.....-...........-...-..............................................
OMl.@WUl TTR
I ?tr~denr~tt: Ml ts Y - ;ff Acres '.23 U8tw Fuilitirs: Tyw '2:
'CR:
z ylmwc~st:
sa. Fr. AC?S¶ Emlovm - Truwmrt8tlm:
- Ninrng:
rroI
sq. ct. 4crts Emt ovm
-. astr*ek : s4. ct. Acres E-t ovm - Quec:
*i vrst
- dmto Trrrtrrnt:
rvw dt:i
- Edbfrr~aut
- *rtrrdora watt:
TV-De
atcroat*cmi
= otlwr: ryIT
..-..............................................................................................................-............. maLET 1-s ot- IN rmllR
4osth*trC/viWl
Agr 7cuL turd Lrd
Atr Oulity
4rch~lqicrt/~lstof?e8~
:oartr1 zw
2r8lfW9@/4&0~fQI
CcamlC/J-
fISCI(
PtOOd Pi8ifl/~tOd~
=Porac LmvCire mt*rd
- kk-\8miVWSitir - YItIr OulIty
sepctc Jntm
- Gal~lc/kiuic XSwerCIOwitv
- U8t8f tLoOlY/ trouw Yltw
- WcmrIi8 Soil grafa/Cagwtim/Crdf~ - UOt\8M/lliprfirn
- Solid unte
x ~etlonllcarir* ktnce = toaie/iw~
- uildlifr
- NIIc Swvicos/l8c~l~t~n tr8ttic/C~rcul8tion
= ve@etrctan I
Grouch lrrbC~-
L-e
- @erYt fWP8ftS - CIUlltive E"tcr
- otnw
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..r...-.......~.............................................................-.-----..---.------ m......... ._....
Preamt Lmd - ?tm Um
‘HE PeOJtCT SIT@ mfm 0 m b#% QI IS VACW, Twt OWR HAS A SIIUU WLT RMmMx. TIN EXlSm zO)M (e-b ":
SEMERAL PLW OIslGlwr~ (ml) UI Q)flm Ta mua Ill PLACI.
-.....................................................................................-....--.--------.--~-------------~---~--~~
Projrt Dwrl*larr
MC oemsao m~)tc~ IS pa AP~QDUIE sma c~ttzsn tmuw camstm 01 r.3 stav STWCTUS YITN Y TOTAL WITS (u) STwlO u!‘s.
68 OUl SEDRQIl WITS UID 6 TW MDIQ31 UITS) LX~TID II TM R-S,ZQI utllll LOUL lhClLfTtlS -NT ZQI 1.
mL: Clrari*aru riLL uri* ibntlfiertion mr for 8ll tuu pP*jrtr. [f , #II w 8lf.w .SiSfS for 8 woi=t cc.;.
frql 8 uot.ico of Pr*rrtim or prr*lou draft -cl ploma tilt it in. R~++crso Octoaer 'J!:
E.mOl .,-ti IMPAm ~s~s~ FL,& _ PmT U
:TO 3E COhIPLETE3 3Y T:+-:E ?‘,\UNISG ;E?.+,RTJ~E?;:;
C.ASE NO. CLP 9r?-:S
il.ATE. APRIL 23. :GQ: _, - 1: . 2 ,I .-' \ 3
, -,-- \ a,,- -- -.+.:c .*.--.., d . . I?%~sc:s r_ZL?.T
7 M. J,??L:C.LVT: ?lI.xRY STEICER
3 .w~ESS .k\D ?HONE NL'?,IBEi? OF ?ZPL;C.kyT: 16191 ‘3’-:-lciS
3138 S*KKISE 3?5.'
OCEANSIDE.C.\ 92056
3 3.4x EIA FORM PART ! SUB~IITTED: NOt2MBER 5. 1990
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THE PROPOSED PROSEm tS FOR AFFORD.+.BLE SENIOR C:T::z’
HOUSlNG CONSISTING OF A 3 STORY STRUCTURE WITH 84 TOT.< UNITS. (30
L’NITS 48 ONE BEDROOM UNITS A!VD 6 TN0 BEDROOM UNITS) LO C\TED ON A 1 ,:;‘;‘t; StTE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAGUNA DRIVE OPPOSITE THE TEkIINUS OF !0&l~. ST 3 ZONE tN L0C.u F.KILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE ! riT 5-O L’.C-‘. REE T IN THE R-
DOZ. .IPN: 155-223-08. 09
E?.\TRONMENTAL IMPACTS
ST.ATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter ‘3, Panicle 5, section 15063 requires that the Ciry conduct 3::
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environrner.:
The Environmental Impact Assessment appean in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checWisr
3 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project ar.:
provides the Ciry with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Envirorunem.
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
f h Negative Dcclrntioa my be prepared if the Ciry perceives no substantial evidence that the projecr zr
any of its aspccawcn~ a dgnikant effect on the environment. On the checklist, “NO” will be check;
to indicate this -L&n.
* An EIR must be prcpucd if the City detexmines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the
project may cause a m effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negarlve
Declaration however, if advcrrc impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed
Ntnruficant These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings ‘YES-s&” and 'YES-big i” ,
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fom undo: D~=Jss~oN OF EWRONWti FWL!M-W . pytitg&,r antnfion should be given co discussir.<
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
.
PHYSICAL ENWRONMENT
.*‘-. . .I .-- T,E ?3opoSU DRECTLY OR :XSDI.GCTL’r’.
tC..“ ,m I: --I. .., vz,-s:abie emh conditions xr .?.C:?lSe :.-.e *u~rc’irP 1; Terspie 2r ;r-,;err;- . -
.:.;;:ec:a5ly change :he :cpogra;hy zr 3~.v -rx.ze ;h;.5icai Featxes?
3. 3esLr :n 3r be affec:ed by eroslon of solis 2, .‘- er 23 3r 2ff :he sire? _.... I
1 Aesul: in changes in the deposition oi jeach
sards, or ,r.odiFicatior, of the channel of a r.;‘er or stream or the bed oi the ocean or ar,y Say, inlet or lake?
5. Xesult in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality?
6. Result in subsrantial changes in air novemenr, odor, moisture, or temperature?
Subsrantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
8. Affect the quantity or quaky of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any narurai resources?
‘.O. L’se substan 8umunts of fuel or energy?
11. Alter a sim dxohgil,
paleonrologid Q lhaskal site,
smcrure or object?
tTT j .L
.-. s 3
‘r’ 4
1 A
1 I
Y -
Y A
Y -
x
Y
BIOLOGICAL fZNVTRONME& L
., .I. .I .__ T:+E PROPOSAL DtREcTzY OR IND[,XECLY:
. .-
7 .3
* . .-.
25.
i6.
1 .‘.-a ,- c . ;, W.--L . . . e k:eniry of species; habitat 3: :z:mSers :i ar.y rpec:es of plants r;nci-~dir.g *-*a< I. _-_. j+,-.:bj. CZSS. ?::r;:!ora and qzat:c
+?.:s : ?
.2:ro,Cuce new species of plants into an area, 3: a 5amer to the ncmai rePierushmer.r of t.u;s::ng species?
;ieduce [he amount of acreage of any a@c-Aural crop or affect prime, unique
Jr other fadand of stare or local
kqonance?
Affect rhe diversicy of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, ail water dwelling organisms
and insects?
Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or iesult in a barrier ro the
migrarion or movement of animals?
HUMAN ENVTFtONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DUECTLY OR INDHWZI=LY:
17. itlttcr the pm o( pkned W use
of an area?
18. SubstantiaUy ti public utilities,
schools, police, &e, cnwrlcmey or other public services?
YE5 \-- ‘b \ - .- * > >‘3; -sm3;
YES (WI
. 1 A
. . i
Y L
x
X
X
. -
HUMAN ENVKR0NMEN-I. - .( . . -..r 1. .e- . ;7: PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR iND[RECT’,‘:
. i
. --
. . me
. , --
‘3.
24.
23.
26.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
>-es. r -.. :n rhe need for new or modified seuer ;:A:??.s. jclid WUJ~C oc hazardous has:e :I ::rhi 5;~srem?
“‘a7je exj:.y< T.z;jC . ..-. _- le\,eis? 1
-J--i..- . . 2,,Le zew Light or giare?
‘-*:-,ive a significant tisk of an explosmn ..I
zr :?.e :eiease of hazardous subsrances
:r,cizding, but not limited to, 011.
;esrlc:des, cherrucals or radiacionj?
S~bs~antiaily alter the dens@ of the
5xxan popularion of an area?
Qfect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
Cenerare subsrantial additional traffk?
Affect exisring parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking?
Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Increase traffic hazards to motor
vchiclcs, bicyclists or pekstkns?
Interfere wi& v response plans or emergency -pluup
Obstruct any SO& vtu ot create an aesthetically offakve public view?
Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
-
ES ‘VT j , -
S&El '-Tg, * _
4-
MANDATORY FIMXNGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
‘It’iLL WE ?ROPOS& DRECTLY OR [h’DIFLEC~‘(: YES ‘<T - 3 \ h .* * A i,g; -rmz
35.
36
Z,:es Y7.e project have the Torenrial
-- 5.:bs:ar.r;aLly degrade the quaiip .-
1:’ :ne en..:xrz enr. sclx:ar.::aily -=,4 ..,e p .L .&-ML. ..L e r.z:::3: :f 3 :‘.j,l or .n-,ld-
..fe sFec:es, zause a :‘.sh or klclidilfe
;cF,;ar:cn ro drop below self-susra1rJr.g
:eL.eis. rhreaten to eliminate a plant or
AF;rnal conun~tiy~. reduce the number ;r
:esrnc. v :he range of a rare or en-
Lar.gered plant or animal. or eliminate
qzorranr examples of the mayor penods
;i Califorka history or prehlsrory.
Does the Froject have rhe potential
:o achieve short-term. CO the dis-
advanrage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-rerm 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.)
Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively con-
siderable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of m future projects.)
Does the p- ti cnviroruncntal effects which ti m tibmdal advene effcctr OIL )karun beings, either directly or indktly? X
.
DISCUSSION OF EBVRONMENI-AL NALUAllON
-:. e . ..- ;ec:,Sc site is a level irZ!l :zt azz! a ~x~.??crn ar.ou:r,r 2f 3radir.g :s ;:zpose’
--er::Y<ally there will be 500 c*zbic yards si :‘;I: w,rh 600 c’lbic *;ards cf r;,,ll :-?o~:~~~ .- :.:o :,::I ., 3:“s 7.e ;rc!e w3’ - c: :~::iI 5e czr,di:icned ~3 ;rscess a -cadir.g ;le:L: s,I 2:: 5. -...T 2.:: -Ir,g-,:.?rr..7g j:ar.Lar;s ,.*+::1 ‘:e :zrr.;;:ei ;t,::;? :2 :zs;;:e :.-.a: :>.ere A,::: ke y-3
tYTrj.i:e :F people zr ;rTTerrt :z ~K:C~C hazards rJr :,“.e ::tar:cn or’ ,:r.s:J’::e PIG’- ..-. .,. ~~?.~~::crLs by rhe Si:e TreTaraI:c:: re<,2iei for ti;s projec:.
7
-. T!-.e si:e :s level ar.d rhe proposed Trojec: will ;~ot appreciably :?.ar.ge :+.e _.._ 1: F”= :z;cgraphy. There are no utique ;hys:cal features on the sire.
3. Since the projecr will be condirioned ro comply with the conditions oi a grading ?e&T;r
There ~111 be no erosion of soils either onto or off the site.
t The project till nor result in any changes in the deposition of beach sands or any
tmpac:s to rhe bed of the ocean or any bay, inier or lake. I!nce the project is subjec! :o a grading pennir all dramage ~11 meet Ciry standards so there will be no impacrs ro
Suena Vista Lagoon in the form of offsire drainage.
3 6. The proposed senior citizens use till nor have any impact to the ambient air quality, not
will rhere be any substantial changes in the local air movement, odor, moisture cr
:emperature. All the buildings on the site are connected by covered walkways 5:~
burlding separarion ranges from 8 to 1.2 feet to allow adequate air movements.
No watercounes will be impacted by the proposed project. Bucna Vista Lagoon will not
be impacted by the project as far as any alteration in its orientation or its ability to
maintain its basin.
8. The proposed project will not affect the quantity or quality of surface water, groundwater, or public water supply. The project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and is under the jurisdiction of the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District. Depu&ng on Citywide water availability, there wU be water supply facilities and reso- to M thir project in compliance with the Local Facilities Management Plan for m 1. Groundwater resources wil! not be adversely impacted by this project.
9,lO. The pe w will not create the need for substantial increase in the use of any naturai mo4mes. There will be a short texm impact on fuel and energy during the
consullction phase of the project, however the use itself (senior citizens housing) will not create the need for substantial amounts of fuel and energy to be used.
.
m PHYSICAL ENVIRONMEKT (Con?.)
1 . . _ 3.e sire consists of Two Iots. one b::h a j;EgIe FaFJiy residexe. and one vacan:: .r::;: .): j”-;lAnded by eisring deve1opmer.r. -. . T:lere are no archeoiogkai. &:okcai 3r :~i:,r2: :fs,:-r:ps locard anywhere on :!ie ;rc,;ec: s1:e. so [here Utll be no l.mpacc :o :‘.i:U:3. :~sc.~:tes. There is a posstbiiir; sf fcss;i jea,ng sotis on !?.e sire so y5.e ;rz;ec: rr,ay 3c ----.r,-“ed -4..u*..-.. _ :3 intes::za:e [he exs:er.ce .3f any paieomclc~cai resc’i’-~s .-- .
P,Ir)LOGIC.%L E,NWROPu’MENT:
. 7
_a
13.
15 16.
The project ~11 not affect the di\,ersiyy* of piant species on the site. The 7rz.e:: area ,s :*xentiy vacant and rhe slngie rarxiy house rhat is e.ustir,g has some asscc:a:?j
:azc!scaplng. There are no sensl::ve or endangered plant species on :i-.e si:e a~ :.-.t:? A-J be :o impact to any ?ianc species or diversity within The area.
The project will zot represent a banier to the normal replenishment of exisring ;lar.:
species. however, there are severai exisrmg mature palm trees locared on rhe sire, sever&
af *which are being proposed for reiocatlon throughout the site as shown on the grojecr’s
landscape plan. The project ~111 also ncroduce new species of plants to the Froject area in the form of landscaping as weil as fruit trees for active garden invoivement for the
sekon.
The project site does not contain any acreage currently in use for agriculture and the site,
does nor have any land designared as significantly important for agriculture purposes by
state or local standards.
The diver+ of animal species or the quality of animal habitats in the area is not an
issue because this is an inlill lot within an area that is currently developed. There are
no significant animal species on the site. The project wiU not introduce any new species
of animals into the area. Since this is an till lot, the projecr will not represent a barrier
co the migration of animals.
17. The project will not alter the present or planned land use of the area. The current zoning dw is R-3, & the current Generai Plan Designation is Residential Medium m so ruidendal use is allowed on the project site. Through the Conditiod Ur pamit process, a senior citizen project with the proposed density is
allowd w thrc e ordinance. The project will be consistent with the land use designatim of the rite.
18; :9. Thi! project is within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and can comply with all of the
performance standards of th;rt zone, so there will be no impacts to the quality or availability of public ~cilicies or public senhs. Existing sewer systems will be able to service this project. This project will not create a need for new soiid waste or hazardous waste control systems.
.
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT (Con’t.l
. .
-.
71
SM.
23.
24.
25.
26.
-‘-a Froposed senior citizen use ulil r.cr pre . .._ -.-are a siFScar.r :nc:ease :n eesri7.g ‘;:se .J’.‘?. j. The project is however, subjec: :O the Clr)l’s noise ?oiicy, since l[ ;s ;l;sr VA1:+Ly. L.‘JGG !eer of the l-5 leeway, and therefore subject :o the noise policy, T>,e a?p;ica-:
?.2S 5’ ,‘--..-prl a mn, YL..d..bd ,.,&se jr,dy, per Ihe ren ,u;lremenrs of the noise poiicy and <o,*,c:*AdeA -L - Y . . . . :T.cl ;rZictZY ,Z?S T.3: .eed any ?L::gaLicn ,r,easures :o bnng :$.e 2r,z;ec: Lr,13 ----;:a-!+, ‘:.:::. z-,:se srar.iarAs. --.“r . .._
7Y.e proposed project WLU not produce new any new iighr or g!are crher :,?an E--J -‘d..._ l:~%r:~.:g 3n rhe /su:side ?enme:er of :he strucrure on the west side, adjacent 12 :T.t
zaric;ng area ro iight up that area.
.?cm hs c: The project tiil be conditioned to exure [+,a: ::z+.:.r.s IS nor rerlecred to adjacent properties.
The proposed use does not represent any significant risk of explosion or the release ST
hazardous materials or substances. The proposed seniors’ use is a resident:ai det.e!opmenr and is consisrenr and compatible with adjacent, existing development in the
area.
The project does alter the density of his area because it is being processed as a senior
cir:zen uses, under rhe zoning ordinance which does allow an increase in density of up
co 75 dwelling units per acre, per the processing of a Conditional tise Petit. The
increased density, however, is not considered to be a significant impact, since the
proposed use meets ail development standards; is for a site that is allowed to supper: II
and all the k~dings required to grant a Conditional Use Permit for this use can be made.
The projects density is 71 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed project will not adversely impact existing housing or create a demand for
addirional housing. The project will, instead, be supplying housing units ro the City,
specifically, the project will add 84 senior citizen units, most of which will contribute to the Ciry’s stock of affordable housing units.
The project will not generate substantial additional trafk. One of the ailowances for a senior citizen project per the zoning code is a reduction of required parking to one space for every WQ u&a. This use actually allows a reduced parking rquirement because of the nature d& users wh, do not ail drive or generate vehicle t&k. Based on the trip
generatim m d tbir use, with 84 units, the project will generate 336 ADT and require
42 pddq crrrr. If this project were converted to its underiying allowable density, it
would hrtn 14 rprmnau units generating 84 AJX and require 32 parking spaces. Either use is not a signScant impact on traffic generation or required parking.
The proposed project does not affect any existing puidng fa&ks. The use will reWire
the need for a parking lot in order to provide the required parking, however, there wld be no large demand for new parking.
-a-
. *
!-K3W4 ENVTRO~ Kon’t.1
‘3
- 30.
32.
32.
;,--1 .‘k. -...._ ..A project is located on an etisr1r.g tiI1 lot. rhere till be no Impacts to eksr;c2 rrars~crrarion systems, and there
::r:zIar: 3:. ill be no alreration of the present ?at;em St 2; :he mvement of goods or Teople. The prcject’s locarion is desirable fcr . ‘L. . .- S 'iSe ze ila.ise :I, is cenrral!y izcared 10 various senqces and bl:slnesses tnl:hLz i -, - 2 .\. 7.x ~7: Carisbad and is ciose :o Tass xanslr systems.
3+;e :o :he narure of the project and the projecr’s locarion. there ~11 be no impac:s :=
-.varerbome, rail or air rrafic.
- ‘B . .* e Frsposed project will not increase trdffic hazards ro motor vehicles. bicyclisx Z:
>ec!esttians. The project, being located on an till lot, will not impacr any of these
modes of rransportarion. The project will be conditioned to assist in providing public
improvements along Laguna Drive including curb, goner and sidewalk.
The se.nior citizen’s use will not impact in any way emergency response plans or
emergericy evacuation plans since rhe project it is proposed for exisring lots within an
existing neighborhood.
NO scenic vistas will be obstructed by the proposed project since it is an till lot. There
will be views from the project sire, specifically from the third floor level of the stmctures, CO the north and to the west up from the site, however, the project itself will not creale an aesthetically offensive public view. The proposed architecture of the smxture is a
contemporary Spanish motif with red tile roof and Spanish Lace stucco walls.
The proposed project will not affect the quality or quantity of any existing recreational opportunities since the project site is an infill lot within a currently developed area. Recreational opponunities will be available to the users of this project, however, in the
form of Maxton Brown Park which is located down the street to the west along Laguna
Drive, and the ocean and Buena Vista Lagoon are immediately beyond; as well as the projecr’s on site recreation amdties.
‘:Y~?L,t’S’S OF t’LI?BLF, .UTE.WATTCr,S TO -7% PROPOSED PROJEC SL’C:+ AS:
Phasing :he proposed :eve!opmenr is not necessary or desirabie @ven :+.e scaie
cf :he proposed use. There is no benefit to phasing the COCSI.TC:;C!: :i :.“.e
buiidings or allowing rhe phased occupancy inro the unirs.
Alternate site designs were assessed during the project review, however, :;?e proposed sire design maximizes the sire’s area for the proposed use. The proposed
sire design aiso ailows for the greatest degree of compatibiliry wirh the existing single family and multi-family residential developments adjacent to the project sire
xkle compifing with ail development standards.
Cl The proposed scale of development allows compliance of ail applicable
development standards and is within the maximum allowable densiry for this rype
of use while providing’ for a sire design that allows for hmcrion as well as land
use compatibility with adjacent propenies.
Aremare uses for the sire would be residential uses in conformance wirh :he
General Plan Designation of RMH, Residential Medium High, however, rhe
proposed use and the proposed density is acceprabie given the findings and conditions of the CUP required for rks use which can be made and will be
imposed.
E & G) Development at a future time would leave the site vacant which is not desirable
from the City’s aspect of attempting to create more affordable housing units as well as providing senior cititcn units. A no project alternative would leave the site
vacant and it is the property owneis desire to develop the site at this time. The no
project &m&e would aiso leave the City with less affordable units which it
==Qw-*
F) N/A
ENM: Ih
a) Phased development of r!x prolecc.
b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development.
2: airernatc uses for :he sire. e’ development at some !k:ure r;me rather than now. .- L , 2. -. . . ‘*a-are j::es fr,r rhe ?ropcsed. ar,d
3; r.0 ;rr:e,:: a;:e.Tar!ve.
-100
.
7t-2 tIINAT:ON (To Be a--.-.- Completed By The Planrung Depanmenr)
On !he basis of this initial evaluation:
-
‘i 1 :‘zd r,“.e propojcd project COULD NO” h
A 3 ESLiX?iTTON will be prepared. L .,ave a sigrkanr effecr on :he enkiromenr. ar.i 1 \,r - : : - _
-:- -1 :!-.a[ :,“.e Tropcsed ?ro!ecr COULD NOT have a significant effect on the ent<rom,er.:, ke: 1_: - . ..IV ~r‘:.:rz~~er,:a, ??e,::s ;i’ :he prcposed prcjecr have aiready been ccrAlCe:er! :n c;~:.::.;-. 17. ; :%CSi]r cenlfied enbironmenral documents and no addirior,al en\iromen:al re\.;ew .s :l: -.-
:>,erefore, a Norlce of Determination has been prepared.
: 5-A That although the proposed proycr could have a significant effect on the entir-,;z.er.:. -.-.f:+ ,,
YEI be a stgnikant etiecr in this case because rhe ‘mitigation measures described on a? a:::::?:
skeet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Zec!aration will be proposed.
- 1 End rhe proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENC?RON?,!E:;: --
:?.IPAC: RE?ORT is required.
5 / ?/
Dare
c /ty M,., / Signature
c;/‘z/G I
Date J Planning Director .’
L!ST WTIGATING m (IF APPLICAJV&
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLIW
-11.
-
: :3r_::.i_y TaNc’;wyCE tvr*+ >1r: J. c 4T:SG \~~xsL’RES
y-:+:s 1s ~0 c-m m\T [ HAL-E ?S:E’t%*EZ T-r!:E .aOCX M[T:G,AT:NG ItlLGC’?<:
1-t d - <QNCL’R Wrnr THE .UD[?:o% of- TFESE \IL%si’RES TO TIiE ?ROd-EC
-120
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3267
1; I
21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 ;l
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING II APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP
A SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROJECT CONSISTING OF 76
UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF LAGUNADRIVE ATTHE TERMINUS OF
MADISON STREET.
CASE NAME: ST.FRANCISCOURT
CASE NO: CUP 90-15
8
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad
9 and referred to the Planning Commission; and
10 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by
11 Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
12 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
13 ?
Commission did, on the 17th day of July, 1991 and on the 21st day of April, 1993, hold
14
15
a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on property described as:
16 Parcel A and B of that portion of Lot 1, Township 12 South,
Range 5 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of
17 Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
18 ’ WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
19 testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission
20
21
considered all factors relating to CUP 90-15.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
22
23 of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
24 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
25 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
26 recommends APPROVAL of CUP 90-15, based on the following tidings and subject
to the following conditions:
27 *‘-’
28
-
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
II j( I’
;i I1
II
‘Ii /’
‘I
Findings:
1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of
the general plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically
permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located because there is
a need for rental housing for senior citizens in close proximity to downtown
Carlsbad and the project has been designed and conditioned to enhance
compatibility with adjacent lmd uses.
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the use because all applicable development standards can be satisfied while
providing various project amenities.
3. That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features
necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the,
neighborhood will be provided and maintained.
4. That @una Drive and the adjacent street systems s&g the proposed use are
adequate to properly handle ail the anticipated trafFrc generated (304 ADTs) by
the proposed use.
5. The project’s location will afford the senior citizen residents easy access to the
community, commercial and service facilities of downtown Carlsbad.
6. The project conforms with all applicable State and Federal laws and with all of the
hdings and requirements of Section 21.18.045 of the Zoning Ordinance which
allows senior citizen housing by Conditional Use Permit including the provision
and maintenance of amenities designed specifically for the physical and social needs of seniors while allowing a minimum age of 55 years.
7. The project complies with all of the applicable development standards of the
underlying R-3 zone.
8. The Planning Commission 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 service remains available, and the Planning
Commission 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.
9. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as
conditions of approval.
PC RESO NO. 3267 -2-
.
II 10.
1;
This project can be approved with the proposed density of 64 dwelling units per
I’ acre which exceeds the growth management control point when applied to the site /(
2 /I because:
Ii 3' 1) it is less than the 75 dwelling units per acre maximm density allowed by
the Senior Citizen Housing criteria (Section 21.18.045 of the Zoning
4 Ordinance),
5 1, 2) it complies with City Council Policy No. 43 which ~prioritizs Affordability
Housing and Senior Citizen Housing as the top two uses eligible to utilize
a quadrant surplus of dwelling units; and
8' 3) the following findings per the Growth Management Ordinance Section
21.90.045 can be made:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 jl cl All necessary public facilities required by this chapter will be
constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed con- tly with
16' the need for them created by this development and in compliance
with the adopted City standards.
17 11. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
l8 I condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
19 /I of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
4 The project will provide su&ient additional public facilities for the
density in excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of
the City’s public facilities plans will not be adversely impacted; and
b) There have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant
at densities below the control point to cover the units in the project
above the control point so that approval will not result in exceeding
the quadrant limit; and
2o 12 . This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts tid a Negative
21 Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on May 9, 1991, and
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on April 21, 1993. In 22 recommending approval of this Negative Declaration the Planning Commission has
23 considered the initial study, the staff analysis, and any written comments received
regarding the signifkant effects this project could have on the environment.
24
25
26
27 Ii PC RESO NO. 3267
13. The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee,
or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan
-3-
28
II I/ I’ I/ 111
2 /I
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
//
/I /i
/I ;I ;! II
ii
I/
14.
15.
16.
prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will
ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative
impacts created by the project.
This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has
been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
That the project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for the density
in excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s public
facilities plans will not be adversely impacted.
That there have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities
below the control point to cover the units in the project above the control point
so the approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit.
Planning Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
. . . .
Approval is granted for CUP 90-15, as shown on Exhibits “A’‘-“I”, dated April 21,
1993 and July 17, 1991, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning
Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise
noted in these conditions. r
The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of
the site plan as approved by the Planning Commission. The site plan 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.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the City Engineer
determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such
sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy.
Water shall be provided to this project pursuant to the Water Service agreement
between the City of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, dated May
25, 1983.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation required by the Zone
1 Local Facilities Management Plan approved by the City Council on September 1,
1987, incorporated herein and on file in the Planning Department and any future
amendments to the Plan made prior to the issuance of building permits.
PC RESO NO. 3267 4-
-
1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 . PC PESO NO. 3267
28
6. 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 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.
7. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within two years from the date of project approval.
8. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the
Zoning Ordinance including the recently revised senior citizen requirements of
Section 21.18.045, and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of
building permit issuance.
9. This conditional use permit is granted for a period of ten years. This conditional
use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis to
determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not
have a significant detrimental impact on surrounding properties or the public
health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that the use has such
significant adverse impacts, the Planning Director shall recommend that the
Planning Commission, after providing the permittee the opportunity to berheard,
add additional conditions to mitigate the significant adverse impacts. This permit
may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has
a significant detrimental affect on surrounding land uses and the public’s health
and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met. This permit
may be extended for a reasonable period of time not to exceed ten years upon
written application of the permittee made no less than 90 days prior to the
expiration date. In granting such extension, the Planning Commission shall find
that no substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the public’s health
and welfare will result because of the continuation of the permitted use. If a
substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and
welfare is found, the extension shall be considered as an original application for
a conditional use permit. There is no limit to the number of extensions the
Planning Commission may grant.
10. If the property owner/owners’ address changes from that which is shown on the
conditional use permit application, a notice of a change of address shall be
reported, in writing, to the Planning Department within 30 days.
11. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally
integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent
properties and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No.
80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Building.
-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
. . . .
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning Director approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. All lighting shah
be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or
property.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
In such instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief
and the Planning Director.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of
grading or building permits, whichever occurs first.
All parking lot trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in size.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free
from weeds, trash, and debris.
All landscape plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Manual and
submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning
Department. r
Landscape plans shall be designed to minimize water use. Lawn and other zone
1 plants (see Landscape Manual) shall be limited to areas of special visual
importance or high use. Mulches shall be used and irrigation equipment and
design shall. promote water conservation.
Prior to final occupancy, a letter from a California licensed landscape architect
shall be submitted to the Planning Director certifying that all landscaping has been
installed as shown on the approved landscape plans.
All herbicides shall be applied by applicators licensed by the State of California.
The applicant shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The first set of landscape and irrigation plans submitted shall include building
plans, improvement plans and grading plans.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in
conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval
of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs.
PC PESO NO. 3267 -6-
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24.
2.5.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of
identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color.
As part of the plans submitted for building permit plan check, the applicant shall
include a reduced version of the approving resolution/resolutions on a 24” x 36”
blueline drawing. Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any
applicable Coastal Development Permit and signed approved site plan.
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever comes first, a soils
report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad. If the soils report
indicates the presence of potential fossil bearing material then a standard three
phased program, on file in the Planning Department, shall be undertaken to avoid
possible significant impacts on paleontological resources under the direction of the
Planning Department.
Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant and the City &all enter
into an agreement and record an appropriate note on the property’s deed, to the
satisfaction of the Ciry Attorney and Community Development Director, giving the
City an equity position in the project in accordance with Section 21.18.045 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code.
De following req uirements shall be made part of the lease agreement executed for
all rentals of this senior citizen housing project:
a) The minimti age of at least one occupant of each unit, excluding the
manager% unit, shall be at least 55 years of age with the provision and
maintenance of senior citizen amenities as required by Section 21.18.045
(i)(3)(A-D). In addition, the applicant shall publish and adhere to policies
and procedures which demonstrate the applicant!s intent to provide housing
and special amenities for persons 55 years of age or older. Prior to
occupancy, and for assisting with the project’s annual review, compliance
with these requirements must be demonstrated by the applicant to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director.
b) All on-site parking spaces shall be available to the tenants of the project at
no fee or cost.
cl The rental lease shall be reviewed by the Planning Director and City
Attorney prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy.
This conditional use permit, including the conversion plan, shall be recorded in the
Office of the County Recorder prior to the issuance of any grading or building
ptmit.
PC RESO NO. 3267 -7-
.-
r
41,
iI
2 ;I
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
I I’
/I ,I II
!I
!I II
I’ I/
‘I 1:
‘,
1i
30.
31.
32.
If, at any time, the City Council determin es that the project is being operated in violation of this approval or any conditions thereof, the City Council may require
the applicant to convert the project to a development which meets all standards
of the underlying R-3 zone per the recorded conversion plan shown on Exhibit “G”,
dated April 21,1S93 and July 17,1991.
Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, a Coastal Development
Permit shall be obtained from the California Coastal Commission.
Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant and the City
shah enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to be approved by the City
Council. The contents of the agreement shall include, but not be limited to, the
foIlowing items, and shall be consistent with the recommendations contained in
the February 24,1993 memorandum to the Planning Director from Housing and
Redevelopment, attached hereto.
4 Standards for maximum quahfykg households.
b) Standards for maximum rents.
cl Party or process responsible for qualifying residents.
4 How vacancies will be marketed and filled.
4 Restrictions and enforcement me&an&s.
fl length of time for affordability of units. ,
29 Maintenance provisions.
h) Minimum percentages of low-income units.
If it is mutually acceptable to the applicant and the City, it is possible that this
agreement include the provisions of Condition No. 27 above regarding the Civs
equity position in the project per Section 21.18.045 of the Carl&ad Municipal
Code.
Ennineerina Conditions:
33. Unless a standard variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is
authorized by virtue of approval of this site plan.
34. The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements
of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project.
35. The developer shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.&E., Pacific
Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
36. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any proposed. construction site
within this project the developer shah submit to and receive approval from the City
Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all
PC RESO NO. 3267 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the
hauling operation.
Additional drainage easements and drainage structures shall be provided or
installed prior to the issuance of grading or building permit as may be required by
the City Engineer.
The drainage system shall be designed to ensure that runoff resulting from a lo-
year frequency storm of a 6 hours or 24 hours duration under developed
conditions, is equal to or less than the runoff from a storm of the same frequency
and duration under existing developed conditions. Both 6 hour and 24 hour storm
durations shall be analyzed to determine the detention basin capacities necessary
to accomplish the desired results.
Building permits for the project shall not be issued until full half street
improvements to Laguna Drive are completed adjacent to the project frontage
including any necessary offsite transition sections or the construction of the
required improvements has been guaranteed by one of the following alternatives:
1.
2.
Award of City Contract which includes the construction of said Laguna
Drive improvements. r
Applicants preparation of appropriate plans, specifications and supporting
documents and execution of a secured agreement for the construction of
said improvements.
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best
management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to
discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the
City Engineer prior to approval of the building permit.
The owner shall file for an adjustment plat and certificate of compfiance to
consolidate APN 155-223-08/09 into one parcel. The Certificate of Compliance
shall be recorded prior to issuing a building permit.
The owner shall enter into a lien contract for the Wure improvement of the.storm
drain along the project frontage prior to issuing a building permit. The Master
Drainage Plan has revealed that this 36” stem drain is deficient in size.
Fire Conditions:
43. Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be
submitted to and approved by the Fire Department.
PC RESO NO. 3267 -9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
Additional onsite public hydrants are required.
Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval of access,
driveways and general traffic circulation.
An all-weather access road shall serve the project during construction.
All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurtenances shall be operational
prior to combustible building materials being located on the project site.
Proposed security gate systems shall be provided with “Knox” key operated
override switch, as specified by the Fire Department.
All private driveways shall be kept clear of parked vehicles at all times, and shall
have posted “No Parking/Fire Lane” pursuant to Section 17.04.020, Carlsbad
Municipal Code.
Plans and/or specifications for 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.
Buildings having an aggregate floor area exceeding 10,000 square feet shall be
protected by an automatic sprinkler system.
Prior to submittal of water improvement plans, the applicant shall submit to the
Fire Department a map, showing the street network, conforming to the following
criteria:
* 400’ scale * Photo reduction on mylar * At least two existing streets and/or intersections shall be referenced on the
map (not a separate vicinity map) * Maps shall include the following information:
Street centerlines
Street names
Fire hydrant locations
Water Conditions:
53. The entire potable and non-potable water systems for subject project be evaluated
in detail to ensure that adequate capacity and pressure for domestic, landscaping
and fire flow demands are met.
PC RESO NO. 3267 -lO-
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
54. The Developer’s Engineer shall schedule a meeting with the District Engineer and
the City Fire Marshal and review the preliminary water system layout prior to
preparation of the water system improvement plans.
5s. The Developer will be responsible for all fees and deposits plus the major facility
charge which will be collected at time of issuance of building permit. The
Developer shall pay a San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge which
will be collected at issuance of application for meter installation.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of April, 1993, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairman Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm &
Savary.
Commissioners: Erwin, Hall & Welshons.
None.
None.
BAILEY NOBL%, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H?kZMIttER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RJZSO NO. 3267 -ll-
-
FEBRUARY 24, 1993
TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ST. FRANC16 COURT SENIOR EOUSING PROJECT, CUP 90-15 670 LAGUZUA DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
BACKGROUND
On July 17, 1991, the Planning Commission referred the above project to staff for additional work on the affordability aspect of the project. The minutes of the Planning Commission indicate that the Commissioners were supportive of requiring the project applicant to rent a percentage (greater than 25%) of the units at a rate affordable to low income households.
Housing and Redevelopment Staff has been working with Mary Steiger and members of her development team since July 17, 1991 to develop a proposal which meets the city's affordable housing objectives and still allows Ms. Steiger to build her desired project. Staff and Ms. Steiger have finally reached agreement on the affordability aspects of the proposed project. Therefore, we believe the project can now be returned to the Planning commission for review and action. Attached for information ' purposes is a summary of the project proposal as evaluated by Housing and Redevelopment Staff.
The affordability aspect of the proposed project is as follows:
Sixty-one (61) of the units, or 81%, will be affordable to households/persons with gross household incomes in the low income range of 612 to 80% of the San Diego County Median. Eligible incomes would range from approximately $17,350 for a one person household to $33,050 for a four person.
The rents for the units will range from $350 to $650 per month and the size of units will range from 267 sq.ft. (studios) to 743 sq.ft. (two bedroom).
These units will be restricted in terms of the amount of rent that can be charged for a minimum of thirty (30) years.
Fourteen (14) of the units, or 192, will be rented at market rates. Initially, these rents will most likely be affordable to low income households. However, the units will not be restricted for affordability purposes. Therefore, if the market rate rents increase, the property owner will not be restricted to low income affordable rates for these units.
One unit will be used for an on-site manager (no rental income on the unit).
l The applicant has agreed to maintain the low income affordability requirements for a minimum of thirty (30) years as noted above.
l The applicant will receive no financial assistance from the City of Carlsbad. The granting of the Density Bonus allowed by ordinance for Senior Housing is adequate incentive to make this project financially feasible to the applicant. All appropriate and required findings and conditions of approval have previously been recommended for the project in order to allow the Commission the ability to grant the Density Bonus and use units from the ItExcess Dwelling Unit I8 Bank for the purposes of approving the proposed project.
RECOKHENDATION
Housing and Redevelopment staff recommends approval of the proposed project with the understanding that the affordability terms outlined above will be incorporated into the project as conditions through an Affordable Housing Agreement. The project meets the objectives of the City in terms of providing housing affordable to low income households. The City will be able to record the restricted 61 low income units as a partial accomplishment in meeting its share of @'new construction" affordable housing once the units are built.
EVZiN E. BECKER Housing-and Redevelopment Director
ST. FRANCIS COURT AFFORDABLE HOUSING) PROJECT SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
PROJECT Three story building with a total of 76 DESCRIPTION rental units for Seniors only. The breakdown of units is as follows:
l 14 studio units *6- 267 sq.ft *6- 349 sq.ft * 2- 387 sq.ft .. 56 1 bedroom units (537 sq,ft. each) 0 6 2 bedroom units (743 sq.ft. each)
l 1 unit will be used for on-site manager (no rental income)
The project will include such amenities as: 0 a large recreation room;
l area for beauty and barber services, social gatherings, movies & games;
l meeting area for health and governmental lectures;
l quality of life enhancement programs;
l lush landscaping and gardens; and,
l special design features to accommodate seniors (e.g., lever handles, wide doors, etc.)
DEVELOPMENT Mary and John Steiger - property owner TEAM Barbara Lange - property owner
Mert Issacman - Southern Sun Development Company
Roy Blackford - Architect
SITE CONTROL Mary and John Steiger and Barbara Lange own property free of encumbrances. The property is located at 670 Laguna Drive in Carlsbad. It represents a 1.23 acre (1.18 acre net) lot on the north side of Laguna between Jefferson and Madison Streets.
The value of the site is estimated at $750,000.
-
RFFORDABILITY The affordability of the units is as follows: FEATURE8
l 61 units (81%) will be affordable to low income households (61% to 80% of County median). These units include a mixture of studios, 1 bdrs. and 2 bdrs.
The unit rents will be set based on a sliding scale approach according to gross household income and household size. For example, if a 1 person household has an income of $20,250 (70% of county median), the rent for the unit, including utilities, would be set at $506 per month. A 2 person household at 70% of county median would pay $579 per month.
OR
The unit rents will be set at a fixed rate based on a gross household income at 65% of the county median and applicable household size. For example, a 1 person household would pay $470 per month and a 2 person household would pay $538 per month.
The method for setting rents will be out- lined within an affordable housing agree- ment between City and developer.
l $4 units (19%) will be market rate units (may or may not be affordable to low income persons depending on market)
The designated units will remain affordable to low income households for a minimum of thirty (30) years.
FINANCIAL The lender is Centennial Mortgage Company. The loan will be insured by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development through their Section 231 program.
The applicant is requesting RQ financial assistance from the City of Carlsbad.
LAND The Zoning for the noted property is R-3. The USE/DESIGN project meets applicable development stan- dards for R-3 zoning.
The proposed project involves the development of a senior citizen housing project per the requirements of Section 21.18.045 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows senior housing by conditional use permit.
The project will feature a 3 story structure with contemporary Spanish Style architecture,. a parking lot, landscaping and various project amenities.
Surrounding land uses consist of multi-family residential, single family residences and professional offices.
MANAGEMENT. A professional management team will reside PLAN on-site to manage the property and coordinate activities for the residents.
ADMINISTRATIVE No significant administrative impact on city IMPACTS staff is anticipated at this time. The applicant will assume responsibility for qualifying tenants for units and monitoring continued eligibility.
city will establish responsibility for monitoring compliance with conditions on project in an Affordable Housing Agreement.
RISKS AND The City will assume no financial risk. The CONDITIONS development team, however, assumes normal development risks.
Application for HUD insured loan will take approximately 1 year to process. No guarantees of approval at this time.
ebruary 25, 1993
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
I.
.I EXHBIT 4 APPLICATION COMPLETE IJATE:
JANUARY 3. 1991: Time Limits Waived bv ADDlicant
ERIC N. MUNOZ - STAFF PLANNER
STAFF REPORT
APRIL 21,1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
90-15 - ST. FRANCIS COURT - Request for Planning Commission’s
recommendation of approval for a Negative Declaration and Conditional Use
Permit to allow the development of a senior citizen housing project
consisting of 76 dwelling units on a two lot in-t% site on the north side of
Laguna Drive at the northern terminus of Madison Street in the R-3 Zone
within Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3266
recommending APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3267 recommending APPROVAL of CUP 90-’
15 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On July 17, 1991, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the
request for a conditional use permit to allow for 84 senior citizen dwelling units. Part of
the project’s proposal was to provide affordable housing units. However, since the specific
percentage of low cost housing was not initially guaranteed as part of this project, the
Planning Commission voted to return CUP 90-15 to staff to rework the issue of providing
a guaranteed minimum percentage of affordable housing units.
Aside from the affordable housing issue, the original project complied with all applicable
development and design standards. The staff report from the July 17, 1991 Planning
Commission meeting (attached) provides a detailed project description and background. In addition it contains the planning analysis of the project to determine that all the
required conditional use permit findings can be made and that the project complies with
the senior citizen housing ordinance (Section 21.18.045 of the Zoning Ordinance).
Since the last Planning Commission hearing, the applicant has been working with Planning
and Housing and Redevelopment staff to define and resolve all affordable housing details
and related issues. At this time, all of those issues have been resolved allowing this project
.-
CUP 90-15 - ST. FRANCAL, COURT
APRIL 21,1993
PAGE 2
to return to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. The attached memo from the
Housing and Redevelopment Director dated February 24, 1993 outlines staffs support for
the project based on the resolution of the low cost housing issue. In summary, the project
will provide 81% of the project’s total units as affordable to the low income range and 19%
of the project’s total units will be market rate units. An on-site manager5 unit will also
be provided.
The project has reduced the total proposed units from 84 to 76 units. This reduction in
total units proposed is designed to incrementally address project specific issues that were
raised in the July 17, 1991 meeting. These issues centered on the fact that while development standards were complied with, several minor concerns regarding the details
of the project were voiced. These comments noted a perceived shortfall of parking spaces
provided, the number of handicapped spaces, the high density proposed, and the smallness
of some of the rooms proposed. Again, all development standards were complied with by
the original 84 unit project of July 17, 1991, however, the applicant has revised the
proposal by modifying interior floor plans to address the details and concerns described
above. Specifically, the rooms with the smallest amount of square footage (264 sq. ft.)
have been eliminated from the current proposal. The changes made to achieve 76 units
did not change the physical layout, parking design, building elevations or general
appearance of the originally proposed project. Other changes in the project’s design
between the original proposal and this current proposal are summarized in the table below. c
Three handicap parking spaces are provided to serve the project’s three handicapped units.
The current proposal complies with all applicable standards and regulations and is sensitive
to the concerns raised at the July 17, 1991 Planning Commission hearing.
TOTAL UNITS
OVEFWL
DENSITY
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
RATIO
NO. OF
HANDICAP
SPACES
ST. FRANCIS COURT - CUP’ 90-15 COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL vs. CURRENT PROPOSAL
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL CURRENT PROPOSAL
JULY 17,1991 APRIL 21,1993
84 76
71 du/acre
(75 du/acre max. allowed) 64 du/acre
Required: 42 Required: 38
Provided: 42 Provided: 41
1 space per 2 units
(1:2 required) 1:1.8
3 3
AVERAGE
DAILY TRIPS 336 ADT 304 ADT
CUP 90-15 - ST. FRANCIS COURT
APRIL 21,1993
PAGE 3
III. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1. Can all the necessary findings required for a Conditional Use Permit be made?
Specifically:
a. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and
objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to
uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be
located;
b. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the use;
C. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features
necessary to adjust the requested uses to existing or permitted future uses in
the neighborhood will be provided and maintained;
d. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly
handle all traffic generated by the proposed use.
2. Does the project comply with all of the requirements of Section 21.18.045 of the
Zoning Ordinance which allows senior citizen housing by Conditional Use Permit?
3. Is the proposal consistent with the Mello II Local Coastal Plan?
4. Is the proposal consistent with the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan.
DISCUSSION
1. Conditional Use Permit
Refer to the attached staff report for CUP 90-15 dated July 17, 1991.
2. Zoning Ordinance Section 21.18.045
Refer to the attached staff report for CUP 90-15 dated July 17, 1991 for a
discussion of compliance with the senior citizen requirements of Section 21.18.045 with the exception of age requirements which were recently amended by the City
Council through ZCA 92-10. These changes brought the City’s senior citizen
‘requirements into compliance with State and Federal laws. As allowed by the
recently approved revisions, this project is proposed for occupancy by at least one
.
CUP 90-15 - ST.FRAIkuCOURT
APRIL21,1993
PAGE4
person 55 years of age or older per unit with the provision of facilities and services
specifically designed for senior citizens. State and Federal laws require the
provision and maintenance of these amenities with senior projects that have a
minimum age requirement of 55 years. The facilities and services designed to meet
the physical and social needs of seniors provided by this project which satisfy the
State and Federal laws include: a physical environment that is accessible to the
residents (including handicapped accessibility), a roofdeck area with views, a
common garden area and a 1600 square foe: common recreation area with office
space, a laundry and utility room. In addition programs will be offered in the areas
of counseling, health care, recreational and social activities. The applicant will be
required to demonstrate the provision and maintenance of these amenities as an on-
going condition of approval of this project.
3. Mello II Local Coastal Plan
The project is located within the Mello II Local Coastal Program (LCP). The project
complies with this LCP. The LCP addresses .eight coastal resource policy issues for
project review, including allowable land uses, agriculture, environmentally sensitive
habitat areas, geological, floodplain and shoreline hazard areas, public works and
public resources. None of these issues are pertinent to this project. This project
does, however, comply with the implementation and development standards of the
Mello II LCP. In addition, this project addresses a major component of the Coastal
Act to provide Affordable Housing units in the coastal area.
4. Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan
The subject site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The
proposed project, with 76 dwelling units, is 62 dwelling units above the amount of
units allowed (14 units) using the growth management control point per the site’s
RMH (Residential Medium High) General Plan designation. As outlined in City
Council Policy No. 43, an affordable senior citizen project would represent the top
two priority uses eligible for utilizing the existing surplus of units of a quadrant.
As such, there will be no adverse impacts on public facilities or public services
created by the proposed use and all performance standards will be complied with.
In addition, the three findings necessary to approve excess dwelling units with a
project as required by the City’s Growth Management Ordinance, can be made.
Making these findings assures that (1) there will be public facility availability and
adequate service levels given the project’s density; (2) the northwest quadrant limit
will not be exceeded; and (3) the need for public facilities improvements created by
this project will be provided concurrent with their need. The project’s compliance
with Zone 1 adopted performance standards are summarized below:
CUP90-15 - ST.FRANCraCOURT
APRrL21,1993
PAGE5
Iv. ENVIRONMENTALREVIEVV
The project’s initial study showed that there will be no adverse environmental impacts from
the proposal since the site is an in-fill location surrounded by existing development
currently being adequately served by existing public facilities and services. As described
in the attached staff report dated July 17, 1991, a noise study was completed by the
applicant and found that the proposed development complies with the City’s Noise Policy.
No comments were received during the required public review period. Since no significant
environmental impacts will be created by the proposed use, the Planning Director has
issued a Negative Declaration on May 9, 1991.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
2:
7.
8.
9.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3266
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3267
Location Map
CUP 90-15 Staff Report dated July 17, 1991 (without attachments)
Housing & Redevelopment Memo, dated February 24, 1993
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Form
Exhibits “A” - “G”, dated April 21, 1993.
ENM:Vd
March a15493
.-
APPLL,. _ _ ION COMPLETE DATE:
January 3. 1991
0 3 STAFFREPORT .
DATE: JULY 17, 1991
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CUP 90-15 - ST. FRANCIS COURT - Request for approval of a Conditional
Use Permit to allow the development of a senior citizen housing project
consisting of 84 dwelling units on a two lot in-fill site on the north side of
Laguna Drive at the northern terminus of Madison Street in the R-3 Zone
within the Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 3266 recommending APPROVAL of
the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution No. 3267~
recommending APPROVAL of CUP 90-15 based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECX DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The proposed project site, shown on the location map, consists of two existing lots which
will be consolidated into one. One lot has a single family residence which will be removed
for this project and the other is a vacant in-fill lot with some sheds located on it. The
gross site area is 1.23 acres. Since a 10’ wide right-of-way dedication is required, the net
acreage for the project site is 1.18 acres. The surrounding land uses consist of multi-family
residential to the east, single family residences to the north and west and single family and
professional offices to the south across Laguna Drive.
The proposed project involves the development of a senior citizen housing project per the
requirements of Section 21.18.045 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows senior citizen
housing by Conditional Use Permit. A total of 84 dwelling units are proposed with 30
studio units, 48 one-bedroom un.its,and 6 two-bedroom units. The project will feature a
three-story structure with contemporary Spanish style architecture, a parking lot,
landscaping and various project amenities. The proposed 84 dwelling units on the 1.18
net acre site holds a density of 71 dwelling units per acre. This density is beyond the
density allowed by the RMH General Plan designation. A senior citizen use, however, is
CUP 90-15 - ST. FRANC. J ,‘OURT
JULY 17, 1991
PAGE 2
allowed a density of up to 75 dwelling units per acre by CUP. As such, all appropriate and
required findings and conditions of approval have been placed on the project.
Project amenities include: a kitchen in every unit, a landscaped interior courtyard, a
second story common sundeck with views, a potting shed and garden with fruit trees and
a common recreational room. In addition to satisfying all four standard findings required
for a Conditional Use Permit, the project must also comply with all additional requirements
and findings of Section 21.18.045 of the Zoning Ordinance and all applicable standards of
the underlying R-3 Zone. The proposed project is shown on Exhibits “A’‘-“G”, dated July
17, 1991.
ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1. Can all the necessary findings required for a Conditional Use Permit be made?
Specifically:
a. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and.
objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to
uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be
located;
b. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the use;
C. That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features
necessary to adjust the requested uses to existing or permitted future uses in
the neighborhood will be provided and maintained;
d. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly
handle all traffic generated by the proposed.
2. Does the project comply with all of the requirements of Section 21.18.045 of the
Zoning Ordinance which allows senior citizen housing by Conditional Use Permit?
3. Is the project consistent with the Mello II Local Coastal Program?
4. Is the project consistent with the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan?
CUP90-15 -ST. FRANCraiOURT
JULY17,1991
PAGE3
DISCUSSION
1. Conditional Use Permit
The proposed use is necessary and desirable for the development of the community. All
the existing senior citizen housing projects in the downtown area have long waiting lists
of eligible residents, which demonstrates the need for this use within the community. The
proposed use is in harmony with the General Plan. The General Plan designation is RH
(Residential High density). The proposed use will not be detrimental to the existing
adjacent land uses because of the project’s design, compliance with all applicable
development standards and the conditions of approval that will be imposed.
The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use in compliance
with all applicable development standards. As shown on Exhibit “A” the site has been
designed to include the required amount of parking spaces, compliance with all standard
parking lot requirements, the construction of the three-story structure and interior and
perimeter landscaping.
Several features necessary to adjust the requested senior citizen use to existing or permitted
future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained. In order to ensure
compatibility with existing adjacent land uses the project has been designed to minimize
impacts to the single family residences to the north and west of the project site. As shown
on Exhibit “A” the parking lot is located on the west portion of the site so that there is over
70 feet of buffer space between the single family lot to the west and the project structure.
There is a 20 foot rear yard setback between the north property line and the edge of the
building. The third-story component of the structure on the north end of the site has been
stepped down to two-stories with an open sundeck area located above as shown on the
elevation (Exhibit “C”). This design in coordination with the heavily landscaped area along
the north property line will help to minimize the impacts to the single family residences
to the north. The project will also feature landscaping throughout the perimeter of the
project and project site to add to the compatibility with the adjacent land uses. As shown
on Exhibit “F”, the proposed conceptual landscape plan involves the relocation of several
of the large mature palm trees currently onsite. The proposed senior citizen use will be
separated from adjacent land uses by a six foot high stud and stucco fence which will
surround the property. As shown on Exhibits “B” and “c” the building is primarily a three-
story structure with a contemporary Spanish architecture with clay mission roof tiles
articulated by. a varied roof line and arches with decorative windows and doors. The
building height is 33 feet measured to the peak.
The proposed project will be served by Lag-una Drive and the adjacent public street system.
The project will generate approximately 336 ADT, which will not adversely impact the
ability of Laguna Drive or the local streets to handle the project’s traffic. The proposed use
typically does not generate a lot of traffic due to the age of the residents associated with
this use. Most of the traffic associated with this type of use would be from visitors.
CUP 90-15 - ST. FRANc,u <OURT
JULY 17, 1991
PAGE 4
2. ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 21.18.045
Section 21.18.045 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines specific development standards and
findings necessary for a Conditional Use Permit to be granted for a senior citizen housing
project. Each of these are outlined below:
Access to Services and Facilities
One of the primary findings required to approve a Conditional Use Permit for senior citizen
housing is to determine that the project’s location will afford the residents of the project
easy access to community, commercial, and service facilities. The proposed location is a
short walk from Jefferson Street to the east where there is a bus route to the downtown
and other destinations. The project’s location also allows for a short flat walk to the
downtown area. The project site is under a mile from the City’s Library, Post Office and
the new Senior Citizen Facility. The site is also in close proximity to various services and
facilities such as a super market, retail centers, professional offices, banks, pharmacies,
medical and dental offices, restaurants, coffee shops, churches, as well as Maxton Brown
Park which provides visual access to Buena Vista Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean. The
project’s location therefore meets the intent of locating senior citizen housing in close
proximity to various services and facilities which can be easily used by the residents.
Age of Occupants
One of the conditions of approval for a senior citizen housing project is the minimum age
requirement. The Code requires that the minimum age for a resident in such a use is 62
years of age. This condition will be placed on the project as a condition of approval.
Three-Story Buildings
As required by Section 21.18.045 all three-story structures associated with a senior citizen
use shall include elevators for easy access to various levels of the structure. This project
provides elevators as shown on Exhibit “A”.
R-3 Development Standards
Section 21.18.045 requires that all applicable development standards of the underlying
zone be satisfied. In this case, the underlying R-3 zoning standards are satisfied. There
is a front setback of 20 feet off Laguna Drive, there is a 20 foot setback off the rear
property line and a 10 foot setback from the east property line. These setbacks are the
minimum setbacks required given the project’s lot size. The setback to the west exceeds
the required 10 foot setback because of the parking lot location. The setback on the west side of the lot is approximately 70 feet. The building height limit for the R-3 Zone is 35
feet, and the proposed building is 33 feet high, 32% lot coverage is proposed and the
allowed lot coverage in the R-3 Zone is 60%. The project site, consolidated from two
existing R-3
CUP 90-15 - ST. FRANui, COURT
JULY 17, 1991
PAGE 5
lots will exceed the required minimum lot area of 7500 square feet (53,504 square feet)
and the required minimum lot width of 50 feet (209 feet).
Parking Area
The parking area for the senior citizen use must be in compliance with the City’s parking
ordinance, Chapter 21.44 of the Municipal Code. The proposed project satisfies this
condition by providing the required amount of standard parking spaces and providing
standard aisle width, curb cut width and vehicle turn-around area in the parking lot. The
parking lot is also landscaped in accordance with Chapter 21.44. The parking lot
landscaping is shown on Exhibit “F”.
Occupant Use of Parking Area
As required by Section 21.18.045 no fee shall be imposed on residents for the use of the
parking lot. This condition will be placed on the project as a condition of approval so that
the senior residents and their guests have free access to and use of the parking lot area.
Reauired Parking
A senior citizen housing project is allowed to have a reduced parking requirement. The
allowed parking may be one space for every two units. The proposed project consists of
84 dwelling units which requires 42 parking spaces to be provided. As shown on Exhibit
“A” the project proposes 42 parking spaces and therefore complies with the parking
requirement for senior citizen use.
Allowable Densitv
A density bonus is possible by the CUP process for this kind of use so that the City may
foster the development of rental housing available only to senior citizens. The Code allows
a density of up to 75 dwelling units per acre for senior citizen housing. The project
proposes 84 units on a net lot area of 1.18 acres with a density of 71 dwelling units per
acre, which is below the allowable maximum density. The project, therefore, complies with
the allowable density permitted for this use.
Reauired Exhibits and Conversion Plan
The applicant has submitted all the required CUP exhibits per Section 21.18.045 for senior
citizen housing. These exhibits include a site plan, elevations, floor plans, landscape plan,
and a conversion plan (See Exhibits “A’‘-“G”, dated July 17, 1991).
The conversion plan is required by code to demonstrate that the building can practically
be altered from a senior citizen use to a use that would comply with the underlying zoning
and General Plan designations. In the case of this project the plan (Exhibit “G”) shows
conversion from 84 dwelling units to 14 dwelling units (allowed by the underlying General
CUP90-15 - ST.FRANt-a<OURT
JULY17,1991
PAGE6
conversion from 84 dwelling units to 14 dwelling units (allowed by the underlying General
Plan Designation of RH).
3. COASTALZONE
The project is located within the Mello II Local Coastal Program. The project complies
with this Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP addresses eight issues for project review,
including allowable land use, agriculture, environmentally sensitive habitat areas,
geological, floodplain and shoreline hazard areas, public works and public services
capacities, recreation and visitor serving uses, shoreline access, and scenic and visual
resources. A condition of approval for this CUP will be the issuance of a Coastal
Development Permit by the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance any
grading or building permits.
4. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The subject site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1, northwest quadrant.
The proposed project, with 84 dwelling units, is 70 dwelling units above the amount
allowed using the growth management control point for the site. As outlined in City
Council Policy No. 43, a senior citizen project can use units within the existing surplus of
units for the northwest quadrant. As such there will be no adverse impacts on public-
facilities or public services created by the proposed use and all of the adopted performance
standards are complied with. The adopted performance standards and compliance with
them are summarized below:
FACILITY IMPACTS
City Administration 311 sq. ft.
Library 166 sq. ft.
Wastewater 84 EDU’S
Parks .62 acre
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARD
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Schools
Sewer Collection
Water Distribution
N/A
336ADTs
Station No. 1
N/A
84 EDU’s
1850 GPD
WA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Open Space .07 acre Yes
-
CUP 90-15 - ST. FRANLL~ COURT
JULY 17, 1991
PAGE 7
JZNVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project initial study showed that there will be no adverse environmental impacts from
the proposal since the site is an in-fill location surrounded by existing development
currently being served by existing public facilities and services. A noise study was
completed for the applicant by a noise consultant. The noise impacts from 1-5 were shown
to be minimal because the subject site is within 2,000 feet of Interstate 5. The noise
impacts from Laguna Drive were also assessed, although Laguna Drive is not a City of
Carlsbad Circulation Element roadway and therefore is not subject to the City’s noise
policy. The existing noise levels from Laguna Drive at the southern property line were
measured at 59 to 60 CNEL and approximately 57 CNEL at structures accounting for the
setback off Laguna Drive. This project, therefore, complies with the City Noise Policy of 60 CNEL for exterior. Since this project site is within the Coastal Zone the required 30 day
review period, including State level review, was conducted. No comments were received
during the public review period. Since no significant environmental impacts will be created
by the proposed use, the Planning Director has issued a Negative Declaration on May 9,
1991.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
i:
7.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3266
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3267
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Form
Exhibits “A’‘-“G”, dated July i 7, 1991.
ENM:vd
June 12, 1991
. FEBRUARY 24, 1993
TOs PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT8 BT. FRANCIS COURT BENIOR HOUSING PROJECT, CUP 90-15
670 LAGUNA DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
BACKGROUND
On July 17, 1991, the Planning Commission referred the above project to staff for additional work on the affordability aspect of the project. The minutes of the Planning Commission indicate that the Commissioners were supportive of requiring the project applicant to rent a percentage (greater than 25%) of the units at a rate affordable to low income households.
Housing and Redevelopment Staff has been working with Mary Steiger and members of her development team since July 17, 1991 to develop a proposal which meets the city's affordable housing objectives and still allows Ms. Steiger to build her desired project. Staff and Ms. Steiger have finally reached agreement on the affordability aspects of the proposed project. Therefore, we believe the project can now be returned to the Planning Commission for review and action. Attached for information ' purposes is a summary of the project proposal as evaluated by Housing and Redevelopment Staff.
The affordability aspect of the proposed project is as follows:
l Sixty-one (61) of the units, or 813, will be affordable to households/persons with gross household incomes in the low income rang8 of 61% to 80% of the San Diego County Median. Eligible incomes would range from approximately $17,350 for a one person household to $33,050 for a four person.
The rents for the units will range from $350 to $650 per month and the size of units will range from 267 sq.ft. (studios) to 743 sq.ft. (two bedroom).
These units will be restricted in terms of the amount of rent that can be charged for a minimum of thirty (30) years.
l Fourteen (14) of the units, or 19%, will be rented at market rates. Initially, these rents will most likely be affordable to low income households. However, the units will not be restricted for affordability purposes. Therefore, if the market rate rents increase, the property owner will not be restricted to low income affordable rates for these units.
l One unit will be used for an on-site manager (no rental income on the unit).
.
l The applicant has agreed to maintain the low income affordability requirements for a minimum of thirty (30) years as noted above.
l The applicant will receive no financial assistance from the City of Carlsbad. The granting of the Density Bonus allowed by ordinance for Senior Housing is adequate incentive to make this project financially feasible to the applicant. All appropriate and required findings and conditions of approval have previously been recommended for the project in order to allow the Commission the ability to grant the Density Bonus and use units from the IlExcess Dwelling Unit I1 Bank for the purposes of approving the proposed project.
RECOMMENDATIOY
Housing and Redevelopment staff recommends approval of the proposed project with the understanding that the affordability terms outlined above will be incorporated into the project as conditions through an Affordable Housing Agreement. The project meets the objectives of the City in terms of providing housing affordable to low income households. The City will be able to record the restricted 61 low income units as a partial accomplishment in meeting its share of 'Inew construction" affordable housing once the units are built. .
EVAN E. BECKER Housing and Redevelopment Director
. ST. FRANCIS COURT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT BUMMARY OF PROPOBAL
PROJECT Three story building with a total of 76 DEBCRIPTION rental units for S.eniors only. The breakdown of units is as follows:
l 14 studio units O6- 267 sq.ft O6- 349 sq.ft O 2- 387 sq.ft
l 56 1 bedroom units (537 sq.ft. each) 0 6 2 bedroom units (743 sq.ft. each)
l 1 unit will be used for on-site manager (no rental income)
The project will include such amenities as:
l a large recreation room;
l area for beauty and barber services, social gatherings, movies & games;
l meeting area for health and.governmental lectures; 0 quality of life enhancement programs;
l lush landscaping and gardens; and,
l special design features to accommodate seniors (e.g., lever handles, wide doors, etc.)
DEVELOPMENT Mary and John Steiger - property owner TEAM Barbara Lange - property owner
Mert Issacman - Southern Sun Development Company
Roy Blackford - Architect
BITE CONTROL Mary and John Steiger and Barbara Lange own property free of encumbrances. The property is located at 670 Laguna Drive in Carlsbad. It represents a 1.23 acre (1.18 acre net) lot on'the north side of Laguna between Jefferson and Madison Streets.
The,value of the site is estimated at $750,000.
AFFORDABILITY The affordability of the units is as follows: FEATURE8
l 61 units (81%) will be affordable to low income households (61% to 80% of County median). These units include a mixture of studios, 1 bdrs. and 2 bdrs.
The unit rents will be set based on a sliding scale approach according to gross household income and household size. For example, if a 1 person household has an income of $20,250 (70% of county median), the rent for the unit, including utilities, would be set at $506 per month. A 2 person household at 70% of county median would pay $579 per month.
OR
The unit rents will be set at a fixed rate based on a gross household income at 65% of the county median and applicable household size. For example, a 1 person household would pay $470 per month and a 2 person household would pay $538 per month.
The method for setting rents will be out- lined within an affordable housing agree- ment between City and developer.
l 14 units (19%) will be market rate units (may or may not be affordable to low income persons depending on market)
The designated units will remain affordable to low income households for a minimum of thirty (30) years.
FINANCIAL The lender is Centennial Mortgage Company. The loan will be insured by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development through their Section 231 program.
The applicant is requesting m financial assistance from the City of Carlsbad.
LAND The Zoning for the noted property is R-3. The USE/DESIGN project meets applicable development stan- dards for R-3 zoning.
The proposed project involves the development of a senior citizen housing project per the requirements of Section 21.18.045 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows senior housing by conditional use permit.
The project will feature a 3 story structure with contemporary Spanish Style architecture, a parking lot, landscaping and various project amenities.
Surrounding land uses consist of multi-family residential, single family residences and professional offices.
MANAGEMENT A professional management team will reside PLAN on-site to manage the property and coordinate activities for the residents.
ADMINIBTRATIVE No significant administrative impact on city IMPACT8 staff is anticipated at this time. The applicant will assume responsibility for qualifying tenants for units and monitoring continued eligibility.
City will establish responsibility for monitoring compliance with conditions on project in an Affordable Housing Agreement.
RISKS AND The City will assume no financial risk. The CONDITIONS development team, however, assumes normal development risks.
Application for HUD insured loan will take approximately 1 year to process. No guarantees of approval at this time. -- 1993
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CUP 90-15
CASE NAME: St. Francis Court
APPLICANT: Marv Steiner
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Reauest for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow
the construction of a three storv building for senior citizen housing consisting of 76
dwelling units. Several affordable units will be provided. The nroiect location is located
at the terminus of Madison Street on the northside of Larmna Drive.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel A and B of that portion of Lot 1 in Section 1, Township 12,
South. Range 5 West. San Bernardino Meridian, in the Citv of Carlsbad. Count-v of San
Dieno. State of California APN: 155223-08/09
(Assessois Parcel Number)
Acres 1.18 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 76
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RMH/O
Density Allowed 11.5 du/acre Density Proposed 64 du/acre as allowed per Section
Growth Control Point of RMH 21.18.045
Existing Zone R-3 Proposed Zone R-3 c
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site R-3 Vacant/Single Family
North R-1-10 Single Family
south VR Residential/Professional
East R-3 Multi-family
West R-3 Single Family
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 76 EDU’s
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated October 22. 1990
Sewer District Carlsbad
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
x Negative Declaration, issued Mav 9, 1991
- Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
ENM:Vd
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACRITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO.: St. Francis Court - CUP 90-15
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1
ZONING: R-3
GENERAL PLAN: RMH-0
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Marv Steiner
ADDRESS: 3138 Skvhne Drive. Oceanside, CA 92056
PHONE NO.: (619) 757-1405 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 155-223-08/09
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 1.23 AC
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage =
Library: Demand in Square Footage =
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site pIan)
Circulation:
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Demand in ADTs = 304
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 1
2c!l
N/A
Open Space: Acreage Provided -
Schools:
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demand in EDUs -
identify Sub Basin -
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: DemandinGPD -
The project is 62 units above the Growth Management DweIIing unit allowance.
16.720
ENM:Vd
311
166
.62
N/A
N/A
N/A
.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANTS STATEMENT Of DISCLOSURE Of CERTAIN OWNEFISHIP WRESTS ON ALL APWCAllONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE
DlSCFEllONAFW ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINIED BOARD, COMMtSSlON OR coMMnlE.E.
(Plrau Pr(n() 4
The following information must be disclosed:
I. Apnllcant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Sarbara Lange 3 c :,'ary ,5. Steiaer e&2054 v 3138 92056 Ci-77 i .ri i 'ohn ?. u Steiner 3138 s!-.;T~P privp. rppan ,pp c * _) , 92056
2. Owner
t t %a%ara &n~e name and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 522 Stanley, Oceanside 92054 -I ~ u. b , TL 3138 Skyiine Drive, Oceanside 92056
,'okn -p-. Steicrer 7132 .?!a71 inn T\ri~rn cm-, 92056
3. tf any person identMed pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses
of ail individuals owning more than 10% of the shafes in the corporation of owning any partnership interest in the
pphiP* ?
4. If any person Mentitled pursuant to (1) 01(r) above Q a non-profit ofganization or a trust, list the names and
addresses of any Person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organhtion or as trustee or beneficiary of
the trust. N/P.
FRfWIOl 12/91
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-I 576 l (619) 438-l 161
Disclosure Statement
-
Page 2
5. Have you had more #an $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No x If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is definod N: ‘Any individual, fin, coputnwohip, joint VUIU% n80ChYbn, aodd Club, ffatunal organization, ceporation, o&to, tnrg
syndic&. thir md any other county, city and county, city municipality, dhtrkt or OthW pOk8i ~ubdkhion, or sty othw group 01 combintion acling as
unit.’
Signature &%pplicant/&de
Sarbara Lange !Iar~- _. Steiqer
name of owner
Barbara Lange Yary Eteiger
Print or type name of applicant
FRMOOOl 12/91
PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993 PAGE 14
Commissioner Schramm requested that the record show she voted no because she would like to retain the
6 ft. side yard setback.
PUBLIC HEARING:
4. CUP 90-l 5 - ST. FRANCIS COURT - Request for Planning Commission’s recommendation of
approval for a Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of a senior
citizen housing project consisting of 76 dwelling units on a two lot in-fill site on the north side of
Laguna Drive at the northern terminus of Madison Street in the R-3 Zone within Local Facilities
Management Zone 1.
Eric Munoz, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the St. Francis
Court project is a 76-unit senior citizen affordable housing project located on the north side of Laguna
Drive at the northern terminus of Madison Street. The project is proposed on an R-3 lot. This project first
came before the Commission in July 1991 and was sent back to staff because the applicant could not
guarantee a minimum percentage of affordable housing units. Since that time, the Housing and
Redevelopment staff and the Planning Department have worked with the applicant to resolve the affordable
housing issues and see what kind of a minimum percentage of affordable housing units could be
guaranteed. Everything has now been worked out and 81% (61 units) of the total 76 units can be
affordable housing units to the low income range. The balance of the units would be market-rate units.
An affordable housing agreement to actualize this ratio will be required to be approved by the City Council
prior to issuance of building permits. Other changes have also been made to the project since 1991. They
involve minor changes to the design. Essentially, from the 84 unit project originally proposed, there are
now 76 units. As a result, there will be less units coming out of the excess unit bank for this project. The
smallest amount of floor area associated with the rooms being offered have been eliminated. The parking
ratio has been slightly improved (38 spaces required and 41 spaces are proposed). Three handicapped
parking spaces are included to serve the three handicapped units. By reducing the units from 84 to 76, the
density now proposed is 64 du’s/ac. The project in 1991 proposed 71 du’s/ac and 75 du’s/ac are allowed
by the senior citizen ordinance. All development standards of the underlying R-3 zone are either met or
exceeded by this project and all findings for a CUP can be made.
Mr. Munoz used the elevations on the west wall and described the proposed project. He concluded his
presentation by stating that the project complies with all state and federal regulations for senior citizen
housing as well as our senior citizen ordinance. Staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if guest parking is required. Mr. Munoz replied that the parking
requirement is one space per two units, which includes guests, residents, and staff. There is no breakdown
for types of parking in that requirement.
Commissioner Welshons stated that when the applicant first came before the Commission with this project,
they had difficulty complying with the affordable housing requirement. She inquired how that was
resolved. Mr. Munoz replied that at that time the applicant was looking for the City to provide incentives for
affordable housing. However, no incentives were agreed upon since that time and the developer has also
managed to reduce the density by a few units. The only incentive that the City is willing to agree to is the
increased density, as allowed by the senior ordinance.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the applicant will receive redevelopment funds for this project. Debbie
Fountain, Senior Management Analyst, replied that staff has tried to work with developers in an attempt to
provide projects which don’t require subsidies from the City. By allowing increased density, this developer
can build the project without other incentives.
MINUTES
.
PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993 PAGE 15
Commissioner Welshons inquired how many of the 76 units will be affordable. Ms. Fountain replied that
61 units will be in the affordable range for low income households.
Commissioner Schlehuber commented that the parking seems slim and inquired if staff had arrived at that
parking ratio by studying other similar uses. Mr. Munoz replied that staff did look at the parking lots of
existing developments which were similar in nature. The parking ratios were similar and most of the time
there were plenty of parking spaces available. He noted that the ratio used to be less restrictive and it was
changed to 1:2. The senior project on Tyler Street has some parking problems but it was developed under
the previous parking requirement.
Commissioner Erwin commented that the density bonus being given by the City is in excess of 400%. Mr.
Munoz replied that, without the density bonus, 14 units would be allowed. In this case there are 76 units
proposed. The senior citizen housing ordinance allows 75 units per acre and this project proposes 64 units
per acre.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if, in exchange for this density bonus, the developer is guaranteeing to
provide 81% of the projects total units to low and very-low income. Ms. Fountain replied that the applicant
is guaranteeing that units will be provided in the low income range (60-80% of the median income). Staff
requested that it be pegged at 70% of the median income. Very low income would be 50% or below.
Commissioner Erwin referred to Resolution No. 3267, page 8, Condition #32, which reads that prior to the
issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement
to be approved by the City Council. The contents of the agreement shall include, but not be limited to, the
following items. Item H states City concessions or incentives to the developer. Commissioner Erwin
inquired if the applicant is expecting further concessions, monetary or otherwise from the City, above and
beyond this 400% density bonus. Ms. Fountain replied that if this project is approved, the only incentive
would be the density bonus. No additional financial incentives would be put into the project.
In that case, Commissioner Erwin would like to strike Item H which allows for additional incentives.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about the length of time the units will be affordable. Ms. Fountain replied
that the City has requested, and the applicant has agreed to, 30 years of affordability.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if staff has a signed document guaranteeing the 81%. Ms. Fountain replied
that staff still needs to develop the agreement. A document has not yet been signed. However, all of the
terms in the staff report have been agreed to by the City and the applicant.
Commissioner Hall inquired what triggers the CUP process. ‘Mr. Munoz replied that senior citizen housing
is covered under Section 21 .18.045 of the zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Hall requested staff to review the surrounding zones around the proposed project. Mr.
Munoz replied that to the east and west is R-3, to the north is R-l, and to the south is Village
Redevelopment.
Commissioner Erwin noted in the staff report that the smallest units of 264 s.f. had been eliminated but he
noticed that Unit E is 267 s.f. Mr. Munoz replied that there are six units which are 267 s.f. Previously,
there had been 12 units which were 264 s.f. It then jumps up to 350 s.f. or greater for the remaining 70
units.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about page 8 of the environmental evaluation which states that the proposed
project will not impact existing housing. Commissioner Erwin is concerned about the homes on the north
side. Mr. Munoz replied that the structure will be 22 ft. high at the rear yard setback line. It stays at 22 ft.
for about 30 ft. to the south and then it goes up to 32 ft. and three stories. The structure is still beneath the
MINUTES
CORRECTED
PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993 PAGE 16
35 ft. height limit required by the ordinance. If a single family home were built, it could be 30 ft. at the rear
setback line and this project proposes 22 ft. at that point.
Commissioner Schramm inquired if any additional consideration had been given to parking since the State
lowered the senior citizen age to 55. Mr. Munoz replied that this may be a reality which unfolds in the
future. Since this is a CUP, there will be annual reviews during the 10 year term. If it turns out that the
parking problem is severe, the applicant is aware that this is a CUP and it could be called back to resolve
any adverse situation.
Commissioner Welshons stated that since this project exceeds the growth control point, she would like the
“bank” explained. Mr. Munoz replied that there are currently between 700 and 800 units in the bank for the
northwest quadrant. This project will be taking 62 units out of that bank. He noted that the density isn’t
being granted because it is affordable housing but, rather, the increased density is specifically allowed in
the senior citizen housing ordinance. A senior citizen housing project must contain added amenities to
make it accessible to seniors, which is much different than a normal condo project.
Chairman Noble opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Barbara Lange, 522 Stanley, Oceanside, addressed the Commission and stated that she is a partner in the
St. Francis Court project. She stated that she moved to Carlsbad in 1949 and her family operated a tree
trimming business from their home on Laguna Drive. Her husband was diagnosed with a brain tumor in
1973 and she was unable to continue the business. In 1986 she sold half of the land to her friends, John
and Mary Steiger. She wanted to do something with their land to provide an income during their
retirement years so she and the Steigers formed a partnership and designed this senior citizen housing
project. She had originally planned for her and her husband to move into one of the units and manage the
project but her husband passed away in 1987. They submitted their application in 1991. In the beginning,
they had hoped to secure some HUD financing. They visited many other senior projects during the design
phase and tried to incorporate all of the good ideas they saw at other facilities.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the door in the recreation room accesses the utility room. Roy
Blackford, Architect, 2942 Harding, Carlsbad, replied that the utility room is only accessible from outside.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about the purpose of the utility room. Mr. Blackford replied that it will
contain heating/cooling equipment and a laundry sink. It will not receive daily use by the occupants.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if it will have space for residents to store some of their belongings, or if it
will be used to store chairs and tables for recreation purposes. Mr. Blackford replied that it would not be
used for that purpose.
Commissioner Savary commented that one of the handicapped parking spaces is quite a long distance
from the handicapped unit it serves. She would like to see the handicapped unit closer to its parking
space. Mr. Blackford felt that this change could easily be made.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the affordable housing agreement could be for more than 30 years.
Debbie Fountain, Senior Management Analyst, replied that staff and the applicant only agreed to 30 years.
Commissioner Erwin asked Ms. Lange if she would agree to deleting Item H from page 8. Ms. Lange
agreed.
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, concurred with the deletion of Item H because it II.vXJIU/~@~~~&QY~J‘ f6t/flWC~/f6 implies that the City must grant additional concessions.
MINUTES
.
PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993 PAGE 17
Commissioner Hall inquired if Ms. Lange had discussed this project with her neighbors. She replied that
she had but several of them are not in favor of the project.
Victor Lockwood,.2450 Buena Vista Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he takes
exception to the last comment. To his knowledge, Ms. Lange has had no interaction with any of the
neighbors for many years. In the beginning she did talk about a 25 unit project or a day care center but
this is a far cry from 25 units. He feels the project is far too dense. In the rear setback area there are
SDG&E utility lines and the area cannot be landscaped to shield the building mass. Although the applicant
has proposed planting some 15 gallon trees, it will take many years for them to mature. Mr. Lockwood is
concerned about parking since Ms. Lange stated that outsiders would be invited in for various activities.
Furthermore, people who are 55 years old still drive cars and he doesn’t believe there is adequate parking.
He is concerned about the additional traffic on Laguna Drive. The residents in this area were told a long
time ago that Laguna would be widened but it has not happened. There are no sidewalks and it is unsafe
to walk on Laguna. Mr. Lockwood is also concerned about the safety of the residents and inquired how a
fire engine or paramedic could access the rear units. He feels the 267 sf. units are too small for a person
to live in. He thinks they will be like cattle. He has no objection to someone developing their property but
he is opposed to this excessive density.
Commissioner Welshons requested Mr. Lockwood to point out on the map where he lives, and he did.
Dave McMahon, 2401 Buena Vista Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he echoes
Mr. Lockwood’s comments. It appears to him that the densities being granted are excessive. He would like
to see the highest mass next to the R3 lots and the lowest mass next to the Rl lots. The present design
will block all sunlight from the neighbors in the rear. Mr. McMahon would like to see senior housing and
affordable units distributed equally throughout the City. He doesn’t want to see this project approved
without improvements to Laguna Drive because it is unsafe without curbs and sidewalks. He feels that
parking is woefully substandard and there is no place to accommodate visitors or emergency vehicles.
Onda Lockwood, 2450 Buena Vista Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that there is
not even a safe place for people to walk along Roosevelt going to the post office. Parking at the project is a
problem. She would rather see the parking in the rear of the building so it would provide a buffer. She
hopes that the R3 lots adjoining this lot don’t decide to have this kind of density too.
Diedre Knowlton, 2430 Buena Vista Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she lives
directly behind the proposed project. The homes on Buena Vista Circle are all single family. The residents
in this area feel it is a wonderful secret in downtown Carlsbad. Everyone has a stake in the downtown area
and they support the downtown area. If the proposed project is approved her home will be shrouded in
darkness until lo:30 a.m. or 1l:OO a.m. every day. It is the mass which bothers her. She is also
concerned that people out on their balcony can have full view of her bedroom, bathroom, and patio. MS.
Knowlton is concerned that there will be insufficient parking if visitors are invited in to participate in group
activities like bingo, etc. She provided a scale model of what the project will look like in comparison to the
other homes in the vicinity.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the model is built to scale. Ms. Knowlton replied that it was.
Bill Stalder, 2407 Buena Vista Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he lives across
the street from Ms. Knowlton. He could have lived anywhere but he fell in love with downtown Carlsbad.
He does not feel the proposed project is in the best interest of the neighborhood or the City. He hopes we
don’t begin emulating Oceanside’s poor land use practices.
Patricia Speelman, 2430 Buena Vista Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she
understands the CUP is for a 10 year period. However, she would like to know what will happen if the
conditions are violated. Obviously, the building cannot be removed once it is built.
MINUTES
.
CORRECTED
PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993 PAGE 18
Chairman Noble invited the applicant to return for rebuttal. She requested that her partner be given that
opportunity.
Mary Steiger, 3138 Skyline Drive, Oceanside, addressed the Commission and stated that senior citizens
are clean, neat, and need a place to live. They cannot afford a car. There is a long list at the Housing
Office of seniors needing affordable housing. Many seniors wish to live alone. They are good tenants
because they are quiet, their lights go out early, and they are an asset to the community. Senior citizens
need to live close to City services. She noted that if they had wanted to, they could have built townhomes
up to a height of 35 ft. and this is not that high. She and her partner have tried to be sensitive to the
design. They want the complex to be attractive. They are not requesting any concessions from the City
other than the density bonus allowed by the City’s senior housing ordinance. In addition, affordable
housing has been mandated by the State and they are helping to fulfil1 that need.
Commissioner Hall inquired how she can justify a density which is four times that of townhomes. Ms.
Steiger replied that the City Council has been encouraging affordable housing units to be built in Carlsbad.
Commissioner Welshons inquired what else might have been considered at this location if the applicant
had not designed a senior citizen project. Ms. Steiger replied that there was never any intention to build a
25-unit project. The original plan was for 75 units. They had also considered a day care center.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the project would be economically viable with a reduced density. Ms.
Steiger could not respond. Many developers have told her that the proposed project was not economically
feasible.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Noble declared
the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. ,
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, responded to the comments of what will happen if the CUP is
violated. He stated that the project will be reviewed on an annual basis. During the 10 year period, it can
be recalled at any time for reconditioning. If, at any time, the City determines that the use is no longer
desirable, there is a safeguard that this structure can be converted to 14 units. The applicant is aware that
this change can be required.
Commissioner Hall inquired what will happen four years from now, when the project is 80-90% leased, if
we have a tremendous parking problem. Will we remove people from out of the units? Gary Wayne,
Assistant Planning Director, replied that there are many ways to provide additional parking. There could
be added parking offsite, a valet service, a shuttle bus, or some other accommodation.
Mr. Wayne commented on Condition #32 and stated that Item H can be deleted for purposes of this CUP.
However, he called to the attention of the Commissioners that the affordable housing agreement is under
the purvue of the City Council. The City Council can add incentives if they desire. However, if the
Commission plans to approve the proposed project, staff would like to amend Condition #32 not only to
delete Item H, but to also add a sentence locking in the 61 affordable housing units. He proposed the
following continuation of that sentence as follows: I’... and shall be consistent with the recommendations
contained in the February 24, 1993 memorandum to the Planning Director from the Housing &
Redevelopment Director, attached hereto.” This memorandum spells out all of those conditions.
Commissioner Schlehuber has no problem deleting Item H. He noted, however, that the only way to get an
affordable housing agreement is to give concessions. By deleting Item H, it looks as though the developer
did not receive any concessions when, in fact, the density bonus is a concession. Ms. Hirata replied that
the condition could recite that a density bonus has been given. She just didn’t like the way Item H was
worded because it implies that other incentives CbhfU must be given.
PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993 PAGE 19
Commissioner Schlehuber commented that all speakers made very good points. Commissioner Schramm
made a good point about the State lowering the age of senior citizens to 55 years. He inquired if staff feels
that the affordability issue affects one’s ability to own an automobile. Eric Munoz, Associate Planner,
replied that there-is not a lot of history to go on with regard to affordable housing projects in the City.
Parking ratios are only guidelines. These types of projects are typically located near public facilities.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about the density of the projects to the east on Kreymeyer Circle. Mr.
Munoz replied that they are multi-family stacked flat apartment units which run the entire length of the
proposed project.
Commissioner Savary requested staff to respond to the comment regarding accessibility for emergency
vehicles. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, replied that these plans were routed to the Fire Chief and
they have attached their conditions of approval. They have approved the project and have indicated
specific locations for fire hydrants.
Commissioner Savary requested staff to speak to the Laguna Drive improvements. Mr. Wojcik replied that
the Laguna Drive improvements are currently out to bid. They include curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and street
widening. The bid opening date is May 27, 1993. Typically, within 30 days of the bid opening, the City
Council would award the contract. Then, typically within 30 days of contract award, the construction would
begin. He estimates that construction on the improvements will begin in July or August 1993. It is possible
that those improvements will be completed by the time this building is ready for occupancy.
Commissioner Savary inquired about the comments regarding the storm drain. Mr. Wojcik replied that the
36 inch storm drain shown on the conditions of approval is shown in the Master Plan. Drainage fees are
currently being collected and being put aside for the construction of those storm drains. The existing storm
drain is either 18 or 24 inches, and it is inadequate, which is why the 36 inch drain is shown on the
drainage plan. The 36 inch drain would not be put in with the Laguna Drive improvements but must wait
until the funds are collected.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about Finding #l , that there is a need for senior citizen housing in close
proximity to downtown Carlsbad. He inquired if staff could substantiate that finding. Evan Becker, Director
of Housing & Redevelopment, replied that he can not recall the actual figure but the demand for affordable
senior housing is significant. The housing element doesn’t establish senior housing as the highest priority,
which is large-size rental housing. However, the affordable senior housing comes in as the second
priority.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if staff is assuming that senior housing is only needed in the downtown
area or if they have something upon which to base that conclusion. Mr. Becker replied that senior housing
is needed in the northwest quadrant because that is where senior housing wants to be. Seniors want to be
close to City services. It is the appropriate place for senior housing. That is what makes this project
desirable.
Commissioner Welshons inquired how much affordable housing we already have in the northwest
quadrant, and if it is a disproportionate share. Mr. Becker replied that the northwest quadrant has the
majority of affordable housing now. The goal of balance should not mean that we do not take advantage
of opportunities for additional affordable housing in the northwest quadrant.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about the large affordable housing project being planned for the Aviara
area. Mr. Becker replied that this will be a 380 unit project and the first in that quadrant. In the northeast
quadrant there is only a g-unit project which has been approved and they are hoping to attract more for
that quadrant. However, most senior housing seems to want to be located in the northwest quadrant.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993 PAGE 20
Commissioner Schlehuber requested staff to speak to the utility lines in the rear yard setbacks and how
they would be screened. Eric Munoz, Associate Planner, replied that the trees may have to be moved back
during plan check, and that the CUP process would allow flexibility to deal with the situation, if needed.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if staff had considered placing the parking in the rear of the lot. Mr.
Munoz replied that l/3 of the rear area is for parking while 2/3 is not. Of this area, one building is set back
33 ft. from the rear property line, and another building is set back 20 ft. with a reduced height of 22 ft. It
sounds as though this neighbor wants all of the parking along the rear of the site.
Commissioner Schramm inquired why we are putting palms along the rear, with long skinny trunks, when
we are attempting to buffer the area. Mr. Munoz replied that palms would only be located at the corners.
There would be screening landscape in the middle area.
Commissioner Schramm inquired what height will the landscaping grow to. Mr. Munoz replied that it
should grow at least 20-22 ft. high and could be trimmed or enhanced through the CUP process.
Commissioner Savary inquired what type of mature trees will be used. Mr. Munoz replied that the large
trees currently on the site will be relocated along the property’s northwest corner and a few other areas
on-site.
Commissioner Schlehuber requested the architect to speak to the comment regarding balconies. Mr.
Blackford replied that there are no balconies on the north side. There are only concrete slabs. There is,
however a rooftop deck on top of one of the units.
Commissioner Hall believes this is the most difficult project we will decide this year. Affordable housing is
a goal of the City but we need to decide what price we will pay to have affordable housing. Although he
firmly believes in a property owner’s right to develop his land, he believes that a density concession of four
times the allowed number of units is excessive. Not only does it cause too much traffic, it is unfair to put
this project on an infill lot backed up to Rl .
Commissioner Schlehuber agrees that it is a difficult project. He appreciates the public testimony and
stated that everyone made good comments. At the same time, he feels the project is needed. His mother
lived in a similar project which was not affordable. If parking is perceived to be a problem, we need to
correct it. However, the applicant is only requesting what can be granted to them from the City. He
believes that this is as good an affordable project as he has seen. He will support it.
Commissioner Erwin has the same concerns he did last time. He was enthused when he saw that the
264 s.f. units were gone but dismayed to see units of 267 s.f. He cannot support a project with less than
500 sf. units. He noted a typographical error in Condition #l of Resolution No. 3267 and stated that the
Exhibits should read A-l. If the project is approved, he would like to remove Item H from Condition #32
and replace it with the wording given by the City Attorney.
Commissioner Welshons cannot accept the project due to the inadequate buffer and insufficient parking.
She appreciated the comments of the neighbors because they did their homework. She felt they have
legitimate concerns. She feels that 14 units might be fine but she thinks 76 units is far too many.
Chairman Noble stated that the applicant is allowed to have a higher density with senior citizen housing.
During the first go around he was concerned about the size of the units but his mother tells him that the
size is fine. Many people like small quarters and don’t need a larger unit. He will support the project.
Commissioner Welshons feels that waiving the growth control point is not compatible with the
neighborhood and bases her decision on that presumption.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993 PAGE 21
Commissioner Schramm can support the project because she thinks the City needs it. Affordable housing
is needed in all four quadrants. She feels this will be a nice project in this area but she doesn’t want to see many more in the northwest quadrant. She would like to see staff study the parking issues as they relate to
persons of 55 years in age. She thinks they should do that quickly before we encounter problems,
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3266 recommending approval of the Negative Declaration
issued by the Planning Director and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3267
recommending approval of CUP 90-15, based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein, with the following changes: (1) Add Mr. Waynes comment
to Condition #32 and remove Item H as suggested by Commissioner Erwin and the City
Attorney; (2) change the last paragraph of Condition #32 to read Condition #27 instead
of Condition #26; (3) relocate’the handicapped units closer to their parking spaces; and
(4) correct Condition #l of Resolution No. 3267 to read Exhibits A-l.
VOTE: 4-3
AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Savary, Schlehuber, and Schramm
NOES: Commissioners Erwin, Hall, and Welshons
ABSTAIN: None
5. AV 91-12(A) - HILL RESIDENCE - Appeal of the Planning Director’s decision denying the request
for an Administrative Variance for a reduced side yard setback, for a storage structure, from the
required 8 ft. to 2 ft. at 3317 Cadencia Street in the Planned Community (PC) Zone and in Local
Facilities Management Zone 6.
Van Lynch, Planning Technician II, reviewed the background of the request and stated that this item is a
continuance of a Planning Commission item heard on December 2, 1992. Staff recommended that the
Commission uphold the Planning Director’s decision to deny an administrative variance because the
findings necessary to grant the variance could not be made. The Commission approved the retaining wall
but could not agree to a reduced sideyard setback for a storage structure. The continuance was granted to
allow the applicant time to consult with an expert as to the appropriateness of the storage structure to solve
a ground water problem. To date, the applicant has not been able to provide this information to staff.
Since the required findings for an administrative variance of exceptional circumstances and for
preservation of substantial property rights cannot be made, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission uphold the Planning Director’s decision to deny the requested administrative variance.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if staff is requesting that Mr. Hill pull his storage structure back to the 8 ft.
setback line. Mr. Lynch replied to the affirmative.
Commissioner Hall inquired if this was the house with the swimming pool in the living room. Mr. Lynch
replied to the affirmative.
Chairman Noble opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Steve Hill, 3317 Cadencia, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he no longer has a
swimming pool in his living room. It was corrected with the wall and the roof. He was going to get a soils
inspector but he was unable to come up with the $4,000 to have it done due to some major medical
expenses his wife incurred. He might be able to do it within six months. Even with all of the recent rains, it
is the first time in 11 years that his living room did not flood. He stated that the streets are even rusty from
the huge amounts of water flowing through the neighborhood.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Noble declared
the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
MINUTES
- Q j-s
2330 Buena Uista Circle Carlsbad, CA 92006 February 19, 1992
Dear Madams and Sirs,
I own a home on Buena Uista Circle. This is the street directly behind the proposed St. Francis Court. Most of the
homes on Buena Uista Circle are owner occupied, and the people with whom I have spoken want to continue to live here. They speak of the neighborhood as being a "wonderful secret" in the heart of downtown Carlsbad. The people here are doctors, teachers, lawyers, contractors, business owners, retirees and others. We are all hard working citizens OF the city of Carlsbad. We are the people who eat in the restaurants downtown, buy from the shops and care for our beaches. There is an
ambiance in our neighborhood which creates a rural feeling. The feeling is not based on one thing, rather it is the amount of
open sky we see, the sounds of the lagoon, and the pleasant walk
to the beach and the shops. The street is a circle with little traffic, therefore, the ambiance is children playing in the street or neighbors walking or riding bikes and visiting with one another. It is knowing that the neighborhood watch system really. works and that the neighbors are responsible and respectful. The proposed St. Francis Court as a 33 foot tall building
will change the amount of privacy for several homes. It will alter the amount of sun we receive, especially during our short winter days, and it will change the breezes which eliminate our
need for air conditioning. A building 33 feet tall will become
the focal point of our neighborhood. It will dwarf the trees and our homes. Please consider these points:
1. Amount and Location of the parking:
Adequate parking was questioned at both
planning commission meetings concerning the
PrGJeCt. It seems tee little Fcr the nmbers of units. Commissioner Schramm asked about parking with respect to the new senior
citizen ape of 55 years. Mr. Munoz said that
there will be annual reviews, and if there is a parking problem, it will be resolved. Later in the meeting Gary Wayne suggested added parking off site with a valet service a
shuttle bus or "some other accommodation. ” Commissioner Schramm suggested that the increased parking need because of the new
senior age be researched before "we encounter problems." She was correct. To us, before
“we encounter problems," means before the structure and parking lot is constructed. If additional parking is a possibility, who determines that it is needed and who will pay for it? The properties west of the proposed building are zoned R3. Mrs. Steiger explained that the parking lot would be
.-
placed west of the proposed building so that there would be a buffer between St. Francis Court and those properties which are single family homes. We understand Mrs. Steiger's desire to maximize the number of units
pointing west for the view, however, the properties to the north and north west of the proposed buildings are residential and will remain so. My neighbors and I suggest that the parking lot buffer be placed at the north
end of the property with the entrance and driveway at the west. 2. A two versus three story building: In July 1931, Mrs. Steiger pointed out that
the north end of the building is cut-back to allow for a balcony. This, she said, was to decrease the impact on the homes to the north. The rooftop deck and third story walkways give people full view of several
homes and yards. People sitting on this balcony three stories above my yard will not only have a beautiful sunset but will be able to peer directly into my study, kitchen, family room and master bedroom. My family,
and a few of my neighbors will lose our privacy and valuable winter sun and summer breezes. The southern most apogee of the sun relative to my
house is directly behind the length of the proposed building. Therefore, my neighbors and I will literally be shrouded by this structure most of the winter mornings. Since the sun travels low in the sky during
the winter months, our daily sun will be greatly reduced which will change what we will be able to grow,increase our heat bills and it will obviate the
possibility for our planned solar hot water. This
project as a two story building would have less impact on the surrounding homes than as a three story building. 3. Sound abatement and privacy: At the July 1991 meeting we suggested that
the power lines at the north end of the property be buried and an eight foot masonry wall be built for privacy and sound abatement. A six foot masonry wall was added to the plans prior the April '93 meeting but
the utility lines were never addressed. The problem is that, because of utility easements, neither the developer nor the neighbars to the north can grow. a screen that would block even a two story building from our view. When asked at the April '93 meeting, Mr. Munoz replied that ‘*the trees
may have to be moved back." There are only 20 feet between my fence and the proposed building and in scme places only five feet between my fence and the qtoposed parking
. t
lot. I dc net see !xw the trees can be “rnc’~sd back" to prevent int@rferinZ z:it!l the zti1ity lines. Larry Smith from the Right of Way Dept. at SDGE said that he has two tree cutting crews whose Job it is to remove parts of trees which grow into the utility lines. He strongly opposes planting trees near
utility lines. The utility lines could be buried to solve this problem. '4. Concern for the maintenance and the conversion plan:
We would want written assurance the building would be maintained at a very high standard. Who would watch and determine that the standards are being met? If the project fails to meet the conditional use permit guidelines for low income senior housing, will it be converted to the 12 units in the conversion plan?
Would these 1Lf units be low income housing? How many people will live in each unit?
We ask that the Mayor and each of the council members drive around Buena Uista Circle and stop at our house at 2930 to get a view from here. On your way to our neighborhood, stop at the corner of Jefferson and Grand. There is a three story building
next to a charming old home which is now office space. The proposed St. Francis Court will be about 20 feet further from the back of my house than that building on Jefferson is from the
house next to it, Because of my location relative to the proposed building, I will truly have very little sun in my yard. My house will literally stand in the shadow of this building. My neighbars and I understand that the owners of this property want to build a nice, attractive building, and we understand that this is a money making proposition, however, can the city allow these
owners to maximize their profits at the established homeowner's expense? I bought this property because the house and the neighborhood are charming and because I envisioned hours of outdoor living. I am positive that any one of the people on the city council would feel their home and lifestyle threatened by such a structure as the proposed St. Francis Court.
1. Amount and Location of Parking: People 55 and older do have cars and drive. Is off site parking a reality? The parking lot as a buffer to R3 as opposed to Rl.
2. A two versus three story building: The mass of structure. The view of my home from the rooftop deck and third story walkways. Loss of winter sun; altering what
we can grow, increasing the need for heat and removing the use of solar hot water in the winter. The indescribable feeling one gets
living under the shadow of a tall
building.
3. Sound abatement and privacy: Bury the utility lines so that trees can be planted.
Lf. Concern for the maintenance and the conversion plan: Determine in advance who or what group will determine and enforce standards for beautification and
maintenance (i.e. walkways as bike or mop storage, landscaping).
What will trigger the conversion plan? f#re there rules for how long it can take?
Who can live in the 1Lf units and
how many people per unit?
The building will remain even
though the project may not work
which means we must live with the
outcome.
Robert Pat Kelly 2770 Sunny Creek Road Carlsbad, CA 92008
Mayor Bud Lewis and the Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008
Ref: St. Francis Court 670 Laguna Drive
July 26, 1993
Dear Mr. Mayor and Honorable Council Members:
As a property owner in the City of Carlsbad, I have been concerned with the California State requirements for low income housing. I understand that 15% of all new housing must be low income rental units and that an "in lieu" fee of approximately $15,000.00 per unit, has been proposed. I mention these numbers because they make readily apparent the potential difficulties inherent in meeting the low income housing requirements that the City of Carlsbad and its property owners now face.
It would seem to me, that the project entitled "St. Francis Court", at 670 Laguna Drive, could very adequately satisfy a portion of the City's obligation to provide low income housing. It would qualify as a fine example of at least one approach to addressing the City's obligation and it would show the City's good faith in attempting to meet this obligation. It would also accomplish this at no cost to the City of Carlsbad, as I understand that no subsidies are being requested.
For these reasons, as well as the need to support projects that will not adversly impact our local schools, I urge you to follow the advice of our Planning Commission and City Staff and endorse this proposal. The City Council needs to show its constituents that it supports thoughtful, well conceived, and much needed projects. It would be a fine demonstration of the responsible managed growth that the Council purports to champion.
Sincerely,
HUM/q Robert Pat Kelly
July 27, 1993
The Ponorable ?'ayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad "illage Crive Carlshad, CA 92008
Gentlemen:
As a longtime resident of the City of Carlsbad I wish to register my support for the proposed St. Francis Court senior complex project to be located at 670 Lacuna Drive.
T have followed this project closely since its inception and the Develo-ers ha;re made every effort to provide affordable senior housing with pleasant surroundings, lots of activities and an ideal location where services and day-to-day functions are easily accessible.
This project ~1. 11 not only provide much needed affordable senior housing in the downtown area but will also allow the City of Carlsbad to meet their housing requirements under the State of California for the senior residents of the community.
The entire City of Carlsbad, and especially our senior population, will benefit ,yreatly from this project. I, therefore, urge the City Council to accept the recommendations and approval of the ?lanni~n,* Commission and City Staff and approve this project as presented.
Respectfully submitted,
J
2850 Elmwood Street Carlshad, California 92008
August 3, 1993
TO: Mayor of Carlsbad ' Carlsbad City Council Members
FROM: Jo Ellen Penman, resident of Carlsbad
RE: St. Francis Court proposed low income,' senior citizen'housing Life Safety Codes I
Mayor and Council Members;.
My family owns a home on Buena Vista Circle in close proximity to the proposed housing project. As a concerned,citizen I am establishing my right to publically speak out and question the managers' way of making decisions as'to why certain housing is built in certain areas of a city and why other locations'are not considered. I will go over some of the recent comments made about ,this situation and I must :remind you the ,THESE ARE.NOT DIRECT QUOTES but rather thought patterns expressed to more than one observer: 1. a majority of'the people housed in this facility will not be driving cars -- retired people give their cars up first. It was further offered that there#would not be any need -GYY y~~-&~syocy: for even one-half of the total number of units -- an estimated 30 parking spaces for 76 units. And then there are employees. Off site parking is be considered for them. Would Buena Vista Circle be one of the considerations for their parking? I believe that further on this subject three handicapped spaces will be provided for residents.
2. Senior citizen housing has to be in this quadrant due to the shopping opportunities available for easy access by foot. I invite all of you to take a great walk with me or by ., yourselves to Big Bear, the Post Office, and/or other facilities in the downtown area: Pay special attention to traffic and terrain and how they effect your progress. Don't forget to try to manage a pull-along cart for your purchases. Then stop and think of yourself as a senior citizen doing this negotiating;.,&ars will be used and therefore any other quadrant,uded.
3. It was stated more than once that our Fire Department has signed off this property as having the necessary ingress and egress for the sa&ty vehiciles of'our emergency system. Is this public knowledge?
-
Page 2
I am most concerned about The number of units that are proposed ," for this property. It has been stated that the zoning calls for 14 units; however,the consideration now is for 76 units on the same amount of property. The idea of such a large structure is not appealing to me because I cannot understand why one would develop so much more housing than is called.for in the beginning when all is guarded by codes. Will the 'state verify variances or does the City Council? The variances that Ilam most concerned about are those that apply to Life Safety Codes of senior citizens housed in a huge structure for life situations.
1. Laguna'Drive is narrow, highly traveled, and there are no sidewalks, traffic lights, marked intersections,etc:
2. This housing project will have a blind intersection.
3. Will there be handicap access to ALL units?
' 4. I am requesting that the Life Safety Codes for this particular project be made public as to content and as how and by whom decisions and variances were determined. Who will be personally accountable for packing a'lot of people into a small area? Will City Council provide waivers for other business and developments to exempt 'them from having Life Safety Codes, tra'ffic control requirements, handicap access, and living conditions where over 500% increase can be made on an existing piece of property in relation as to how many residents can be housed there.?
5. One final request I am making is that flags and poles be established as to height of construction and interior size.
. .
I want to close this letter by asking you to visualize a situation. Most, if not all, of you have driven around Buena Vista Circle. I think that it can be agreed that it is a quiet neighborhood close to the downtown area of Carlsbad. There are only single-family residences in this area. By increasing the household residents by 5 people in each dwelling, would all things remain the same? Would we be as safe? Would our quality of living be as good? I do not think so. I am only asking that the density of units not be as high for the proposed project. Would two stories and fewer residents be terrible -- granted less money made but where‘do we draw the line so that,senior citizens can have the most safe experience at living.
-
Carlsbad City Council
Mr.Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen;
I must address the consequences of the proposed St.Francis building from two perspectives. First, as a resident owner at 2409 Buena Vista Circle, and secondly, as the viewpoint of a professional real estate agent, alert to the impact St. Francis will have on-all properties from Laguna to Roosevelt to Buena Vista Circle. As a homeowner, my family has lived in BVC since the late "50's" The peaceful, rural, and private atmoshere of this neighborhood is uniquely placed within a stroll of the Village and beaches. This is what attracted my family here and what we wish to preserve for our future families. I feel the intrusion df a massive 3 story apartment building with it's attendent traffic of deliveries, service and staff cars; as well as the pro+ect of more people using the Circle as "walking area" withou&ti- Forever, reasen to be there will change this serenity A building with only 2 stories and with less occupants would conform better to the surroundings and would at least ease the commercial look as a transition from Laguna St. to BVC. As a realtor, I have personally seen a decrease in the desirability of living in Buena Vista Circle due to what.the concera are expressed for the future plans for ALL the vacant or large lots on Laguna. I currently represent a Seller whose home backs up to a portion of the St, .Francis project includes My fiduciary responsibilities and rnr*egal obligations my dis%sing to any Buyer what I know is prepared for that property. We have had over 90 Buyers thFough our listing, and whenever the questionkarises of "What is happening behind lthis home?" I explain that a 3 story apartment building is going to be built there-they get in their cars and drive off: It is obvious to the buying public that once St. Francis is built, then the corner lot on Laguna, the one next to,it and the other lots towards Jefferson could go the same way. Obviously, this affects the value of each and every home on Buena Vista Circle. As a realtor, I think of "Highest and Best Use of the Land as one method of appraisal or value. I do not think ti also means “3 Story" Progress is inevitable as is change, but not to the detriment of the surroundings properties. I ask "Who Profits or Benefits"? We do not if our values decrease- the only one who profits is the developer...
Concerned, but sincere
.-
To: Carlsbad City Council Members
From: Victor W. and Onda I. Lockwood
Date: August 2, 1993
Subject: Opposition to St Francis Court
I have resided with my family for the last twentyifive(25) years
at 2450 Buena Vista Circle, Carlsbad, We oppose the St. Francis
project for the following reasons:
(1) Density of proposed project too HIGH for existing
neighborhood. Comparing the proposed project with other exist-
ing building around neighborhood, a possible 150 plus individuals
housed in seventy-six(76) units on a city lot, one and * acres,
three stories seems overly high. The question arises, "Do we
want our downtown area to become a high density area as in most
large metro- cities across America???
(2) Lack of off street parking. A great majority of the
proposed residents will be still be working for a living. Most
of these individuals will still require/desire a vehicle. The
twenty(20) plus parking will not accomodate the residents, even
if when leasing an apartment they choose to not need a parking
place;.much less the family visiting&and hopefully visiting
friends, or for the workforce to maintain the facility plus the
home health personnel greatly needed to be of help to the non-
working senior who is retired because of age and/or health
problems. With this lack of parking, the surrounding areas
will surely be adversely effected.
In closing, I would like to state that my family and I are not
opposed to development of the said property, but to the shear
size and density of the proposed facility. The city of Carlsbad
would have restricted the project to fourteen(14) units if not
for the senior citizen (low-income) designation. If good
thoughtful community planning would have dictated fourteen(14)
apartments, how in good faith can seventy-six(76) units be
planned just because thefuture occupants are over fifty(sG)?
Victor W. Lockwood Onda I. Lockwoo
We the residents of Buena Uista Circle and surrounding neighbors
believe that the proposed St. Francis Court project will adversly affect the neighborhood. The size of this building is so great, that it will decrease the value of our homes, alter the breezes and reduce the amount of sun we recieve and our privacy.
We request that changes be made to make the building more
compatible with the surrounding land uses.
fj&4tzwP L A-f-l- 2+3/ ,&uene \/rib e(;/lL,
- .
h!iLJ g-?-Q3
-
ROBCO
2531 STATE STREET
CARLSBAD. CA 92009
PHONE 619 - 729-2359
RR. ROBINSON
August 3, 1993
Mayor Bud Lewis and the Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
With reference to the proposed housing project designated as "St. Francis
Court" located on Laguna Drive, I own substantial property a short distance
away at the intersection of Laguna Drive and State Street and am strongly
in favor of this proposed housing project.
Housing of this type is badly needed in Carlsbad and the location is excellent
for this purpose.
I urge the Council to support this much needed addition to the housing
inventory of Carlsbad.
R.R. Robinson
August 11, 1993
Ms. Mary Steiger 3138 Skyline Drive Oceanside, CA 92056
RE: Approval of Conditional Use Permit 90-15 - St. Francis Court
The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of August 3, 1993,
adopted Resolution No. 93-227, approving Conditional Use Permit 90-15 - St. Francis Court.
Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 93-227 for your records.
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, CMC City Clerk
ALR:ijp
Enclosure
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Cartsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2808 @
4963 Park Drive Czrlsbad, CA. g2oo8 July 26, 1993
Niayor Lewis & Council Members 1200 Cttrlsbad Village Drive Car&bad, CA. gmo8
Dear Mayor Lewis & Council Members
Dr. Pace and I moved to Carlsbad in January of 1946.
We have observed with pride the development, since
incorporation, of Carlsbad due to the largely intelligent,
dedicated and visionary leadership in city government.
My present concern is the lack of low income
housing for seniors, in spite of state requirements that
there be such housing available. This is a serious problem.
The proposed project - St. Francis Court, 670 Laguna
Drive in Curlsbad seems ideally planned and most suitably
located '2s it is in an are8 providing e,sy access to
downtown shopping &nd bus service. The extensive planning,
over many years, h:Ls produced a project c,rei"ully con-
ceived with attention to :*ll det;!.ils required to answer
city building requirements.
I sincerely hope that the fine aspects of this
project will convince you toaccept this affordable
senior complex.
Very truly yours,
Evelyn Pace
(Mrs. J. Blair)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CUP 90-15 - ST. FRANCIS COURT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, August 3, 1993, to consider a
request for approval of a Negative Declaration and a Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of a senior citizen housing project consisting of 76 dwelling units on a two lot in-fill site on property generally located on the north side of Laguna Drive at the northern terminus of Madison Street in the R-3 zone within Local Facilities Management Zone 1, and more particularly described as:
Parcel A and B of that portion of Lot 1, Township 12 South, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Eric Munoz in the
Planning Department at 4348-1161, ext. 4441.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration and/or Conditional Use Permit in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
APPLICANT: Mary Steiger PUBLISH: July 22, 1993
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
Carlsbad CA 92008
Mccall Ellen M Est Of 2720 S 14th Ave Seattle Wa 98144
Jeffrey Chandler PO Box 1315
Ranch0 Santa Fe C 92067
Vincent B & Anne Ryan 3008 Federal Hill Dr Falls Church Va 22044
Vera A Sot0 985 Oak Ave Carlsbad CA 92008
James R Gordon
PO Box 994 Carlsbad CA 92018
George & fdella Svihus
733 Laguna Dr Carlsbad CA 92008
+*+ 24 Printed +++
l J Marte
nr vista Cir
CA 92008
A Penman
na Vista Cir Carlsbad CA 92008
Marion E Carpenter
660 Laguna Dr Carlsbad CA
Ada B Hancock 251 Coneflower St Encinitas CA
so ledad Sofo 2615 Madison St
Carlsbad CA
H S Ergin 3925 Skyline Rd Carlsbad CA
Lisa Bentson ’ 2644 Madison St Carlsbad CA
92008
92024
92008
92008
92008
Mayo Margaret A Revocab 819 Caminito Verde Carlsbrd CA 92009
Patricia N Speelman
2430 Buena Vista Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008
Roy 3 Ward 2400 Buena Vista Cir Carlsbrd CA 92008
Herrmrnn J blockier 10395 Melissa Ct Cupertino CA 93014
Joe P & Frances Apodaca 2622 Roosevelt St Carlsbad CA 92008
Jose & Mary Moreno 2605 Madison St
Carlsbad CA 92008
Presidential Plaza
PO Box 1667 Carlsbrd CA 92018
Stephen ?I Strother
3811 Margaret Way Carlsbrd CA 92008
Clyde 3 b Dora Barson .
2725 Jefferson St 6 Carlsbrd CA 92008
Carlsbad Laguna Apartme
.1637 Montgomery St Qroville CA 95965
PAric ia A LOWrY 2441 Buena Vista Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008
K-3 Inc 741 S Stehley kt Anaheim CA 92806
Richard A & Jo Penman
2431 Buena Vista Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008
William C Staldcr 2407 Buena Vista Cir Carlsbad CA 92008
*** 14 Printed ***
LewistElsbrce,
797 3rd St Encinitas CA 92024
Richard A Penman
2431 Buena Vista Cir
Catlsbad CA 92008
Doris M Hurncr
2461 Buena Vista Cir Catlsbad CA 92008
Jay C Fikes 2421 Buena Vista Cir Catlsbad CA 92008
Richard A Cook
2409 Buena Vista Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008
MARY STEIGER 3138 Skyline Drive Oceanside, CA 92056
Carlsbad Laguna Apartme
1637 Montgomery St Droville CA 93963
John Deyoung
2411 Buena Vista Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008
Robert Emmrrling 420 6th St
Manhattan Beach C 90266
Dawn H Suitts
2401 Buena Vista Cir
Carlsbad CA 92008
BARBARA LANGE
670 Laguna Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK ’ S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
ST, FRANCIS COURT - CUP 90-15
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for
-
of
Thank you.
MICHAEL J, HOLZMILLER
Assistant City Manager
JUNE 9, 1993
Date