HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-17; City Council; 12986; Army And Navy Academy Master Site PlanRECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and staff are recommending that the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission and the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare
documents DENYING the appeal of the Army and Navy Academy Master Site Plan, and
UPHOLDING the Design Review Board recommendation of DENIAJd WITHOUT PRE.JUDICE
of RP 94-02/CDP 94-02, and UPHOLDING the Planning Commission DENIAL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE of CUP 94-02.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On December 7, 1994, the Design Review Board and Planning Commission conducted a joint
public hearing and both denied without prejudice the Army and Navy Academy’s proposal for
a master site plan, located along the east and west side of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Beech
Avenue, in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. At the public hearing the Design Review
Board and Planning Commission directed the applicant to redesign the project without the
closure of Cypress Avenue and to resolve project issues concerning student/pedestrian. safety,
phasing of on-site parking, and building setbacks. The project was denied without prejudice to
allow the applicant to resubmit the revised application without having to wait one (1) full year.
Nine citizens (9) provided public testimony during the hearing. The testimony consisted of
seven (7) citizens in opposition to the project and two (2) citizens in support of the project.
Their public testimony is included in the attached Design Review Board and Planning
Commission Minutes dated December 7, 1994. Citizens in opposition to the project were
primarily concerned with the proposed closure of Cypress Avenue. These citizens felt that the
street closure would: (1) increase public parking problems in the neighborhood; (2) increase
traffic on Ocean Street and create traffic safety problems for pedestrians, and; (3) negatively impact traffic circulation in the area. The two (2) citizens in support of the project felt that **
Cypress Avenue should be closed because of the large number of students crossing the street,
and that the street is unsafe for pedestrians and vehicles.
The applicant is proposing a conceptual master site plan for the school that would guide the
future renovation of the campus. The master site plan would coordinate the provision and
timing of the public and private improvements to the campus and provide a comprehensive
framework for the overall architectural and land use design of the school. The Design Review
Board and Planning Commission’s central reason for denying the master site plan focused on
the proposed closure of Cypress Avenue and the phasing of the master site plan. The proposed
closure of Cypress Avenue and the phasing would:
1) The street closure would increase traffic at the Mountain View Drive and Carlsbad
Boulevard intersection, and increase the traffic on Ocean Street and Beech Avenue. The
Mountain View Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard intersection is less than optimal because
of the inability to legally turn left on Carlsbad Boulevard. The road segment of Ocean
Street between Cypress Avenue and Beech Avenue is very narrow and not fully
improved.
\
h , --
PAGE TWO OF AGENDA BILL NO. 12, ci8hz
2) Result in the elimination of approximately 25 to 29 public parking spaces along Cypress
Avenue at build-out of the master site plan. The public parking spaces that would be
eliminated are in close proximity to a pedestrian coastal accessway that leads to the
beach from Ocean Street.
3) Phasing of the master site plan would negatively impact public parking in the area.
Cypress Avenue would be closed in Phase 1 of the project, however, additional on-site
parking would not be constructed until Phase 4 and 9. This would force school
employees, students, and guests, who currently park on Cypress Avenue to park on other
surrounding public streets in the neighborhood.
The applicant has appealed the Design Review Board and Planning Commission decisions
because the applicant disagrees with the staffs opinion concerning the closure of Cypress
Avenue. The applicant has stated that: “issues of parking can be dealt with and that the
elimination of traffic from Cypress Avenue will benefit not only the Academy but also the City”.
During the staff review of the project and during the public hearing on December 7,1994 the
applicant did not offer to replace the public parking that would be eliminated by the project.
This project is not in conformance with the Local Coastal Program or the General Plan, not
consistent with the adopted recommendations of the North Beach Planning and Traffic Study,
would adversely impact public parking in the beach area, and adversely impact traffic circulation
in the neighborhood, therefore, the Design Review Board recommended denial without
prejudice of RP 94-02, and CDP 94-02, and the Planning Commission denied without prejudice
CUP 94-02.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
When staff recommends an expedient project denial based on non-compliance with either City
codes, adopted land use plans, or policies, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
does not require environmental review. This legal premise is based on the assumption that a
project can not create a significant adverse impact to the environment if the project is denied,
and therefore, never physically constructed. When staff recommends denial of a project early
in the project review process, not having to perform CEQA review prior to the public hearing
saves the applicant the additional money necessary to hire consultants to prepare further
environmental studies and documents.
After the Planning Department deemed the application complete on September 28,1994, the
applicant immediately requested a public hearing. As a result, the environmental review for this
project has not been conducted. If at the public hearing the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission and the City Council disagree with the Design Review Board and Planning
Commission decisions, and support the project, with the closure of Cypress Avenue, the project
cannot be legally approved at the hearing. The project must first be returned to staff for
further processing, including the completion of the environmental review. Once the project’s
environmental review is completed, the project can be rescheduled for further public hearings.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
PAGE THREE OF AGENDA BILL NO. /ai ‘%h
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Location Map
Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 216, and 217
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3727
Design Review Board and Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 7,1994
w/attachments
Excerpts of Design Review Board and Planning Commission Minutes, dated December
7, 1994.
Citizen Letters Received in the Mail and During the Design Review Board and Planning
Commission Hearing, on December 7, 1994.
3
EXMBIT 1
REDEVELOPMENT
’ BEECH AVE
n
City of Carlsbad
ARMY NAVY ACADEMY RP 94002/CDP 94-02/
MASTER SITE PLAN CUP 94-02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- . . EX- 2
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 216
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF
A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MASTER
SITE PLAN TO CLOSE CYPRESS AVENUE AND
REDEVELOP AND EXPAND THE EXISTING FACILITIES
OF THE ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY LOCATED ALONG
THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD, NORTH OF BEECH AVENUE, IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY MASTER
SITE PLAN
CASE NO: RP 94-02
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad
and referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design
Review Board did, on the 7th day of December, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing
to consider said application on property described as:
Lot 46 and a Portion of Lot 47 of Granville Park According to
Map Thereof No. 1782, February 21, 1924; Lots 58-73, 75, 76,
94-96, 98-101, 102-130, 131, 153-170, 177-198 Inclusive of
Granville Park No. 2, According to Map Thereof No. 2037,
June 18, 1927; A Portion of Block 3 of Town Carlsbad,
According to Map Thereof No. 755, February 15, 1894; That
Portion of Block 1 and 2 of Oceanside Addition To Carlsbad,
According to Map Thereof No. 893, April 8,1903; That Portion
of Lot 1, Block “A” of Hayes Land Company Addition to
Carlsbad, According to Map Thereof No. 1221, November 4,
1909; all Filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, and all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors
relating to RP 94-02. 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
20
A
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
(A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
(B) That based on the evidence presented at public hearing, the Board
recommends DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE of Major Redevelopment
Permit, RP 94-02 based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
Findinps:
1)
2)
3)
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
That the master site plan and the requested closure and use of Cypress Avenue is
not consistent with the Village Area Redevelopment Plan and the policies of the
Land Use Element of the Generai Plan, because it reduces public parking in the
Village Redevelopment Zone and does not provide for a convenient circulation
system with an emphasis upon ease of access. The project makes it more difncult
to gain access to and use of the coast..
Ail the features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future
u&s in the neighborhood have not been provided because of the inadequacy of on-
site parking spaces through Phase 4 of the master site plan, and the impact this i
creates on public parking spaces.
That with the closure of Cypress Avenue, the street system serving the proposed use
is not adequate to properly handle all traiTIc generated by the proposed and /
surrounding land uses, and is detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in I
the zone in which the proposed use is located. The proposed closure of Cypress
Avenue would increase the traffic volumes on the surrounding circulation system,
including Mountain View Drive, Pacific Avenue, Ocean Street and Beech Avenue. The
Mountain View Drive and Carisbad Boulevard intersection is less than optimal
because of the inability to legally turn left. In addition, the road segment of Ocean
Street between Cypress Avenue and Beech Avenue is very narrow and not fully
improved. The closure of Cypress Avenue and elimination of the legal left turn onto
Carisbad Boulevard may negatively impact the Mountain View Drive and Carisbad
Boulevard intersection, and increase the traMc on Ocean Street and Beech Avenue.
These traffic impacts would require mitigation, including the potential for
intersection and roadway improvements at Mountain View Drive, Pacific Avenue, and
Carisbad Boulevard, or roadway improvements on Ocean St-t between Cypress
Avenue and Beech Avenue.
DRB RESO NO. 216 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
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 Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of December, 1994,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Savary; Commissioners Noble, Marquez, Vessey, and Welshons.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST
EVAN BECKER
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RESO NO. 216 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A
I DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 217
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF
A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MASTER
SITE PLAN TO CLOSE CYPRESS AVENUE AND
REDEVELOPANDEXPANDTHEEXISTINGFACILITIES
OF THE ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY LOCATED ALONG
THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD, NORTH OF BEECH AVENUE, IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY MASTER
SITE PLAN
CASE NO: CDP 94-02
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad
and referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design
Review Board did, on the 7th day of December, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing
to consider said application on property described as:
Lot 46 and a Portion of Lot 47 of Granville Park According to
Map Thereof No. 1782, February 21, 1924; Lots 58-73, 75, 76,
94-96, 98-101, 102-130, 131, 153-170, 177-198 Inclusive of
Granvihe Park No. 2, According to Map Thereof No. 2037,
June 18, 1927; A Portion of Block 3 of Town Carlsbad,
According to Map Thereof No. 755, February 15, 1894; That
Portion of Block 1 and 2 of Oceanside Addition To Carlsbad,
According to Map Thereof No. 893, April 8,1903; That Portion
of Lot 1, Block “A” of Hayes Land Company Addition to
Carlsbad, According to Map Thereof No. 1221, November 4,
1909; all Filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, and ail in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering ah testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Design Review Board
considered aII factors relating to CDP 94-02. ‘8
-, -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review
&ard as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board hereby recommends DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE of CDP 94-02, based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1)
2)
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
That the master site plan and the requested closure and use of Cypress Avenue is
not consistent with the Mello II Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program,
because it reduces public parking and coastal roadway access near a public beach
accessway in the Coastal Zone. The project makes it more difficult to gain access
to and use of the coast.
Ail the features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future
uses in the neighborhood have not been provided because of the inadequacy of on-
I
site parking spaces through Phase 4 of the master site plan, and the impact this /
creates on public parking spaces in the beach area. I /
DRB RESO NO. 217 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
,- I
. r
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of December, 1994 1
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Savary; Commissioners Noble, Marquez, Vessey,
and Welshons.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST
EVAN BECKER
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
\o DRB RESO NO. 217 -3-
,
I
I I
I
I / I
1
/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A -4
EXHBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3727
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIN G COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING
WITHOUTPREJUDICEACONDITIONALUSEPERMIT
FOR A MASTER SITE PLAN TO CLOSE CYPRESS
AVENUE AND REDEVELOP AND EXPAND THE
EXISTING FACILITIES OF THE ARMY & NAVY
ACADEMY LOCATED ALONG THE EAST AND WEST
SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, NORTH OF BEECH
AVENUE, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
PLAN ZONE 1. CASE NAME: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY
MASTER SITE PLAN
CASE NO: CUP-94-02
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad
and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by
Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning i
Commission did, on the 7th day of December, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing to 1
consider said application on property described as:
Lot 46 and a Portion of Lot 47 of GranviIle Park According
to Map Thereof No. 1782, February 21, 1924; Lots 58-73,75,
76,94-96, 98-101, 102-130, 131, 153-170, 177-198 Inclusive of
Granville Park No. 2, According to Map Thereof No. 2037,
June 18, 1927; A Portion of Block 3 of Town Carlsbad,
According to Map Thereof No. 755, February 15, 1894; That
Portion of Block 1 and 2 of Oceanside Addition To Carlsbad,
According to Map Thereof No. 893, April 8, 1903; That
Portion of Lot 1, Block “A” of Hayes Land Company Addition
to Carlsbad, According to Map Thereof No. 1221, November
4,1909; all Filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, and all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission
considered all factors relating to CUP 94-02. \\
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
.Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE CUP 94-02, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1)
2)
3)
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
That the master site plan and the requested closure and use of Cypress Avenue is
not consistent with the Mello II Segment of the Carisbad Local Coastal Program
and is, therefore, not consistent with the policies of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan, because it reduces public parking and coastal roadway access near
a public beach accessway in the Coastal Zone. The project makes it more difficult
to gain access to and use of the coast
Ail the features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted
future uses in the neighborhood have not been provided because of the inadequacy
of on-site parking spaces through Phase 4 of the master site plan, and the impact
this creates on public parking spaces in the beach area.
That with the closure of Cypress Avenue, the street system serving the proposed use
is not adequate to properly handle all trafilc generated by the proposed and
surrounding land uses, and is detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in
the zone in which the proposed use is located. The proposed closure of Cypress
Avenue would increase the traffic volumes on the surrounding circulation system,
including Mountain View Drive, Pacific Avenue, Ocean Street and Beech Avenue.
The Mountain View Drive and Carisbad Boulevard intersection is less than optimal
because of the inability to legally turn left. In addition, the road segment of Ocean
Street between Cypress Avenue and Beech Avenue is very narrow and not fully
improved. The closure of Cypress Avenue and elimination of the legal left turn
onto Carisbad Boulevard may negatively impact the Mountain View Drive and-
Carisbad Boulevard intersection, and increase the traffic on Ocean Street and
Beech Avenue. These traffic impacts would require mitigation, including the
potential for intersection and roadway improvements at Mountain View Drive,
Pacific Avenue, and Carisbad Boulevard, or roadway improvements on Ocean
Street between Cypress Avenue and Beech Avenue.
PC RESO NO. 3727 -2-
\*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2f
2f
27
2E
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the i
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of
December, 1994, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Savary; Commissioners Welshons, Noble, Eti,
Compas, Nielsen, and Monroy.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CARLSBAD P LANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST I
MICHAEL J. HOLZ&LLER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 3727 -3-
\3
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DECEMBER 7, 1994
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AND PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RP 9442fCDP 9402/CUP 94-02 - ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER
SITE PLAN - Request for approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit,
Conditional Use Permit, and Coastal Development Permit for a master site
plan to close Cypress Avenue and redevelop and expand the existing facilities
of the Army and Navy Academy located along the east and west side of
Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Beech Avenue, in Local Facilities Management
Plan Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
APPLICA’HON COMPLETE DATE: SEPTEMBER 28.1994 STAFF PLANNER - JEFF GIBSON
STAFF REPORT
’
0
&;c-
‘/ 1
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 216, and 217
recommending DENIAL, of RP 94-02, and CDP 94-02, and the Planning Commission
ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3727, DENYING CUP 94-02, based on the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPI’ION & BACKGROUND
The project consists of a Major Redevelopment Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and
Coastal Development Permit to allow the future relocation, reconstruction, renovation, and
expansion of existing facilities at the Army and Navy Academy. The school site is 4.38 acres
in size and is located on the east and west side of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Beech
Avenue, in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. The Army and Navy Academy is a
private junior and senior high school for boys. The school currently has dormitories to
accommodate 296 students, with facilities that include faculty housing, academic halls, a
library, chapel, dining hall, gym, infirmary, athletic fields, pool, administrative offices, 25 on-
site parking spaces, and maintenance buildings.
The school is located in the Coastal Zone and has the following General Plan and Zoning
designations:
1) General Plan Designations - Private School (P), Residential Medium High (RMH),
and Gpen Space (OS);
C
RP 94M/CDP 94M/CuP 94-02
ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN
DECEMBER 7, I994
PAGE 2
2) Zoning Desimations - Village Redevelopment, R-3 Multiple-Family Residential,
Open Space, and Beach Area Overlay Zone.
The school is within several different zoning designations, therefore, a Major
Redevelopment and Coastal Development Permit are required for the portion of the
campus located in the Village Redevelopment Zone and a Conditional Use Permit is
required for the portion of the site located in the R-3 and Beach Area Overlay Zone.
Because of the split zoning designations the project must be reviewed by the Design Review
Board, Housing and Redevelopment Commission, and the Planning Commission.
The surrounding neighborhood includes the following land uses:
1) North - Single and Multiple-Family Dwelling Units;
2) w - AT&SF Railroad Tracks;
3) South - Magee Park, Ebb-Tide Inn, and Single and Multiple-Family Dwelling Units;
4) - West - Sand Beaches and the Pacific Ocean.
The applicant is proposing a conceptual master site plan for the school that would guide the
future renovation of the campus. The master site plan would not grant specific discretionary
entitlement to construct any of the facilities, but rather, provide a master plan framework
for the review of future Redevelopment/Conditional Use/Coastal Development Permits. For
the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown on the plan the
applicant would apply for an individual Redevelopment/Conditional Use/Coastal
Development Permit. At that time, the Design Review Board or Planning Commission
would determine compliance with City codes and policies, and determine conformance with
the master site plan, including the proposed Design Guidelines. The master site plan would
coordinate the provision and timing of the public and private improvements to the campus
and provide a comprehensive framework for the overall architectural and land use design
of the school.
The master site plan includes the following major components:
1) The expansion of existing school facilities by approximately 66,000 square feet, and
the construction and renovation of buildings;
2) The closure of Cypress Avenue from Carlsbad Boulevard west to’Qxan Street;
3) The addition of 110 on-site parking spaces for students, employees, and visitors;
4) A phasing improvement plan for the buildout of the master site plan;
RP 94-02/CDP 94-02/CuP 94-02
ARMY & NAVY ACADE%fY MASTER SITE PLAN
DECEMBER 7,1994
5) A planned maximum enrollment of 350 students and 100 employees - (302 resident
students and 48 daytime students);
6) Site and Architectural Design Guidelines, and;
‘1 A pedestrian bridge crossing Carlsbad Boulevard.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PERMlTS
Because of the split zoning designations on the property, the project’s discretionary review
is within the purview of both the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. The
Design Review Board maintains authority over all Redevelopment Permits and Coastal
Development Permits within the Village Redevelopment Zone. For Major Redevelopment
Permits the Design Review Board functions as an advisory body to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission. The Planning Commission has final approval authority for the
Conditional Use Permit, which applies to the portion of the school located in the R-3 Zone
and the Beach Area Overlay Zone. Due to these unusual circumstances, the public hearing
on December 7, 1994 has been consolidated into one joint public hearing with the Design
Review Board and the Planning Commission. The Design Review Board will make a
recommendation to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on the Major
Redevelopment Permit and the Coastal Development Permit. The Planning Commission
will act on the Conditional Use Permit and be the final decision-maker, unless the decision
is appealed to the City Council. If for example, the Planning Commission denies the
portion of the project covered by the Conditional Use Permit, the entire master plan, in
effect, is denied, because it is a comprehensive plan that covers the entire school. Under
this scenario the applicant would have to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to the
City Council, and then the City Council/Redevelopment and Housing Commission would
make the final decision on the project.
In addition, the project must be reviewed and approved by the California Coastal
Commission. The Coastal Commission maintains permit authority over the property
because part of the project is in a portion of the Coastal Zone that is located outside of the
Village Redevelopment Zone.
Iv. PROJECT PROCESSING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
During the City’s review of this application the Planning and Engineering Departments have
identified several issues of concern with the proposed closure of Cypress Avenue. Staffs
concerns focus on the impacts to public parking in the beach area, public beach accessibility,
and the continuity of community circulation, all created by the proposed closure of the
public street and the phasing of the master site plan. The applicant has been unwilling to
RP 94M/CDP 94-02/CUP 9442 ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN
DECEMBER 7,1994
discuss these issues with staff or modify the master site plan to address staffs concerns. The
closure and vacation of Cypress Avenue is a central element in the design of the master site
plan for the Army and Navy Academy, however, as proposed on the master site plan, staff
cannot recommend approval of the project. Typically projects are not scheduled for public
hearing until all issues of concern are resolved and the required environmental review has
been completed for the project. In this case, the applicant requested that the project be
scheduled for a public hearing immediately after the project application was deemed
complete in order to receive a determination from the appropriate decision-makers in
regards to the Cypress Avenue closure issue.
When staff recommends an expedient project denial based on non-compliance with either
City codes, adopted land use plans, or policies, the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) does not require environmental review. This legal premise is based on the
assumption that a project can not create a significant adverse impact to the environment if
the project is denied, and therefore, never physically constructed. When staff recommends
denial of a project early in the project review process, not having to perform CEQA review,
prior to the public hearing saves the applicant the additional money necessary to hire
consultants to prepare further environmental studies and documents. However, because the
environmental review for the project has not been conducted, it limits the decision-maker’s
options at the public hearing. For example, if at the public hearings the Design Review
Board/Redevelopment Commission and Planning Commission/City Council disagree with
staffs recommendation, and decide, in concept, to support the closure of Cypress Avenue,
the project cannot be legally approved at the hearings. The project must be returned to
staff for further processing, including the completion of the environmental review. Once the
project’s environmental review is completed, per CEQA, the project can be rescheduled for
public hearings and further discretionary review.
As proposed on the master site plan, the closure of Cypress Avenue would create a
significant, unmitigated, and adverse impact on future public parking near the beach area,
therefore, an Environmental Impact Report would likely be required. In addition, the
school contains buildings that may qualify as historically significant per CEQA, thus,
resulting in potentially significant impacts to cultural resources. At this point in time, a
cultural resource survey and analysis of the school’s buildings has not been conducted by a
qualified and professional cultural historian, per the requirements of the City of Carlsbad
Cultural Resource Guidelines, nor has the project and the required study been reviewed by
the Carlsbad Historic Preservation Commission. These application processing steps are
associated with the environmental review of the project and are legally required.
RP 94-02/CDP 94M/CUP 94-02
ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN
DECEMBER 7,1994
PAGE 5
v. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1) The closure ‘of Cypress Avenue and it’s impact on future parking and access
in the beach area, and the continuity of neighborhood circulation. .
DISCUSSION
Staffs central reason for recommending denial of the master site plan revolves around the
proposed closure of Cypress Avenue, therefore, this report primarily focuses on this one
issue, and does not fully analyze all aspects of the project’s compliance with City ordinances,
standards, and policies.
Mello II Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program:
When the master site plan is fully developed or built-out, and all the school’s public street
frontages are improved (Ocean Street, Pacific Avenue, Garfield Street, Beech Avenue, and
Mountain View Drive), the closure of Cypress Avenue would result in the elimination of
approximately 25 to 29 public parking spaces. On the current master site plan there is no
proposal to replace this lost public parking. Cypress Avenue is located in close proximity
to a coastal accessway that leads to the beach from Ocean Street. The elimination of a
public street that provides additional roadway access to the beach area Tom Carlsbad
Boulevard, and the future loss of public parking spaces near a coastal beach accessway
creates a significant impact on public accessibility to the beach. The Mello II Segment of
the Carlsbad Local CoastaIProgram requires mitigation when public beach accessways are
adversely impacted by development that burdens existing road capacity or on-street public
parking areas. This project makes it more difficult to gain access to and use of the coast,
therefore, the master site plan is not in conformance with the Local Coastal Program.
The Planning Department has consulted with the Coastal Commission staff about the
project. The Coastal staff has given the City a preliminary indication that they would not
support ,the master site plan if it negatively impacted accessibility to the public beach
accessway near Cypress Avenue or reduced public parking in the Coastal Zone. Historically,
the California Coastal Commission has taken a policy position that there should be no loss
of public parking in the Coastal Zone.
Public and On-Site Parking:
The Army and Navy Academy has the school facility capacity for 350 students and 100
employees which, per current City parking standards, requires 135 on-site parking spaces.
Currently the school has approximately 25 on-site parking spaces which is 110 spaces short
of today’s parking standard. As a result of this non-conforming parking situation many of
-
RP 94M/CDP 94m/CuP 9+ -32
ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN
DECEMBER 7,1994
the school’s students, employees, and visitors park their vehicles on the public streets that
surround the campus, including Cypress Avenue. The proposed master site plan indicates
that Cypress Avenue would be closed in Phase 1 of the project as part of the construction
of a new academic hall, however, additional on-site parking lots west of Carlsbad Boulevard
would not be constructed until Phase 4, and 9. According to the Planning Commission and
City Council adopted North Beach Planning and Traffic Study, dated April 1987, Cypress
Avenue currently has 25 non-standard public parking spaces. Elimination of these existing
25 parking spaces in Phase 1, without construction of required on-campus parking spaces
until Phase 4, would force the students, employees and visitors, who currently park on
Cypress Avenue, to park on Ocean Street, Carfleld Street, Pacific Avenue, or Mountain
View Drive. The ,master site plan’s phasing, in conjunction with the proposed closure of
Cypress Avenue, intensifies the use of public street parking to help sati@ the parking
demand generated by the school. Until adequate on-site parking is constructed for the
school the amount of public parking available in the area will be affected.
Closing Cypress Avenue reduces public roadway access and public parking in this beach
area, however, the closure would not significantly reduce citywide beach visitor demand to
the area. The amount of useable City beaches that have dedicated public coastal accessways
is relatively fixed, yet the population of North County and beach visitor demand continues
to increase. The North Beach Planning and Traffic Study concluded that in this area of the
City, beach parking demand will continue to exceed the supply on peak user days and that
there is near and long term need for additional beach parking in this area.
Closure of Cypress Avenue and elimination of it’s public parking spaces would concentrate
beach traffic on the remaining residential streets, increase the competition for the remaining
parking spaces, and force beach users to park on other residential streets in the area. The
influx of beach visitor vehicle and pedestrian traffic into a residential neighborhood and the
resulting competition for street parking in front of private residences can be disruptive to
a residential community. In comparison to the potential impacts on the predominately
residential streets in the neighborhood, the public parking along Cypress Avenue is less
disruptive. A majority of the street frontage is located adjacent to administrative or
educational facilities that are more likely to be unoccupied during peak, beach parking
periods such as summer weekends and holidays. As an example, a beach visitor can park
adjacent to the school’s library on Cypress Avenue, walk directly west on Cypress Avenue
to the public beach accessway, while passing by the front yards of only two private
residential lots.
Neighborhood Circulation:
The proposed closure of Cypress Avenue would increase the traffic volumes on the
surrounding circulation system, including Mountain View Drive, Pacific Avenue, Ocean
Street and Beech Avenue. The Mountain View Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard intersection
is less than optimal because of the inability to legally turn left on Carlsbad Boulevard. In
addition, the road segment of Ocean Street behveen Cypress Avenue and Beech Avenue is
4
RP 94-02/cDP 94M/cuP 94-m
ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN
DECEMBER 7,1994
very narrow and not fully improved. The closure of Cypress Avenue .and elimination of the
legal left turn onto Carlsbad Boulevard may negatively impact the Mountain View Drive and
Carlsbad Boulevard intersection, and increase the traffic on Ocean Street and Beech
Avenue. These traffic impacts would require mitigation, including the potential for intersection and roadway improvements at Mountain View Drive, Pacific Avenue, and
Carlsbad Boulevard, or roadway improvements on Ocean Street between Cypress Avenue
* and Beech Avenue. Before staff would recommend approval of the closure of Cypress
Avenue, these mitigation alternatives must be investigated further by the applicant’s traffic
consultant and submitted for staff review.
+I. SUMMARY
This project is not in conformance with the Local Coastal Program or the General Plan, not
consistent with the adopted recommendations of the North Beach Planning and Traffic
Study, would adversely impact public parking in the beach area, adversely impact traffic
circulation in the neighborhood, and could have a potentially significant impact on cultural
resources, therefore, staff recommends that the Design Review Board recommend denial.
of RP 94-02, and CDP 94-02, and the Planning Commission deny CUP 94-02.
ATT’ACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Design Review Board Resolution No. 216
Design Review Board Resolution No. 217
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3727
Location Map -
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Form
Coastal Commission Letter, dated November 8, 1994
Exhibits “A” - “K”, dated December 7, 1994.
JGNd October 28.1994
- -
BACKGROCSD DATA SHEET
CASE NO: RP 9COYCDP 9-l-OYCL’P 94-02 .’
CASE NAME: Armv & Navv Academv M?sfrr Sire Pl.an
APPLICANT: Amw & Yaw Academv
REQUEST .&--D LOCATION: Emt and \Vest side of C&bad Boulevard. North of Beech Avenue,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 46 and a Portion of lar 47 of Granville Park Accordinp to liar, Thereof No.
.,1782. Februaxv 21. 1X-1: Iats 58-73, 75, 76. M-96. 98-101. 102;130. 131. 153-170. 177-198 Inclusive of
Granville Park No. 2, According to Map Thereof No . 2037. Tune 18. 1927: A Portion of Block 3 of Town
Carlsbad. Accordine to MaD Thereof No. 755. Fehn~~uv 15. 1894: That Portion of Block 1 and 2 of Ocennside
Addition To Carisbad. Accordine to Map Thereof No. 893. Amid 8. 1903: That Portion of Lot 1. Block “A”
of Haves Land Comrxmv Addition to Carlsbad. Accordine to Mar, Thereof No. 1221, November 4, 1909; all
Filed in the Office of the Collntv Recorder of S.an Dieeo Countv. and all in the Citv of Carlsbad. Countv of
San Dieeo. State of California.
APN:203-041-01: 203-043-06: 203-O IO- 16: 203- I -&2-M: 10% 14 I -03.13: 203-05 l-03: 203-052-o 1.0‘2: 203-053-o 1
Acres: u Proposed No. of lats/Units: N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation Private School P/Residential Medium Hieh tRDM)/ODen Space !OSj
Density Allowed N/A Density Proposed N/A
Esisting Zone V-R/R-3/BAOZ/OS Proposed Zone S/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: {See attached for information on Carlshad’s Zoning Requirements, .-
Zoning Land Use
Site V-R/R-3/BAOZ/OS Am-w & Na\v Academv
North R-310s Sinrle-F.amilv Residences
South V-R/R-3 P.a.rk/%Iuhi-Farnilv Residences
East T-C Railroad Corridor
West OS Pacific Ocean/ Beaches
PI’BI.IC: FXCIIJTIES
School District Carlsbad Water District C&had Se\\,er District Carlshad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) Xi.4
Atblic Facilities Fee Agreement. dated N/A
EN\‘IRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSFSSMEST
Negative Declaration, issued N/A
Certified Environmental Impact Report. dated S/;\
Other,
DISCLOSURE ST.ATE?IfENT
rPD$CAm’s srr-EvE\T =F ~!SCLCSGN OF CERTAIN OWNEPSwtP INTEPESTS CN A& APP~&AT:C~.,S N~,C~ N,LL =ESL,aE
2,SCgflICkAaY ACCN CN 7% ?Am CF tkE Cm CCLNCIL OR ANY APPOlNTEg aCAR Csb&,fSSjC,., 2~ CC~M~EE
?‘ease Pmb
Tke fcltowmg Information must be disclosed:
1. Aoolicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
plTzt4-f d l4av-l A4-cr-e
G/i?? prr.t=qzo l-ll9ULY . cfnEs~O~Hr
P 0. 00x 3006 .
c+&LJewD, CA s;Lcroa
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved,
m-i j bA.qt) wM‘( -
A NOW- fe0F1r CBC~ -noti
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names xz
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any panr;errr..s
interest in the partnership.
N/A - Y614-i3&7F:\I- -prjbRaTl&
if any person identified punuurt to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organiration or a trust, list the names arz
addresses of any person seruing as officer or director of the non-profti organiration or as trustee of ‘CeCefk:arj
of the trust.
-df r;) ~OHW!C e. cjzEw(
177F46~5 w* SEF70l-+ xl A-1 O‘GAIH
ow/eol4 J. Dow+k4 7) JbJ-tES Ir- eueru,~S
~1 FeCD W\-Jbo-fH&~ A) mTr-lLEFw -r+sab
4 ) H6IL IL. NYPF.&jER, P-
APPrFSI A* Wd. +flw a4HAdY PlAoEr-i+
p.0, *x c4cuo
CA--, u szou?;1
Disclosure Statement
Cder:
Page 2
E, ilave you had rpcre than 5250 woRh of business transacted .+vlth any member of City staff 3~1,:;
Comm~ssons, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No x If yes. please indicate person(s)
I j - Jeryon II aofined u: ‘Any individual. firm. COO~WS~ID. lad VWWJIO. uso~rabon. socd club. fraternal orgrnltroon. corDo,*lion, .~1,1, vds.
! recwer. synalcato. tkm ma any olhor county. a?y u-16 couny. cty mun~c~cU*. 011lnFt or otnef oatn~cu w4ndw~s4on, 3, my omer ‘;~o~J 2 , 1 I :omolnrtlon rcrlng 6s a unft’
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
@@ d&z-E-A
Hy(zwi A h-f
7-khPS ?- Lux l=&hL-Etrf
Print of type name of owner
WAVlO 3 t4 EF,GO&
Q. co)(
Print or type name of applicant
FRMoan3 8/w
- - .
STATE OF CAUCORNIA-WL MSOllRQf AGENCY
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST Am
3111 CAMNO Kl RIO NoITn, Sum 100
SAN DfKio. CA 9110&111S
Wlq
City of Carlsbad Jeff Gibson .,
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA. 92009
RE: Closure of Cypress Avenue
November 8, 1994
Dear Mr. Gibson:
This ietter comments on the proposed closure of Cypress Avenue in north Carlsbad as proposed in the master site plan by the Army/Navy Academy that will be going before the City's Planning Review Board and Planning
,Conwnission. Section 30252 of the Coastal Act provides that new development
should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by (5) providing adequate parking facilities. Section 30211 states that development shall not.
interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through
use. In addition, the project site is located within the Beach Overlay Zone portion of the City's Mello II local coastal program segment, where the Commission has required adequate parking facilities be maintained to assure that coastal visitors will be able to access shoreline recreational opportunities. Pursuant to the above Coastal Act sections, the Comission has historically found that new development must not adversely impact public access/parking opportunities in nearshore areas.
It is our understanding that upon buildout of the mastet.plan, the closure of
this public street could result in a net loss of up to 29 public parking spaces near a coastal accessway that leads to the beach from Ocean Street. Additionally, the street's closure and loss of public parking would also
increase the competition for the remaining public parking spaces in an area
where parking facilities are currently indequate. We agree that the proposed
closure can not be found consistent with the above Coastal Act and Mello II
LCP provisions and ccncur with C?ty staff's Srz? iminary recommendation that
this portion of the master plan be denied.
Sincerely,
ILU fA
61'11 Ponder
Coastal Planner
9864A
4.
EXHIBIT 5
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting: PLANNING COMMISSION 8 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (Joint Meeting)
6:60 P.M. Date of Meeting: December7,1994 Place of Meettng: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Savary called the Joint Meeting of the Ptanning Commission and Design Review Board to order
at 6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The pledge of allegiance was led by Planning Commissioner Monroy.
PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen, Nobte, and
Welshcns
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Savary, Members Maquez, Nobte, Vessey, and Weishons
Staff Present: Michael Holzmiiier, Planning Director
Evan Becker, Housing and Redevetopment Director
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director
Debbie Fountain, Senior Management Analyst
Chris DeCerbo, Senior Planner Don Neu, Senior Planner Michael Grim, Assistant Planner Anne Hysong, Assistant Planner Elaine Blackburn, Associate Planner
Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner
Chris&r Westman, Associate Planner
Pat Ketiey, Principal Building inspector
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON lIiE AGENDA:
There were no comments from the audience.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairman Savary declared that there were no Minutes to be approved.
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF OESlGN REVIEW BOARD AND PLANNING COMMISSION:
1. RP 94-02/CDP 94-02/CUP 94-92 - ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SfTE PLAN - Request for approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Coastal Development Permit for a master site plan to close Cypress Avenue and redevelop and expand the existing facilities of the Army and Navy Academy located atong the east and west side of Cartsbad Boulevard, north of Beech Avenue, in Locai Facilities Management Plan Zone 1.
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW iJoint) December 7,1994
Jeff Gibson, Aswdate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the project consists of a Major Redevelopment Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to allow the
future relocation, reconstruction, renovation, and expansion of existing facilities at the Army and Navy
Academy. The school site is 4.38 acres in size and is located on the east and west side of Carl&ad
Boulevard, north of Beech Avenue, in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. The Army and Navy
Academy is a private junior and senior high school for boys. The school currently has dormitories to
accommodate 296 students, with facilities that include taculty housing, academic halls, a library, chapel,
dining hall, gym, infirmary, athletic fields, pool, administrative offices, 25 on-site parking spaces, and
maintenance buildings.
Mr. Gibson gave a slide presentation illustrating the Academy site and the street system serving the school. The proposed project would occur in four phases. The applicant ha3 requested to permanently close Cypress Avenue and relocate traffii along a segment of Ocean Street in order to construct a new academic hall in that area. This would occur in Phase I. This would eliminate 25 public parking spaces along
Cypress Avenue. The parking spaces would ultimately be replaced, however this would not occur until
Phase 4 of the project and would force students, employees, and visitors, who currently park on Cypress
Avenue, to park on Ocean Street, Garfield Street, Pacific Avenue, or Mountain View Drive.
Mr. Gibson stated that during staff review of this application, the Planning and Engineering Departments
have identified several issues of concern with the proposed closure of Cypress Avenue. The primary
concerns are the impacts on public parking in the beach area, public beach accessibility, and the continuity
of community circulation, all created by the proposed closure ot the public street and the phasing of the
master site plant. The applicant has been unwilling to discuss these issues with staff or modify the master
site plan to address staffs concerns. The closure of Cypress Avenue is a central element in the design of the master site plan; however, as proposed, staff cannot recommend approval of the project. Typically,
projects are not scheduled for public hearing until all issues of concern are resolved and the environmental
review has been completed. In this case, the applicant requested that the project be scheduled for a public
hearing immediately after the application was deemed complete in order to receive a determination
regarding the Cypress Avenue closure issue.
Mr. Gibson stated that the Army and Navy Academy has a capacity for 350 students and 100 employees which, per current City parking standards, requires 135 on-site parking spaces. Currently, the school has approximately 25 on-site parking spaces, which is 110 spaces short of today’s standard. As a result of this
non-conforming parking situation, many of the school’s students, employees, and visitors park their vehicles on the public streets which surround the campus, including Cypress Avenue. Until adequate
on-site parking is constructed for the schoof, the amount of public parking available in the area will be
affected. Closing Cypress Avenue also reduces public roadway access and public parking in the beach area; however, me closure would not significantly reduce citywide beach visitor demand to the area.
Beach parking demand will continue to exceed the supply on peak user days and there is long term need
for additional beach parking in this area. Furthermore, the elimination of public parking along Cypress
Avenue would concentrate beach traffk and parking on the remaining residential streets in the area.
In summary, Mr. Gibson stated that the project is not in conformance with the Local Coastal Plan or the
General Plan, and is not consistent with the North Beach Planning and Traffic Study. It would adversely
impact public parking in the beach area, adversely impact traffic circulation in the neighborhood, and could have a potentially significant impact on cultural resourcea. Therefore, staff recommends denial.
Mr. Gibson noted a minor error on page 3 of Resolution No. 217. The chairperson of the Design Review
Board is incorrectly stated as Bailey Noble and should be amended to read Peggy Savary.
Commissioner Compas inquired if the staff position would change if the applicant were to phase in 110
new parking spaces first. Mr. Gibson replied that it would not have any bearing on staff’s position 3-b
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) December 7,1994 PAGE 3
regarding the street closure. Their recommendation for denial is based on the loss of the public parking to
the street closure.
Commissioner Wefshons inquired if the Cyprsss Avenue closure would eliminate access to the motel. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, replied that access to the motel will still be off Carlsbad Boulevard. A portion of Cypress would be turned into a cul-de-sac to serve the motel only.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if it will eliminate access to the Ede trust parcel. Mr. Wojcik replied that
if Cypress is closed, there would be no access to the existing garage. The applicant has proposed granting
an easement for the driveway to the garage.
DRB Member Marquez inquired what the required setback would be for the proposed new library. Mr. Gibson replied that the setback is 10 ft. from a public street.
DRB Member Marquez inquired it the size of the library would accommodate a 10 ft. setback. Mr. Gibson replied that there is room to move the library and still meet the required setback, without closing Cypress.
DRB Member Vessey inquired if there is any difference with this closure than with Ocean Street where the
art project with the bars is located. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that the closing of
Ocean at the sculpture site created formalized parking which was not there before. It also added parking to
the area. Also, staff could support closing Ocean at that particular location because there was a traffic
circulation problem at that intersection.
Chairman Savary invited the applicant to speak.
Tom Cox, Architect for the Army Navy Academy, addressed the Commission and stated that the proposal to renovate the Academy is because it has deteriorated significantly over the past several years. In order
to maintain enrollment, quality of life, reputation, and the academic quality of the Academy, the Board felt
a complete overhaul was needed. Enrollment has fallen to a low of 100 students in recent years. There
are currently 232 students enrolled at the academy. Full enrollment is 350,. One of the reasons for closing
Cypress was to relocate all street parking into a lot on me campus. The Academy is not looking to
increase their enrollment. The only expansion would be enlarging the dormitories to meet the national average. He referred to the artist renderings and stated that 50% of the existing buildings would be
retained. The buildings to be replaced would be dormitories, the cafeteria, and the library. The most controversial issue of the master plan seems to be the &sure of Cypress Avenue. The traffic engineer
which they engaged stated that Cypress has 400 ADTs and its closure would only increase traffic along
Ocean from 700 to 900 ADTs. Since traftii along Carl&ad Boulevard is projected to increase from 11,000
to 31,000 ADTs by Carl&ad buildout, the Academy would like to build a pedestrian overpass across
Carlsbad Boulevard, to compensate for the loss of Cypress.
Commissioner Compas stated that the staff report indicates the applicant has been unwilling to discuss the issues. He inquired if that is a correct statement. Mr. Cost replied No. The issues have been discussed, however they have been fraught with disagreement. There have been several Planning staff changes over the past two years and only recently has the applicant been able to complete the Planning documentation. The big disagreement now rests on the closure of Cypress.
Commissioner Monroy inquired If the footprtnt of the Academy will change. Mr. Cox replied that the footprint will change slightly. There are new buildings and the use of the buildings along Cypress would
change.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if me Academy has consldersd an internal overpass across Cypress Avenue. Mr. Cox replied that this was considered by the Board; however, it was felt that the students >q
PLANNING 8 DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) December 7,1994 PAGE 4
would not use the overpass due to the very low trafffc volume on Cypress. Carfsbad Boulevard has a lot of traffic and he feels an overpass would be used there.
Commissioner Compas inquired when the tralfk study was taken which resulted in a Rnding of 400 ADTs along Cypress. Mr, Cox replied it was taken in November. There was no beach acttvity included in the study period.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the Board had considered an overpass over Cypress with a wall below so that the students would have to use the bridge. Mr. Cox replied that it had not been discussed. He feels there are probably many ideas which could be implemented to make the students use the overpass.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired it there is any way to immediately replace the 25 on-street parking spaces which will be lost by the Cypress closure. Mr. Cox replied that it had been discussed but rejected.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if the crosswalk on Carlsbad Boulevard would be eliminated by the
overpass. Mr. Cox believes theoverpass would be more sate, although he has no plans to remove the
crosswalk. The overpass would be open to the public.
DR8 Member Marquez inquired it there have been any accidents with students using the crosswalk on
Carlsbad Boulevard. Mr. Cox deterred reply to staff.
Commissioner Erwin thinks safety has been a problem in the area, although he is not aware of any major accidents. He thinks it is terrific that the Academy wants to put in an overpass and pay for it. Mr. Cox
replied that the Academy has always tried to be a good neighbor and they want to continue that tradition.
Chairman Savary opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Robert S. Grimes, 2330 Rue Des Chateaux, Carl&ad, representing himself and the Beach Homeowners
Association, which consists of 14 homeowners. He opposes the closing of Cypress Avenue. It would
severely impact ingress and egress and woukt create safety problems. He submitted two letters dated December 5, 1994 to the Minutes Clerk, which are on tile in the Planning bepartment.
Patrick Biller, P. 0. Box 1992, Vista, addressed the Commission and stated that he is also opposed to the
closing of Cypress. All traffic would be diverted to Ocean Street. The added traffic would cause problems for residents, including a safety problem, because of the increased traffic flow. He likes everything else about the project but cannot support the street closure. He submitted a letter dated December 6, 1994 to the Minutes Clerk, which is on file in the Planning Department.
Laduska Thayer Biller, 1402 Clarence Drive, Vista, addressed the Commission and stated that she owns
property at 2656 Ocean Street in Carl&ad. She agrees with the staff recommendation on denial. She has been a property owner for many years. Cypress Avenue is used a lot. To close it would tunnel all tratfk onto Ocean. There would be hazardous turns to reroute the traffll back to Carlsbad Boulevard. She is also concerned about the access of emergency vehicles because it could slow them down. Ms. Biller thinks it would be better to install a traflll light to serve everyone, including students attending the Academy. She submitted a letter dated December 7,1994 to the Minutes Clerk, which is on tile in the Planning Department.
Endre Algover, 2650 Ocean Street, Carl&ad, addressed the Commission and stated that he opposes the plan to close Cypress. He is not in opposition to any other part of the project, The Army Navy Academy has been a good neighbor but he feels that rerouting traffii to Ocean Street would be very dangerous. If Cypress disappears, it would turn into a long alley. Another safety issue is Magw park. People who uw
the park generally park their cars on Cypress. There would be a shortage of parking if the street is closed. 2
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) December 7,1994 PAGE 5
He does not feet that aesthetics should take precedence over safety. The Academy wants a design that is aesthetically pfeasing to them, without thinking of their neighbors. Mr. Algover is also opposed to giving away public land for private use. If Cypress is allowed to close, he hopes it can be done so that people don’t lose rights to that access. The public should be allowed to walk or ride their bikes. The proposed plan shows it would be replaced by grass. He thinks the applicant should be required to pay compensation for that land. They also need to provide the historical beach access. Everything about the plan is a plus for the Academy. He thinks they should propose a plan which is right for the citizens of Carl&ad as well
as the Academy. He submitted a letter dated December 6,1994 to the Minutes Clerk, which is on tile in
the Planning Department.
Tom Hawthorne, 2681 Ocean, Carkbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he lives between Beech and Cypress. He likes living there because it is a very pleasant place. He woukf like to SW it stay
that way. If Cypress is closed, it would increase the traffic on Ocean Street by at least one-third. He hopes the Planning Commission will deny the project. He submitted a letter dated December 5,1994 to the Minutes Clerk, which is on file in the Planning Department.
Marie Sidun, 2688 Ocean Street, Car&bad, addressed the Commission and stated that her property is on
the northeast corner of Ocean and Beech. She is very opposed to the closing of Cypress Avenue. During
summer, she has had to park up to one block from her home. Closing Cypress will only make matters
worse. She urged the Commission not to close Cypress at the expense of Carl&ad citizens and the profit ot the Army Navy Academy. She submitted a letter dated December 7,1994 to the Minutes Clerk, which is on tile in the Planning Department.
Walter Riche, 2496 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he has lived directly across the street from the Academy for fiie years. They are a good neighbor. He thinks the most
useless street in Carl&ad is Cypress. Getting on and olf Carlsbad Boulevard is extremely difficult from
Cypress. All the other people who have spoken live on Ocean Street but quite a ways south of the
Academy. He uses Ocean to Grand and then makes a turn there. His biggest problem is pedestrian traffic. He likes the idea of closing Cypress because the Academy will provide new, legal parking. The students and faculty will be able to use a parking lot instead of the street.
Bob Ladwig, 2642 Ocean Street, Carl&ad, addressed the Commission and stated that he disagrees with
the last speaker. He is very much against the closure of Cypress. There is lots of pedestrian traffii in this area and to close the street would increase traffic and be very unsafe. There is nothing being offered to the public for the land they lose it Cypress is closed. He thinks the Academy needs to provide something to the citizens of Cartsbad it the street closure is allowed. However, he k very opposed to the closure of
Cypress.
Joel Klett, 750 No. Granados, Solana Beach, representing the condominium owners at 2599,2601, and
2603 Ocean Street, addressed the Commission and stated that he has been involved with properties along Ocean Street for 15 years. He has had many good associations with the Army Navy Academy. He has used Cypress Avenue and thinks it k hazardous. He is a very cautious driver. Students walk all over the street and come from every direction, including behind parked cars. He thinks it is an accident waiting to
happen. Mr. Klett stated that he has listened to the comments which have been made tonight and feels
that many concerns have been overstated. There may be some legitimate problems along Ocean Street but he doesn’t feel the increased traffic would be that bad. He thinks the biggest problem would be when there is an event at the Academy. Mr. Klett would like to SW some type of compromise so that the
Academy can move forward with this project.
For the record, the Minutes Clerk also received letters opposing the street closure from Mark Biller, Edward and Vonda Bixby, and Jeanette Cushman, which are on tile in the Planning Department.
-
PLANNING 8 DESlGN REVIEW (Joint) December 7,1994 PAGE 6
Chairman Savary invited the applicant to return to the podium for rebuttal. Mr. Cox stated that he
appreciated all of the comments which were made and he understands the concerns of the community.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Design Review Board or the Planning Commission
on this topic, Chairman Savary declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
Rob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, responded to comments as tallows:
. Left turn from Cypress onto Carl&ad Boulevard - staff does not contemplate installing a traffic light at Cypress at this time. Intersections are routinely surveyed regarding hazardous traffic situations. It that intersection warrants one in the future, it would be considered. Also, there is presently no reason to restrict left turns at this intersection.
* Problems with the crosswalk - there have been no reported traffic accidents at this crosswalk that staff
can recall.
Commissioner Compas inquired if the Traffii Department believes Cypress is a dangerous street. Mr.
Wojcik replied No. It they did consider it dangerous, we would do whatever is necessary to correct the
problem.
Commissioner Welshons asked staff to comment on the acquisition of Cypress and if the City would receive any compensation from the Academy for the closure of the pubtk right-of-way. Mr. Wojcik
replied that, typically, rights of way are dediited to the City as easements. The property that the street
was dedicated from belongs to the tee title owner. In this case, the underlying fee owner is the Academy,
since they own the property on both sides of the street. Easements are quit claimed by the City. There is
no compensation made for them and there is no compensation that the City can legally ask for. If the property were owned by the City in tee title, there would be compensation associated with it.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the discretion to quit claim lies with the City Council. Mr. Wojcik
replied Yes. The Planning Commission’s recommendation to Council would be for them to exercise that
discretionary power.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about the comment regarding the response time of emergency vehicles.
Mr. Wojcik replied that emergency access must still meet the City’s growth management requirement of
five minutes. It might take slightly longer to get to the north end of Mountain View, but it would only bs a minor delay. The worst scenario would be during the summer beach traffii when people frequently park illegally which causee the street to be very narrow, making it difficult for ambulances, etc. to get through.
Commissioner Wekhons inquired if the Design Review Board and Planning Commission deny this project,
what would be the applicants next step. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that the project could be redesigned with Cypress Avenue remaining open, or the denial could be appealed to the City Council.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about the time frame if they choose to redesign the project. Can it be continued indefinitely. She woufd like to know all the options. Mr. Wayne replied that there has recently
been a change in the law regarding the Permit Streamlining Act. There are no time constraints other than
processing time for environmental review and design time which involves the applicant as well as Planning staff.
Commissioner Wekhons inquired what happens it the Desiin Review Board approves the project and the
Planning Commission denies it. Mr. Wayne replied that the project cannot be approved by either body 3O
-
PtANNlNG 8 DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) December 7,1994 PAGE 7
because it has not yet received an environmental review. In effect, you would be Stating whether you are for or against the closure of Cypress Avenue.
Chairman Savary inquired if the project can be denied without prejudice. Mr. Wayne replied Yes.
Commissioner Wdshons stated that one speaker mentioned that we would be gaining parking on Ocean with the redesign. Mr. Wojcik replied that if the closureof Cypress is approved, the Engineering Department would be asking for improvements along the Academy’s frontage on Ocean Street and also to the street between Cypress and Beech as mitigation for the additional traffic which would be using Ocean Street. It is difficult to say whether or not it would add on-street parking. He estimates that if it increases parking, it would be very minimal.
Commissioner Erwin referred to the right-of-way on Cypress and the fact that the property was dedicated
as a public street. He inquired if the Academy owns all of the property on both sides of Cypress. Mr.
Wojcik replied that they own all the property except the Ede property and the Ebb Tide Motel.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if Cypress is a unique street, or if most streets are dedicated this way. Mr.
Wojcik replied that the vast majority of streets are simply dedicated to municipalities by easements, not fee
title. The Academy’s relation to Cypress is fairly typical of most of down town.
Commissioner Erwin commented that it appears the whole issue here has to do with Cypress. He feels that
what is being proposed is the taking of public property. Each person here tonight could improve their own personal property by closing roads in the vicinity of their property. We could make the same argument that the Academy is making. Commissioner Erwin feels the question which needs to be asked is if it is in the
public good to close a road. In this case, he feels the answer is No. The closing of Ocean adjacent to the
sculpture was a different situation. Commissioner Erwin likes the applicant’s idea of a pedestrian overpass
over Carl&ad Boulevard. He thinks it is long overdue. He will support the staff recommendation for denial.
Commissioner Noble agrees with Commissioner Erwin. He thinks more traffii along Ocean Street will be a big problem. He used to go down there often to visit a relative so he is very familiar with the area. He supports the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Compas agrees with Commissioners Erwin and Nobfe. He likes the Academy’s plans to
improve their site but he will vote against closing Cypress. He feels the motion shoukf be to deny without prejudice.
Chairman Savary agrees with the comments which have been made. She likes the idea of the school
being improved but thinks the design shouM be done around Cypress staying open.
Commissioner Welshons feefs it comes down to public versus private needs. She supports the staff
recommendation and thanked the citizens who attended tonight for their participation in the public process.
Commissioner Monroy will also support staff. He is very familiar with that area of town and agrees with the residents. He thinks the project can be redesigned and still meet most of the Academy’s goals.
ORB Member Marquez likes the idea of the Academy being renovated but she does not feel that
precedents should be made by converting easements to private use. She thinks it would be a dangerous precedent to set. She is sure that Mr. Cox can come up with an innovative design that will allow Cypress Avenue to remain open.
MINUTES
PLANNING 81 DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) December 7,1994 PAGE 0
ORB Member Vessey agrees with Member Maquez as well as the comments which have been made by
everyone efse.
ACTION: Motion by ORB Member Noble, and dufy seconded, to approve Desfgn Revfew Board Resolution Nos. 216, and 217 recommending denial of RP 94-02 and COP 94-02 without prejudice. VOTE: 5-o AYES: Maquez, Noble, Savary, Vessey, and Welshons NOES: None ABSTAIN: None
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3727, denvinq CUP 94-02 without prejudice, based on the
findings contained therein.
VOTE: 7-O AVES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Nidsen, Nobfe, and Welshons NOES: None ABSTAIN: None
r motion, the Design Review Board adjourned at 7:28 p.m.
n recessed at 7:28 p.m. and reconvened at 7:39 p.m.
CONTINUED PUBLIC
Use Permit for the operation of
Soup Andersen’s parking lot at 85
Christer Westman, Associate Planner, reviewed
Planning Commission referred this proj
north of and adjacent to Pea Soup And parking impact created by the Farm
spaces could be provided within t
t for approval of a Conditional hin tfte northern section of the Pea in Local Facilities Management Zone 3.
round of the request and stated that the proposal for offsite parking on a lot ing spaces required to offset the
Mr. Westman stated that mmending approval of the project inclusion of conditions
acant lot. Conditiins #15 through Wl
aggregate base, that the stalls be cha emporary ramp
be installed to al over the curb, and that a bond bs posted in the ev
n stated that he had distributed a staff memo with some minor corrections and an
3*
December 7, 1994
EXl4BlT 6
City Of Carlsbad Design Review Board di Planning Commission
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92009-1576
RE: CASE FILE: RP 94-O2/CDP 94.02/CUP 94-02 CASE NAME: ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 1994
ATTENTION COUNCIL MEMBERS,
The plan to close "CYPRESS AVE." for ANOTHER expansion of Academy facilities would be a detriment to ALL homeowners on Pacific Ave., Mountain Home Ave., Garfield St., and Ocean St.. Thisclosure would leave the only access to the northern outlying areas for all persons on the above named streets as "Beech Ave.". The traffic:-and parking on Ocean St. is already ridiculous at this point, especially when the homeowners can't even park or get to their own property during peak
seasons. This street cl,osure would also DETAIN all emergency services to all
propertities North of Cypress Ave. and the Academy.
Because of these two important but not conclusive issues, we as a homeowners at 2680 Ocean St., Carlsbad are *ADAMANTLY APPOSED" to the proposal the Army/Navy Academy has submitted, and request the council DENY the proposal the Academy has submitted. at this time.
THANK YOU!
m*s%jf
Edward W. Bixby, Trustee / Mary-Louise Bixby Trust 2680 Ocean St. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
33
$7 -. - -- *r>go! ‘7----L----. -
/ PATRICK 0. BILLER
P.O. BOX 1082
VISTA, CA. ~2OWl892
/% -g-s+
-- - --. ,
- V
Inna fUgliver
Entire J. Algher
2650 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, Cal.3omia 92008 (619) 7294012
Fu: (619)~2302
December 6,1994
City Of Carlsbad
Design Review Board
VIA FIAND DELIVERY, 12/7/94
Re: Army and Navy Academy redevelopment, including closure of Cypress Avenue.
Dear Members of the Design Review Board:
My mother, Irma Alg&er, and I are very long-time residents of Ocean Street, living one-
half a block south of Cypress Avenue. I grew up here and now my wife and three children live with my mother in the family home. We have only recently been made aware of the plans of our
neighbor, the Army and Navy Academy, to redevelop its property and, as part of that, to seek
closure of Cypress Avenue so the land can be used by the Academy. The Academy presented its
plans to us recently at an “information session” they held for this purpose on December 1, 1994.
While we have always valued the Academy as a good neighbor and look forward in concept to
their redevelopment, we strongly oppose closure of Cypress Avenue and wish to go on the record
with several points:
The Academy indicated at its information session that a study done in the Fall of last year
showed Cypress Avenue receives relatively’light traffic, and that they wish to have the street
closed and made part of the Academy for two main reasons; 1) student safety, and 2) aesthetics.
It appears the Academy wishes to redevelop its current library, located on the south side of
Cypress, into a large structure which would serve as the main building for all Academy classes.
The first reason given for wanting the closure of Cypress, student safety, regards the Academy’s concern for the safety of their students currently walking across Cypress (although no injuries or
accidents have yet occurred involving Academy students). The second reason, aesthetics (as we have paraphrased it here), regards the Academy’s de&ion to organ& its redeveloped campus into
“quadrants” specific to academics, administration, residences, and recreation, and their resultant
decision that their main classroom building must be located to the south of the current Cypress
Avenue and that the continued presence of Cypress would inappropriately segment their
redevelopment plan.
Our fmt point in opposition to the closure of Cypress is that, while the Academy is
concerned with the safety of its students, we are concerned with the safety of our children and
1
ourselva on Gcean Street.
1) Even having been broken UP with stop signs, Gcean street remains too much of a “runway” where cars frequently speed from one stop to the other, or simply run them entirely. We believe that the closure of Cypress would not only increase the traffic by the
degree once carried by Cypress, but the resulting long unbroken stretch of Gcean street between Beech and Pa&c streets would physically and psychologically promote excessive
speed.
2) with the closure of cypress, all tlafiic acxxsing nearby Magee Bark (at Beech and
Carl&ad Blvd.) for the frequent public or private functions hosted there would necessarily
have to go by way of Beech Street, the next connector between Ocean Street and Carlsbad Blvd. south of Cypress. This, too, would increase the trai3ic and the risk in the area. A
further result would be exacerbation of already-poor parking management in the area as
the people who would have parked on Cypress for Magee Bark would now be displaced
to the already-crowded Beech, G&eld and Gcean Streets.
As the father of a teenager, a three-year-old and a one-year-old, and having grown up on Gcean
street, I am well aware of the dangers the trafYic poses already. We do not wish to see any
changes which would increase the trafl%, or increase the lil&hood that the traffic will drive
excessively fast, because of the increased danger to our and our neighbors’ children, and ourselves
as well.
Asregardswhatwehavetermedtheae&eticconcems of the Academy, we do not believe
they outweigh the concerns of safety. Although the Academy is pushing the safety of its students as the main reason for the proposed street closure, it became clear as the question and answer part
of their presentation went on that they are driven primarily by their architectuml plans. While we,
the local residents, can only move if we find after the closure of Cypress that Gcean street is too
dangerous for our children, the Academy can redesign its plan so that the safety and integrity of
Ocean street is retained, and while allowing for the safety of its students:
1) The most obvious alternative is to relocate the proposed large classroom building
onto the Academy’s main grounds (much of which is to apparently be redeveloped). The
plans and model shown us at the information session indicate portions of open space
remaining which would accommodate the proposed building easily, but even a smaller space could accommodate the same square footage if the building were to be designed
accordingly (multiple stories, basement space, or modular construction). This was suggested at the information session of December 1, but in response the Academy
indicated that did not comport with the open space aesthetics of their plan. Again, we do not believe aesthetics can justify closure of a public street.
2) Another altemative would be to construct some form of secure passage for the
Academy students from one side of Cypress to the other. The plans and model we saw
showed a planned overhead walkway for students going across Carlsbad Boulevard to and
from the football field. Why not an overhead or underground wallnvay across Cypress?
Afurtherpointneedstoberaisedamcern@ the visceml odiousness of public government
bestowing a gift on a private business by simply yielding possession of a public holding to the
2
business. This has already clearly occurred before, to the Academy’s benefit. Review of a lot
map of the area shows the following streets, which straddled the current Academy grounds, as
closed: 1) the connection of Garfield street between Pacific and Cypress, 2) De1 Mar Avenue,
which connected to Carlsbad Blvd. to the east and shared its western terminus with Cypress, 3) another east-west connector (whose name is obscured on the map) between C&an and Carlshad
Blvd., which paralleled Del Mar and Cypress to the north, and 5) another north-south street (whose name is also illegible) which pamkled Garkld, but followed the curve of Carlsbad Blvd.
between Cypress and Pacifx (crossing Del Mar and the other closed street in the process). Four
streets is enough to give to a private business! We need not give any more. Carlsbad is not the
federal government and the Academy .is not General Motors. The Academy needs no handout
from govemment to keep it afloat. Although the Academy indicated at their information session
that there would be substantial costs to them in converting Cypress Avenue to their use (putting utilities underground, relandscaping, etc.), it was clear none of that expense was in any manner
compensation to the citizens of Carl&ad, or the local residents, for the loss of one of their public
thoroughfares.
If the City of Carl&ad does permit the closure of Cypress Avenue after all, then we urge
that the street be closed only to the degree necessary to accommodate the safety concerns of the
Academy: Only the portion of Cypress between Garfield and Carlsbad Blvd. should be allowed
to be closed, and only to motorized vehicular traflic. Public foot t&k and bicycles must still
be allowed this traditional access between Gcean Street and Carlsbad Blvd. At the Academy’s
information session the model of their proposed plans showed Cypress Avenue’s pavement
remaining, but with pillars as barricades to auto traffic. Such would be at minimum what the
public is due. However, drawings presented at the information session as an updated rendering
of the Academy’s plans showed the street having diqqeared entirely, with grassy grounds akin
to the rest of the Academy in its place. Even if the public were legally allowed to cross that
grassy strip, it would not be evident to a masonable person seeking access from Gcean to Carlsbad
Blvd. and so would be inappropriate.
Further,ifCypressistobeafifthofferingofapublicstmettotheAcademy,thenweurge
they be made to pay for it in a matter that compensates the citizens adequately and with an eye to
the future: 1) The Academy should pay outright for the purchase, or lease, of the street, at fair
market value and the funds used to mitigate the problems of traffic and parking exacerbated by
the closure of Cypress. 2) The Academy should provide access to the lagoon to the north which
does not require fkst going to the kach. Such access has historically been available but has been more and mom frequently hampered by the Academy and other local landowners. If the Academy
wants to deprive the local citizens of convenient and historic access between Gcean street and
Carlsbad Blvd., it should ensure for the future their convenient access to the lagoon which has
historically been a public resource in usage.
The Academy acknowledged at their i&rmakn session that they are currently promoting
the plan they feels is best for them. As has been detaikd above, we submit it is time to have the
Academy take the local residents’ concerns more into account by denying them the closure of
3
-
Cypress Avenue. However, if Cypress is to be become but the Mth public thoroughfare ceded
to the Academy, then the Academy should only get as much as it absolutely needs for safety concerns, and it should pay adequate compensation for that part.
sincerely,
&&
Endre J.
P.S. A further tangential point which needs be mentioned regards notice of all these pending
plans. While we learned of the Academy’s information session through a mailing from them, at
the information session I learned from the Academy’s architect, Tom Cox, that the session was but the third such a meeting, that the Academy had sent notices of each to all landowners in a 300 . footradiuqandthat~ nf0 in a 600 foot radius.
Neither we, nor many of the landowners who are our neighbors in the 2600 block of Gcean Street
received notice of the earlier Academy sessions, and no notice of these from the City. We
received nothing but the last mailing from the Academy and the City’s notice of the December 7
Public Hearing. Mr. Cox said that both the City and they use ownership roles from title
companies to do their mailings, but the fact remains that we, and many other, local landowners
(some of them like ourselves longtime residents) did as we should have. (We
understand some to date have still not received any notice, although we do not know their
name(s).) Given what is at stake, this is a serious breach of required notice. Further mailings should be double-checked to see that they are, indeed, going to all local landowners.
A
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad CA 92009-l 576
Dear Sirs:
RE: Proposal to close Cypress St. along the south side of the Army Navy
Military Academy
I am opposed to said closure for the following reasons:
1. The residents and beach goers to the north of the Academy would have to
travel 3 blocks south to Beech St. in order to go north on Carlsbad Blvd.
2. The same route would be used by many residents to enter the ama, because
the entrance at Mountain View is now dangerous due to the height of the
plantings in the recently installed median on Carlsbad Blvd. One cannot see the
traffic approaching over the railroad viaduct and this entrance is avoided by
many residents.
3. The block of Ocean St. between Cypress and Beech Streets, which would
bear all this extra traffic, is probably the least suited of all Ocean St. for that
purpose. It is narrow, with insufficient off-street parking. Many cars park so as
to hang out in the street, and two cars passing have to be very careful. In case
of access for emergency vehicles, it could be dowwight dangerous.
4. The already bad parking problem for beach goers who use the access at the
foot of Cypress and for McGee Park concert attendees will be exacerbated if the
parking spaces on Cypress are deleted.
I am supportive of building plans that will keep the Academy a viable part of
Carlsbad, but closure of one of our access streets does not seem to be good city
planning.
2469 Ocean St
P.O. 90x 708 srtoiqo,wifomi~ 92112 l919167~7Wl *Fax (91916767190
December 5, 1994
City of Carlsbad
Design Review Board and
Planning Commission
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: CASE FILE: RP 94-02/CDP 94-02/CUP 94-02
CASE NAME: ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY
Gentlemen:
I am writing this letter as the owner of the property located
at 2681 Ocean Street in Carlsbad, and’1 am very much opposed to
the closing of Cypress Street. Please register my concerns with your
Planning Commission.
JTHm.lh
THE BEACH HOMEowNERs ASSOCIATION
RUEDESCHATW\UX
CARLsBccIx CALJFORNIA 92008
5 December 1994
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California
To Whom It May Concern:
We are writing this letter to oppose the closing of Cypress Avenue as
proposed by the Army and Navy Academy. The closing of Cypress Avenue
would cause the following problems:
1. Limit access and egress to all the residents in the neighborhood.
2. Create additional traffic on Mountain View, Pacific Avenue, Ocean
Street and Beech Avenue.
3. Create safety problems on Ocean Street which is already a narrow
street and which can barely accomodate large vehicles.
4. Create additional parking problems by the elimination of Cypress Street parking.
5. Create a dangerous precedent for future development if the City of
Carlsbad donates public property to private organizations.
The Beach Homeowners Association represents fourteen (14) homes on Rue
des Chateaux. We are strongly opposed to the closing of Cypress Street. As
taxpayers, we are disappointed that the City of Carlsbad would even
consider the gift of our street. We are sure that the Army and Navy Academy can achieve their redevelopment without this gift.
Si cerely, k! b7A 7-d
‘Robert S. Grimes Beach HOA
THE BEACH HOA4JZOWNEIU LWOCIATION
RUEDJZ.SSKX
CARLSBAIX CALIFORMA 92008
5 December 1994
City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this letter to oppose the closing of Cypress Avenue as proposed
by the Army and Navy Academy. The closing of Cypress Avenue would
cause the following problems: .
1. Limit access and egress to all the residents in the neighborhood.
2. Create additional traffk on Mountain View, Pacific Avenue, Ocean Street and Beech Avenue.
3. Create safety problems on Ocean Street which is already a narrow
street and which can barely accomodate large vehicles.
4. Create additional parking problems by the elimination of Cypress Street parking.
5. Create a dangerous precedent for future development if the City of Carlsbad donates public property to private organizations.
I am strongly opposed to the closing of Cypress Street. As a taxpayer, I am
disappointed that the City of Carlsbad would even consider the gift of our
street. I am sure that the Army and Navy Academy can achieve their
redevelopment without this gift.
Robert S. Grimes
Carlsbad Resident
. . ..k-- A . :
-iA
OcT&ll) B Sk w kk%mw
Tt)LAA, ..-- -.-.- -- --. - ..---. I- -
__---. - - - -.- .-.. 6 $ owfi@w -g&D*- J!uLnk-gAPsRb-.bF-.-
cMx73 mD%adL -1s &b-TlsoLeD c-mq * dbr? j+ I&-*/, m
, cY?M% PhlD CARm34h Tmtj. ) ..&br
-B&q q- AAl7 .~~D-~to,..--.-- --.- - I -----___-- -
Gcpc)o*= /+Li ‘Irifi/imi ?I&& .__ TDkbaza3 -.-
(gR ‘mudEk=t -m&l ocs9EJ .-.q.- -Ii Yfsuj .q.
- I .-
FJ ZL 0~0~ -n-k5 /LUG&& hwLrt;PrA, ~-L jMA?e ’ IT3 k v1m i coma,y -3 J%-iL‘f _._. __ &wcEpf-. - A 8 fit A , .-_-k .._____ ~~_----
(clmwg2 , ~~~ j&z, (~ia3c __.Xk -_~_-.______---_ _
I rtzW~ l 4 .-.-rui4 _._. k--!&v ._-. ~_.._ Mliu-4e
Y
76& .
_- ~._ - -. .._ ._.. ---_- ._._ ~..__~ __.__. -
.- _.- --___---.-. c_---_. . .._. _. -. _
.- -... _-. - _--
_~__.._ _--.- .--_-
- -. __
_ _. _--.----- - so.
. #-- /-
R -)ert C. & Barbara A. Lad’ig
2642 Ocean Street
a!~ t- k;“t. 131~~
Carlsbad, California 92008 &? Ls-%
ALL RECElVED
December 28, 1994
Mayor Bud Lewis and Council Members
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
SUBJECT: ARM-Y/NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN (BP 94-02/CDP 94-02KUP
94-02)
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I reside at 2642 Ocean Street which is approximately one half block south of the Army/Navy
Academy between Cypress Avenue and Beech Street. I am opposed to the current Army/Navy
Academy’s application to close Cypress Avenue. I am also opposed to any changes in the current
tra5c patterns around the Army/Navy Academy that would require the widening and improvement
of Ocean Street between Beech and Cypress. This narrow street now handles vehicle and pedestrian
tra5c. Setbacks are narrow and an improved street would allow tra5c speeds to increase, and in my
opinion, reduce safety factors.
I spoke in opposition to this application at the Phuming Commission on December 7, 1994, along
with about 7 other residents, one ofwhom represented 14 homeowners at the very northerly end of
Ocean Street. One resident, who lives on Pacific Street, spoke in favor of the project. Also, one
resident who lives at the comer of Cypress and Ocean spoke in favor of the project indicating that
he felt the residents that spoke before him overstated their concerns for the project. I would like to
point out that I do not feel the residents overstated their position. Your staff is recommending that
if Cypress is closed that Ocean Street between Beech and Cypress be widened and improved to
accommodate the additional increase in traffic. Widening of the road was not discussed at the
Planning Commission and I am sure many of the residents that spoke were not aware of the staff
recommendation to widen and improve Ocean Street which does reinforce my position that the
residents did not overstate their concerns for the change in traffic patterns in this area.
HOME (6191729-3327 + WORK (619)438-3182 + FAX (619)431-2205
Mayor Bud Lewis and Co -il Members
December 28, 1994
Page 2
One of the residents, Mr. Endre Algover, brought up an excellent point. He indicated that a
significant area of the Academy’s property are vacated streets and alleys. Enclosed, please find a
copy of the Assessor’s Parcel Map that I have marked-up showing exactly what Mr. Algover pointed
out. The total project area of the academy is shown by the Assessor at 15.9 1 acres. I have calculated
the acreage of the vacated streets and alleys that the academy currently enjoys to be about 3.32 acres
or 2 1% of their site.
Their request for additional vacation and closure of Cypress, I feel, is not in the best interest of the
citizens of Carlsbad. I do hope the academy can revise their plans and bring back something I can
support. The academy has been an excellent neighbor.
The applicant at the Planning Co mmission Hearing showed no indication to cooperate with the staffs
recommendation or the residents who spoke. The Phuming Commission and Design Review Board
were kind enough to deny this applicant without prejudice which would allow them to redesign and
resubmit their project. I strongly recommend that the Council deny this application and ask that the
applicant redesign his project so Cypress Street is not closed.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Ladwig
RCL:lw.OO 1
Enclosure
Copy with enclosure:
Mr. Jeff Gibson, City of Carlsbad
Mr. Endre Algover
.**.*.. . . . . .
.’ :
RLert C. & Barbara A. LadIig
2642 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
ALLRECEIVED
December 29, 1994
Mayor Bud Lewis and Council Members
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
SUBJECT: ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN (RP 94-02/CDP 94-02/CUP
94-02)
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
This letter provides additional information to my letter dated December 28, 1994, to you urging
denial ofthe Army/Navy Academy appeal of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board’s
unanimous denial of the project.
I am against the closing of Cypress Street because your staff has stated that the closure of Cypress
would required the widening and improvement of Ocean Street between Cypress and Beech. My
reasons are as follows:
The current right-of-way width of Ocean Street is 40 feet.
My existing setback to the front of our house, which was built in 1940’s, is 15 feet along with
7 others.
Our bedroom and living room face Ocean Street.
The lots on the east side of Ocean Street are 50’ x 70’ or 3,500 square feet and are oriented
towards Ocean Street.
The lots on the west side face away from Ocean Street with mostly garage doors adjacent to the
right-of-way and the living areas facing the ocean.
No curb, gutter or sidewalk exist on the east side of Ocean Street.
HOME (619)729-3327 + WORK (619)438-3182 + FAX (619)431-2205
Mayor Bud Lewis and Cot.-1 Members
* December 29, 1994
_ Page 2
On February 5, 1980, the City Council adopted a City Engineers report dated January 21, 1980, as
city policy. This policy shows up in Agenda Bill #6145 and applies to Ocean Street and the
surrounding area. The policy identified 50 feet as a minimum ultimate right-of-way requirement for
this street. What is clear in the existing policy is “ifa person chooses to secure a building permit to
rebuild on a lot in this area, he/she would be required to develop in conformance with the 50 foot
criteria”.
I agree with the existing policy for rebuilding. The problem is that none of us are rebuilding. If
Ocean Street is widened now, I would have pedestrians within 10 feet on my front bedroom window
and about 12 feet corn my living room
Ocean Street is not a normal subdivision street. It is unique and needs special design standards that
a previous council recognized. My lot is small (3,500 square feet). The houses on the west side face
away from Ocean Street, we on the east side face Ocean Street. If Cypress Street is closed and
Ocean Street is widened, I would be denied along with my neighbors a property right everyone else
in Carlsbad enjoys and that is a reasonable setback from a public right-of-way. I urge you to deny
this request to close Cypress.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Ladwig
RCL:lw. 002
cc: Mr. Jeff Gibson, City of Carlsbad
HOME (619)729-3327 + WORK (619)438-3182 4 FAX (619)431-2205
$4- 2$-s P,* ‘, , . m ALL RECEIVED
/+ -9r
y&L-&p-~ _I----_ - I -
~6~~~~~~-~,-~-~~~~~303 ..-. _~_ .~~_-- ----.----
#t$$ud&mlui L2gdedJ&~.
. ..--.-- ----.------
_--.-__.
~~ _ : --.-.---- ------ --
--___
___- .---_--_-
_---...----.--
-- .---_. .- ___-._-. -
-ve-~~.
w
&&4Gdafd~-~L &d.D, _-- .I. --. /%Law A% .? j?3dJ$fts?~.$y--* , I 1 --_-- e, _-.-- -
_-.-. .--
__----_.__. ~*.. .-.. - .-._-..
.-. _..-~_--. -.--. _
._-.. __--
-- - - -------_---. .--_-.- ~. -.- ~.~ -- -.-~~~ - - ._. ~__~. -._ ___ ~. . . ..___ -._.
-..
-ii--
- - _.._ -_-_.---__-.- .--~-~ . . ..__~.. ._~~ _ .._.. ~~~ .~ -- -~~. _ .~..~~~ ._..__ - _~------ __--- .--------&A . ..gy .~:-..-.--.-...~--.-.-.
__-------- -.-- -__- . ..-.-~.-. ----...-.~ -. _-~ --. ..-.- ~--~ - -~ ~~-
-- --~. - ---------__
_--- -------.-. .~- .___ . ..-- -.~-_. ._
- _- -~ __ _... ~- ___._.. .~ _~~-. .-.-.----
-__-~- -----__ -
._-_ ~_- --..---L.-_-~- ..--.- .---. -__