HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-05; City Council; 13424; Carlsbad By The Sea Lutheran HomeCITY COUNCIL AND Gf--..y54[77 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL
iB#/3. TITLE:
flTG 12/s/95 CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME . PLN LCPA 95-07, RP 94-06, CDP 94-06, ZCA 95-12
IEPT.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. That Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No. a? %
APPROVING a Mitigated Negative Declaration, LCPA 95-07, RP 94-06, and CDP 9406 for
Carlsbad By The Sea Lutheran Home.
2. That the City Council APPROVE, LCPA 95-07 by INTRODUCING Ordinance No.NS -3 70
APPROVING ZCA 95-l 2.
ITEM EXPLANATlON
On August 16,1995, and September 6,1995, the Planning Commission and Design Review Board
conducted joint public hearings to consider various permits allowing the redevelopment of
Carlsbad By The Sea Lutheran Home located at 2855 Carlsbad Boulevard (Parcel A), 201 Grand
Avenue (Parcel B) and a vacant lot west of Ocean Street (Parcel C) across from the existing
facility. The project, which consists of the demolition, redevelopment, and expansion of the
existing Carlsbad By The Sea professional care facility requires the partial street vacation of
Christiansen Way, an exemption to the height standard at two locations, and a Local Coastal
Program Amendment to exempt the project from the ground floor visitor commercial requirement.
The project requires Housing and Redevelopment Commission approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Local Coastal Program Amendment, major redevelopment permit, and coastal
development permit. Included in the Agenda Bill is an ordinance amending Chapter 21.35.020
(Village Redevelopment Zone) of the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the LCPA to the V-R LCP
segment into this chapter. Since the City Council acts as the legislative body for the Local
Coastal Program and Local Coastal Program Amendments, the Council must take action on
Ordinance No. /v-q -34 D.
At the August 16, 1995, joint public hearing, the Design Review Board and Planning Commission
received a total of five letters; three in support of the project and two opposing the project. Three
persons spoke in opposition to the project and two parsons spoke in support of the project.
Opposition was expressed by two commercial property owners to the south regarding the lack
of retail continuity along the Carlsbad Boulevard frontage between Carlsbad Village Drive and
Grand Avenue. One resident and some Planning Commissioners expressed concern over the
loss of onstreet public parking on Christiansen Way. The project was continued to September
6, 1995, to give the applicant an opportunity to meet with commercial property owners to the
south to determine if a compromise could be reached regarding the lack of retail continuity along
Carlsbad Boulevard resulting from the proposed project and to address parking concerns.
In response to the concerns expressed by the public, Design Review Board, and Planning
Commissioners, the applicant revised the project to include approximately 3,200 square feet of
commercial space along Carlsbad Boulevard south of Grand Avenue, redesigned the reduced
Christiansen Way right of way to provide more public parking on Christiansen Way, and revised
a condition that clarifies and protects the private rights of the sewer easement held by the Town
Center property owners. These project changes were presented to the Design Review Board and
Planning Commission at their joint September 6, 1995, public hearing. During that continued
public hearing, four persons expressed support for the project and one person opposed the
project. A nearby resident, expressed support for the project but opposition to the Christiansen
Way partial street vacation due to the loss of onstreet parking and presented a proposal to
redesign the roadway in order to increase onstreet parking.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. / 3; 4&Y
As a result of public testimony, the Design Review Board and Planning Commission added and/or
revised conditions to require:
1) additional redesign of Christiansen Way to maximize onstreet parking;
2) reservation of 11 parking spaces in the Parcel B parking garage for public use;
3) an employee parking program to avoid employee use of onstreet public parking
spaces; and
4) issuance of building permits within 5 years of final project approval.
The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 94-10, Hillside Development Permit
94-08, and Variance 94-01 as revised for the portions of the project located outside the Village
Redevelopment area with a 6-O vote and determined General Plan Consistency (GPC/PCD 95-03)
for the proposed partial street vacation of Christiansen Way with a 5-1 vote (Nielsen).
The Design Review Board recommended approval with a 3-O vote of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Local Coastal Program Amendment 95-07, Major Redevelopment Permit 94-06, and
Coastal Development Permit 94-06 as revised for the portion of the project located within the
Village Redevelopment area.
Subsequent to Design Review Board/Planning Commission action, the immediately adjacent
property owner’ attorney sent a letter to the City Manager raising the following two issues:
1)
2)
The applicant has yet to revise his plans to incorporate the 3,200 square feet of
ground floor tourist serving commercial on Parcel B (located south of Grand
Avenue).
The applicant has yet to indicate the manner in which the project can be
implemented so as to not adversely impact the adjacent property to the south with
respect to a sewer easement crossing the project.
Regarding the first issue, the project was conditioned to incorporate 3,200 square feet of
groundfloor commercial on Parcel B and to provide public parking to serve the commercial use.
The project was further conditioned to require the applicant to submit revised plans consistent
with the approval within 30 days after final action. Since the project could be modified by the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission/City Council and/or the Coastal Commission, it would
be premature for the applicant to revise the plans now.
Regarding the second issue, the project was conditioned to be implemented ‘...without impairing
the private rights of the easement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer”. The project at this
stage is in conceptual design. The preservation of the easement rights will be addressed during
final design. Pursuant to Condition No. 30 of Design Review Board Resolution No. 230, the issue
must be resolved prior to the issuance of any grading permits or the project may have to be
redesigned so as not to impair the easement rights.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The environmental impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through
completion of an Environmental Impact Assessment. The assessment concluded that potentially
significant noise and cuttural resource impacts would result without mitigation which includes the
architectural replication of the main structure, historicaldocumentation, archaeological monitoring,
and the reduction of noise to existing levels. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued by the
Planning Director on March 6, 1995, and an addendum was added to the environmental impact
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 13; %%Y
assessment to address project revisions in which commercial uses are added to Parcel B and
Christiansen Way is redesigned to add onstreet parking spaces.
FISCAL IMPACT
No negative fiscal impacts will be incurred by the City since the developer is responsible for all
costs of ensuring the availability and construction of all necessary public facilities including the
construction of the public parking lot within the unimproved Garfield Street right-of-way.
EXHIBITS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
City Council Ordinance No. N s - sLi 0
Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. & 3 a
Location Map
Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 228, 229, 230, and 231
Planning Commission Resolutions 3790, 3791, 3792, 3793, and 3801
Staff Reports dated August 16, 1995, and September 6, 1995
Excerpts of Design Review Board/Planning Commission Minutes dated August 16, 1995,
and September 6, 1995.
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
ORDINANCE NO. NS-340
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 21,
CHAPTER 21.35 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE
BY AMENDING SECTION 21.35.020 TO INCORPORATE
LCPA 95-07 WHICH AMENDS THE V-R LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM SEGMENT.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN
HOME CASE NO: ZCA 95-12
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That Title 21, Chapter 21.35, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
is amended by the amendment of Section 21.35.020 to read as follows:
‘The Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan as adopted by Carlsbad City
Council Ordinance No. 9591 and the Village Design Manual as adopted by Carlsbad
Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 14 and as amended by Resolution
No. are hereby adopted by reference and incorporated into this chapter.”
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after
its adoption, and the city clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause
to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad
within fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad
City Council on the 5th day of DEC. , 1995, and thereafter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meet@g of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the - day of , 1995, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. IUWTENKWN Z, City Clerk
(SEAL)
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
RESOLUTION NO. 272
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AMENDMENT; MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT
PERMIT, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE REDEVELOPMENT OF CARLSBAD BY
THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME LOCATED AT 2855
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND 201 GRAND AVENUE
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA
LUTHERAN HOME
CASE NO: LCPA 95-07/RP 94-06KDP 94-06
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design
Review Board did, on August 16, 1995 and on September 6, 1995, hold duly noticed
public hearings as prescribed by law to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Local
Coastal Program Amendment, Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development
Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of
Carlsbad, on the day of December , 1995, held a duly noticed public hearing to 5th
consider said Mitigated Negative Declaration, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Major
Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit and at that time received the
recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or opposed
to LCPA 95-07, RP 94-06, CDP 94-06; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPTS Housing
and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 272 , and that the findings and
conditions of the Design Review Board as set forth in Design Review Board Resolution
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
Nos. 228, 229, 230, and 231 on file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by
reference are the findings and conditions of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission,
except as amended by the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Parcel B, the applicant shall redesign
the ground level commercial storefront utilizing the 20’ setback area to provide
facade projections and recesses for visual interest in accordance with the Adopted
Village Design Guidelines and subject to Housing and Redevelopment Director
approval.
2. The entry to the public beach access located at the terminus of Grand Avenue shall
be enhanced possibly through sign replacement, the provision of light bollards, and
low-growing landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director prior to
building occupancy.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the -
day of 5th , 1995, by the following vote, to wit: r
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Al-TEST
Commissioners Lewis, Nygaard, Finnila, Hall
None
Commissioner Kulchin
the Commission
-2-
EXHIBIT 3
CARLSBAD BY THE SEA
LUTHERAN HOME
LCPA 95=07/RP 94=06/CUP 94-1 O/
CDP 94-06/HDP 94-08/V 940Ol /
PCD/GPC 95-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 4
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 228
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM, AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT,
AND REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CARLSBAD BY THE SEA
LUTHERAN HOME LOCATED AT 2855 CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD AND 201 GRAND AVENUE.
APPLICANT: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN
HOME
CASE NO: LCPA 95-07/CDP 94-06/RP-94-06
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 16th day of August, 1995,
and on the 6th day of September, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review
Board as follows:
A) 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 APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and addendum according to Exhibit “ND”, dated March 6, 1995,
and “PII”, dated March 6, 1995 attached hereto and made a part hereof, and
the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and addendum for RP 94-06 and
CDP 94-06, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, prior to
recommending approval of the project. Based on the EIA Part-I1 and comments
thereon, the Design Review Board finds that there is no substantial evidence the
project will have a significant effect on the environment and hereby recommends
approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and addendum.
2. The Design Review Board does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and addendum for LCPA 95-07, CDP 94-06, RP 94-06, and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines, and
the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The City’s MEIR found that air quality and circulation impacts are significant and
adverse; therefore, the Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations.
The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those effects, no additional
environmental document is required.
Planning Conditions:
CULTURAL RESOURCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
The applicant shall file a performance bond in accordance with a cost estimate
submitted by a qualified historian with the City to ensure that the mitigation
measures and design product are consistent with the materials on file with the most
recent application.
The design of the new facility will be consistent with the existing historic structure,
inasmuch as the facade which is currently present will be faithfully replicated in the
new design. The size and scale of the facility (front facade) will be faithful with what
is currently present. The architectural style of the new facility will be faithful to the
existing structure. The construction materials will be consistent with the current
structure, for example, plaster walls, tile roof, window size, style, and placement; and
maintenance of a design which includes a porte cochere and one-story, octagonal
rooms at the two forward corners.
The history of the former hotel and property will be documented by a qualified
historian and appropriate information concerning the acquisition, construction, uses, I
and activities that took place there will be compiled. This archival research shall ~
include photographs and other memorabilia which relate to the hotel over time. The
goal of the presentation will be to place the structure into the context of the period
to demonstrate how it changed over time. Attention will also be paid to the
connection of this business with the development of Carlsbad.
A photographic documentation of the existing historic building will be completed by
a qualified photographer. Color photographs should be made of the facade and each
of the remaining elevations. Interior as well as exterior shots shall be made with
special attention to the portions of the structure that are more reminiscent of the
DRB RES0 NO. 228 -2- 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
early years of use and operation. Photographs of architectural details should also
be made.
The photographic documentation shall also include the production of an
informational video. As with the still photographs, attention shall be paid to
recording as much as possible of the look and feel of the building and the grounds.
This video shall also include interviews with individuals who may want to reminisce
about the structure or provide some useful information. This shall be a
professionally produced product and will be kept on file in the library of the new
facility with a copy on file at the Carlsbad City Library.
To augment the still photographs and the video, drawings of certain portions of the
existing structure shall be made. These will allow for the presentation of more detail
and dimension.
An inventory of materials, fixtures, or built-ins shall be made to identify those items
which can be salvaged for adaptive reuse or can be used for display in the new
facility.
A rendering of the new facility will be posted in front of the existing historic building
one month prior to any demolition to provide the citizens of Carlsbad an opportunity
to see the new facility. The rendering will be provided at sufficient size and detail
to accurately represent the planned structure. This will include some details of the
landscaping design. These exhibits will be available to staff for review at the time
of submittal.
A qualified archaeologlcal monitor will be present during grading to identifj. and
assess any buried cultural resource deposits. In the event that important cultural
resource materials are uncovered, a recovery and analysis program will be
implemented.
NOISE:
10. Noise generated by the project’s roof equipment shall not exceed existing noise levels
at property lines surrounding the project. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy the applicant shall submit evidence from an acoustical expert that noise
levels at property lines do not exceed the existing noise levels as identified in Charles
Salter and Associates Noise Report dated January 9, 1995 incorporated herein by
reference.
11. Sound rated windows in accordance with Charles M. Salter Associates Preliminary
Noise Report dated June 30,1994, shall be installed at designated locations to satisfy
the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Where windows are required to be
unopenable or kept closed in order to meet the interior noise standards, mechanical
ventilation and cooling, if necessary, shall be provided to maintain a habitable
environment. ....
lI DRB RES0 NO. 228 -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
20
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of September, 1995
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Vice-Chairperson Welshons, Board Members Savary and Vessey
Board Members Marquez and Noble
KIM &LSHONS, Vice-Chairperson
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
EVAN BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
DRB RES0 NO. 228 -4-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATlON
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Carfsbad By The Sea
2855 Carlsbad Boulevard
Carlsbad, CA 92008
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Carlsbad By The Sea project will consist of the redevelopment
of the existing professional care facility located north and south of
Grand Avenue in the Village Redevelopment Zone, R-3 and Beach
Area Overlay Zones, and the development of a 12,600 square foot
ocean front parcel directly west of the main structure on Ocean
Street in the R-3 and Beach Area Overlay Zones. All three parcels
will be developed with new structures, however, the front facade of
the main structure will be replicated. The existing professional care
facility consists of 102 living units, 59 skilled nursing beds, and
ancillary services. The redeveloped facility (including all three
parcels) will consist of 159 living units, 33 skilled beds, 2 visitor
units, a therapy center with pool, ancillary facilities, and
subterranean parking below each of the structures providing
parking for 229 cars. The project also includes a partial street
vacation of Christiansen Way from 80 feet of right-of-way to 40 feet
of right-of-way, and the improvement of a 57 space public parking
lot within the existing Garfield Street right-of-way.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carisbad. As a resuit of said review, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on
the environment) is herebyksued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file
in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in wriiing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at
(619) 438-l 161, extension 4477.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
MARCH 6, 1995
MICHAEL J. HO-MI&R
RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-lO/ Planning Director
HDP 94-08/v 9401/m 6.119
CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
PUBUSH DATE: MARCH lo,1995
13
ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED MARCH 6,1995
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
CASE NO: LCPA 95XI7/RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-lO/HDP 94-08/V 94-Ol/PR 6.119
la. Land Use
The Environmental Impact Assessment completed for the project specified that no
ground floor visitor commercial use is included in the project and that the visitor
commercial requirement does not apply to Carlsbad by the. Sea since no change to the
existing use is proposed. Coastal Commission comments received in June, 1995,
indicated that to be consistent with the V-R Coastal Program, it is necessary to process
a Local Coastal Program Amendment to exempt the redevelopment of Carlsbad by the
Sea from the visitor commercial requirement. Staff agreed and the project now
includes a resolution recommending approval of a Local Coastal Program Amendment.
The project has been revised to require retail commercial uses within a 3200 square
foot ground floor area of the Parcel B structure fronting on Carlsbad Boulevard. The
required parking for the retail commercial area is provided onsite in the subterranean
garage and signage for the commercial uses must be consistent with the Village
Design Manual sign standards. As revised, the project will result in greater retail
continuity to serve visitors along Carlsbad Boulevard between Carl&ad Village Drive
and Grand Avenue and increase the inventory of visitor commercial uses. Therefore,
greater consistency with the requirements of the Village LCP and Village Design
Manual is achieved thereby further reducing environmental impacts already identified as less than significant.
6d. Transporation/Circulation
The revised Christiansen Way roadway design will reduce the area of proposed street
vacation and replace 12 of the public parking spaces lost along the roadway due to the
previous driveway access ramp design. This change will not result in additional safety
hazard impacts and will result in a greater net increase in available onstreet public
parking than previously reported. The revised project will therefore improve beach
area parking and result in a less than significant circulation/parking environmental
impact requiring no additional mitigation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. RP94-06. CDP94-06. CUP94-10. HDP94-08, V94-01
DATE: MARCH 6. 1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
2. APPLICANT: CARLSBAD LUTHERAN HOMES
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: JULY 19.1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Carlsbad bv the Sea uroiect will consist of the redeveloDment of the
existing Drofessional care facility located north and south of Grand Avenue in the Village RedeveloDment
Zone. R-3 and Beach Area Overlay Zones. and the develomnent of a 12,600 sauare foot Ocean front Darcel
directly west of the main structure on Ocean Street in the R-3 and Beach Area Overlay Zones. All three
parcels will be develomd with new structures. however. the front facade of the main structure will be
redicated. The existinp professional care facility consists of 102 living units. 59 skilled nursinp beds. and
ancillary services. The redeveloped facility (including all three parcels) will consist of 159 living units,
33 skilled nursing beds. 2 visitor units. a theraDy center with mol. ancillarv facilities. and subterranean
parking below each of the structures providing Darking for 229 cars. The uroiect also includes a Dartial
street vacation of Christiansen Way from 80 feet of rightaf-way to 40 feet of right-of-way, and the
hDrovement of a 57 mace Dublic ~aking lot within the existing Garfield Street right-of-way.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or ”Potentially Siflicant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Land Use and Planning - X Transportation/Circulation - Public Services
- Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems
- Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics
- Water - Hazards - X Cultural Resources
- X Air Quality - X Noise - Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Significance
1-1 Rev. 1130195
/5
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wilI be prepared. cl
I find that although the proposed project could have a signifkant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
x
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. cl
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect
1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must
amlyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. q
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because a.U potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
PLANNING DIRl%XORU Date
I-2 Rev. l/30/95
/L,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a sign&ant effect on the environment. The Environmental
impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration,
or to rely on a previously approved ElR or Negative Declaration.
. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by
an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior
Compliance).
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any
of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than signitlcant, and those mitigation measures are
agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuan t to applicable standards and
the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that
earlier EIR.
I-3 Rev. l/30/95
. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the
following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier
EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce
the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overridihg Considerations” for the significant impact
has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact
to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of
significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in
reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION Ok ENVIRO&MENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined sign&ant.
I-4 Rev. 1/30/95
/g
IssueS (and Supporting hformati0n Sources):
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a>
b)
cl
4
d
Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? (Source #3, #7)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (#3, #7, #8)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Source #7)
Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? (Source #3, #8)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
of an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (Source w7)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed offkial regional or local
population projections? (Source #3)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( 1
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( 1
POttZlltidly Significant Impact
Potentia.lly Significant UflkSS Mitigation Itmrporated
Les3Than Significant
w=ct
x
x
x
No Impact
x
x
x
x
x
I-5 Rev. l/30/95
/4
Issues (and supporting hlformatial sources):
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
a> Fault rupture? (Source #l)
W Seismic ground shaking? (Source #l)
4
4
4
fl
g)
h>
9
Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Source #l)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
Landslides or mudflows? ( )
Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or ffi? ( )
Subsidence of the land? ( )
Expansive soils? ( )
Unique geologic or physical features? ( )
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( Source # 2)
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant
UhiS Mitigation hmrporated
LesTban Significant No
Impact Inlpact
x
x -
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x -
I-6 Rev. l/30/95
$0
Issues (and suppolting Infolmaiicm sources):
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? ( )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ( )
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( )
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (Source #3)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source #3)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #3)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies? (Source #3)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
#3)
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially significant
Unless Mitigation Inc4xporated
L.essTban Significant No Impact Impact
x
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source #3)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( )
-
.
d) Create objectionable odors? ( )
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
I-7 Rev. l/30/95
dl
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in
Potentially Significant
Ingact
Potentially Significant UIdeSS Mitigation
Iucmporated
LessThan Significant No
mJ=t Impact
a>
W
4
d)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source
#3 & #4) x -
Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source
#4)
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source #3)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (Source #4)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? (Source #4)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source #3)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic
impacts? (Source #3)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (Source #3)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (Source #3)
x -
x -
x -
x
x
x
I-8 Rev. l/30/95
Issues (and supporting Information sources): Potentially Significant Inqkct
POtdiaUy Significant
UIllesS Mitigation
Inccqmated
LesThan Significant No
Impact Impact
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #3) - - - x
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (Source #3) x
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors? (Source #3)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (Source #3)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source #3)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State? (Source
#3)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (Source #3) - -
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source
#3)
c) The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? (Source #3)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? (Source #3)
x
x -
x
x
X
x
x
X
I-9 Rev. l/30/95
23
Issues (and Supporting Infmnation Sources):
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flarnmable
brush, grass, or trees? (Source #3)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #5)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? (Source #5)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
a>
W
cl
4
d
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (Source #3)
Police protection? (Source #3)
Schools? (Source #3)
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (Source #3)
Other governmental services? (Source #3)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Source #3)
b) Communications systems? (Source #3) x
Potentiauy Significant Im@0ct
Potentially
sigllifkatlt U&.SS Mitigation
lncorporati
LessThan Significant NO
rolpact Impact
x
x
x -
x -
x -
x -
x
I- 10 Rev. l/30/95
Issues (and Supporting lafumation Sources):
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (Source #3)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #3)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source #3)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #3)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway? (Source #3)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? ( 1
c) Create light or glare? (Source #3)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
c>
4
d
Potentially Significant lmflact
Potentially Siiicant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
LessT&n Significant No Impact Impact
x -
x -
x -
x -
Disturb paleontological resources? (Source #3)
Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #6)
Affect historical resources? (Source #3, #6)
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (Source #6)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? (Source #6)
x -
x -
x
x
x
x
x
x
I- 11 Rev. l/30/95
is
Issues (and suppolting Infomlation sources): Potentially Significant
Im$act
Potentially
sinifihnt Unless Mitigation Inuuporated
LessThan Significant No
impact Impact
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Source
#3)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source
#3)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, SubstantialIy reduce
the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
x
x
x
x
x -
I- 12 Rev. l/30/95
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
a>
b)
4
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuan t to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
’ declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets:
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-speciflc conditions for the
project.
I- 13 Rev. l/30/95
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The existing Carlsbad by the. Sea Lutheran Home consists of multiple structures on two of three separate
parcels: Parcel 1 is a 2.3 acre parcel fronting Carlsbad Blvd. north of Grand Avenue; Parcel 2 is a 12,600
square foot ocean front lot west of Ocean Street; and Parcel 3 is a .9 acre lot fronting Carl&ad Blvd. south
of Grand Avenue. The larger parcel or main facility is located in both the Village Redevelopment Zone and
Beach Area Overlay Zone and within two separate local coastal program segments. It contains 102 living
units, offices, meeting rooms, chapel, dining room and lobby. The main structure fronting Carlsbad Blvd. is
multistory, approximately 36.5’ in height, and has been identified as a 1ocalIy significant historic structure in
the City‘s cultural resource survey. It was constructed, partially of unreinforced concrete masonry in 1929,
and currently is not in compliance with local and state seismic code requirements. The parcel also contains
six multi-unit single story cottages consisting of living units and located on the western portion of the parcel
fronting on Ocean Street in the Beach Area Overlay Zone. The small beach front parcel is currently
undeveloped and is used as a scenic viewing area consisting of a concrete stairway, benches, and fencing.
The .9 acre parcel located south of Grand Avenue consists of a single story, 59 bed skilled nursing facility
and small community center, both built in 1974. Improvements include two parking areas and garages at the
southwest comer of the lot fronting on Garfield Street.
The decision to redevelop rather than rehabilitate the existing facility stems from the estimated cost of seismic
retrofit along with costs for major upgrades to the existing building’s aging plumbing, heating, and electrical
systems. The applicant has also indicated that the existing facility is no longer competitive with other
comparable professional care facilities due both to accessibility problems and living units which are converted
hotel rooms that are too few, too small, and poorly configured.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is previously disturbed and surrounded by existing relatively small scale commercial and
residential development. These parcels have frontages on Carlsbad Boulevard, a community theme scenic
corridor, Christiansen Way, Grand Avenue, Garfield Street, and/or Ocean Street. The existing facilities
provide very limited parking onsite and rely on the surrounding public streets to satisfy their parking demand.
Parcel 1 site elevations range from 58 feet msl on the east to 45 feet msl on the west and is subject to the
development regulations of three different zoning designations (VR, R-3, and BAOZ) and two different local
coastal program segments (Village Redevelopment and Mello II). Parcel 3 site elevations range from 57 feet
msl to 50 feet msl and is entirely within the VR zone and regulated by the Village Design Manual. Parcel
2 site elevations range from 7 feet msl at the bottom of the coastal bluff to 44 msl along Ocean Street. This
infiil lot has never been developed although it has been utilized as a scenic viewing area and is covered with
invasive ice plant species and surrounded by development. Parcel 2 is subject to the R-3 and BAOZ zone
development regulations and the MelIo II segment of Carl&ad’s Local Coastal Program.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Environmental Impact Discussion
I- 14 Rev. l/30/95
$8
la. Land Use:
The project consists of the redevelopment of the existing professional care facility which is located in areas
designated by the General Plan for both Village Redevelopment (VR) and high density residential (RH). Uses
permitted by right and conditionally in these designated areas include commercial, multiple family residential,
and professional care facilities (allowed as a conditional use). The project is subject to and consistent with
the R-3, BAOZ, and VR zoning ordinances as well as the Mello II and Village Redevelopment segments of
the Local Coastal Program except for building height. Although the Village Design Manual (zoning document
for redevelopment area) specifies that the entire ground floor of all projects located in the area shall be
devoted to visitor commercial uses unless an amendment to the Local Coastal Program is approved, the
Carlsbad by the Sea Lutheran Home has existed at its present location since the mid-1960’s. While the facility
will be intensified, the existing professional care uses will not change. The professional care facility is a
commercial use, however, neither the existing facility nor the proposed facility includes a visitor serving
commercial component on the ground floor. The Village Design Manual regulating uses in the VR zone only,
does not specify that existing uses must be converted to visitor serving uses if sites are redeveloped to serve
existing uses. Upon change of use on the property, visitor serving uses on the ground floor will be required.
The project is consistent with the development standards of the above mentioned-zoning ordinances except
for building height. Parcel 1 building height exceeds the maximum 35’ building height allowed along the
Carlsbad Boulevard frontage (36.5 feet) and adjacent to the driveway ramp along Christiansen Way. As
mitigation for demolishing the locally significant historic structure, the applicant is required to replicate the
existing 36.5’ building facade along Carlsbad Boulevard. Building height also exceeds the 35’ maximum
height standard along Christiansen Way (northern elevation) adjacent to the driveway ramp providing access
to the underground parking garages. Building height is exceeded at this location since the closest grade for
measurement purposes is the sidewalk and street located north of the driveway ramp which is lower than the
grade established for height measurement around the remainder of the building. An exemption to height
standards will be recommended since strict adherence to height standards at these locations would result in
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent with the intent and
purpose of the Village Design Manual and Plan. Exceptional circumstances do apply to the proposed
development with regard to construction requirements surrounding the skilled nursing facility and the multiple
zoning regulations applicable to the property. Building height will not be injurious or materially detrimental
to property or the public at this location since building height currently exceeds 35’ along Carlsbad Boulevard
and the structure is separated from adjacent development to the north by the driveway ramp and the 40’ wide
Christiansen Way public right of way. Granting an exemption will not contradict the standards established
by the manual since the intent of the man& is to provide general design guidelines and regulations rather than
strict standards, and with the exceptions noted above, the Parcel 1 and 3 structures comply with the maximum
height permitted by the VR and R-3/BAOZ zones. Based upon the above, the project building height does not
generate a sign&ant environmental impact with regard to aesthetics or building intensification in the Village.
The Parcel 2 structure, located west of Ocean Street in the Beach Area Overlay Zone, is restricted to 24’ and
two levels due to its flat roof. The flat roof is utiked as an open roof garden above a parking garage adjacent
to Ocean Street and six living units extending over the bluff to the beach. The proposed structure is
approximately 4-5’ high along Ocean Street, and 39’ to the top of roof along the western elevation. The
western portion of the structure is also three levels. A variance to height standards is required at this location,
however, the additional height will not result in a signifkant adverse environmental impact since the existing
view corridor will be retained from Ocean street for residents and the public, the structures will observe the
“stringline” structural setbacks avoiding further seaward encroachment, and the structure will be the same
height or lower than existing structures adjacent to the north and south.
I- 15 Rev. l/30/95
247
lb. The project is located within the MelIo II and Village Redevelopment segments of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal
Program. Parcel 2 located west of Ocean Street and one third of parcel 1 located east of Ocean Street are
subject to Mello II policies requiring bluff stability, avoidance of liquefaction problems associated with seismic
hazards, “stringline” setbacks, access along shorelines, and archaeological or paleontological resources.
Compliance with the recommendations of the Leighton and Associates’ Geotechnical Investigation for these
parcels will avoid conflicts with policies requiring soil stability. The required seaward stringline setbacks are
provided by the project thereby ensuring lateral public access. Due to the relatively small acreage and
previously disturbed and/or infiil nature of the sites, significant archaeological or paleontological resources are
unlikely to be present. Although no seawalI is proposed for the development, a 7’ high foundation wall wiIl
provide the necessary protection from wave action during high tide and severe storms.
The remainder of Parcel 1 and Parcel 3 are subject to the Village Redevelopment segment of the LCP (Village
Design Manual) which regulates land uses and development standards. As described above, the existing uses
will not change and the project is consistent with all required development standards except building height
(see paragraphs 2 and 3 under Land Use la. above).
lc. Carlsbad by the Sea is an existing professional care facility which has occupied two of the three parcels
proposed for development for approximately 30 years. The facility is surrounded by a hotel and a church to
the north, a motel, vacation rental residential units, and the ocean to the west, Carlsbad Boulevard to the east,
and the Town Center commercial development to the south. The project will intensify the existing
development on two of the parcels and develop Parcel 2 located west of Ocean Street which is currently
undeveloped. The project adheres to coverage and height standards (with two exceptions) through a terraced
design in which building height is reduced to 30’ consistent with the BAOZ height restriction. Parcel 3 located
south of Grand is completely within the VR zone permitting 35’ in building height, however, a terraced design
will be provided to create a transition from three stories to two stories along the Garfield Street frontage to
ensure compatibility with the smaller scale development located west of Garfield Street within the BAOZ.
Additionally, since Parcel 3 abuts the Town Center Commercial development to the south, the facility is
designed to orient living units away from the commercial development by limiting south facing windows and
locating stairways along the property line to buffer units from adjacent commercial development. The structure is oriented away from the southern property line to the greatest extent possible and a five to six foot
high screen wall along the southern property line is provided to screen the outdoor recreation area from
adjacent commercial development.
The above described site design will ensure compatibility with existing smaller scale development and uses
in the vicinity. Additionally, the provision of underground parking on each Parcel will reduce the number of
vehicles associated with the existing professional care facility which currently park on the street thereby
reducing the impact of this type of facility in the beach area.
Id. No agricultural resources or operations will be impacted by the proposed redevelopment project which is
located in the downtown VilIage area and has been surrounded by development for many years.
le. The project includes the partial vacation of Christiansen Way between Carlsbad Boulevard and Ocean Street,
however, access to a Garfield Street public parking lot and the beach will still be provided within the
remaining right of way. The project will not divide the physical arrangement of the area since the professional
care facility is being developed or redeveloped on existing parcels.
I- 16 Rev. l/30/95 30
2a.
2b.
2c.
Although the project represents an increase of 57 living units with the potential to double the current Carlsbad
by the Sea resident population which will represent a small increase in the local population, development of
the facility will not result in changes to population projections since projections are based upon residential
dwelling units. Professional care facilities are commercial service in nature and are therefore not considered
in the City’s population projections.
The redevelopment project wi.Il increase in size, however, it will not induce substantial growth in the area since
the number of living units will increase by only 57 and the number of nursing beds will decrease by 26. This
increase will have no impact on existing projects surrounding the site which may also expand their commercial
facilities within the existing regulatory parameters upon approval of a redevelopment permit or conditional
use permit.
The redevelopment of the professional care facility will temporarily displace current residents of Carlsbad by
the Sea during construction, however, residents will be relocated to other Carlsbad Lutheran Homes and may
return to the Carlsbad facility upon completion of the project if they choose to do so.
3a-i. Compliance with the recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation conducted by Leighton and
Associates in June, 1994, for the project will ensure that there are less than significant impacts from such
conditions as seismic ground shaking, ground failure, land subsidence, landslides or other unstable soil
conditions. The coastal bluff proposed for development on Parcel 2 is a unique geologic feature, however,
the infill parcel is heavily impacted by erosion due to wave action. The bluff will be supported by an
approximately 20’ high retaining wall constructed beneath the structure thereby protecting it from further
erosion.
4ad. Water Quality:
The project consists of the redevelopment of existing previously developed parcels and drainage patterns,
absorption rates or surface runoff will not change substantially. Drainage from the existing and future
development is routed into an existing storm drain system located beneath the Ocean Street right of way
thereby avoiding any impact to surface water.
In accordance with the Hydrology Section 5.2 of the Master EIR 9341 and the “Coastal Design Criteria for
Proposed Seawall, California Lutheran Complex” report, prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. dated
October 18, 1994, the following mitigation will be incorporated into the project design to avoid significant
impacts to water quality resulting from the project: 1) require the instaUation of protective design measures
to protect structures from the effects of wave action; 2) require the project to construct all public facilities
needed to serve the proposed development prior to or concurrent with the need it generates; and 3) require
the dedication and improvement of all public right-of-way for public utility and storm drainage facilities to
serve the project. Additionally, prior to approval of a grading permit, the applicant must comply with the
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant will be required to provide the best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to
discharge into storm drain facilities.
5. Air Quality:
Subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in
increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in
increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and
I - 17 Rev. l/30/95
3,
suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the
San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions
are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or m.inim& the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation
measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and
intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through
the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage
alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient
building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a
“non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This
project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
certification of Fiil Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies
to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore,
no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning
Department.
6. Circulation
la. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to
accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by
regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s
adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minim& the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure
the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of
transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail
systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional
through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not
within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation
mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as
conditions of project approval.
I- 18 Rev. l/30/95
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study”
checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan,
therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR
93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects
covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental
review of circulation impacts is required.
6b,e. The project design does not create hazards to traffic or pedestrian safety. The project includes the half
street vacation of Christiansen Way resulting in a 28’ wide public street with no parking on either side,
and the narrowing of t.rafEc lanes on Grand Avenue to allow for diagonal parking and a 10’ wide
promenade (sidewalk) or linkage to the beach. The project will be conditioned to install sidewalk
improvements on both sides of all streets surrounding the project thereby improving pedestrian circulation
and safety. Both of these roadways are consistent with Carlsbad Standards for public roadways and
intersections.
6c. The project is within the five minute fire service response area required by the Growth Management Ordinance
and emergency access to the site is provided by public streets surrounding the project as required by the Fire
Department. The project will be conditioned to provide the necessary fire hydrant and fire flow capacity prior
to building permit issuance.
6g. There are no rail, waterborne, or air traffic resources within close enough proximity to the project to be
impacted.
7a-e. As identified by the Biological Resources Section 5.4 of the Master EIR, the project in within the developed
area of the City and consists of the redevelopment of previously disturbed and infill sites containing no
sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will have no impact on these resources.
8a-c. The Carlsbad by the Sea project consists of the redevelopment of existing, previously developed, infii
parcels with no mineral or agricultural resources in the vicinity. The project represents an expansion of the
existing facility, therefore, energy consumption will also increase. Mitigation such as compliance with the
Building Code, Title 20, Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code specified by the Electricity and Natural Gas
Section 5.12.1 of the Master EIR to ensure the implementation of energy conservation measures will avoid
the project’s use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and/or inefficient manner.
9a,c,d. The professional care facility is licensed and regulated by the County Department of Health Services to
ensure that the provision of health care services is safely administered. Risks with respect to accidental
explosion or the release of hazardous substances is not one typically associated with this type of facility. The
facility provides ongoing health care services to elderly resident patients and will not create a health hazard
or expose people to existing sources of health hazards.
9b. The project will not interfere with the City’s emergency response or evacuation plans. Review by the Fire
Department to ensure adequate design features are incorporated into the project to permit emergency access
and response is a condition of project approval.
10. Although the project is a commercial service use, it includes living units for residents along Carlsbad
Boulevard, which is a circulation element roadway requiring mitigation for residential projects with existing
I- 19 Rev. l/30/95
33
and future projected noise levels above the City standard of 60 CNEL exterior and 45 CNEL interior. Due
to the nature of the project, the 60 CNEL/45 CNEL standard has been imposed. Additionally, the project
consists of substantial mechanical equipment planned for the roof of the skilled nursing building (Parcel 1)
and Parcel 3 with noise generation potential.
The prelimimuy noise report concludes that the only exterior areas subject to noise levels of 67 dB (existing)
and 70 dB (future) are the Parcel 3 balconies located along Carlsbad Boulevard. However, according to the City’s noise guidelines, the balconies are exempt since they are less than 6 feet deep. To meet the City’s
interior noise standard of CNEL 45 dB, it will be necessary for certain windows to be sound rated and these
attenuation measures will be required as mitigation for noise impacts.
According to the Prehminary Noise Report prepared for Carlsbad by the Sea by Charles M. Salter Associates,
Inc. dated 30 June 1994 and January 9, 1995, noise generated by the Parcel 1 roof equipment is attenuated
by the proposed roof screens and barriers to avoid exceeding existing noise levels with one exception. The
existing 60 CNEL noise level along Ocean Street will increase to 61 CNEL as a result of the increased noise
generated by the roof equipment. Mitigation ensuring that noise levels do not exceed the existing noise levels
at property lines as verified by an acoustical engineer prior to the City’s issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
will be required.
11-12. Public Services and Utilities
In accordance with the City’s Master EIR, the project must be consistent with and will be conditioned to
comply with the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards for public facilities and services
to ensure that adequate public facilities are provided prior to or concurrent with development.
13a-b. The project (Parcel 1 and 3) is situated to the west of Carl&ad Boulevard, a scenic corridor, where the
existing Parcel 1 structure housing the Carl&ad by the Sea professional care facility has existed for 65 years.
It is a locally significant historic structure with prominent visual characteristics due to its architecture;
therefore its replication will be necessary. The existing Parcel 1 and 3 structures will be demolished and
redeveloped and the front facade of the Parcel 1 structure and landscaping will be replicated to avoid
significant adverse aesthetic impacts along Carlsbad Boulevard. A public view corridor to the Beach currently
exists between the existing structures on Grand Avenue; therefore, redevelopment of the site will not allow
encroachment into existing view corridors. The Parcel 3 structure south of Grand will increase to three stories,
however, structural articulation, fenestration, and the incorporation of architectural elements from the main
structure will aesthetically enhance the Carlsbad Boulevard street frontage. Additionally, the project includes
minimum 20’ landscaped setbacks from Carl&ad Boulevard with special attention to landscaping at the comers
of Carlsbad Boulevard and Christiansen Way/Grand Avenue. The project also incorporates the improvement
of a public view corridor and pedestrian promenade to the beach access west of Ocean Street complete with
enhanced paving, public art, street furniture, and decorative lighting along Grand Avenue. The project also
incorporates all of the Village Design Manual development standards and design guidelines to avoid visually
impacting the area.
14. According to the Cultural Resource Survey and Historical Assessment performed for the project by RECON,
the Carl&ad by the Sea facility, formerly “the California-Carl&ad Mineral Spring Hotel, is an important
resource area per criteria A and C of CEQA. The enterprise is directly linked to the growth and development
of the City of Carlsbad and to the recognition of this obscure stop on the southern California coast as a
destination. This resort attracted people from nationwide and also served as a local hub of social events and
community activities during these early years of growth and development. In addition, this property serves
I - 20 Rev. l/30/95
3f
15.
V.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. “The Village Design Manual, City of Carlsbad, California”, revised April 1988.
8. “Mello II Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program”, Certified June 1, 1981.
as an important link with one of the most difficult economic episodes in the history of the United States. To a great extent, what happened to this hotel serves as an example of what occurred nationally.”
Pursuant to CEQA, mitigation is required to reduce significant impacts associated with the destruction of the
historically significant facility. Mitigation includes the filing of a performance bond with the City to ensure
that mitigation measures and design product are consistent with approved plans. The design of the new facility will be consistent with the existing historic structure, inasmuch as the facade which is currently present will
be faithfully replicated including size, scale, and architectural style of the former hotel structure. Mitigation
shall also include the historical, photographic, and video documentation of the hotel and property by a
qualified historian which includes an inventory of materials, futures, or built-ins to identify items which can
be salvaged for reuse or display in the new facility. Additionally, a rendering of the new facility must be
posted in front of the existing historic structure one month prior to demolition to provide citizens an
opportunity to see the new facility.
The cultural survey concludes that “the results of the cultural resource survey are negative for prehistoric
cultural resource sites, features, or isolates. While the location may have provided a reasonable stopping place for aboriginal peoples, none of the evidence of these visits have survived. The most likely reason for this,
if sites have existed on this project, is that evidence of buried sites is masked by the buildings and
landscaping, or that the sites were destroyed by farming and later development on this property.” Mitigation
to avoid archaeological impacts is included which requires a qualified archaeological monitor to be present during grading to identify and assess any buried cultural resource deposits. Jn the event that important
resource materials are uncovered, a recovery and analysis program will be implemented.
No recreational facilities will be impacted by the redevelopment of Carlsbad by the Sea nor will the
commercial development increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located
at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161).
“Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad by the Sea”, prepared by Leighton and Associates, dated June 30,1994.
“Coastal Design Criteria for Proposed Seawall, California Lutheran Complex,” prepared by Hetherington Eng.,
Inc., dated October 18, 1994.
“Final Master EIR for the City of C&bad General Plan Update” prepared by the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department and certified September 6, 1994.
“Transportation Analysis for Carlsbad by the Sea”, prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc, dated
December 21, 1994 (Revised February 17, 1995).
“Carlsbad by the Sea Senior Housing Prebminary Noise Report”, prepared by Charles Salter Associates, inc.
dated 30 June 1994 and 9 January 1995.
“Carlsbad by the Sea Facility Cultural Resource Survey and Historical Assessment”, prepared by RECON,
dated July, 1994.
I - 21 Rev. l/30/95
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE1
Cultural Resources:
The applicant will file a performance bond with the City to ensure that the mitigation measures and design product
are consistent with the materials on file with the most recent application.
The design of the new facility will be consistent with the existing historic structure, inasmuch as the facade which
is currently present will be faithfully replicated in the new design. The size and scale of the new facility should
be consistent with what is currently present. The architectural style of the new facility will be faithful to the
existing structure. The construction materials will be consistent with the current structure; for example, plaster
walls; title roof; window size, style, and placement; and maintenance of a design which includes a porte cochere
and one-story, octagonal rooms at the two forward corners.
The history of the former hotel and property will be documented by a qualified historian and appropriate
information concerning the acquisition, construction, uses, and activities that took place there will be compiled. -
this archival research shall include photographs and other memorabilia which relate to the hotel over time. The
goal of the presentation will be to place the structure into the context of the period and demonstrate how it changed
over time. Attention will also be paid to the connection of this business with the development of Carlsbad.
A photographic documentation of the existing historic building will be completed by a qualified photographer.
Color photographs should be made of the facade and each of the remainin g elevations. Interior as well as exterior
shots should be made with special attention to the portions of the structure that are more reminiscent of the early
years of use and operation. Photographs of architectural details should also be made.
The photographic documentation should also include the production of an informational video. As with the still
photographs, attention should be paid to recording as much as possible of the look and feel of the building and the
grounds. This video should also include interviews with individuals who may want to reminisce about the structure
or provide some useful information. This should be a professionally produced product and will be kept on file in
the library of the new facility with a copy on file at the City of Carl&ad library.
To augment the still photographs and the video, drawings of certain portions of the existing structure should be
made. These will allow for the presentation of more detail and dimension.
An inventory of materials, futures, or built-ins should be made to identify those items which can be salvaged for
adaptive reuse or can be used for display in the new facility.
A rendering of the new facility will be posted in front of the existing historic building one month prior to any
demolition to provide the citizens of Carl&ad an opportunity to see the new facility. The rendering will be
provided at sufficient size and detail to accurately represent the planned structure. This will include some details
of the landscaping design. These exhibits will be available to staff for review at the time of the submittal.
A qualified archaeological monitor will be present during grading to identify and assess any buried cultural
resource deposits. In the event that important cultural resource materials are uncovered, a recovery and analysis
program will be implemented.
I - 22 Rev. l/30/95
36
Noise generated by the project’s roof equipment shall not exceed existing noise levels at property lines surrounding
the project. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall submit evidence from an
acoustical expert that noise levels at property lines do not exceed the existing noise levels as identified in Charles
Salter and Associates Noise Report dated January 9, 1995 (Source Document #5).
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM m; APPLICABLE)
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECI’.
Date h-d 4. /$v?+
I - 23 Rev. l/30/95
37
ENVIRONMENTAL MJTIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Page J- of 4
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Page 2 of 4
i
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Page 2 of 4
00 . I k
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Page & of s
. =
June 15, 1995
California Coastai Commission
San Diego Coast Area
3 111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92108-1725
Attention: Mr. BilI Ponder
SUBJECT: RP 9406/CDP 94-M - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION M)R THE CARLSBAD BY THE SEA PROJECT
Dear Mr. Ponder:
Thank you for your comments following the review of the subject mitigated negative declaration. In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines, the City of CarIsbad offers the following respom to your comments and concerns:
ViIIase LCP
1. The application for LocaI CoastaI program Amendment to exclude carisbad by the Sea from the visitor serving ground floor requirement wilI include analysis to show that existing visitor
serving commercial uses are adequate and that adequate land is med to meet foreseeable
future demands for visitor commercial uses.
As you are aware, the City is cunently reviewing a m Village Master PIan (Village Design Manual) in which appropriate land uses in the various districts of the ‘Viige have been
analysed. Asaresultofournviewofland~intheVillage,thcncommenAarianbystaff
and the Village Master PIan Advisory Committee regarding the status of existing institutional
usessuchas~badbytilescalocatedinthecoastalzancwillk 1)thattheyare appropriatesrnd~~~attheircumntlocations;and2)thtyw~~be~bjecttothe visitor serving mquirement. .
2. With regard to the 3S’ maximum building height standa& the current Viige Design Manual
also spdfics that ‘ho sxemg& shall be granted under the ruiev&pment plan which would -........... increase the height limit unless the exemption is approved by the &as&l
Commission’ This provision seems to indicate that height mptions can be granted by the
Coastal Cbmmisia I was unable to locate a requirement for a development disposition
agreement in the Village Design Manual.
Mello II LCP
3. TheMelloIILoca&astaIRogramdo&providsforw&nces iu Attachment 5, Item 5, which
amends Chapter 21.50 (Variances) of the Zoning ordinance to include provisions for variances
in the coastal zone. 44
P.--F I -- --a--- --.. A--,-L--I --a:*---.- ***#Te-,c7c - ,m.e\ rrrn . .h. #3
CARUBAD BY THE SEA JUNE IS, 199w . PAGF? 2
4. The project does not include any sites containing his&c public use. Parcei 2 is a privately
owned and fwed v&wing area The parcel has no public beach access, and the applicant’s environmental analysis indicates that no access to the beach has ever been documented.
5. The Parcel 2 foundation wall/seawall location discussed in your letter is consistent with surrounding projects approved under existing regulations by the Coastal Commission (CT 90- 07/St. Tropez Condominiums). The structure adheres to the stringline setback requirement
thereby providing the required late+ beach access, and is located ‘in-line’ with existing
seawalls to the northwest and southeast in order to prevent accelerated erosion or scour within
comer areas between adjacent wails aa recommended by the wave run-up analysis performed for the project by Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Consultants.
6. As stated above, the project adheres to the structural stringline setback thereby providing the
necessary lateral beach access along the shoreline. ‘Them are existing public access stairways
within 60’ of the project to the north and south providing public access to the beach f?om Grand
Avenue and Christiansen Way. The project includes a public parking lot to be constructed within the unimproved Garfield Street right of way and street improvements which include curb,
gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of Ocean Street and C&Manxn Way. These improvements wilI formal& pa&ng in the area and improve pedestrian and vehicular access to the beach.
7. The unimproved Garfield Street right of way proposed to be improved as a public parking lot
was considered as a parking reservoir by the Transportation Analysis performed for the project
by Urban Systems Associates. Since no formatized parking spaces exist within the unimproved
right of way, the analysis includes the number of parallei parking spaces which could be
accommodated along both sides of the right of way in the existing parking space inventory.
By improving the right of way as a parking lot, a net increase of 26 spaces in this informal area
is achieved and ~nsidered as partial replacement parking for the reduction of 38 parking spaces
located on Qvistiansen Way. Except as mitigation necessary to replace oll-sreet parking, the improvement of Garfield Street is not required for this project.
If you have any questions or comments concerning the above, plea& contact me at (619) 438-1161, extension 4477.
ANNE HYSONG
Assistant Planner
c: Tony Lawson chrisDec!erbo
Gary Wayne
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY
CALIFORNIA COASTA ,L COMMISSION lllna 7
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DE1 RIO NORTH. SUITE 100
SAN DIEGO, CA 921081725
(614) 521-8036
Ann Hysong
City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the "Carlsbad by the Sea" Project
Dear Ms. Hysong,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above. Staff has reviewed the subject document and has the following comments.
. neral CommentsMllaae Redevelopment Ara
Regarding the main element of the project on Parcel 1, the "Village Design
Manual" of the certified Village Redevelopment Local Coastal Program (LCP)
requires in Subarea 5 that the entire ground floor of all projects must be
devoted to visitor commercial uses, and that mixed use projects which do not
meet this criteria require approval by the Coastal Commission or the Executive
Director as a major or minor amendment to the Local Coastal Program. In either instance, an amendment must be submitted to and approved by the Coastal Commission before it is effective. The above document finds the proposed
project would not be subject to the above.provision because the proposed intensification of the existing non-conforming commercial use does not constitute a "change in use" that would trigger a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA). However, staff's position is that while not a change in
use, the project represents "new development" because of the structures' total
demolition and subsequent intensification of the professional care facility. Therefore, since the redevelopment does not provide a visitor commercial use .
on the ground floor, staff believes the project should be subject to the LCP
amendment requirement. The continuance of non-conforming uses through redevelopment is directly contrary to the planning goals of the certified LCP.
Section 30221 of the Coastal Act provides that oceanfront lands suitable for
recreational use shall be protected unless both present and foreseeable future
demands for public or commercial recreational activities is already adequately
provided for in the area. Section 30222 provides that private lands suitable
for visitor-serving commercial facilities designed to enhance public access opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over other land uses except coastal dependent and agricuTtura1 land uses. How can the proposed intensification and redevelopment of an existing non-visitor-serving use on
this site be found consistent with the certified LCP and the above Coastal Act sections? Section 30221 states that if adequate commercial recreational activities to meet current and future demands are provided in the area, other
lower priority land uses can be allowed. Thus, staff believes the amendment must address this issue and document both the present kinds and extent of
visitor commercial uses in the planning area and provide the necessary assurances and rationale that adequate land has been reserved to
Ann Hysong June 7, 1995 Page 2
meet foreseeable future demands for visitor commercial uses. As a LCPA filing requirement, the amendment would need to document the nature and amount of visitor-serving uses in the immediate vicinity, as well as those within Subarea 5 and the Village Redevelopment Area in particular. Depending on the
scope of any prospective LCP amendment, it might be necessary to present such documentation on Carlsbad's coastal zone in general.
The document Indicates a height variance (36.5 feet) will be given above the certified Vtllage Redevelopment Area LCP standard of 35 feet as mitigation for demolishing a locally significant historic structure on Parcel 1. The
document also states that the intent of the Village Design Manual is "to provide general design guidelines and regulations rather than strict [height] standards". However, the manual states that the maximum height for new buildings within the village area shall not exceed 35 feet, unless a development disposition agreement is approved by the Housing and Redevelopment
Conrnission. It must be demonstrated that the proposed height varlance is
consistent with the above LCP provision.
The proposed Parcel 2 residential structure, located west of Ocean Street on
the coastal bluff, also requires a height variance (proposing 39' high on the coastal bluff with an LCP-specified 35' height limit). .The document justifies
the variance stating an existing view corridor will be retained, the structure
will be consistent with "stringline" structural setbacks, and will be the same
height or lower than existing structures to the north and south. However, the certified Mello II Local Coastal Program (LCP) does not provide for variances;
thus, ft must be demonstrated how the project can be found consistent with the
LCP.
This 12,500 sq. ft. parcel overlooks the beach, is residentfally undeveloped and Is used as a private viewing area of the professional care facility.
Development on the parcel includes a concrete stairway, benches and fencing. The certified Mello II segment contains a Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone (C-D) which identifies access requirements on sites containing historic public use, including siting development in a way that does not
interfere with existing public use or providing an area of equivalent public
access in the illraediate vicinity of the site which will accommodate the same
type and intensity of use as may have existed. The document should address
how the above LCP provision would be applied to the proposed development of Parcel 2. .
The ordinances of the C-D contain detailed regulatlons regarding the
construction of revetments, seawalls, cliff-retaining walls, and other similar
shoreline structures. The ordinances allow for the construction of such structures only when they are required to serve coastal dependent uses or to
protect tisting structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts,on local sand supply. The
document notes the coastal bluff proposed for development on Parcel 2 is
heavily impacted by erosion due to wave action, and the bluff would be
supported by a 20' high retaining wall- constructed beneath the structure
.
Ann Hysong June 7, 1995 Page 3
thereby protecting it from further erosion. The document also notes that although no seawall is proposed, a 7' high foundation wall will provide the
necessary protection from wave action during high tides and severe storms.
The foundation wall appears to function as a seawall which as noted above can only be approved to protect existing development, not new development as proposed. To comply with this LCP requirement, new development must be sited and designed to not require shoreline protection. The Commission has found seawalls cause adverse impacts to shoreline processes and public access. In
siting new development without the need for shoreline protection, existing
site conditions must be identified and a geotechnical evaluation/wave runup analysis performed. The document must address this issue, and must also address what alternatives to the proposed foundation wall/shoreline protective work were examined.
The C-D ordinance also states that as a condition of approval, permitted shoreline structures may be required to replenish the beach with imported sand, and further, permitted shoreline structures shall be required to provide public access. The above document is silent on the project's need to provide lateral access along the beach.
The project proposes the half street vacation of Christiansen Way, resulting
in the elimination of 38 existing parallel parking spaces which the public has
used to park near the beach. To offset this adverse impact to public access,
the document states a small net increase in public parking will be provided in the immediate vicinity of the project through the improvement of the Garfield Street unimproved right-of-way and the addition of diagonal parking on the south side of Grand Avenue (the narrowing of traffic lanes on Grand Avenue is
proposed to allow for diagonal parking and a 10 foot wide prolaenade to the beach). However, Garfield Street is an existing unimproved parking reservoir,
and, as such, the document should establish why it should be accepted as
bonafide replacement parking. :
I apologite for this late response. We also realite that the scope of our
connnents goes beyond specific environmental issues but wished to provide a
broader explanation of coastal concerns. We would like to coordinate with the
City in determining the most appropriate action on the project site. If you have any questions, please contact me at the above number.
. s&lii
Coastal Planner
BP:bp(0236A)
cc: Tony Lawson
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
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 229
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDINGAPPROVALOFANAMENDMENTTO
THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT SEGMENT OF THE
CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PLAN TO EXEMPT CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME FROM
THE GROUND FLOOR VISITOR COMMERCIAL
REQUIREMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2855
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND 201 GRAND AVENUE.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN
HOME
CASE NO: LCPA 95-07
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Plan,
General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in
conformance;
WHEREAS, California Lutheran Homes has filed a verified application for
an amendment to the Local Coastal Plan text for certain property located at 2855 Carlsbad
Boulevard and 201 Grand Avenue, dated June 30,1995, with the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for amendment as
provided in Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 16th day of August, 1995,
and on the 6th day of September, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law to consider the proposed Local Coastal Plan Amendment, and;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Design Review Board
considered all factors relating to the Local Coastal Plan Amendment.
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period
for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
47
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 Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on June 21,
1995, and ending on August 2, 1995, staff shall present to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission a summary of the comments received.
c) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design
Review Board recommends APPROVAL of LCPA 95-07 as shown on Exhibit
“X”, dated August 16,1995, attached hereto and made a part hereof based on
the following findings:
Findings:
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Plan Amendment to exempt Carisbad By The Sea
Lutheran Home fmm the ground floor visitor commercial requirement in Sub-area
5 of the Village is consistent with all applicable policies of the Village Redevelopment
segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, in that the retention of the
professional care use at its current location will not have a significant impact on the
amount of available visitor serving uses in the Village coastal zone since it represents
only 2.56 acres (3%) of the total Sub-area 5 acreage. Adequate visitor serving uses
are available and will be available to satisfy future demand since two-thirds of this
sub-area is either currently developed with or reserved for future visitor serving
commercial uses and parks, with the remaining one-third of the land area occupied
by institutional uses including Carisbad By The Sea Lutheran Home.
2. That the proposed amendment to the Village Redevelopment segment of the
Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to exempt the Carisbad By The Sea
Lutheran Home from the ground floor visitor commercial requirement thereby
allowing a necessary and desirable use that is compatible with surrounding uses and
integrated into the surrounding neighborhood to redevelop its facility and continue
to operate at its existing location.
DRB RESO NO. 229 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 6th day of September, 1995, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Vice-Chairperson Welshons, Board Members Savary and Vessey
NOES:
ABSENT: Board Members Marquez and Noble
ABSTAIN:
KIM WkSHONS, Vice-Chairperson
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
EVAN BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
DRB RESO NO. 229 -3-
Vocational educational centers, auto-related August 16, 1995
services, contractor's yards, laundry and dry cleaning plants, storage areas, cabinet and furniture manufacturing, glass studios and electronic assembly,, bakeries, rock shop manufacturing, van companies, wholesale sales distributing, moving and neighborhood commercial uses.
Design
The Design Review Board shall be looking at methods of controlling circulation among competing uses of this sub-area. Of major concern in controlling circulation will be accommodating turning movements of vehicles and adequate safety and convenience provisions maintained for the pedestrian.
SPECIAL TREATMENT AREA: EAST SIDE OF TYLER
I the special treatment area, east side of Tyler Street that fronts on the west side of Roosevelt only uses deemed by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to be of lesser intensity than the C-M zones uses shall be permitted.
SUB-AREA 5
Traditionally, this sub-are,a (Exhibit B). functioned as the major north/south thorotighfarc for the downtown area and is generally known dci old Highway 101. The existing character of this sub-area is one which is related to tourist, highway commercial activities and local heritage.
Goal
This sub-area is envisioned as serving as the major tourist/tourist commercial related center for the Redevelopment Project Area.
Land Use
Uses permitted in the C-T Zone. The following land uses are encouraged within the Sub-area 5:
Travel service areas, bona fide restaurants, convention centers, theatres, novelty shops, souvenir and gift shops, florists, and parking lots.
Incidental and compatible uses such as those allowed in the C-2 and R-3 Zones may be permitted when found by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission not to be incompatible with the above.
"This sub-area is located within the coastal zone. DeveloDments entirely devoted to visitor commercial uses are preferred in this sub-area. The entire around floor of all nroiects shall be devoted to visitor commercial use+. Mixed use proiects which do
not meet this criteria includinq but not limited to time share proiects. shall reouire approval bv the Coastal Commission or its executive director as an amendment to the Local Coastal Proaram.
Unless other wise stated in this mecffic sub-area. residential densitv allocations mav be increased bevond those ranges provided in the General Plan if the Housing and RedeveloDment Commission finds that such an increase is consistent with the qoals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and further, Drovided that such increases are auDroved bv the Coastal Commission or its executive director as an amendment to the Local Coastal Program."
Design
The design concept in this sub-area is to coordinate tourist, recreational and commercial activities of the beach area with the Village Centre. Special attention in this area shall be given to streetscaping along Carlsbad Boulevard; specifically at the intersections of Carlsbad Boulevard and Grand,Avenue and Elm Avenue. The Design Review Board will be concerned with amenities such as viewpoints, gateways, and preserving local landmarks that are, or will be established with any development. (All development plans within this sub-area will require approval by the Coastal Commission.)
SPECIAL TREATMENT AREA: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD
The Carlsbad Boulevard is considered as a special treatment area in tharr the Housing and Redevelopment Commission is looking for heavy streetscaping and open space amenities along Carlsbad Boulevard. Other areas along Carlsbad Boulevard that will require special attention are the intersections at Carlsbad Boulevard and Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Boulevard and Elm Avenue, .and Carlsbad Boulevard and Christiansen Way. The establishment of a public and private partnership in the development of the three aforementioned intersections is a possible alternative to providing additional streetscaping amenities.
SUB-AREA 6
The existing character of this sub-area (Exhibit B) is residential surrounded by a buffer of office/professional uses.
Goal
The area is envisioned as maintaining its existing character of maximizing the office and professional buffer zone around'the sub- area.
Land Uses
Uses permitted in the R-3 and R-P zones. The following land uses are encouraged within the sub-area:
To include but not limited to law offices,
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 230
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND HEIGHT EXEMPTION
TO ALLOW THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE
CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT2855 CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD AND 201 GRAND AVENUE.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN
HOME
CASE NO: RP 94-06
WHEREAS, California Lutheran Homes has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Design Review Board; and /
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a major
redevelopment permit as provided by Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design
Review Board did, on the 16th day of August, 1995 and on the 6th day of September, 1995,
hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on property described as:
Parcel A: Block 8 and 9 of town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof
No. 365, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County February 2, 1887; also all of Garfield Street adjoining said
Blocks 8 and 9 as vacated and closed to public use. Together with
the Southeasterly Yz of Cedar Street as street is shown on said map
adjoining said land on the northwest which upon closing would revert,
by operation of law to the above described land.
Parcel B: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3488, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map on file
in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, being a
division of a Portion of Block 12 of the town of Carlsbad, according
to Map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Design Review Board
considered all factors relating to RP 94-06.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review
Board as follows: s--a
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
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design
Review Board recommends APPROVAL of Major Redevelopment Permit, RP
94-06, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. The Design Review Board finds that the subject project will have no significant
impact on the environment as mitigated, and has recommended approval of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the subject project.
2. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein for RP 94-06,
is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan/Redevelopment Plan,
based on the following:
a. Land Use - The project is consistent with policies encouraging a variety of
complementary land uses such as commercial and high density residential
since the project is a commercially operated retirement and nursing facility
with high density residential characteristics. The project is consistent with
policies for the Village which call for the preservation and enhancement of
the Village as a place for living while retaining the village atmosphere and
pedestrian scale.
b. Circulation - The project is consistent with Circulation Element policies for
street, traffic control, and alternate modes of transportation since: 1) City
street design standards were used as guidelines in the review of the
Christiansen Way partial street vacation which will reduce the right-of-way
width and result in a new roadway design consisting of 14’ wide travel lanes
in both directions, no onstreet parking, and 5’ sidewalks; 2) the construction
by the applicant of a 51 space public parking lot including landscaping and
sidewalk within the unimproved Garfield Street right-of-way represents a joint
public/private effort to improve parking and circulation in the beach area; 3)
the provision by California Lutheran Homes of onsite parking, the
construction of the Garfield street parking lot, the redesign of Grand Avenue
to add diagonal parking, and curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements on
streets surrounding the project will result in an actual increase in available
public parking in the beach area.
C. Noise - The project is consistent with exterior and interior noise standards
for residential properties as verified by an acoustical study prepared for the
project and noise walls are limited and designed in accordance with Noise
Element design policies.
d. Open Space and Conservation - The project is consistent with Historic and
Cultural Preservation policies since: 1) the cultural resource guidelines were
incorporated into the environmental review of the project; 2) the replication
DRB RESO NO. 230 -2- 5 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
of the historic Carlsbad Springs Hotel architecture will promote the use of
historic resources for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the people of the
Cl*, 3) conditions requiring an onsite plaque depicting the site’s history and
historical documentation on file in the Carlsbad City Library will provide
landmark identification and historical documentation of a designated cultural
resource.
e. The project is consistent with the overall goal of the Village Area
Redevelopment Project to create a pleasant, attractive, accessible environment
for living, shopping, recreation, civic, cultural and service functions through
the elimination of blighting influences and through restoration and new,
private/public development forms which preserve and enhance the existing
character of the Village Area and surrounding community.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since the project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will
not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer
service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the
Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply
to sewer service for this project.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as conditions
of approval.
The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant
to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued
availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the
project.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part
of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
That the Project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 90-384.
The project is consistent with the intent of the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment
Plan and the development standards and design criteria required by the Village
Design Manual and Village Redevelopment LCP except that the project requires
DRB RESO NO. 230 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coastal Commission approval of a Local Coastal Program Amendment and an
exemption to height standards (see Finding 10 below). The professional care facility
use is compatible with surrounding commercial and residential land uses, however,
it does not include a visitor serving commercial use on the entire ground floor as
required by the LCP. Its retention within Sub-area 5 of the V-R Coastal Zone will
not have a significant impact on the amount of available visitor serving uses in the
Village coastal zone since it represents only 5% of the total Sub-area 5 acreage.
Adequate visitor serving uses are available and will be available to satisfy future
demand since two-thirds of this Sub-area is either currently developed with or
reserved for future visitor serving commercial uses including parks.
10. Within the V-R Zone, the project meets all the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance except building height at two locations; therefore, the following required
findings for granting an exemption to Village Redevelopment (V-R) height standards
are made:
al That the application of certain provisions of Chapter 21.35 would result in
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development
inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment plan, in that: 1) the project is required to replicate the
existing front facade of the locally significant historical structure which
exceeds the maximum building height allowed; and 2) the placement of a
driveway ramp providing access to subterranean parking garages precludes
engineering the necessary grade adjacent to the building to satisfy the
building height requirement;
b) That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property
or the proposed development which do not generally apply to other property
or developments in the vicinity, in that there are no other parcels with
multiple land use and zoning designations requiring the application of
different height standards (35’, 30’ pitched roof, 24’ flat roof) at different
locations on an infill parcel which also drops in elevation by 13’ from east to
west;
Cl That the granting of an exception will not be injurious or materially
detrimental to the public welfare, or other properties or improvements in the
project area, in that additional building height at the proposed locations will
not detrimentally impact adjacent projects which are non-residential and
separated by roadways;
That the granting of an exemption will not contradict the standards
established in the Village Design Manual, in that maximum building height
standards are adhered to at all locations except two where practical
difftculties or unique circumstances and/or conditions exist.
11. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the
Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the
DRB RESO NO. 230 -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
exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the
project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to
the impact caused by the project.
PianninP Conditions:
1.
2.
The Design Review Board does hereby recommend approval of the Major
Redevelopment Permit including a height exemption for RP 94-06, entitled “Carlsbad
By The Sea Lutheran Home”, (Exhibits “A” - 7” on file in the Planning Department
and incorporated by this reference, dated August 16, 1995) subject to the conditions
herein set forth. Exhibits “A - V” shall be revised to reflect the required driveway
access ramp redesign shown on Exhibit “W” and revised Attachment “E” approved
by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. These revised exhibits shall
be submitted to the Planning Director within 30 days of final project approval. Staff
is authorized and directed to make or require the Developer to make all corrections
and modifications to the approved Documents, as necessary to make them internally
consistent and conform to Housing and Redevelopment Commission final action on
the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved
exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different from this approval, shall
require an amendment to this approval.
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right
to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance
of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and
prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages
for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in
interest by the City’s approval of this Resolution.
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the
Site Plan as approved by the final decision making body. The Site Plan shall reflect
the conditions of approval by the City. The Site Plan copy shall be submitted to the
City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or improvement
plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
5. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan
check, a reduced, legible version of the approving resolution/resolutions on a 24” x
36” blueline drawing. Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any
applicable Coastal Development Permit and signed approved site plan.
6. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
the District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of
DRB RESO NO. 230 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of
occupancy.
The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July
28, 1987 (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any
development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth
management system or Facilities and Improvement Plan and to fulfil1 the subdivider’s
agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated July 15,1994, a copy of which is on
file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not
paid, this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for
this project will be void.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are
required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any
amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the
payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on
this residential housing project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as
provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined
to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the
project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
Approval of RP 94-06 is granted subject to: 1) approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Resolution No. 228; 2) approval of CDP 94-06; 3) approval of LCPA 95-
07; 4) Coastal Commission approval of LCPA 95-07 and a coastal development
permit for the entire project; and 5) Planning Commission approval of CUP 94-10,
HDP 94-08, and V 94-01. RP 94-06 is subject to all conditions contained in
Resolution Nos. 228,231,3790, and 3791 for the professional care facility.
Approval of RP 94-06 is granted subject to City Council approval of the partial street
vacation of Christiansen Way excess right-of-way, PR 6.119.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
In such instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and
the Planning Director.
The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance
with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual.
The plans shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director
prior to the approval of the final map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever
occurs first. The Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on
the approved plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition,
free from weeds, trash, and debris.
d-7
DRB RESO NO. 230 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
The Developer shall prepare and submit a master site plan of the existing onsite trees
to the Planning Director as part of the final grading plan to determine which trees
shall be required to be preserved prior to the issuance of a grading permit or a
building permit, whichever occurs first. Existing onsite trees shall be retained
wherever possible and shall be trimmed as needed. Dead, decaying or potentially
dangerous trees shall be approved for removal at the discretion of the Planning
Director during the review of the master site plan. Those trees which are approved
for removal shall be replaced on a tree-for-tree basis, and all mature trees shall be
replaced with minimum 36” box specimens.
The first submittal of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanied
by the project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of
identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color.
Prior to approval of the grading plans, improvement plans, or building plans
whichever comes first, the Developer shall receive approval of a Local Coastal
Program Amendment (LCPA 95-07) and a Coastal Development Permit issued by
the California Coastal Commission that substantially conforms to this approval. A
signed copy of the Local Coastal Program Amendment and Coastal Development
Permit must be submitted to the Planning Director. If the approval is substantially
different, an amendment to RP 94-06 shall be required.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall install onsite,
at the corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Grand Avenue in proximity to the Grand
Avenue promenade, a historical plaque or other form of art documenting the history of the locally significant cultural resource originally known as the Carlsbad Mineral
Springs Hotel. The plaque or art shall be subject to the approval of the Historic
Preservation and Arts Commissions.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within five years from the date of project approval.
The final site plan shall be corrected to show the northern property line of Parcel
“A” to be the Christiansen Way southerly right-of-way line (back of sidewalk) between
Carlsbad Boulevard and Ocean Street.
The 3,200 square foot ground floor area of the Parcel B structure fronting on
Carlsbad Boulevard, as shown on revised Attachment “E”, shall be devoted to visitor
serving retail commercial uses unless an amendment to the Redevelopment Permit
and Coastal Development Permit is approved. Unless another option becomes
available, eleven (11) parking spaces shall be provided for public use in the Parcel
B parking garage. These spaces shall be marked with pavement graphics to
distinguish them from resident parking and located in proximity to the garage exit.
s-8
DRB RESO NO. 230 -7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall prepare and
obtain Planning Director approval of an employee parking program requiring, at a
minimum; mandatory parking of passenger vehicles in the facility’s underground
parking facility. If approved, the applicant shall require compliance as a condition
of employment. c
Engineering Conditions:
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Prior to approval of the building permit, the owner of the subject property shall
execute an agreement holding the City harmless regarding drainage across the
adjacent property.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on
the site plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Prior to issuance of a
building permit for the project, a grading permit shall be obtained and grading work
be completed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plans.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction
site within this project, the applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the
City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The applicant shall comply with all
conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the
hauling operation.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall underground all existing
overhead utilities along the project boundary.
The applicant shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best
management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to
discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever occurs first,
in accordance with the following:
I. An ongoing program to remove dirt, litter, grease, oil and other debris from
the underground garage floor area and the above ground common areas shall
be established and enforced.
ii. Carlsbad Lutheran Home’s management staff shall make use of and
coordinate with the City’s established program regarding the removal and
proper disposal of toxic and hazardous waste products.
iii. Gravel drainage filters shall be installed at ail on-site storm drain inlets to
reduce surface pollutants entering the public storm drain system.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permit.
In accordance with City Standards, the applicant shall install, or agree to install and
DRB RESO NO. 230 -8- -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
secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the site
plan, which consist of the following improvements:
Grand Avenue - Garfield Street to Carlsbad Boulevard
1. Concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk (10’ sidewalk on the north side, 5’
sidewalk on the south side.)
2. Enhanced longitudinal streetscape paving strips/tiles along the back of curb
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3.
4.
5.
3’ concrete ribbon gutter along the back of the angled parking spaces.
Asphalt overlay.
Tree wells and street trees to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
Planning Director.
6. Diagonal parking space striping (including handicap space striping.)
7. Double-yellow centeriine stripe in accordance with the CalTrans Traffic
Manual, with recommendations from the Traffic Engineer, and, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Grand Avenue - Garfield Street to Ocean Street. alone the nroiect frontage
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk (10’ sidewalk on the north side.)
Enhanced longitudinal streetscape paving strips/tiles along the back of curb
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Asphalt overlay (at proposed Garfield Street parking areas.)
Installation of one (1) street light standard at approximately the northeast
corner of the Grand Avenue/Garfield Street intersection.
Tree wells and street trees to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
Planning Director.
Diagonal parking space striping.
Double-yellow centerline stripe in accordance with the CalTrans Traffic
Manual, with recommendations from the Traffic Engineer, and, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Storm drain inlet and 18” RCP at the northeast corner of the Grand
Avenue/Ocean Street intersection.
DRB RESO NO. 230 -9- &J
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
9. Handicap Ramps on the “north” and southeast corners of the Garfield
Street/Grand Avenue intersection and on the northeast corner of the Ocean
St&et/Grand Avenue intersection.
Grand AvenueKarisbad Boulevard Intersection
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Reconstruction of the existing curb returns on the west side of the
intersection (narrowing the roadway width ultimately to 30’.)
Two (2) handicap ramps on each of the north and southwest sides of the
intersection.
Installation of new traffic detector inductive loops on the east and west “legs”
of the intersection.
Double-yellow centeriine stripe on the west “leg” of the intersection, in
accordance with the CaiTrans Trafftc Manual, with recommendations from
the Traffic Engineer, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
8” white turn lane stripe on the east “leg” of the intersection, in accordance
with the CaiTrans Trafftc Manual, with recommendations from the Traffic
Engineer, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Modification of the existing traffic signal to a spilt-phase operation in
accordance with CaiTrans design criteria, with recommendations from the
Traffic Engineer, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Relocation of the existing fire hydrant, at the northwest corner of the
intersection, to 5’ north of the relocated curb line.
Ocean Street - Grand Avenue to Christiansen Way aionp the project% east and west
frontage)
1. Concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk (5’ sidewalk), within a reduced 50’ right
of way.
2. Asphalt overlay and widening to a 40’ curb-to-curb width along the west side
of Ocean Street with a 2’ minimum swaie at the existing flow line of the
roadway to obtain positive northerly drainage along with any required
transitional paving.
4. Installation of one (1) street light standard at approximately the center of the
east side of the Ocean Street frontage within an appropriate easement.
5. One (1) storm drain inlet and 18” RCP.
. . . .
DRB RESO Nd. 230 d/ -lO-
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
Christiansen Way - Garfield Street to Carisbad Boulevard
1. Concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk (5’ sidewalk) on both sides, within a
reduced (38’ minimum right of way.)
2.
3.
Asphalt pavement to a 28’ curb-to-curb width.
Installation of one (1) street light standard at approximately the center of the
south side Christiansen Way frontage.
4. One (1) handicap ramp on each of the northwest and southwest corners of
the Christiansen Way/Carisbad Boulevard intersection.
Christiansen Way - Ocean Street to Garfield Street
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Concrete curb and gutter on both sides and sidewalk (5’ sidewalk) on the
south side, within a (56’ minimum right of way.)
Asphalt pavement to a 28’ curb-to-curb width.
Installation of one (1) street light standard at the northeast corner of the
Christiansen Way/Garfield Street intersection.
Installation of one (1) street light standard at the southeast corner of the
Christiansen Way/Ocean Street intersection, to replace the existing street
light at the northeast corner of the intersection.
One (1) handicap ramp on each of the northeast corner and south side of the
Christiansen Way/Garfield Street intersection.
One (1) handicap ramp on the northwest corner of the Christiansen
Way/Garfield Street intersection.
One (1) handicap ramp on each of the northeast and southeast corners of the
Christiansen Way/Ocean Street intersection.
Parking space striping at 90°.
Gariieid Street (Parkinp Lot) - Christiansen Way to Beech Avenue
1. Concrete curb, gutter and 5’ sidewalk on the west side, with only concrete
curb on the east side.
2. Asphalt pavement to Local Street City Standards (with a 24’ minimum drive
aisle.)
3. Installation of one (1) street light standard at the large planter island on the
east side of Garfield Street.
DRB RESO NO. 230 -ll- ha
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
4. One (1) handicap ramp on each of the southeast and southwest corners of the
Garfield Street/Beech Street intersection.
5. Parking space striping at 90” (including handicap space striping.)
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the
secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
29. Prior to issuance of any building permits the existing Underground Storage Tank
(UST) located at Parcel “A” shall be removed and salvaged/recycled. Any
contaminated soils which are identified under the UST (located at Parcel “A”) and
at the former pump islands/underground dispensing lines (located at Parcel “B”)
shall be removed and mitigated/recycled offsite.
30. Prior to issuance of any grading permits for parcel “B” the following specific private
easement shall be quit claimed or the project redesigned so as to allow construction
over/around the easement without impairing the private rights of the easement to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer:
0 Private sewer easement to South Coast Land Company, per book 6698, page:
17. Recorded August 7, 1957, located on Parcel “B”.
31. The improvements to Christiansen Way shall be redesigned to maximize on-street
parking to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning Director.
Fire Conditions:
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be approved
by the Fire Department.
Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways and
traffic circulation for Fire Department approval.
All security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be equipped with a “Knox”,
key-operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall contact the Fire Prevention
Bureau for specifications and approvals prior to installation.
Private roads and driveways which serve as required access for emergency service
vehicles shall be posted as fire lanes in accordance with the requirements of Section
j
j
17.04.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Plans and/or specifications for fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, automatic fire
sprinkler systems and other fire protection systems shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval prior to construction.
An approval automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in buildings having an
aggregate floor area exceeding 10,000 square feet.
DRB RESO NO. 230 -12- 63
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
Water Conditions:
38. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can
be met.
39. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San
Diego County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of
application for meter installation.
40. Sequentially, the Developer’s Engineer shall do the following:
A. Meet with’ the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection
requirements. Also obtain GPM demand for domestic and irrigational needs
from appropriate parties.
B. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning
Department for processing and approval.
C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement
plans, a meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review,
comment and approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (i.e. -
GPM - EDU).
41. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be
issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the
development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available
at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to
be available until time of occupancy.
42. The Developer shall be required to have a water analysis conducted by the District.
Based on findings, the Developer may be required to upsize and/or install additional
water lines.
Code Reminders:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not
limited to the following code requirements.
43. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are
required as part of the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration, as contained in
Design Review Board Resolution No. 228.
44. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the
final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
DRB RESO NO. 230 -13- 64
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
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
signs:
50.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Approval’ of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of
the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of
building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provide herein.
The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated
and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the
satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Building.
All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape
Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the
Planning Department.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in
conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance, the Village Design Manual, and the
approved Sign Program and shall require review and approval of the Planning
Director prior to installation of such signs.
DRB RESO NO. 230 -14-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of September, 1995
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Vice Chairperson Welshons, Board Members Savary and Vessey
Board Members Marquez and Noble
KIM WELSHONS, Vice-Chairperson
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
EVAN BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
DRB RESO NO. 230 -15-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 231
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND HEIGHT EXEMPTION
TO ALLOW THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE
CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME ON
PROPERTYGENERALLY LOCATED AT2855 CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD AND 201 GRAND AVENUE.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THESEA LUTHERAN
HOME
CASE NO: CDP 94-06
WHEREAS, California Lutheran Homes has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a coastal
development permit as provided by Chapter 21.81 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design
Review Board did, on the 16th day of August, 1995 and on the 6th day of September, 1995,
hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on property described as:
Parcel A: Block 8 and 9 of town of Carlsbad, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Map thereof No. 365, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County February 2, 1887; also all of
Garfield Street adjoining said Blocks 8 and 9 as vacated and
closed to public use. Together with the Southeasterly I/Z of
Cedar Street as street is shown on said map adjoining said land
on the northwest which upon closing would revert, by operation
of law to the above described land.
Parcel B: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3488, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Map on file in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, being a division of a Portion of Block 12 of the
town of Carlsbad, according to Map thereof No. 535, filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County.
. . .
b7
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
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 CDP 94-06.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
(A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
(B) That based on the evidence presented at public hearing, the Board
recommends APPROVAL of Coastal Development Permit, CDP 94-06 based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Pindinps:
1.
2.
The Design Review Roard finds that the subject project will have no significant
impact on the environment as mitigated, and has recommended approval of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the subject project.
The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein for CDP 94-
06, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan/Redevelopment
Plan, based on the following:
a. Land Use - The project is consistent with policies encouraging a variety of
complementary land uses such as commercial and high density residential
since the project is a commerciaily operated retirement and nursing facility
with high density residential characteristics. The project is consistent with
policies for the Village which tail for the preservation and enhancement of
the Village as a place for living while retaining the village atmosphere and
pedestrian scale
b. Circulation - The project is consistent with Circulation Element policies for
street, trafl’lc control, and alternate modes of transportation since: 1) City
street design standards were used as guidelines in the review of the
Christiansen Way partial street vacation which will reduce the right-of-way
width and result in a new roadway design consisting of 14’ wide travel lanes
in both directions, no onstreet parking, and 9 sidewalks, 2) the construction
by the applicant of a 51 space public parking lot including landscaping and
sidewalk within the unimproved GarDeId Street right-of-way represents a joint
public/private effort to improve parking and circulation in the beach areq 3)
the provision by California Lutheran Homes of onsite parking, the
construction of the Garfield street parking lot, the redesign of Grand Avenue
to add diagonal parking, and curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements on
streets surrounding the project will result in an actual increase in available
public parking in the beach area.
DRB RESO NO 231 -2- rig
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
C. Noise - The project is consistent with exterior and interior noise standards
for residential properties as verified by an acoustical study prepared for the
project and noise walls are limited and designed in accordance with Noise
Element design policies.
d. Open Space and Conservation - The project is consistent with Historic and
Cultural Preservation policies since: 1) the cultural resource guidelines were
incorporated into the environmental review of the project, 2) the replication
of the historic Carisbad Springs Hotel architecture will promote the use of
historic resources for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the people of the
Cl@, 3) conditions requiring an onsite plaque depicting the site’s history and
historical documentation on file in the Carlsbad City Library will provide
landmark identification and historical documentation of a designated cultural
IPSOUrce,
e. The project is consistent with over-ail goal of the Village Area Redevelopment
Project to create a pleasant, attractive, accessible environment for living,
shopping, recreation, civic, cultural and service functions through the
eRmination of blighting infiuences and through restoration and new,
private/public development forms which preserve and enhance the existing
character of the Village Area and surrounding community.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since the project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will
not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer
service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the
Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply
to sewer service for this project.
4. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as conditions
of approval.
5. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
6. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant
to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued
availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the
project.
7. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part
of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
DRB RESO NO 231 -3- 147
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
8. That the Project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 90-384.
9. The project is consistent with the intent of the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment
Plan and the development standards and design criteria required by the Village
Design Manual and Village Redevelopment LCP except that the project requires
Coastai Commission approval of a Locai Coastal Program Amendment and an
exemption to height standards (see Pinding 10 below). The professional care facility
use is compatible with surrounding commercial and residential land uses, however,
it does not include a visitor serving commercial use on the entire ground floor as
required by the LCP. Its retention within Sub-area 5 of the V-R Coastal Zone will
not have a significant impact on the amount of available visitor serving uses in the
Village coastai zone since it represents only 5% of the total Sub-area 5 acreage.
Adequate visitor serving uses are available and will be available to satisfy future
demand since two-thirds of this Sub-area is either currently developed with or
reserved for future visitor serving commercial uses including parks.
10. Within the V-R Zone, the project meets all the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance except building height at two locations; therefore, the following required
IIndings for granting an exemption to Village Redevelopment (V-R) height standards
are made:
a)
b)
9
. . . .
That the application of certain provisions of Chapter 21.35 would result in
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development
inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment plan, in that: 1) the project is required to replicate the
existing front facade of the locally signikant historical structure which
exceeds the maximum building height allowed; and 2) the placement of a
driveway ramp providing access to subterranean parking garages precludes
engineering the necessary grade adjacent to the building to satisfy the
building height requirement;
That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property
or the proposed development which do not generally apply to other property
or developments in the vicinity, in that there are no other parcels with
multiple land use and zoning designations requiring the application of
different height standards OS’, 30’ pitched roof, 24’ flat roof) at different
locations on an infill parcel which also drops in elevation by 13’ from east to
west;
That the granting of an exemption will not be injurious or materially
detrimental to the public welfare, or other properties or improvements in the
project area, in that additional building height at the proposed locations will
not detrimentally impact adjacent projects which are non-residential and
separated by roadways;
DRB RESO NO 231 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d) That the granting of an exception will not contradict the standards established
in the Village Design Manual, in that maximum building height standards are
adhered to at ail locations except two where practical difficulties or unique
circumstances and/or conditions exist.
11. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the
Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the
exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the
project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to
the impact caused by the project.
Planninn Conditions:
1. The Design Review Board does hereby recommend approval of the Coastal
Development Permit and height exemption for CDP 94-06, entitled “Carisbad By The
Sea Lutheran Home”, (Exhibits “A” - “V” on file in the Planning Department and
incorporated by this reference, dated August 16, 1995) subject to the conditions
herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make or require the Developer
to make all corrections and modifications to the approved Documents, as necessary
to make them internally consistent and conform to Housing and Redevelopment
Commission final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as
shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different
from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. Approval of CDP 94-06 is granted subject to: 1) approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Resolution No. 228; 2) approval of RP 941)6,3) approval of LCPA 95- 07; 4) Coastai Commission approval of LCPA 95-07 and a coastai development
permit for the entire project; and 5) Planning Commission approval of CUP 94-10,
HDP 94-O& and V 94-01.
3. CDP 94-06 is subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution
Nos. 22% 230, for RP 94-06, dated August 16, 1995, on file in the Housing and
Redevelopment Department, and Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3790,3791,
dated August 16,1995 for CUP 94-10, V 94-01, for the professionai care facility, on
file in the Planning Department and incorporated herein by reference.
~ DRBRESON0231 -5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of September, 1995
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Vice-Chairperson Welshons, Board Members Savary and Vessey
NOES:
ABSENT: Board Members Marquez and Noble
ABSTAIN:
KIM WIkSHONS, Vice-Chairperson
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
&A&
EVAN BECKER ’
Housing and Redevelopment Director
DRB FESO NO 231 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3790
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
ADDENDUM, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND
VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CARLSBAD BY THE SEA
PROFESSIONAL CARE FACILITY AT 2855 CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD AND A VACANT PARCEL LOCATED
DIRECTLY WEST OF OCEAN STREET ACROSS FROM
THE EXISTING PROFESSIONAL CARE FACILITY.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN
HOME
CASE NO: CUP 94-lO/HDP 94-08/v 94-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of August, 1995
and on the 6th day of September, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
addendum according to Exhibit “ND” dated March 6, 1995 and “PII”, dated
March 6, 1995, attached hereto and made a part hereof and the attached
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Mitigated Negative Declaration and addendum for CUP 94-lO/HDP 94-
08/V 94-01, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said
comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, prior to
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 I
24
25
26
27
28
approval of the project. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, the
Planning .Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have
a significant effect on the environment and hereby APPROVES the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and addendum.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and addendum for CUP 94-lO/HDP 94-08/V 94-01 and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental
Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The City’s MEIR found that air quality and circulation impacts are significant and
adverse; therefore, the Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations.
The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those effects, no additional
environmental document is required.
Planning Conditions:
CULTURAL RESOURCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
The applicant shall file a performance bond in accordance with a cost estimate
submitted by a qualified historian with the City to ensure that the mitigation
measures and design product are consistent with the materials on file with the most
recent application.
The design of the new facility will be consistent with the existing historic structure,
inasmuch as the facade which is currently present will be faithfully replicated in the
new design. The size and scale of the facility (front facade) will be faithful with what
is currently present. The architectural style of the new facility will be faithful to the
existing structure. The construction materials will be consistent with the current
structure, for example, plaster walls, tile roof, window size, style, and placement; and
maintenance of a design which includes a Porte cochere and one-story, octagonal
rooms at the two forward corners.
The history of the former hotel and property will be documented by a quaiiiied
historian and appropriate information concerning the acquisition, construction, uses,
and activities that took place there will be compiled. This archival research shall
include photographs and other memorabilia which relate to the hotel over time. The
goal of the presentation will be to place the structure into the context of the period
to demonstrate how it changed over time. Attention will also be paid to the
connection of this business with the development of Carlsbad.
A photographic documentation of the existing historic building will be completed by
a qualified photographer. Color photographs should be made of the facade and each
of the remaining elevations. Interior as well as exterior shots shall be made with
special attention to the portions of the structure that are more reminiscent of the
early years of use and operation. Photographs of architectural details should also
be made.
PC RESO NO. 3790
w
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The photographic documentation shall also include the production of an
informational video. As with the still photographs, attention shall be paid to
recording as much as possible of the look and feel of the building and the grounds.
This video shall also include interviews with individuais who may want to reminisce
about the structure or provide some useful information. This shall be a
professionally produced product and will be kept on file in the library of the new
facility with a copy on file at the Carlsbad City Library.
To augment the still photographs and the video, drawings of certain portions of the
existing structure shall be made. These will allow for the presentation of more detail
and dimension.
An inventory of materials, Rxtures, or built-ins shall be made to identify those items
which can be salvaged for adaptive reuse or can be used for display in the new
facility.
A rendering of the new facility will be posted in front of the existing historic building
one month prior to any demolition to provide the citizens of Carlsbad an opportunity
to see the new facility. The rendering will be provided at sufftcient size and detail
to accurately represent the planned structure. This will include some details of the
landscaping design. These exhibits will be available to staff for review at the time
of submittal.
A qualified archaeological monitor will be present during grading to identify and
assess any buried cultural resource deposits. In the event that important cultural
resource materials are uncovered, a recovery and analysis program will be
implemented.
NOISE
10. Noise generated by the project’s roof equipment shall not exceed existing noise levels
at property lines surrounding the project. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy the applicant shall submit evidence from an acoustical expert that noise
levels at property lines do not exceed the existing noise levels as identified in Charles
Salter and Associates Noise Report dated January 9, 1995 incorporated herein by
reference.
11. Sound rated windows in accordance with Charles M. Salter Associates Preliminary
Noise Report dated June 30,1994, shall be installed at designated locations to satisfy
the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Where windows are required to be
unopenable or kept closed in order to meet the interior noise standards, mechanical
ventilation and cooling, if necessary, shall be provided to maintain a habitable
environment.
. . . .
. . . .
PC RESO NO.3790 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of September,
1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, Monroy
Nielsen and Savary
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Noble
ABSTAIN:
KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson
CARLSBADPLANNIN G COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3790 -4- 7k
MlllGATED NEGATlVE DECLARATlON
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Carlsbad By The Sea
2855 Carlsbad Boulevard
Carlsbad, CA 92008
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Carlsbad By The Sea project will consist of the redevelopment
of the existing professional care facility located north and south of
Grand Avenue in the Village Redevelopment Zone, R-3 and Beach
Area Overlay Zones, and the development of a 12,600 square foot
ocean front parcel directly west of the main structure on Ocean
Street in the R-3 and Beach Area Overlay Zones. All three parcels
will be developed with new stnrctures, however, the front facade of
the main structure will be replicated. The existing professional care
facility consists of 102 living units, 59 skilled nursing beds, and
ancillary services. The redeveloped facility (including all three
parcels) will consist of 159 living units, 33 skilled beds, 2 visitor
units, a therapy center with pool, ancillary facilities, and
subterranean parking below each of the sttuctures providing
parking for 229 cars. The project also includes a partial street
vacation of Christiansen Way from 80 feet of right-of-way to 40 feet
of right-of-way, and the improvement of a 57 space public parking
lot within the existing Garfield Street right-of-way.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Cartsbad. As a result of said review, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on
the environment) is hereby&sued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file
in the Planning Departmeht.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at
(819) 438-l 161, extension 4477.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
MARCH 6, 1995
MICHAEL J. HODMI&fFR
RP 94-06/CDP 9446/CUP 94-lO/ Planning Director
HDP 94-08/v 94-Ol/PR 6.119
CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
PUBUSH DATE: MARCH lo,1995
77
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 - (619) 438-l 161
ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED MARCH 6,1995
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
CASE NO: LCPA 95-07/RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-lO/HDP 94-08/v 94-01/PR 6.119
la. Land Use
The Environmental Impact Assessment completed for the project specified that no
ground floor visitor commercial use is included in the project and that the visitor
commercial requirement does not apply to Carlsbad by the Sea since no change to the
existing use is proposed. Coastal Commission comments received in June, 1995,
indicated that to be consistent with the V-R Coastal Program, it is necessary to process
a Local Coastal Program Amendment to exempt the redevelopment of Carlsbad by the
Sea from the visitor commercial requirement. Staff agreed and the project now
includes a resolution recommending approval of a Local Coastal Program Amendment.
The project has been revised to require retail commercial uses within a 3,200 square foot ground floor area of the Parcel B structure fronting on Carl&ad Boulevard. The
required parking for the retail commercial area is provided onsite in the subterranean
garage and signage for the commercial uses must be consistent with the Village
Design Manual sign standards. As revised, the project will result in greater retail
continuity to serve visitors along Carl&ad Boulevard between Carl&ad Village Drive
and Grand Avenue and increase the inventory of visitor commercial uses. Therefore,
greater consistency with the requirements of the Village LCP and Village Design
Manual is achieved thereby further reducing environmental impacts already identified
as less than significant.
6d. Transporation/Circulation
The revised Christiansen Way roadway design will reduce the area of proposed street
vacation and replace 12 of the public parking spaces lost along the roadway due to the
previous driveway access ramp design. This change will not result in additional safety
hazard impacts and will result in a greater net increase in available onstreet public
parking than previously reported. The revised project will therefore improve beach
area parking and result in a less than significant circulation/parking environmental
impact requiring no additional mitigation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. RP94-06. CDP94-06. CUP94-10. HDP94-08. V9441
DATE: MARCH 6. 1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
2. APPLICANT: CARLSBAD LUTHERAN HOMES
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: JULY 19.1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Carlsbad bv the Sea moiect will consist of the redevelopment of the
existing Drofessional care facilitv located north and south of Grand Avenue in the Village RedeveloDment
Zone. R-3 and Beach Area Overlay Zones, and the develoDment of a 12.600 sauare foot ocean front Darcel directlv west of the main structure on Ocean Street in the R-3 and Beach Area Overlav Zones. All three
parcels will be develoDed with new structures. however. the front facade of the main structure will be
reDlicated. The existing mofessional care facility consists of 102 livina units. 59 skilled nursinrr beds. and
ancillarv services. The redevelomd facilitv (including all three Darcels) will consist of 159 living units,
33 skilled nursing beds. 2 visitor units. a theraDv center with ~001. ancilkuv facilities. and subterranean
parking below each of the structures Droviding ~arkiw for 229 cars. The moiect also includes a partial
street vacation of Christiansen Wav from 80 feet of right-of-way to 40 feet of right-of-way. and the
imorovement of a 57 mace Dublic larking lot within the existing Garfield Street rirrht-of-wav.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRON-MENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Land Use and Planning X Transportation/Circulation - Public Services
- Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems
- Geological Problems
- Water
X Air Quality
- Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics
- Hazards X Cultural Resources
X Noise - Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Significance
I-l Rev. l/30/95 79
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
q
x
cl
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect
1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significa.nt unless mitigated.” An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. cl
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a signifkant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
ANNE HYSONG, ~~SSISTA~ PLANNER Date
PLANNING DIREGTORU Date I 1
I-2 Rev. l/30/95
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration,
or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by
an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration pumuan t to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior
Compliance).
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any
of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are
mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are
agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this. case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
When “PotentiaIly Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant effect has been anaIyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuan t to applicable standards and
the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that
earlier EIR.
I-3 Rev. 1’30/95 8 1
l An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the
following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier
EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce
the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact
has not been made pmxxan t to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact
to less than significant, or, (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of
significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in
reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
I-4
ksues (and Supporting hfomatian SouToes): Potentially Significant
m=t
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
d
d)
e)
Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? (Source #3, #7)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (#3, #7, #8)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Source #7)
Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? (Source #3, #8)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
of an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (Source #7)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
4
b)
c>
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source #3)
Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( 1
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( 1
Potentially Significant u&ss Mitigation Incorporated
LesaThal Significant
w=t
x
x
x
No
Impact
x
x
x
x
x
I-5 Rev. 1’30’g5 8 -3
Issues (and slqJporting Infmnation sources):
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
4 Fault rupture? (Source #l)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #l)
d
4
d
f)
g>
h)
0
Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Source #l)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
Landslides or mudflows? ( )
Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or ffi? ( )
Subsidence of the land? ( )
Expansive soils? ( )
Unique geologic or physical features? ( )
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Potentially Significant
Impact
POttYltiidl~
Significant UllkSS Mitigation
hmrporate4i
LesThan Significant No
wJ=t Impact
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runofY? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( Source # 2)
x
x -
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x -
I-6 Rev. 1’30’95
84
Issues Nnd Supporting Luformaticm Sources):
cl Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? ( )
4
e>
Changes in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ( )
Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( )
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (Source #3)
g> Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source #3)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #3)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies? (Source #3)
Potentidly
SiilCallt
Pomtially Unless Signifiit Mitigation
impact lncorporati
LessTban Significant No
impact Impact
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
#3) x
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source #3) -
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( )
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
I-7 Rev* 1’30’g5 D--
Issues (and supporting Infolmalim sources):
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
4
b)
4
d)
g)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source
#3 )
Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source
#4)
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source #3)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (Source #4)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? (Source #4)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source #3)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic
impacts? (Source #3)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposaI result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (Source #3)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (Source #3)
Potentially Significant
Im@act
Potentially Significant Unless L&ssTllan Mitigation Significant No
Incorpcxated Impact impact
x
x -
x -
x -
x -
x
x
x
I-8 Rev. l/30/95 Bib
hea (and suppolting Illfomlation sources):
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #3)
POtdhdl~ significant
Im+t
-
Significant UIlkSS Mitigation Imxnprati
-
LesTban Significant No
m=t Impact
- x
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (Source #3) x
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors? (Source #3)
VXII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (Source #3)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source #3)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State? (Source
#3)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (Source #3) - -
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source
#3)
c) The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? (Source #3)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? (Source #3)
x
x -
x
x
x
x
x
x
I-9 Rev. I/30/95 87
Issues (and Suppoeting Informaticm Sources):
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (Source #3)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
Potentially Significant Imglct
POtt!lltiaUy
SiiIlifiCallt
Unless Mitigation lmxprated
LessThan Significant No Impact Impact
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #5)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? (Source #5)
x
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
a>
b)
cl
4
d
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (Source #3)
Police protection? (Source #3)
Schools? (Source #3)
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (Source #3)
Other governmental services? (Source #3)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Source #3)
b) Communications systems? (Source #3)
x
x -
x -
x -
x -
x -
x -
x
x
I - 10 Rev. l/30/95
88
Issues (and Supporting Infmatian Sources): POtfddY Significant
Im*t
Potfxuially siicant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
LessThan Significant No
Impact Impact
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (Source #3)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #3)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source #3)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #3)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway? (Source #3)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? ( 1
c) Create light or glare? (Source #3)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
W
c>
4
4
Disturb paleontological resources? (Source #3)
Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #6)
Affect historical resources? (Source #3, #6)
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cuItuml
values? (Source #6)
x -
x -
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? (Source #6)
x -
x -
x
x
x
I- 11 Rev. l/30/95
89
Issues (and suppolting lnfolmatim sources):
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Iln*ct
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Inaqorati
LessThan Significant No
hwt m=t
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Source
#3)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source
#3)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
x
x
x
x
x -
I - 12 Rev. l/30/95 ’
GL,
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
4
W
4
Earlier analyses may be used where, p ursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section ‘15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets:
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
I- 13 Rev. l/30/95
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
.
The existing Carlsbad by the .Sea Lutheran Home consists of multiple structures on two of three separate
parcels: Parcel 1 is a 2.3 acre parcel fronting Carlsbad Blvd. north of Grand Avenue; Parcel 2 is a 12,600
square foot ocean front lot west of Ocean Street; and Parcel 3 is a .9 acre lot fronting Car&ad Blvd. south
of Grand Avenue. The larger parcel or main facility is located in both the Village Redevelopment Zone and
Beach Area Overlay Zone and within two separate local coastal program segments. It contains 102 living
units, offices, meeting rooms, chapel, dining room and lobby. The main structure fronting Carlsbad Blvd. is
multistory, approximately 36.5’ in height, and has been identified as a locally significant historic structure in
the City’s cultural resource survey. It was constructed, partially of unreinforced concrete masonry in 1929,
and currently is not in compliance with local and state seismic code requirements. The parcel also contains
six multi-unit single story cottages consisting of living units and located on the western portion of the parcel
fronting on Ocean Street in the Beach Area Overlay Zone. The small beach front parcel is currently
undeveloped and is used as a scenic viewing area consisting of a concrete stairway, benches, and fencing.
The .9 acre parcel located south of Grand Avenue consists of a single story, 59 bed skilled nursing facility
and small community center, both built in 1974. Improvements include two parking areas and garages at the
southwest comer of the lot fronting on Garfield Street.
The decision to redevelop rather than rehabilitate the existing facility stems from the estimated cost of seismic
retrofit along with costs for major upgrades to the existing building’s aging plumbing, heating, and electrical
systems. The applicant has also indicated that the existing facility is no longer competitive with other
comparable professional care facilities due both to accessibility problems and living units which are converted
hotel rooms that are too few, too small, and poorly configured.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is previously disturbed and surrounded by existing relatively small scale commercial and
residential development. These parcels have frontages on Carlsbad Boulevard, a community theme scenic
corridor, Christiansen Way, Grand Avenue, Garfield Street, and/or Ocean Street. The existing facilities
provide very limited parking onsite and rely on the surrounding public streets to satisfy their parking demand.
Parcel 1 site elevations range from 58 feet msl on the east to 45 feet msl on the west and is subject to the
development regulations of three different zoning designations (VR, R-3, and BAOZ) and two different local
coastal program segments (Village Redevelopment and Mello II). Parcel 3 site elevations range from 57 feet
msl to 50 feet msl and is entirely within the VR zone and regulated by the Village Design Manual. Parcel
2 site elevations range fkom 7 feet msl at the bottom of the coastal bluff to 44 msl along Ocean Street. This
infill lot has never been developed although it has been utilized as a scenic viewing area and is covered with
invasive ice plant species and surrounded by development. Parcel 2 is subject to the R-3 and BAOZ zone
development regulations and the Mello II segment of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Environmental Impact Discussion
I- 14 Rev. l/30/95
qa
la. Land Use:
The project consists of the redevelopment of the existing professional care facility which is located in areas
designated by the General Plan for both Village Redevelopment (XX) and high density residential (RH). Uses
permitted by right and conditionally in these designated areas include commercial, multiple family residential,
and professional care facilities (allowed as a conditional use). The project is subject to and consistent with
the R-3, BAOZ, and VR zoning ordinances as well as the Mello II and Village Redevelopment segments of
the Local Coastal Program except for building height. Although the Village Design Manual (zoning document
for redevelopment area) specifies that the entire ground floor of all projects located in the area shall be
devoted to visitor commercial uses unless an amendment to the Local Coastal Program is approved, the
Carlsbad by the Sea Lutheran Home has existed at its present location since the mid-1960’s. While the facility
will be intensified, the existing professional care uses will not change. The professional care facility is a
commercial use, however, neither the existing facility nor the proposed facility includes a visitor serving
commercial component on the ground floor. The Village Design Manual regulating uses in the VR zone only,
does not specify that existing uses must be converted to visitor serving uses if sites are redeveloped to serve
existing uses. Upon change of use on the property, visitor serving uses on the ground floor will be required.
The project is consistent with the development standards of the above mentioned zoning ordinances except
for building height. Parcel 1 building height exceeds the maximum 35’ building height allowed along the
Carlsbad Boulevard frontage (36.5 feet) and adjacent to the driveway ramp along Christiansen Way. As
mitigation for demolishing the locally significant historic structure, the applicant is required to replicate the
existing 36.5’ building facade along Carlsbad Boulevard. Building height also exceeds the 35’ maximum
height standard along Christiansen Way (northern elevation) adjacent to the driveway ramp providing access
to the underground parking garages. Building height is exceeded at this location since the closest grade for
measurement purposes is the sidewalk and street located north of the driveway ramp which is lower than the
grade established for height measurement around the remainder of the building. An exemption to height
standards will be recommended since strict adherence to height standards at these locations would result in
practical diffkulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent with the intent and
purpose of the Village Design Manual and Plan. Exceptional cir cumstances do apply to the proposed
development with regard to construction requirements surrounding the skilled nursing facility and the multiple
zoning regulations applicable to the property. Building height will not be injurious or materially detrimental
to property or the public at this location since building height currently exceeds 35’ along Carl&ad Boulevard
and the structure is separated from adjacent development to the north by the driveway ramp and the 40’ wide
Christiansen Way public right of way. Granting an exemption will not contradict the standards established by the manual since the intent of the manual is to provide general design guidelines and regulations rather than
strict standards, and with the exceptions noted above, the Parcel 1 and 3 structures comply with the maximum
height permitted by the VR and R3/BAOZ zones. Based upon the above, the project building height does not
generate a significant environmental impact with regard to aesthetics or building intensification in the Village.
The Parcel 2 structure, located west of Ocean Street in the Beach Area Overlay Zone, is restricted to 24’ and
two levels due to its flat roof. The flat roof is utilized as an open roof garden above a parking garage adjacent
to Ocean Street and six living units extending over the bluff to the beach. The proposed structure is
approximately 4-S high along Ocean Street, and 39’ to the top of roof along the western elevation. The
western portion of the structure is also three levels. A variance to height standards is required at this location,
however, the additional height will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact since the existing
view corridor will be retained from Ocean street for residents and the public, the structures will observe the
“stringline” structural setbacks avoiding further seaward encroachment, and the structure will be the same
height or lower than existing structures adjacent to the north and south.
I - 15 Rev. l/30/95 43
lb. The project is located within the Mello II and Village Redevelopment segments of Carl&ad’s Local Coastal
Program. Parcel 2 located west of Ocean Street and one third of parcel 1 located east of Ocean Street are
subject to Mello II policies requiring bluff stability, avoidance of liquefaction problems associated with seismic
hazards, “stringline” setbacks, access along shorelines, and archaeological or paleontological resources.
Compliance with the recommendations of the Leighton and Associates’ Geotechnical Investigation for these
parcels will avoid conflicts with policies requiring soil stability. The required seaward stringline setbacks are
provided by the project thereby ensuring lateral public access. Due to the relatively small acreage and
previously disturbed and/or infill nature of the sites, significant archaeological or paleontological resources are
unlikely to be present. Although no seawall is proposed for the development, a 7’ high foundation wall will
provide the necessary protection from wave action during high tide and severe storms.
The remainder of Parcel 1 and Parcel 3 are subject to the Village Redevelopment segment of the LCP (Village
Design Manual) which regulates land uses and development standards. As described above, the existing uses
will not change and the project is consistent with all required development standards except building height
(see paragraphs 2 and 3 under Land Use la. above).
lc. Carlsbad by the Sea is an existing professional care facility which has occupied two of the three parcels
proposed for development for approximately 30 years. The facility is surrounded by a hotel and a church to
the north, a motel, vacation rental residential units, and the ocean to the west, Carl&ad Boulevard to the east,
and the Town Center commercial development to the south. The project will intensify the existing
development on two of the parcels and develop Parcel 2 located west of Ocean Street which is currently
undeveloped. The project adheres to coverage and height standards (with two exceptions) through a terraced
design in which building height is reduced to 30’ consistent with the BAOZ height restriction. Parcel 3 located
south of Grand is completely within the VR zone permitting 35’ in building height, however, a terraced design
will be provided to create a transition from three stories to two stories along the Garfield Street frontage to
ensure compatibility with the smaller scale development located west of Garfield Street within the BAOZ.
Additionally, since Parcel 3 abuts the Town Center Commercial development to the south, the facility is
designed to orient living units away from the commercial development by limiting south facing windows and
locating stairways along the property line to buffer units from adjacent commercial development. The
structure is oriented away from the southern property line to the greatest extent possible and a five to six foot
high screen wall along the southern property line is provided to screen the outdoor recreation area from
adjacent commercial development.
The above described site design will ensure compatibility with existing smaller scale development and uses
in the vicinity. Additionally, the provision of underground parking on each Parcel will reduce the number of
vehicles associated with the existing professional care facility which currently park on the street thereby
reducing the impact of this type of facility in the beach area.
Id. No agricultural resources or operations will be impacted by the proposed redevelopment project which is
located in the downtown Village area and has been surrounded by development for many years.
le. The project includes the partial vacation of Christiansen Way between Carl&ad Boulevard and Ocean Street,
however, access to a Garfield Street public parking lot and the beach will still be provided within the
remaining right of way. The project will not divide the physical arrangement of the area since the professional
care facility is being developed or redeveloped on existing parcels.
I- 16 Rev. l/30/95
H
2a. Although the project represents an increase of 57 living units with the potential to double the current Carlsbad
by the Sea resident population which will represent a small increase in the local population, development of
the facility will not result in changes to population projections since projections are based upon residential
dwelling units. Professional care facilities are commercial service in nature and are therefore not considered
in the City’s population projections.
2b. The redevelopment project will increase in size, however, it will not induce substantial growth in the area since
the number of living units will increase by only 57 and the number of nursing beds will decrease by 26. This
increase will have no impact on existing projects surrounding the site which may also expand their commercial
facilities within the existing regulatory parameters upon approval of a redevelopment permit or conditional
use permit.
2c. The redevelopment of the professional care facility will temporarily displace current residents of Carlsbad by
the Sea during construction, however, residents wilI be relocated to other Carlsbad Lutheran Homes and may
return to the Carlsbad facility upon completion of the project if they choose to do so.
3a-i. Compliance with the recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation conducted by Leighton and
Associates in June, 1994, for the project will ensure that there are less than signikant impacts from such
conditions as seismic ground shaking, ground failure, land subsidence, landslides or other unstable soil
conditions. The coastal bluff proposed for development on Parcel 2 is a unique geologic feature, however,
the infill parcel is heavily impacted by erosion due to wave action. The bluff will be supported by an
approximately 20’ high retaining wall constructed beneath the structure thereby protecting it from further
erosion.
4ad. Water Quality:
The project consists of the redevelopment of existing previously developed parcels and drainage patterns,
absorption rates or surface runoff wilI not change substantially. Drainage from the existing and future
development is routed into an existing storm drain system located beneath the Ocean Street right of way
thereby avoiding any impact to surface water.
In accordance with the Hydrology Section 5.2 of the Master EIR 9341 and the “Coastal Design Criteria for
Proposed Seawall, California Lutheran Complex” report, prepared by Hethermgton Engineering, Inc. dated
October 18, 1994, the following mitigation will be incorporated into the project design to avoid significant
impacts to water quality resulting from the project: 1) require the instalMon of protective design measures
to protect structures from the effects of wave action; 2) require the project to construct all public facilities
needed to serve the proposed development prior to or concurrent with the need it generates; and 3) require
the dedication and improvement of alI public rig&of-way for public utility and storm drainage facilities to
serve the project. Additionally, prior to approval of a grading permit, the applicant must comply with the
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant will be
required to provide the best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to
discharge into storm drain facilities.
5. Air Quality:
Subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in
increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in
increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and
I - 17 Rev. l/30/95 9 5’
suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the
San Diego Air Basin Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions
are considered cumulatively sign&ant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minim& the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation
measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and
intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through
the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage
alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient
building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a
“non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This
project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies
to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plans Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore,
no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning
Department.
6. Circulation
la. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to
accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by
regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along C&bad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s
adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minim& the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure
the provision of circulation facilities wncurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of
transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail
systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional
through-trafYlc from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not
within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation
mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the- design of the project or are included as
conditions of project approval.
I- 18 Rev. l/30/95
9b
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study”
checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan,
therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because.the recent certification of Final Master EIR
93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Gf Overriding Considerations” for
circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects
covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental
review of circulation impacts is required.
6b,e. The project design does not create hazards to traffic or pedestrian safety. The project includes the half
street vacation of Christiansen Way resulting in a 28’ wide public street with no parking on either side,
and the natrowing of traffic lanes on Grand Avenue to allow for diagonal parking and a 10’ wide
promenade (sidewalk) or linkage to the beach The project will be conditioned to install sidewalk
improvements on both sides of all streets surrounding the project thereby improving pedestrian circulation
and safety. Both of these roadways are consistent with Carl&ad Standards for public roadways and
intersections.
6c. The project is within the five minute fire service response area required by the Growth Management Ordinance
and emergency access to the site is provided by public streets surrounding the project as required by the Fiie
Department. The project will be conditioned to provide the necessary fire hydrant and fire flow capacity prior
to building permit issuance.
6g. There are no rail, waterborne, or air traffic resources within close enough proximity to the project to be
impacted.
7a-e. As identified by the Biological Resources Section 5.4 of the Master EIR, the project in within the developed
area of the City and consists of the redevelopment of previously disturbed and infill sites wntaining no
sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will have no impact on these resources.
8a-c. The Carlsbad by the Sea project consists of the redevelopment of existing, previously developed, infii
parcels with no mineral or agricultural resources in the vicinity. The project represents an expansion of the
existing facility, therefore, energy consumption will also increase. Mitigation such as compliance with the Building Code, Title 20, Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code specified by the Electricity and Natural Gas
Section 5.12.1 of the Master EIR to ensure the implementation of energy conservation measures will avoid
the project’s use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and/or inefficient manner.
9a,c,d. The professional care facility is licensed and regulated by the County Department of Health Services to
ensure that the provision of health care services is safely adminktered. Risks with respect to accidental
explosion or the release of hazardous substances is not one typically associated with this type of facility. The
facility provides ongoing health care services to elderly resident patients and will not create a health hazard
or expose people to existing sources of health hazards.
9b. The project will not interfere with the City’s emergency response or evacuation plans. Review by the Fire
Department to ensure adequate design features are incorporated into the project to permit emergency access
and response is a condition of project approval.
10. Although the project is a commercial service use, it includes living units for residents along Carlsbad
Boulevard, which is a circulation element roadway requiring mitigation for residential projects with existing
I- 19 Rev. l/30/95 47
and future projected noise levels above the City standard of 60 CNEL exterior and 45 CNBL interior. Due
to the nature of the project, the 60 CNEL/45 CNEL standard has been imposed. Additionally, the project
consists of substantial mechanical equipment planned for the roof of the skilled nursing building (Parcel 1)
and Parcel 3 with noise generation potential.
The preliminary noise report wncludes that the only exterior areas subject to noise levels of 67 dB (existing)
and 70 dB (future) are the Parcel 3 balconies located along Carlsbad Boulevard. However, according to the
City’s noise guidelines, the balconies are exempt since they are less than 6 feet deep. To meet the City’s
interior noise standard of CNEL 45 dB, it will be necessary for certain windows to be sound rated and these
attenuation measures will be required as mitigation for noise impacts.
According to the Prehminary Noise Report prepared for Carlsbad by the Sea by Charles M. Salter Associates,
Inc. dated 30 June 1994 and January 9, 1995, noise generated by the Parcel 1 roof equipment is attenuated
by the proposed roof screens and barriers to avoid exceeding existing noise levels with one exception. The
existing 60 CNEL noise level along Ocean Street will increase to 61 CNEL as a result of the increased noise
generated by the roof equipment. Mitigation ensuring that noise levels do not exceed the existing noise levels
at property lines as verified by an acoustical engineer prior to the City’s issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
will be required.
11-12. Public Services and Utilities
In accordance with the City’s Master EIR, the project must be consistent with and will be conditioned to
comply with the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards for public facilities and services
to ensure that adequate public facilities are provided prior to or concurrent with development.
13a-b. The project (Parcel 1 and 3) is situated to the west of Carlsbad Boulevard, a scenic corridor, where the
existing Parcel 1 structure housing the Carlsbad by the Sea professional care facility has existed for 65 years.
It is a locally significant historic structure with prominent visual characteristics due to its architecture;
therefore its replication will be necessary. The existing Parcel 1 and 3 structures will be demolished and
redeveloped and the front facade of the Parcel 1 structure and landscaping will be replicated to avoid
significant adverse aesthetic impacts along Carlsbad Boulevard. A public view corridor to the Beach currently
exists between the existing structures on Grand Avenue; therefore, redevelopment of the site will not allow
encroachment into existing view corridors. The Parcel 3 structure south of Grand will increase to three stories,
however, structural articulation, fenestration, and the incorporation of architectural elements from the main
structure will aesthetically enhance the Carl&ad Boulevard street frontage. Additionally, the project includes
minimum 20’ landscaped setbacks from Carl&ad Boulevard with special attention to landscaping at the comers
of Carlsbad Boulevard and Qlristiansen Way/Grand Avenue. The project also incorporates the improvement
of a public view wrridor and pedestrian promenade to the beach access west of Gcean Street complete with
enhanced paving, public art, street furniture, and decorative lighting along Grand Avenue. The project also
incorporates all of the Village Design Manual development standards and design guidelines to avoid visually impacting the area.
,4. According to the Cultural Resource Survey and Historical Assessment performed for the project by RECON,
the Carlsbad by the Sea facility, formerly “the California-Carlsbad Mineral Spring Hotel, is an important
resource area per criteria A and C of CEQA. The enterprise is directly linked to the growth and development
of the City of Carlsbad and to the recognition of this obscure stop on the southern California coast as a
destination. This resort attracted people from nationwide and also served as a local hub of social events and
community activities during these early years of growth and development. In addition, this property serves
I - 20 Rev. 1/30/!25
as an important link with one of the most difficult economic episodes in the history of the United States. To
a great extent, what happened to this hotel serves as an example of what occurred nationally.”
Pursuant to CEQA, mitigation is required to reduce significant impacts associated with the destruction of the
historically significant facility. Mitigation includes the filing of a performance bond with the City to ensure
that mitigation measures and design product are consistent with approved plans. The design of the new facility will be consistent with the existing historic structure, inasmuch as the facade which is currently present will
be faithfully replicated including size, scale, and architectural style of the former hotel structure. Mitigation shall also include the historical, photographic, and video documentation of the hotel and property by a
qualified historian which includes an inventory of materials, futures, or built-ins to identify items which can
be salvaged for reuse or display in the new facility. Additionally, a rendering of the new facility must be
posted in front of the existing historic structure one month prior to demolition to provide citizens an
opportunity to see the new facility.
The cultural survey concludes that “the results of the culturaI resource survey are negative for prehistoric cultural resource sites, features, or isolates. While the location may have provided a reasonable stopping place
for aboriginal peoples, none of the evidence of these visits have survived. The most likely reason for this,
if sites have existed on this project, is that evidence of buried sites is masked by the buildings and
landscaping, or that the sites were destroyed by farming and later development on this property.” Mitigation to avoid archaeological impacts is included which requires a qualified archaeological monitor to be present
during grading to identify and assess any buried cultural resource deposits. In the event that important
resource materials are uncovered, a recovery and analysis program will be implemented.
15. No recreational facilities will be impacted by the redevelopment of Carl&ad by the Sea nor will the
commercial development increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks.
V. SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located
at 2075 Las Pahnas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161).
1. “Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad by the Sea”, prepared by Leighton and Associates, dated June 30,1994.
2. “Coastal Design Criteria for Proposed Seawall, California Lutheran Complex,” prepared by Hetherington Eng;, Inc., dated October 18, 1994.
3. “Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update” prepared by the City of Carl&ad Planning
Department and certified September 6, 1994.
4. “Transportation Analysis for Carlsbad by the Sea”, prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc, dated
December 21, 1994 (Revised February 17, 1995).
5. “Carlsbad by the Sea Senior Housing Prebminary Noise Report”, prepared by Charles Salter Associates, inc.
dated 30 June 1994 and 9 January 1995.
6. “Carlsbad by the Sea Facility Cultural Resource Survey and Historical Assessment”, prepared by RECON,
dated July, 1994.
7. “The Village Design Manual, City of Carl&ad, California”, revised April 1988.
8. “Mello II Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program”, Certified June 1, 1981.
I - 21 Rev. l/30/95
LIST MITIGATING MBASURES OF APPLICABLE)
Cultural Resources:
The applicant will file a performance bond with the City to ensure that the mitigation measures and design product
are consistent with the materials on file with the most recent application.
The design of the new facility will be consistent with the existing historic structure, inasmuch as the facade which
is currently present will be faithfully replicated in the new design. The size and scale of the new facility should
be consistent with what is currently present. The architectural style of the new facility will be faithful to the
existing structure. The construction materials will be consistent with the current structure; for example, plaster
walls; title roof; window size, style, and placement; and maintenance of a design which includes a porte cochere
and one-story, octagonal rooms at the two forward comers.
The history of the former hotel and property will be documented by a qualified historian and appropriate
information concerning the acquisition, construction, uses, and activities that took place there will be compiled. -
this archival research shall include photographs and other memorabilia which relate to the hotel over time. The
goaI of the presentation will be to place the structure into the context of the period and demonstrate how it changed
over time. Attention will also be paid to the connection of this business with the development of Carlsbad.
A photographic documentation of the existing historic building will be completed by a qualified photographer.
Color photographs should be made of the facade and each of the remainin g elevations. Interior as well as exterior
shots should be made with special attention to the portions of the structure that are more reminiscent of the early
years of use and operation. Photographs of architectural~details should also be made. .
The photographic documentation should also include the production of an informational video. As with the still
photographs, attention should be paid to recording as much as possible of the look and feel of the building and the
grounds. This video should also include interviews with individuals who may want to reminisce about the structure
or provide some useful information. This should be a professionally produced product and will be kept on file in
the library of the new facility with a copy on file at the City of Carlsbad library.
To augment the stiII photographs and the video, drawings of certain portions of the existing structure should be
made. These will allow for the presentation of more detail and dimension.
An inventory of materials, futures, or built-ins should be made to identify those items which can be salvaged for
adaptive reuse or can be used for display in the new facility.
A rendering of the new facility wiII be posted in front of the existing historic building one month prior to any
demolition to provide the citizens of Carl&ad an opportunity to see the new facility. The rendering will be
provided at sufficient size and detail to accurately represent the planned structure. This wilI include some details
of the landscaping design. These exhibits will be available to staff for review at the time of the submittal.
A qualified archaeological monitor wiIl be present during grading to identify and assess any buried cultural
resource deposits. In the event that important cuhural resource materials are uncovered, a recovery and analysis
program will be implemented.
I - 22 Rev. l/30/95
100
NOISE
Noise generated by the project’s roof eqtipment shall not exceed existing noise levels at property lines surrounding
the project. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall submit evidence from an
acoustical expert that noise levels at property lines do not exceed the existing noise levels as identified in Charles
Salter and Associates Noise Report dated January 9, 1995 (Source Document #5).
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM m; APPLICABLE1
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJEm.
Date
I - 23 Rev. l/30/95
lo I
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Page L of 4
mRoNh$mAL ~ITIGA’I’ION MOl+lITO~G CHECKI.,IST page 2, of 4
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Page 2 of 4
M .
I a
on . a iz
00
-I a
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Page 4 of 4
June 15, 1995
California Coastal Commission San Diego Coast Area 3 111 Camin De1 Rio North, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92108-1725
Attention: Mr. Bill Ponder
SUBJECT: RP !&0S/CDP 9446 - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CARLSBAD BY THE SEA PROJECT
Dear Mr. Ponder:
‘I’hank you for your comments following the review of the subject mitigated negative declaration. In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines, the City of Carl&ad offers the following responses to your comments and concerns:
Village LCP
1. The application for Local Coastal program Amendment to exclude &l&ad by the Sea fkom
the visitor serving ground floor requirement wiIl include analysis to show that existing visitor serving commercial uses are adequate and that adequate land is reserved to meet foreseeable
future demands for visitor commercial uses.
As you are aware, the City is currently reviewing a draft Village Master Plan (Village Design
Manual)- in which appropriate land uses in the various districts of the Viige have been analyd. As a result of our review of land uses in the Village, the recommendation by staff and the Village Master PIan Advisory Committee regarding the status of existing institutional usessuchasCatisbadbytheSealocatodintheCoastalZonewillbe: 1)thattheyare appropriate and desirable uses at their current locations; and 2) they will not be subject to the visitor serving requirement.
2. With regard to the 35’ maximum building height standard, the current Village Design Manual
also specifies that ‘ho pxemtion shall be granted under the redevelopment plan which would . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . increase the height limit unless the exemption is approved by the Coastal
Commission’ This provision seems to indicate that height exemptions can be granted by the coastalcomrnissi on. I was unable to locate a requirement for a development disposition agreement in the ViIIage Design Manual.
Mello II LCP
3. The Mello II LocaI &as&I program does provide for variances in Attachment 5, Item 5, which
amends Chapter 21.50 (Variances) of the Zoning ordinance to include provisions for variances
in the coastal zone. /ob
3n7c; I ac Palmac nriua - Carl4vwl Caiifnrnia 92009-l 576 - 1619) 438-1161 da
RP94-06KDP94-06 CARLSBAD BY THE SEA JUNE IS, 199w . PAGE 2
4. The project does not include any sites containing histdric public use. Parcel 2 is a privately
owned and fenced viewing area. The parcel has no public beach access, and the applicant’s environmental analysis indicates that no access to the beach has ever been documented.
5. The Parcel 2 foundation wall/seawall location discussed in your letter is consistent with
surrounding projects approved under existing regulations by the Coastal Commission (CT 90-
07/St. Tropez Condominiums). The structure adheres to the stringline setback requirement
thereby providing the required lateral, beach access, and is located “in-line” with existing
seawalls to the northwest and southeast in order to prevent accelerated erosion or scour within
comer areas between adjacent walls as recommended by the wave run-up analysis performed for the project by Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Consultants.
6. As stated above, the project adheres to the structural stringline setback thereby providing the necessary lateral beach access along the shoreline. There are existing public access staitways
within 60’ of the project to the north and south providing public access to the beach from Grand Avenue and Christiansen Way. The project includes a public parking lot to be constructed within the unimproved Garfield Street right of way and street improvements which include curb,
gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of Ocean Street and Christiansen Way. These improvements
will fotmalize parking in the area and improve pedestrian and vehicular access to the beacl~
7. The unimproved Garfeld Street right of way proposed to be improved as a public parking lot was considered as a parking reservoir by the Transportation Analysis performed for the project by Urban Systems Associates. Since no formal&d parking spaces exist within the unimproved
right of way, the analysis includes the number of parallel parking spaces which could be
accommodated along both sides of the right of way in the existing parking space inventory.
By improving the right of way as a parking lot, a net increase of 26 spaces in this informal area is achieved and considered as partial replacement parking for the reduction of 38 parking spaces located on Ch&iamen Way. Except as mitigation ncctssary to replace on-street parking, the
improvement of Garfield Street is not required for this project.
If you have any questions or comments concerning the above, please contact me at (619) 438-l 161,
extension 4477.
ANNE HYSONG
Assistant Planner
c: Tony Lawson
Chris Decerbo
Gary Wayne
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DE1 RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725
(619) 521-8036
Ann Hysong
City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the "Carlsbad by the Sea" Project
Dear Ms. Hysong,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above. Staff has reviewed the subject document and has the foiiowing comments.
General Comments/Villaae Redevelopment Area
Regarding the main element of the project on Parcel 1, the "Village Design Manual" of the certified Village Redevelopment Local Coastal Program (LCP) requires in Subarea 5 that the entire ground floor of all projects must be devoted to visitor commercial uses, and that mixed use projects which do not meet this criteria require approval by the Coastal Commission or the Executive Director as a major or minor amendment to the Local Coastal Program. In either instance, an amendment must be submitted to and approved by the Coastal Commission before it is effective. The above document finds the proposed project would not be subject to the above provision because the proposed intensification of the existing non-conforming commercial use does not
constitute a "change in use" that would trigger a Local Coastal Program
Amendment (LCPA). However, staff's position is that while not a change in
use, the project represents' "new development" because of the structures' total
demolition and subsequent intensification of the professional care facility.
Therefore, since the redevelopment does not provide a visitor commercial use ' on the ground floor, staff believes the project should be subject to the LCP amendment requirement. The continuance of non-conforming uses through
redevelopment is directly contrary to the planning goals of the certified LCP.
Section 30221 of the Coastal Act provides that oceanfront lands suitable for recreational use shall be protected unless both present and foreseeable future
demands for public or commercial recreational activities is already adequately provided for in the area. Section 30222 provides that private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial facilities designed to enhance public access opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over other land uses except coastal dependent and agricultural land uses. How can the proposed intensification and redevelopment of an existing non-visitor-serving use on this site be found consistent with the certified LCP and the above Coastal Act sections? Section 30221 states that if adequate commercial recreational
activities to meet current and future demands are provided in the area, other
lower priority land uses can be allowed. Thus, staff believes the amendment must address this issue and document both the present kinds and extent of
visitor commercial uses in the planning area and provide the necessary
assurances and rationale that adequate land has been reserved to
Ann Hysong June 7, 1395 Page 2
meet foreseeable future demands for visitor commercial uses. As a LCPA filing requirement, the amendment would need to document the nature and amount of visitor-serving uses in the immediate vicinity, as well as those within Subarea 5 and the Village Redevelopment Area in particular. Depending on the scope of any prospective LCP amendment, it might be necessary to present such documentation on Carlsbad's coastal zone in general.
The document indicates a height variance (36.5 feet) will be given above the certified Village Redevelopment Area LCP standard of 35 feet as mitigation for demolishing a locally significant historic structure on Parcel 1. The document also states that the intent of the Village Design Manual is "to provide general design guidelines and regulations rather than strict [height] standards". However, the manual states that the maximum height for new buildings within the village area shall not exceed 35 feet, unless a
development disposition agreement is approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. It must be demonstrated that the proposed height variance is consistent with the above LCP provision.
The proposed Parcel 2 residential structure, located west of Ocean Street on
the coastal bluff, also requires a height variance (proposing 39' high on the
coastal bluff with an LCP-specified 35' height limit). The document justifies the variance stating an existing view corridor will be retained, the structure will be consistent with "stringlinel' structural setbacks, and will be the same
height or lower than existing structures to the north and south. However, the
certified Mello II Local Coastal Program (LCP) does not provide for variances;
thus, it must be demonstrated how the project can be found consistent with the LCP.
This 12,500 sq. ft. parcel overlooks the beach, is residentially undeveloped and is used as a private viewing area of the professional care facility. Development on the parcel Includes a concrete stairway, benches and fencing. The certified Mello II segment contains a Coastal Shoreline Development
Overlay Zone (C-D) which identifies access requirements on sites containing
historic public use, including siting development in a way that does not
interfere with existing public use or providing an area of equivalent public access in the immediate vicinity of the site which will accommodate the same
type and intensity of use as may have existed. The document should address how the above LCP provision would be applied to the proposed development of Parcel 2.
The ordinances of the C-D contain detailed regulations regarding the construction of revetments, seawalls, cliff-retaining walls, and other similar shoreline structures. The ordinances allow for the construction of such structures only when they are required to serve coastal dependent uses or to
protect 5xistinq structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when
designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts,on local sand supply. The
document notes the coastal bluff proposed for development on Parcel 2 is heavily impacted by erosion due to wave action, and the bluff would be supported by a 20' high retaining wall constructed beneath the structure
.
Ann Hysong June i, 1395
Page 3
thereby protecting it from further erosion. The document also notes that although no seawall is proposed, a 7' high foundation wall will provide the
necessary protection from wave action during high tides and severe storms.
The foundation wall appears to function as a seawall which as noted above can
only be approved to protect existing development, not new development as proposed. To comply with this LCP requirement, new development must be sited and designed to not require shoreline protection. The Commission has found
seawalls cause adverse impacts to shoreline processes and public access. In
siting new development without the need for shoreline protection, existing site conditions must be identified and a geotechnical evaluation/wave runup analysis performed. The document must address this issue, and must also
address what alternatives to the proposed foundation wall/shoreline protective
work were examined.
The C-D ordinance also states that as a condition of approval, permitted
shoreline structures may be required to replenish the beach with imported sand, and further, permitted shoreline structures shall be required to provide public access. The above document is silent on the project's need to provide
lateral access along the beach.
The project proposes the half street vacation of Christiansen Way, resulting in the elimination of 38 existing parallel parking spaces which the public has used to park near the beach. To offset this adverse impact to public access,
the document states a small net increase in public parking will be provided in
the immediate vicinity of the project through the improvement of the Garfield
Street unimproved right-of-way and the addition of diagonal parking on the south side of Grand Avenue (the narrowing of traffic lanes on Grand Avenue is proposed to allow for diagonal parking and a 10 foot wide promenade to the beach). However, Garfield Street is an existing unimproved parking reservoir,
and, as such, the document should establish why it should be accepted as
bonafide replacement parking.
I apologize for this late response. We also realize that the scope of our
comments goes beyond specific environmental issues but wished to provide a
broader explanation of coastal concerns. We would like to coordinate with the
City in determining the most appropriate action on the project site. If you
have any questions, please contact me at the above number. ;@ot*
Coastal Planner
8P:bp(0236A)
cc: Tony Lawson
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3791
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A
PROFESSIONAL CARE FACILITY ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED AT 2855 CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD AND ON THE VACANT PARCEL
LOCATED DIRECTLY WEST OF THE EXISTING
CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN
HOME
CASE NO: CUP 94-10
WHEREAS, California Lutheran Homes has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a conditional
use permit as provided by Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on the 16th day of August, 1995 and on the 6th day of September, 1995,
hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on property described as:
Parcel A: Block 8 and 9 of town of Carlsbad, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Map thereof No. 365, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County February 2, 1887; also all of
Garfield Street adjoining said Blocks 8 and 9 as vacated and
closed to public use. Together with the Southeasterly l/2 of
Cedar Street as street is shown on said map adjoining said land
on the northwest which upon closing would revert, by operation
of law to the above described land.
Parcel C: Lots 50, 51, 52 and the south 15 feet of Lot 49, in
Block “A” of Map No. 2 of the Hayes Land Company,
incorporated, addition, in Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to Map thereof 1221, filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 4,
1909.
.,..
. . . .
/a‘
r
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
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, .if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
considered all factors relating to CUP 94-10.
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
APPROVES Conditional Use Permit, CUP 94-10, based on the following findings and
subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the
general plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted
in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located since the use is: 1) considered
necessary and desirable to satisfy the needs of the elderly in the community; 2) a
commercially operated retirement home with residential characteristics which is
consistent with the area’s residential and commercial General Plan Land Use
designations; 3) a commercial professional care operation providing living units
which are not subject to residential density ranges or the Growth Management
growth control point; and 4) in compliance with Noise, Circulation, and Open Space
(Historical Preservation) Element policies as conditioned.
2. As designed and upon Planning Commission approval of front and side yard setback
variances on Parcel C, and City Council approval of a partial vacation of excess
Christiansen Way right-of-way, the site for the intended use is adequate in size and
shape to accommodate the use since coverage, setback, and landscape requirements
will be satisfied.
3. All of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to
adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will
be provided and maintained as illustrated on the approved Exhibits “A” - “V”, by:
1) design features such as the replication of the historic front facade; 2) terraced
down architectural design in which the development is smaller in scale in and
adjacent to the beach area; 3) addition of onsite subterranean parking garages; 4)
orientation of Parcel B living units away from adjacent commercial development to
the south; and 5) enhanced landscaping including the retention and/or replacement
of numerous palm trees existing on the site, and the addition of a landscaped
promenade to the beach within the Grand Avenue right-of-way.
PC RESO NO. 3791 -2- /m
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
4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all
traffic generated by the proposed use in that there till be no net loss of public
parking spaces, roadway operations and LOS will not be negatively impacted.
Additionally, pedestrian circulation and safety will be improved due to the addition
of curbs and sidewalks along all street frontages. With the addition of onsite
parking, the CLH project will result in an actual gain of 46 onstreet public parking
spaces currently utilized by CLH residents and staff.
PlanninP Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby approve the conditional use permit for the
Professional Care Facility Project entitled “Carlsbad By The Sea Lutheran Home”
(Exhibits “A” - ‘IV”, dated August 16, 1995) on file in the Planning Department and
incorporated by this reference, subject to the conditions herein set forth. Exhibits
“A - P’ shall be revised to reflect the required driveway access ramp redesign shown
on Exhibit “W” and revised Attachment “E” approved by the Design Review Board
and Planning Commission. These revised exhibits shall be submitted to the
Planning Director within 30 days of final project approval. Staff is authorized and
directed to make or require the Developer to make all corrections and modifications
to the conditional use permit documents, as necessary to make them internally
consistent and conform to Planning Commission’s final action on the Project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any
proposed development substantially different from this approval, shall require an
amendment to this approval.
2. Approval of CUP 94-10 is granted subject to the approval of RP 94-06 and CDP 94
06. CUP 94-10 is subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board
Resolution No. 230 and 231 for RP 94-06 and CDP 94-06, respectively.
3. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of ten years. This Conditional
Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis to determine
if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not have a
substantial negative effect on surrounding properties or the public health and welfare.
If the Planning Director determines that the use has such substantial negative effects,
the Planning Director shall recommend that the Planning Commission, after
providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional conditions to
reduce or eliminate the substantial negative effects. This permit may be revoked at
any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has a substantial
detrimental effect on surrounding land uses and the public’s health and welfare, or
the conditions imposed herein have not been met. This permit may be extended for
a reasonable period of time not to exceed ten years upon written application of the
permittee made no less than 90 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning
Commission may not grant such extension, unless it finds that there are no
substantial negative effects on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and
welfare. If a substantial negative effect on surrounding land uses or the public’s
health and welfare is found, the extension shall be denied or granted with conditions
PC RESO NO. 3791 -3- 03
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
which will eliminate or substantially reduce such effects. There is no limit to the
number of extensions the Planning Commission may grant. I
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the ,
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of September,
1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, Monroy,
Nielsen and Savary
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Noble
ABSTAIN:
KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
.
MICHAEL JxOLklkILLER
Planning Director
I PC RESO NO. 3791 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3792
I A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON VACANT
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF OCEAN STREET DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM
THE CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THE SEALUTHERAN
HOME
CASE NO: HDP 94-08
WHEREAS, California Lutheran Homes has filed a verified application for
certain property to wit:
Parcel C: Lots 50, 51, 52 and the south 15 feet of Lot 49, in
Block “A” of Map No. 2 of the Hayes Land Company,
incorporated, addition, in Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to Map thereof 1221, filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 4,
1909.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a hillside
development permit as provided by Chapter 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of August, 1995
and on the 6th day of September, 1995, consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Hillside Development Permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
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
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES Hillside Development Permit, HDP 95-08, based on the following
findings:
Findings:
1. Areas in which the topographic change is less than fifteen feet in height and less
than four thousand square feet in area, which are not a part of the surrounding
generalized slope have been identified as required by the Hillside Development
Ordinance, Chapter 21.95090 of the Zoning Ordinance. The surrounding
generalized slope was a coastal bluff which has been previously altered to the north
and south of the project through grading and building coverage consisting of
structures, decks, and seawalls. These topographic areas are therefore excluded
from the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of September,
1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Erwin,
Monroy, Nielsen and Savary
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Noble
ABSTAIN
KIM %LSHONS, Chairperson
CARISBADPLANNIN G COMMISSION
MICHAEL J.YiOLZ%IILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3792 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3793
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
A VARIANCE TO BUILDING HEIGHT AND FRONT
YARD SETBACK STANDARDS ON VACANT PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
OCEAN STREET, DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE
CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN
HOME
CASE NO: v 94-01
WHEREAS, California Lutheran Homes has filed a verified application for
certain property, to wit:
Parcel C: Lots 50, 51, 52 and the south 15 feet of Lot 49, in
Block “A’ of Map No. 2 of the Hayes Land Company,
incorporated, addition, in Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to Map thereof 1221, filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 4,
1909.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a variance as
provided by Chapter 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 16th day of August, 1995 and on
the 6th day of September, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to V 94-01.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4 That the above recitations are true and correct.
// 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9 That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission APPROVES V 94-01, based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other
property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone in that properties west of
Ocean Street have radically sloping topography which limits automobile access to
the eastern third of the lot thereby resulting in garage structure encroachments into
front yard setbacks. Additionally, the application of development standards and
Local Coastal Program policies requiring onsite parking to serve multiple units, a
seaward stringline setback, additional street dedication, 20’ front yard setback, and
a maximum building height of 24’ (flat roof) and two stories, substantially reduce
the development potential of these parcels without zoning relief. The CLH
development is exceptional in that the easterly 50% of the structure consists of a 5’
above-grade roof deck enclosing a partially subterranean garage which is well below
the maximum building height while the westerly half of the structure exceeds the
height and story standard. As the roof and underlying structure proceed over the
bluff, the structure increases in height to 39 feet and three stories, due to adherence
to the structural stringline setback at the base of the bluff, and a 7’ high
foundation/seawall which supports and protects the project from wave action and
erosion. Although building height is exceeded at the westerly location, and the roof
deck and garage structure encroach to within 2’ of the front property line, the project
is lower in height and less intense than existing development to the north and south.
2. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone
but which is denied to the property in question, because without the requested height
and setback variances, the scale of the project would have to be reduced
substantially, while numerous variances have previously been granted for properties
along Ocean Street because of the physical and development restrictions stated
above.
3. That the granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located, in that the project is lower, less intense, and therefore
compatible with surrounding development. The architectural design in which a 5’
high landscaped roof deck is visible along Ocean Street will visually enhance the
area while retaining some visual access to the beach. Additionally, the project is
conditioned to construct curb and sidewalk improvements along its Ocean Street
frontage thereby improving pedestrian and vehicular access in the area.
4. That the granting of this variance will not adversely affect the General Plan, in that
the project is: 1) consistent with land uses designated for the area by the Land Use
Element; 2) a commercial professional care operation providing living units which
are not subject to residential density ranges or the Growth Management growth
PC RESO NO. 3793 -2- l/8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
control point; and 3) in compliance with Noise and Open Space (Historical
Preservation) Element policies as conditioned.
Conditions:
1. Approval of V 94-01 is granted subject to the approval of LCPA 95-07, RP 94-06,
CDP 94-06, CUP 94-10, HDP 94-08. V 94-01 is subject to all conditions contained
in Planning Commission Resolutions 3790, 3791, 3792 and Design Review Board
Resolutions 228,229,230 and 231 for the Carlsbad By The Sea Lutheran Home.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of September,
1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Erwin,
Monroy, Nielson and Savary
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Noble
ABSTAIN:
KIM WLSHONS, Chairperson
CARLSBADPLANNIN G COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3793 -3- // 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3801
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIN G COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
DETERMINING CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL
PLAN FOR A PARTIAL STREET VACATION OF THE
SEGMENT OF CHRISTIANSEN WAY LOCATED
BETWEEN CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND OCEAN
STREET.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN
HOME
CASE NO: PCD/GPC 95-03
WHEREAS, California Lutheran Homes has filed a verified application for
certain property to wit:
Being a portion of Cedar Avenue, (now changed to
Christiansen Way) in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, as shown on Map 365, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, February
2,1887, said portion lying between Blocks 6 and 9, and between Blocks 7 and 8 of said Map 365.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for Planning
Commission Determination of General Plan Consistency as provided by Section 65402(a)
of Planning and Zoning Law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of August, 1995
and on the 6th day of September, 1995, consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Planning Commission Determination of General Plan Consistency; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
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
B) That based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Commission
APPROVES PCD/GPC 95-03, based on the following findings:
Pindings: .
1. Consistent with Section 65402(a) of the California Planning and Zoning Law, the
location purpose and extent of the partial street vacation of Christiansen Way has
been submitted to the Planning Commission; and
2. Planning Commission has determined that the partial street vacation including the
proposed improvements are consistent with Circulation Element policies for streets,
traffic control, and alternate modes of transportation since: 1) City street design
standards were used as guidelines in the review of the Christiansen Way partial
street vacation. The reduced right-of-way width will adequately result in a new
roadway design consisting of 14’ wide travel lanes in both directions, 90 degree
onstreet parking, and 5’ sidewalks; 2) although 14 onstreet parking spaces along
Christiansen Way will be lost, the project will result in a minimum increase of 14
public parking spaces in the immediate vicinity and improved pedestrian circulation
and access to the beach due to the construction by the applicant of a 51 space public
parking lot including landscaping and sidewalk within the unimproved Garfield
Street right-of-way and the redesign of Grand Avenue to add diagonal parking, and
curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements on streets surrounding the project.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of September,
1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, Monroy
and Savary
NOES: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSENT: Commissioner Noble
ABSTAIN:
IUhdWELSHONS, Chairperson
CARLSBADPLANNIN G COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MI~HAELJ.#~L~~&ILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3801 -2- isi
EXHIBIT 6
Re~ofcar~~Dt)~~ A REPORT TO m DESItdil REVIEW BOARD
AND TRE PLUNING COMMISSION
Item No. 1 0
Application complete date: November 21,
P.C. AGENDA OF: August 16, 1995 1994
Project Planner: Anne Hysong
Project Engineer: Mike Shirey
SUBJECT: LCPA 9507/RP 94-06KDP 94-06KUP 94-lO/HDP 94-08/V 94-Ol/PCD/GPC
95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME - Request to amend
the Village Redevelopment local Coastal Program, and requests for a major
redevelopment permit, coastal development permit, conditional use permit,
hillside development permit, height variance, and General Plan Consistency
Determination to allow the redevelopment of the existing Carlsbad by the Sea
Lutheran Home located at 2855 Carlsbad Boulevard and 201 Grand Avenue
in the VR/R-3/BAO zones and Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION:
Desim Review Board:
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 228 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Design
Review Board Resolution Nos. 229, 230 and 231 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
of LCPA 95-07, RP 94-06, and CDP 94-06 based upon the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
Plan&P Commission:
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3790
APPROVING the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Resolution Nos. 3791, 3792,
3793, and 3801 APPROVING CUP 94-10, HDP 94-08, V 94-01, and PCD/GPC 95-03
based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION:
This application proposes the redevelopment of the existing Carlsbad by the Sea
Lutheran Home (CLH) professional care facility and includes a request for numerous
LCPA 95-07/RP 94fi/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-lO/HDP 94-081
V 94-01/PCD/GPC 9543 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
AUGUST 16, 1995
permits necessitated by the multiple zoning districts involved, overlapping coastal
jurisdictions, and unique physical and functional characteristics of both the site and
proposed development. As discussed below, with the approval of the Local Coastal
Program Amendment to allow CLH to continue to operate as a non-visitor serving
commercial use and approval of variances to height and setback standards for which
the necessary justification is provided, the project complies with the policies and
regulations of each of the applicable coastal programs and zoning districts.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPI’ION AND BACKGROUND
Due to the complexity of the project, staff recommends that the reader refer to the
reduced exhibits, Attachments “A-l”, “A” - “R” and “T” through “V” which identify
the various zone and coastal program boundaries, locations of the requested variance
requests, and architectural features discussed in the following project description.
The attachments contain the same lettering as the corresponding full sized exhibits.
This project consists of the demolition, redevelopment, and expansion of the
Carlsbad by the Sea Lutheran Home located at 2855 Carlsbad Boulevard and 201
Grand Avenue. The existing professional care use will not change, however, the
project requires a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) to exempt Carlsbad
by the Sea Lutheran Home from the Village Redevelopment LCP requirement for
visitor commercial uses on the entire ground floor of all projects in Sub-area 5. The
proposed project will increase the overall size of the existing facility, add a structure
to the vacant parcel west of Ocean Street, and increase the size and number of
commercial living units in the professional care facility from 102 living units and 59
skilled nursing beds to 159 living units, 33 skilled nursing beds, and 2 visitor units.
As shown on Attachment “B”, the skilled nursing facility will be relocated from its
existing location on Parcel B to the second floor of the proposed main facility on
Parcel A, and the new facility proposed on Parcel B will consist of living units and
a therapy center.
The existing main structure fronting Carlsbad Boulevard is multi-story, approximately
36.5 feet in height, and,identified as a locally significant historic structure requiring
mitigation under CEQA. It was constructed partially of unreinforced concrete
masonry in 1929, and currently is not in compliance with local and state seismic code
requirements. The applicant’s decision to redevelop rather than rehabilitate the
existing facility stems from the estimated cost of seismically retrofitting the main
structure along with costs for major upgrades to the aging plumbing, heating, and
electrical systems. The applicant has also indicated that the existing facility is no
longer competitive with other comparable professional care facilities due to
accessibility problems and living units, which are converted hotel rooms that are too
few, too small and poorly configured.
As shown on Attachments “A-l” and “B”, the existing and proposed Carlsbad by the
Sea Lutheran Home consists of multiple structures on three separate parcels which
LCPA 95-O7/RP 94-06/CDP 94-O6/CUP 94-lO/HDP 94X)8/
V 94-01/PCD/GPC 9543 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
AUGUST 16, 1995
have multiple General Plan designations and are subject to multiple zoning and local
coastal plan (LCP) regulations as described below:
Parcel A, now containing the main facility, is a 2.3 acre parcel dropping in elevation
13’ from east to west and occupying the entire block bounded by Carlsbad Boulevard,
Ocean Street, Christiansen Way, and Grand Avenue. The existing facility provides
no onsite parking and utilizes onstreet public parking to satisfy its parking demand.
The General Plan designated land use for the portion of the property located within
the Village Redevelopment boundaries is “Village”, which is implemented by the V-R
zoning ordinance, Village Design Manual (Sub-area 5), and V-R LCP. The portion
of the parcel located west of the Village Redevelopment boundaries is designated by
the General Plan for medium high density residential (RMH) land use, is subject to
the R-3/Beach Area Overlay (BAO) zoning ordinances, and the Mello II LCP. The
proposed redevelopment of Parcel A requires approval of a local coastal program
amendment, major redevelopment permit including a height exemption, coastal
development permit, and conditional use permit, as well as a Planning Commission
Determination of General Plan Consistency for the partial street vacation of
Christiansen Way.
Parcel B is a .9 acre lot fronting Carlsbad Boulevard south of Grand Avenue. The
site is currently occupied by a 59 bed skilled nursing facility with 16 onsite parking
spaces, which was approved by conditional use permit in 1973 and constructed in
1974. Parcel B, designated by the General Plan for Village land uses, is subject to
the V-R zoning ordinance, the Village Design Manual (Sub-area 5), and V-R LCP.
The proposed redevelopment of Parcel B requires approval of a local coastal
program amendment, major redevelopment permit, and coastal development permit.
The redevelopment permit and coastal development permit will supersede the
previous unnumbered conditional use permit.
Parcel C, a vacant, 12,600 square foot ocean front lot west of Ocean Street, is
designated for high density residential (RH) land use and is subject to the R-3 and
BAO zoning ordinances as well as the Hillside Development Ordinance due to its
severe (coastal bluff) topography. This parcel is also subject to the Mello II LCP.
The proposed development of Parcel C requires approval of a conditional use permit,
hillside development permit, and variance to height and setback standards.
Parcels A and B are surrounded by the Town Center and Ocean Manor Motel
commercial developments to the south and west, the Cove Restaurant, Ah Karlsbad,
and commercial shops to the east, the Best Western Beach Terrace Inn and St.
Michael’s Church to the North, and residential development in the Beach Area to
the west. Parcel C is surrounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west, residential
development to the north and south, and the CLH project to the east.
As shown on Attachment “L”, the proposed design replicates the front facade of the
existing main structure along Carlsbad Boulevard and retains a central court yard in
the main facility. The replication of the existing 36.5’ front facade is required as
LCPA 95-07/RP 94a/GDP 94-06jCUP 94-lO/HDP 94-081
V 94-Ol/PCD/GPC 95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
AUGUST 16, 1995
mitigation for demolishing the locally significant structure and results in building
height along Carlsbad Boulevard which exceeds the 35’ maximum. Within the V-R
Zone, the proposed structures (Parcels A and B) will be three story above
subterranean parking garages. The main structure (Parcel A) will terrace down to
two stories in the BAO zone east of Ocean Street. As shown on Attachments “L”
& “P”, a driveway ramp located along the northern elevation of the main structure
provides access to subterranean parking garages and results in building height which
exceeds the maximum at that location. Although Parcel B is completely within the
VR Zone, a terraced design will be provided to create a transition from three stories
to two stories along the Garfield Street frontage to ensure compatibility with the
smaller scale development located west of Garfield Street within the BAOZ (see
Attachment I‘M”). Additionally, since Parcel B abuts the Town Center commercial
development to the south, the facility is designed to orient living units away from the
commercial development. The structure located on Parcel C west of Ocean Street
is three stories along its western elevation, however, as shown on Attachments “M”
and ‘T”, its flat roof, which is only 5’ above grade along Ocean Street, will be utilized
as a roof garden. This structure, which exceeds the allowed building height, requires
a variance to the BAOZ building height standard of 24’ and two stories. It will also
require a variance to the 20’ front setback standard due to the provision of a partially
subterranean parking garage within the front setback, and an administrative variance
to the required 9’ side yard setback due to suspended exterior landings which provide
access to units along the sides of the structure.
The project will provide a total of 233 onsite parking spaces in subterranean garages
located beneath all three structures. As designed, the project requires a partial
vacation of Christiansen Way excess right-of-way from 80’ to 38’ resulting in the loss
of 26 public parking spaces along that right-of-way (See Attachments “B” and “P”.)
As mitigation for the loss of public parking, the applicant proposes to construct a 51
space public parking lot within the unimproved Garfield Street right-of-way located
between Christiansen Way and Beech Avenue (See Attachment “A”). Also included
in the proposed mitigation is: 1) the redesign of the existing Grand Avenue 100’
right-of-way to add a 22’ wide landscaped parkway including a 10’ wide promenade
(sidewalk) to the beach access at the end of Grand Avenue and the addition of
diagonal parking on the south side of Grand Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard
and Garfield Street (see Attachment ‘7”‘); and 2) street improvements surrounding
the project which will formalize public onstreet parking and improve pedestrian
circulation. These mitigation measures are discussed in the Analysis Section of this
report under Conditional Uses - Traffic Issues.
Since the portion of the project within the VR zone requires a recommendation by
the Design Review Board and approval by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission, and the portion of the project within the R-3/BAO zone requires
Planning Commission approval, staff has scheduled a joint Design Review Board/Planning Commission public hearing. Separate resolutions are attached for
the DRB, which will make a recommendation to the Housing and Redevelopment
/23-
LCPA 9547/RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-lO/HDP 94-081
V 94-Ol/PCD/GPC 95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
AUGUST 16, 1995
PAGE 5
Commission on the redevelopment and coastal development permits, and the
Planning Commission, whose decision is final for the conditional use permit, hillside
development permit, and variance. If either the DRB or Planning Commission deny
the project, the applicant must appeal the decision(s) to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission and/or City Council. All project approvals will be
contingent upon City Council approval of a partial Christansen Way street vacation,
and City approval of this project will be contingent upon approval by the California
Coastal Commission of the LCPA and coastal development permits for the entire
project.
To summarize the above, the project is subject to the following land use plans,
policies, programs, and zoning regulations:
A. General Plan
1) Partial Street Vacation - Christiansen Way
B. Mello II and Village Redevelopment Local Coastal Programs
C. Conditional Use Ordinance (Chapter 21.42 of the Zoning Ordinance)
D. V-R Zoning Ordinance/Village Design Manual
E. R-3/BAO Zoning Ordinances
1) Planning Department Administrative Policy #15 (Roof Decks)
F. Exemptions (Chapter 21.35.130 of the V-R Zoning Ordinance) and Variance
Ordinance (Chapter 21.50 of the Zoning Ordinance)
G. Hillside Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.95 of the Zoning Ordinance)
H. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance)
Iv. ANALYSIS
Staffs recommendation of approval for this project is based upon the following
analysis of the project’s consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed
above. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these
regulations/policies utilizing tables and text depicting and describing consistency with
policies, ordinances, and standards.
k General Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General
Plan. The table below indicates how the project complies with the Land Use,
LCPA 95-07/RP 94a/GDP 94-06/CUP 94-lO/HDP 94-081
V 94-Ol/PCD/GPC 95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
AUGUST 16, 1995
Circulation, Noise, and Open Space elements of the General Plan which are
particularly relevant to this proposal.
1) Partial Street Vacation - Christiansen Way
Consistent with Section 65402(a) of the California Planning and Zoning Law, no
street shall be vacated if the adopted general plan applies thereto until the location,
purpose and extent of such street vacation has been submitted to and reported upon
by the planning agency as to conformity with the adopted general plan.
The applicant is requesting the partial vacation of Christiansen Way to construct a
driveway ramp within the southern half of the right-of-way. The driveway ramp will
provide access to two levels of onsite subterranean parking garages. The proposed
partial street vacation will reduce both the right-of-way width and curb-to-curb width
of Christiansen Way between Carlsbad Boulevard and Ocean Street. This segment
of Christiansen Way is a local, two-lane street with parking on both sides within 46’ of curb-to-curb width and 80’ of right-of-way. City standards for local streets require
only 60’ of right-of-way and 40’ of curb-to-curb width allowing for two 12’ wide travel
lanes and parallel parking on both sides.
The proposed partial street vacation will reduce Christiansen Way to 38’ of right-of-
way width between Carlsbad Boulevard and Garfield Street and to 56’ of right-of-way
width between Garfield Street and Ocean Street. The reduction in right-of-way will
result in a roadway which is 28’ wide from curb-to-curb with 14’ wide travel lanes in
each direction. The proposed partial vacation to 28’ of curb-to-curb width is
consistent with City standards since two 14’ wide travel lanes will be provided and no
parking will be allowed within this 28’ roadway section. While 26 public parking
spaces will be lost along Christiansen Way, there will be no net loss of public parking
spaces due to the construction by the applicant of a public parking lot within the
Garfield Street right-of-way and the redesign of Grand Avenue to add diagonal
parking spaces. Since CLH currently uses onstreet public parking to satisfy their
parking demand, the proposed construction of the driveway ramp and onsite parking
garages will result in an actual increase of public parking available in the immediate
project vicinity.
Christiansen Way currently operates at level of service (LOS) A, and traffic at peak
hour is at 50% of its capacity. The proposed roadway capacity will not change due
to the reduction in width, and it will continue to operate at LOS “A” upon completion of the project. Additionally, sidewalks proposed on both sides of the
Christiansen Way right-of-way will improve pedestrian circulation along this road
segment which currently provides no sidewalks except along the St. Michael’s
frontage.
The partial street vacation including the proposed improvements are consistent with
the General Plan Circulation Element as specified in the table below; therefore, this
report fulfills the Section 65402(a) planning agency report requirement.
LCI’A 95-07/RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-lO/HDP 94-081
V 94-Ol/PCD/GPC 95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
AUGUST 16, 1995
PAGE 7
GENERAL PLAN
PERMITI’ED
lZLEMENT USE/POLICY/STANDARD
PROPOSED LAND
USE/STANDARD COMPLIANCE
Land Use Village/RMH/RH - allows Professional Care Facility *Yes
commercial uses as specified by (commercial service
the Village Design Manual, and providing living units but
medium high and high density not subject to residential
residential uses. density regulations).
Circulation Streets and Traffic
Control
1. Redesign of reduced
Christiansen Way right-
Streets and Traffic Control of-way and Grand Avenue
right-of-way to City
standards. C.3. Use the City’s street design 2
standards as guidelines for what is ’
Construction of 51
reasonable and desirable. Allow space public parking lot
variations to occur in accordance within the existing
with established City Policy Garfield Street right-of-
regarding engineering standards I;“” Provision of onsite
variances. .
c.14. Encourage joint subterranean parking
public/private efforts to improve garages will alleviate use
of onstreet parking, and parking and circulation in the improvement of Yes
developed areas.
C.15. Encourage increased public existing rights-of-way will
parking in the Village and beach
maease available onstreet
areas of the City. public parking.
Alternate Modes of AlAl Trans
C.l. Encourage the construction l
of sidewalks along all public ’ Construction of
roadways with special emphasis sidewalks along all project
given to....areas with high frontages including a
pedestrian traf& generators such promenade to the beach acceSS at the terminus of as . . . . . . beaches . . . . Grand Avenue, and a
sidewalk along the
Garfield Street parking
lot.
Noise 60 CNEL Exterior
45 CNEL Interior
60 CNEL Exterior
45 CNEL Interior
**Yes
LCPA 95-07/RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-lO/HDP 94-08/
V 94-Ol/PCD/GPC 95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
AUGUST 16, 1995
PAGE 8
+en Space Historical & Cultural Preservation
A.1 A city in which its existing
and continuing heritage is
protected, preserved,
recognized and enhanced.
B.2 To promote the use of
historic resources for the
education, pleasure and
welfare of the people of the
City.
he propose1
C.3 Provide landmark
identifications of designated
cultural resources.
C.7 Incorporate the Cultural
Resource Guidelines in the
environmental review of
development applications.
professional care facility is a corn
Historical & Cultural
Preservation
1. Replication of
his torical Carlsbad
Mineral Springs Hotel
front facade
2. H i s t o r i c a 1
documentation
including photographs,
material inventory, and
an informational video
shall be kept on file in
the Carlsbad City
Library.
Yes
characteristics; therefore, it is consistent with both commercial and high density residential landuses.
**The preliminary noise report concludes that the only exterior areas subject to noise levels above
60 dB are the Parcel B balconies located along Carlsbad Boulevard. According to the preliminary
noise report, the existing exterior noise level is 67 dB with a projected future noise level of 70 dB.
In accordance with the City’s Noise Guidelines, the outdoor balconies, which are less than 6’ deep,
are exempt from the 60 CNEL exterior noise standard. All other outdoor areas within the project
are at or below 60 CNEL Due to extensive roof equipment located on the roof of the main
structure (Parcel A), an analysis was performed to ensure that the proposed roof screens and noise
barriers are adequate to avoid any increase in existing noise levels at the project boundaries. The
existing 60 CNEL noise level along the Ocean Street frontage will increase to approximately 61
CNEL with proposed sound attenuation design measures due to noise generated by roof equipment;
therefore, the project has been conditioned to require additional sound attenuation measures/devices
to ensure that noise levels do not exceed existing noise levels at project boundaries prior to
occupancy.
B. Mello II and Village Redevelopment Local Coastal Programs
1. Mello II Local Coastal Program
The portion of the project (Parcel C) located in the Mello II LCP is consistent with
the relevant Land Use Plan policies for erosion control, bluff stabilility, stringline
setbacks seaward of Ocean Street, and shoreline access. Required compliance with
the recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical report will ensure slope stability
and avoid further erosion of the beach front property. A foundation/seawall is
proposed “in-line” with existing seawalls to the northwest and southeast in order to
prevent accelerated erosion or scour within comer areas between adjacent walls. As
shown on Attachment “B”, the required seaward stringline setback is provided by the
project thereby ensuring the required lateral public beach access. Vertical access is
LCPA 95-wjRP 94-06/CDP 94-O6/CUP 94-lO/HDP 94-08/
V 94-Ol/PCD/GPC 95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
AUGUST 16, 1995
currently provided by existing public access stairways located within 60’ of the project
to the north and south at the terminus’ of Grand Avenue and Christiansen Way.
The project site has been used historically as a private, fenced viewing area by
Carlsbad by the Sea residents and provides no direct public access to the beach. As
shown on Attachment “M”, the visual access to the beach available from Ocean
Street will be preserved to the maximum extent possible through project design which
incorporates a flat roof deck approximately 5’ above grade at Ocean Street. The only
proposed roof deck structures are two 13’ high storage and elevator enclosures, and
a windscreen consisting of columns at 10’ - 15’ intervals which are connected by glass.
Improvements which will formalize public parking and improve pedestrian and
vehicular access to the beach include curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of
Christiansen Way and Ocean Street, the landscaped enhancement of a 22’ wide
parkway on the North side of Grand Avenue, including a 10’ wide promenade
(sidewalk) to the beach, and the construction of a 51 space public parking lot in the
unimproved Garfield Street right-of-way.
2. Village Redevelopment Local Coastal Program
The Village Design Manual is the zoning document implementing the local coastal
program for the redevelopment area. The manual specifies uses and development
standards for each of seven sub-areas. A portion of the proposed project is located
within Sub-area 5 which is located entirely within the coastal zone. Developments
entirely devoted to visitor commercial uses are preferred in this area, however, the
document requires that “the entire ground floor of all projects shall be devoted to
visitor commercial uses. Mixed use projects which do not meet this criteria......shall
require approval by the Coastal Commission or its executive director as an
amendment to the Local Coastal Program.”
The applicant is requesting a Local Coastal Program Amendment to remove CLH
from the requirement for ground floor visitor commercial uses. CLH is not
proposing to add a visitor commercial use on the ground floor of their project since
the main facility, which will house the skilled nursing facility on the second floor, will
provide amenities such as dining room, chapel, and administrative offices on the first
floor above grade, similar to the existing project. Functional problems associated
with this type of private care facility preclude the integration of a visitor serving commercial use on the ground floor. The adjacent structure south of Grand Avenue
wilI house residential living units and provide amenities geared to more active
residents, however the facility is primarily residential. Compliance with the multiple
zone regulations applicable to the CLH parcels as welI as the provision of a visitor
serving commercial use on the entire first floor would functionally disrupt the entire
professional care operation and substantially reduce the number of living units
proposed by the applicant.
A land use inventory of existing visitor serving commercial uses and the potential for
future visitor serving uses in Sub-area 5 was performed to verify that adequate visitor
LCPA 95-07/RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-lO/HDP 94-081
V 94-Ol/PCD/GPC 95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
AUGUST 16, 1995
PAGE 10
commercial uses are currently available and will be available in the future. The
inventory excludes the existing institutional uses (Carlsbad by the Sea, St. Michael’s
Church, Army Navy Academy) from the existing and future inventory since these uses
are desirable to the community and are being proposed as allowable uses by the new
Village Master Plan until they cease to operate at their current locations.
The result of the land use survey is that adequate visitor commercial uses, including
parks, are currently available in Sub-area 5 (coastal zone) and that adequate area is
reserved to satis@ future demand for visitor commercial uses. As the inventory and
accompanying analysis indicate, nearly half of the 49 developable acres within Sub-
area 5 are currently developed with visitor serving commercial uses and parks while
another 8 acres will become visitor commercial uses when redeveloped. Therefore,
with approximately two-thirds of the area either currently developed with or reserved
for future visitor serving uses, the retention of approximately 2.56 acres (.5%) of land in Sub-area 5 to accommodate the long standing CLH professional care facility, and
a total of 35% of the area if all of the institutional uses are retained, will not
significantly impact the availability of visitor serving commercial uses in the Village
coastal zone.
C. Conditional Uses (Chapter 21.42 of the Zoning Ordinance)
In the V-R and R-3/I3AO zones, the proposed professional care facility is allowed as a
conditional use. Conditional uses in any zone are generally allowed if the use is necessary
or desirable for the development of the community, compatible with surrounding uses, and
consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, the site and street system must be adequate
to accommodate the use and the project design must be integrated into the neighborhood.
General Plan Consistencv and Compatibilitv
Both the CLH use and facility are considered necessary and desirable to satisfy the needs
of the elderly in the community, and the use is consistent with residential and commercial
land uses designated for the area by the General Plan. The fact that the professional care
facility has occupied the site for 40 years without incident is evidence of its compatibility
with the neighborhoocl, and although the proposed facility will be expanded so that its scale
and operation are increased, the following project design features will integrate the project
into the existing neighborhood: 1) replication of the historic Carlsbad Mineral Springs
Hotel architecture; 2) terraced-down architectural design in which development will be
smaller in scale in the beach area; 3) addition of onsite, subterranean parking garages; 4)
orientation of Parcel B living units away from the southern property line to the greatest
extent possible by locating stairways and an outdoor recreation area along the southerly
property line and limiting south facing windows in order to buffer units from adjacent
commercial development; and 5) enhanced landscaping including the retention and/or
replacement of numerous palm trees existing on the site.
/3/
LCPA 95-O7/RP 94dI6/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-lO/HDP 94X)8/
V 94-Ol/PCD/GPC 95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
AUGUST 16, 1995
Traffic Issues (Street System and Parking\
With the proposed street vacation and right-of-way improvements, the street system serving
the project, which includes Carlsbad Boulevard, Grand Avenue, Christiansen Way, and
Ocean Street, will be adequate to serve the project. A redesign of the street system
surrounding CLH is proposed due to the addition of onsite parking in subterranean parking
garages. With onsite parking available for only 16 vehicles, the existing CLH facility utilizes
surrounding onstreet public parking to satisfy its staff, resident, and visitor parking needs.
As shown on the parking table on Attachment “A”, there is a total of 100 parking spaces
available on the roadways directly adjacent to the site and an additional 30 parking spaces
available in the unimproved Garfield Street right-of- way, directly north of the project.
However, many of these parking spaces are currently being utilized by CLH staft’, residents,
and visitors of the existing facility, thereby making them unavailable to the public. As shown
on Attachment “P”, the expansion of the facility and the provision of a driveway ramp to
access onsite subterranean parking garages, necessitates a project design requiring the partial
vacation of the Christiansen Way excess right-of-way from 80 feet to 38 feet (28 foot
roadway, no parking, and two 5 foot sidewalks) and a redesign of the existing 100’ Grand
Avenue right-of-way. The narrowing of Christiansen Way to two lanes with no parking on
either side will not reduce the level of service or reduce access to any properties located
north of Christiansen Way, however, it will result in the loss of 26 onstreet public parking
spaces. As mitigation for the loss of public parking spaces, the applicant has agreed to: 1)
construct an offsite 51 space public parking lot within the unimproved Garfield Street right-
of-way, north of the project between Christiansen Way and Beech Avenue (see Attachment
“A”); 2) enhance the Grand Avenue 100’ right-of-way between Carlsbad Boulevard and
Ocean Street including the addition of a 22’ wide landscaped promenade (10’ sidewalk) on
the north side and diagonal parking spaces will replace parallel spaces along the south
project frontage, and a redesign of the Grand Avenue/Carlsbad Boulevard intersection (see
Attachment “T”); and 3) construct curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements within the
Ocean Street, Christiansen Way, and Garfield Street rights-of-way. The above
improvements will result in a net increase of two public parking spaces in the immediate
project vicinity.
To accomplish the Grand Avenue improvements, the west “leg” of the Grand
Avenue/CarIsbad Boulevard intersection must be narrowed. This narrowing will change the
geometries of the intersection which will result in a potential modification to the existing
traffic signal operation. The project’s traffic report analyzed what effect any modifications
to the traffic signal would have on the existing operation of this intersection. In summary,
the traffic report states that additional delay for movements on Carlsbad Boulevard may be
incurred; however, this additional delay would be minimal and is considered insignificant.
According to the Traffic Report, the result of the proposed roadway redesigns, including the
partial vacation of Christiansen Way, is that there will be a net gain of two public parking
spaces, roadways will operate at the same level of service as existing, and pedestrian
circulation and safety will be improved due to the addition of curbs and sidewalks along all
street frontages including the north side of Christiansen Way and both sides of the Garfield
LCPA 95-07/RP 94-06/CDP 94-O6/CUP 94-lO/HDP 94-08/
V 94-Ol/PCD/GPC 9543 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
AUGUST 16, 1995
PAGE 12
Street parking lot. With the addition of onsite parking, the CLH project will result in an
actual gain of approximately 46 onstreet public parking spaces currently utilized by residents and staff.
D. 4% E. V-R Zoning Ordinance/Village Design Manual and R3/BAO Zoning Ordinance
The project complies with all standards and design criteria specified by the applicable
ordinances except for building height at two locations in the V-R Zone and building height
and setback standards in the R-3/BAOZ on Parcel C. Variances to these standards have
been requested, and justification required for granting variances and exemptions to
standards is provided below.
IT COMPLIANCE WITH V-R ZONE AND R3/BAO ZONk STANDARDS
STANDARD
Lot Coverage
Front Yard Setback
Street Side Yard Setback
Side Yard Setback
Rear Yard Setback
Building Height
Parking (Chapter 21.44
of the Zoning Ordinance
REQUIRED PROPOSED
V-R Zone - 80%;
R-3/BAOZ - 60%
Parcel A: V-R Zone - 62%;
R-3fBAO zone - 54%;
Parcel B: V-R Zone - 64%
Parcel C: R3/BAO zone - 57%
V-R Zone - N/A
R-3/BAOZ - 20’
Parcel A - V-R Zone - 25.75’
R-3/BAOZ - 20’
Parcel B - V-R Zone - 20’
(Carlsbad Blvd.) - 10
(Garfield Street)
Parcel C - R-3/Zone - 2’-11.92’*
V-R Zone - N/A
R-3/BAOZ - 10’
Parcel A - V-R Zone - 10’ min.
R-3/BAOZ - 10’ min.
Parcel B - V-R Zone - 10’ min.
R-3JBAOZ - 9’ I Parcel C - R-3/BAOZ - 5’ min.*
R/3/BAOZ - 18’ Parcel C - 18’
Mello II - Stringline Setback Stringline setback provided
V-R Zone - 35’ Parcel A -
R-3jBAOZ - 24’ (Flat roof)
30’ (Pitched roof)
Building Height Protrusions:
(Chapter 21.46.020) - Roof
structures for housing
elevators and roof equipment;
parapets which do not provide
additional floor space or
enclose the intended use.
V-R Zone - 35’ -40.75’*
R-3/BAOZ - 23’(Flat)
- 27.5’ (Pitched)
Parcel B - V-R Zone - 35’
Parcel C - R-3/BAOZ - 5’ to 39’*
Building Height Protrusions:
8’ Mechanical Equipment Screen;
18” parapet; Elevator Enclosures
1 space/.45 beds = 132
spaces 233 spaces (subterranean garage)
/33
LCPA 95-07/RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-lO/HDP 94-08/
V 94-Ol/PCD/GPC 95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
AUGUST 16, 1995
PAGE 13
* Does not ccmply with standard and requires an exemption in the V-R Zone or a Variance in the BAOZ. See Exemption/Variance discussion below.
1. Planning Department Administrative Policv No. 15 - Roof Decks in the BAOZ .
Administrative Policy No. 15 limits the area of roof decks to 25% of the building footprint within the BAOZ. The intent of this policy was to limit development
intensity, discourage flat roof structures, and avoid potential privacy concerns from
surrounding development due to excessive roof deck areas. Policy No. 15 was not
applied to the Parcel C development since the proposed roof deck is under one-half
story in height along Ocean Street thereby limiting its intensity as well as avoiding
privacy concerns of neighbors whose development is more intense. Although flat
roof structures are normally not as architecturally desirable as pitched roof structures,
the flat roof deck will visually enhance the street scene since it will maximize public
views of the ocean and consists of 31% landscaping which far exceeds the area of
landscaping provided by other projects along Ocean Street, and it maximizes
potential public views of the ocean.
F. Exemptions/Variances
1. Exemptions (Section 21.35.130 of the Zoning Ordinance)
Exceptions to the V-R zone standards are permitted if the application of these
standards would result in practical difficulties which would make development
inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Plan, and there are exceptional circumstances or conditions
unique to the property proposed for development which do not generally
apply to other properties having the same standards. Also, granting the
exemption must not have a detrimental affect on the public welfare or other
properties in the project area or contradict the V-R zone standards.
As shown on Attachment “L”, the main facility located on Parcel A complies
with building height standards at all locations except two where it exceeds the
35’ building height standard: 1) the frontage along Carlsbad Boulevard; and
2) the northern building elevation adjacent to the driveway ramp. The highest
point of the existing front facade is 36.5’ and the proposed project is required
to replicate the front facade as mitigation for demolishing a locally significant
historic building. This requirement represents a practical difficulty in
redeveloping this project site.
The 35’ height standard is also exceeded along the northern building elevation
due to the placement of a driveway ramp providing access to subterranean
parking garages. Building height is measured from grade around the
structure, and the driveway ramp adjacent to the building at this location
precludes the creation of the same grade elevation as that proposed along the
LCPA 95-O7/RP 94-06/CDP 94a/CUP 94-lO/HDP 94-08/
V 94-Ol/PCD/GPC 95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
AUGUST 16, 1995
PAGE 14
southern building elevation where building height complies with the 35’ height
standard.
Parcel A is unique in the area due to its multiple land use and zoning
designations requiring the imposition of different height, coverage, and
setback standards. The application of three different height standards (35’,
30’ pitched roof, 24’ flat roof) to a parcel which drops in elevation by 13’ from
east to west are exceptional circumstances not generally applicable to other
properties in the vicinity since there are no other properties with multiple
zoning, and most other smaller parcels in the area have relatively flat
topography. The proposed project is terraced down from east to west to
comply with the height standards, however, the structural and functional
requirements of the skilled nursing facility do not permit terracing to occur
at the location where building height is exceeded. The building code for
skilled nursing facilities requires a three foot floor separation not required by
the remainder of the facility (see Attachment “L”). The above described
practical difficulties and unique conditions therefore preclude adherence to
the 35’ standard along Carlsbad Boulevard and Christiansen Way.
Additionally, the additional height at these locations will not detrimentally
impact adjacent projects which are non-residential and separated by roadways.
The granting of height exemptions at the above described locations will not
contradict the standards established in the Village Design Manual since the
35’ maximum building height standard is adhered to at all locations except two
where practical difficulties and/or unique circumstances and conditions exist.
2. Variances (Chapter 21.50 of the Zoning Ordinance)
Variances to the BAOZ building height standard and to the R-3 Zone front
yard setback standard are necessary for the proposed development on Parcel
C, due to exceptional circumstances involving: 1) development and site
constraints which include radically sloping topography; 2) City standards and
policies requiring onsite parking; 3) a seaward stringline setback; 4) additional
street dedication; 5) a 20’ front yard structural setback, and 6) a maximum
building height of 24’ (flat roof) and two stories. The application of these
standards without zoning relief would substantially reduce the development
potential of the parcel; and in fact, numerous height and setback variances
have previously been granted for properties located to the north and south on
Ocean Street. The project is exceptional in that the flat roof of the structure
will function as a landscaped roof deck which is 5’ above grade along Ocean
Street with two small 13’ high storage/elevator structures and a columned and
glass wind screen around its perimeter (see Attachments “B”, “M”, and ‘7”).
The roof deck encloses a partially subterranean parking garage which
encroaches 9’ into the 20’ front yard setback along Ocean Street. A
handicapped access ramp and stairway access to the roof deck further
/35-
LCPA 9547/RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-lO/HDP 94X@/
V 94-Ol/PCD/GPC 95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
AUGUST 16, 1995
encroach to within approximately 2’ of the new front property line created
after dedication of a 5’ of right-of-way for curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
The location of garages in front yard setbacks along Ocean Street have
resulted from steep topography which limits automobile access to the blufftop
along Ocean Street, and the need to provide multiple onsite parking spaces
within the blufftop area to satisfy the parking demand for high density
development. Beyond the garage, the structure extends over the bluff to a
three story, 39’ high structure along its western elevation. As shown on
Attachment “M”, the structure is consistent with the building height and two
story requirement for approximately 50% of its footprint, however,
development over the bluff and adherence to the stringline setback
necessitates additional building height around and within the westerly half of
the structure.
The proposed development on Parcel C is less intense and therefore compatible with surrounding development since the location of a partially
subterranean garage which is only 5’ above grade within the front yard setback
is consistent with existing development to the north and south. Additionally
the 39’ high, three story structure within the westerly half of the lot will be
lower in height than existing adjacent development. The proposed
architectural design, in which only a 5’ high structure with a landscaped roof
deck is visible along Ocean Street, will visually enhance the area while
retaining some visual access to the beach from Ocean Street.
The proposed height and setback variances will not adversely affect the
General Plan since the proposed use is consistent with allowed uses in the
area, and the proposed development is similar in scale and orientation to
surrounding development. The project is consistent with all relevant policies
and action programs specified by the General Plan.
Planning Director approval of an administrative variance permitting reduced
side yard setback is also required for the project. The necessary variance
findings for reduced side yard setbacks can be made; therefore, Planning’
Director has approved the Administrative Variance AV 95-05 contingent upon
final approval of the project.
G. Hillside Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.95 of the Zoning Ordinance)
Hillside Development Permits are required for projects proposing development on
all properties with a slope of 15% or greater and an elevation differential greater
than fifteen feet. The intent of the Hillside Ordinance is to preserve the natural
appearance of hillsides by assuring that development density and intensity relates to
the slope of the land and is compatible with hillside preservation through proper
grading and building designs. Although the Hillside Ordinance precludes
development on 40%+ slopes, it provides for the exclusion of slopes which are less
than 15’ in height and less than 4,000 square feet in area which are not a part of the
surrounding generalized slope.
Parcel C is a vacant, infill, beach-front property which terraces down to the beach
and includes a coastal bluff which slopes radically to the west. This terraced contour
consists of three 40%+ slope areas, each less than 15’ in height. The total area of
these slopes is less than 4,000 square feet. Properties to the north and south have
developed over the 40% bluff so that the surrounding generalized slope has been
altered through grading and building coverage. Structures, decks, and seawalls have
been developed to the toe of the bluff and beyond thereby eliminating preservation
of the surrounding generalized slope.
As required by the Hillside Ordinance, the areas of 40% slope have been identified
(see Exhibit “R”), however, they are excluded from the provisions of the Hillside
Development Ordinance due to their limited nature and impact on surrounding slope
areas.
H. Growth Management (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance)
The proposed project, located in Local Facilities Management Zone 1, consists of the
redevelopment of an existing professional care facility. Its commercial living units
are not considered dwelling units; therefore, growth management standards based
upon population and density are not applicable. The impacts created by the
development on public facilities and compliance with the adopted performance
standards are summarized as follows:
STANDARD
City Administration
Library
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Water
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
IMPACTS COMF’UANCE
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Not Applicable Not Applicable
192 EDU Yes
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Drainage Basin A Yes
879 ADT Yes
Fire Station 1 Yes
.41 acres Yes
Not Applicable Not Applicable
192 EDU Yes
LCPA 95-07/RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-lO/HDP 94481
V 94-Ol/PCD/GPC 95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
AUGUST 16, 1995
PAGE 16
137
LCPA 95-07/RP 94-06tCDP 9446/CUP 94-lO/IIDP 94-081
V 94-Ol/PCD/GPC 9543 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME AUGUST 16, 1995
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the CLH project
could have a potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
As a result of said review in which potentially significant impacts involving noise generation
and the demolition of a locally significant historical structure were identified; mitigation to
reduce these impacts to insignificant levels was proposed, and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was issued by the Planning Director on March 6, 1995. The recommended
mitigation measures are based upon an historical resource survey analysis and acoustical
study performed for the project; and include: 1) the replication of the front facade of the
main structure on Parcel A, 2) historical documentation of the main facility prior to
demolition; 3) archaeological mitigation; and, 4) the reduction of noise to existing levels at
property lines prior to occupancy. These mitigation measures have been added to the
project as conditions of approval. With regard to air quality and circulation impacts, the
City’s MEIR found that they are significant and adverse and the Council adopted a
statement of overriding considerations. The project is consistent with the General Plan and
as to those effects, no additional environmental document is required.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent to the State Clearinghouse for State Public
Agency Review and one letter from the Coastal Commission was received. Staff responded
to Coastal Commission comments on June 15, 1995, and as a result of said comments, has
agreed that the project should include a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) as a
required discretionary approval not previously listed. The project now includes an
application for a LCPA which will exempt Carlsbad by the Sea Lutheran Home from the
Village (Sub-area 5) requirement that the entire ground floor be devoted to visitor serving
commercial uses.
LCPA 95-07/RP 94-06jCDP 94-06tCUP 94-lO/HDP 94-081
V 94XIl/PCD/GPC 95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
AUGUST 16, 1995
PAGE 18
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
15.
Design Review Board Resolution No. 228
Design Review Board Resolution No. 229
Design Review Board Resolution No. 230
Design Review Board Resolution No. 231
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3790
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3791
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3792
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3793
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3801 Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Statement
Reduced Exhibits (Attachments “A-l” and “A” - “Q”, and “T” - “V”)
“Village Sub-area 5 Land Use Study” prepared by ADL Planning Associates dated
July 7, 1995
Exhibits “A” - “V”, dated August 16, 1995.
AHwd:lh
July 17.1995
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: LCPA 95M/RP 94-WCDP 94-06KUP 94-lO/HDP 94-08/V 94-01/PCD/GPC 95-03
CASE NAME: Carlsbad BY The Sea Lutheran Home
APPLICANT: California Lutheran Homes
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Redevelonment of the Carlsbad bv the Sea Lutheran Home
located at 2855 Carlsbad Boulevard and 201 Grand Avenue.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attached
APN: 203-231-01: 203-232-15: 203-235-05 Acres 3.89 Proposed No. of Lots/Units N/A
(Assessor’s Parcel Number)
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation Village/RMH/RH
Density Allowed N/A Density Proposed N/A
Existing Zone V-R/R-3iBAOZ Proposed Zone Same
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
z4xlinq Land Use
Site V-R/R-3jBAOZ Carl&ad By The Sea/Vacant
North V-RJR-3tBAOZ St. Michael’s Church/Beach Terrace Inn/Residential Units
south V-R/R-3/BAOZ Town Centert0cea.n Manor Motel/Residential Units
East
West
V-R
R-3/BAOZ
Cove Restaura.nt/Alt Karlsbad Commercial Shops
Ocean Manor Motel/Residential Units/Pacific Ocean
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 192
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated July 15. 1994
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued March 6. 1995 X
- Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
PARCEL A:
BLOCK 8 AND 9 OF TOWN OF CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CAFUSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING To MAP THEREOF NO. 365, FILED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY FEBRUARY 2, 1887; ALSO ALL OF
GARFIELD STREET ADJOINING SAID BLOCKS 8 AND 9 AS VhCATED AND CLOSED TO PUBLIC
USE.
TOGETHER WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY l/2 OF CEDAR STREET AS STREET IS SHOWN ON SAID
MAP ADJOINING SAID LAND ON THE NORTHWEST WHICH UPON CLOSING WOULD REVERT, BY
OPERATION OF LAW TO THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND.
PARCEL B:
PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 3468, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, BEING A DIVISION OF A PORTION OF BLOCK 12 OF THE
TOWN OF CARLSBAD, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 535, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY.
EXCEPT FROM THE NORTHWESTERLY 125.00 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 100.00 FEET
-MEASURED ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY LINES- THEREOF, ALL OIL,
GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS, WATER -AND STEAM- AND ALL OTHER MINERALS, WHETHER
SIMILAR TO THOSE HEREIN SPECIFIED OR NOT, WITHIN OR THAT MAY BE PRODUCED FROM
SAID PARCEL, PROVIDED HOWEVER, THAT THE SURFACE OF SAID PARCEL SHALL NEVER BE
USED FOR THE EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, EXTRACTION, REMOVAL OR STORAGE OF ANY
THEREOF.
ALSO EXCEPTING THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT FROM TIME TO TIME TO DRILL AND
MAINTAIN WELLS OR OTHER WORKS INTO OR THROUGH SAID PARCEL BELOW A DEPTH OF 500
FEET AND TO PRODUCE, INJECT, STORE AND REMOVE FROM AND THROUGH SUCH HELLS, OR
WORKS, OIL, GAS, WATER AND OTHER SUBSTANCES OF WHATEVER NATURE, INCLUDING THE
RIGHT TO PERFORM ANY AND ALL OPERATIONS DEEMED BY GRANTOR NECESSARY OR
CONVENIENT FOR THE EXERCISE OF SUCH RIGHTS AS RESERVED BY STANDARD OIL COMPANY
OF CALIFORNIA, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, IN DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 22, 1968 AS
DOCUMENT NO. 205029 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL C:
LOTS 50, 51, 52 AND THE SOUTH 15 FEET OF LOT 49, IN BLOCK "A" OF MAP NO. 2 OF
THE HAYES LAND COMPANY, -INCORPORATED- ADDITION, IN CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1221, FILED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, NOVEMBER 4, 1909.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME: Carlsbad bv the Sea Lutheran Home
FILE NO: LCPA 95-07/RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-lO/HDP 94-08/V 94-Ol/PCD/GPC 95-03
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1 GENERAL PLAN: V/RMH/RH ZONING: V-R/R-3/BAOZ -
DEVELOPERS NAME: California Lutheran Homes
ADDRESS: 2312 South Freemont Ave.. Alhambra. CA 91803
PHONE NO: (818) 570-5600 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO: 203-231-01 & 203-235-05, 203-232-15
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 3.89 acres
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K. AH:V&lb
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage =
Library: Demand in Square Footage =
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: l Served by Fire Station No. =
Open Space: Acreage Provided -
Schools:
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demand in EDUs -
Identify Sub Basin -
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD -
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Drainage Basin A
879
.41 acres
N/A
192
192
J
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
~PWCANTS STATEWE% 3F XCLCSURE OF CERTAIN fJWNERSdp NEAESTg ON AU APP~JCAT~ONS.(NWK;~ ~1
~ISCRETIONASYACTION CNThEPAFIT OFTF~EC~CO~NC~LOAAN~AP~~~E~~OAAO.COMM~SS~ONORCCMM~EE.
,,P/ease Prm)
I@ 1 0 igg& I ‘
c1.l.Y 8p: CARbSfBAQ
The following information must be disclosed: ~LAkNNINQ
1. Acmlicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN HOMFS A 501 (~1 (3) NON-PR~FTT ORGANIZATION
7317 S~IITH FR-FM~NT AVFNIIF
AI WRA CA1 IFORNTA q18n?
2. - Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
r,Al TFnRNlA 1 IITHFRAN HnMFc A 501 (c) (3) NON-PROFIT ORGUIZATION 7317 SOUTH FRFMONT' AVFNIIF AI HAMRRA CAI TFnRNlA q18n7;
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnersnlp
interest in the partnership.
N/A
4. If any person identWd punumt to (I) of (2) above is a non-pro* org8rbtion of a trust, list the names and
addresses of any person sewing as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary
of the trust.
CFF ATTACHF~ ITST IARFI in
FRMooo13 w90
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 920094859 - (619) 438-l 161 /Yc5
.
? .
”
Diaclosur~ Statement
Gver)
Page 2;
5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. &arcs
Commrssrons, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No x If yes, please indicate person(s)
,
osnon IO dofind u: ‘Any Indiwduah firm. coeutnorsk~p. ~ointvrnturr. WOciatton. soul club. tmtomd org~uaon. COQO~.~,~~. ,aat.. tr(r,t, I
wcow~. wndicato. thm MQ MY 0th county. city snd coumy. cny munw&ty. distnct or ottw polma oubdiwsron. 01 my 0tn0~ gro,,g or I comblnstlotl rctrlg B$ I) ulllt’ I
(NO-: Attach additional
Print or type name of owner PfintcWtyponameofapplicyn
FIumm13 8/90
California Lutheran Homes & Community Services
1994 Board of Directors
Bob Chillison, At Large
5870 Green Valley Circle, #325 Culver City, California 90230
310/568-0763
9496
(1993)
William 0. Fisher, Treasurer 9496 Ellis Wailer 93-95
5011 Ixworth Place (1990) 6382 Shields Drive (1993)
Westminister, California 92683 Huntington Beach, California 92647
714/892-0014 7l4/846-7820
The Rev. Gary Hunstad 92-94
1108 Diamond 0992) San Diego, California 92109-2642
619/483-2300
Larry Liles, Chair
1625 North Hale Ave
Fullerton, California 92631
714/738-0661
Shirley Lo
1835 S. De1 Mar Ave., # 103
San Gabriel, California 91776
2131268-8316
Keith Renken
225 Sharon Road
Arcadia, California 90007
8181445-3556
92-94
(1989)
93-94
(1993)
93-95
(1993)
.
Kristen Falde Smith, Vice Chair
11702 Kensington Road
Los Alamitos, California 90720
310/493-l 146
92-94
w90)
Harold Winkler
2400 South Fremont Blvd.
Alhambra, California 91803
818/570-5892
93-95
(1993)
OFFICIO
Gary Jackson, Secretary X-Off
6417 Via Canada LC-MS
Ranch0 Pales Verdes, California 90274
310/519-9440
Nuell C. Lunde
4872 North Ohio Street
Yorba Linda, California 92686
7l4/777-3178
X-Off
Pacifica
Dr. Roger H. Rogahn
1340 S. Bonnie Brae Street
Los Angeles, California 90006
213/663-8644
X-Off
&Cal west
Gary L. Wheeler
435 w. walnut
Pasadena, California 91103
818m4-0854
X-Off
(ITEM A)
AITACWENT A-l
2: R-J/BAOZv C: MELLO II
GP: GENERAL PLAN
Z: ZONING
C: COASTAL PROGRAM
CARLSBAD BY THE SEA
LUTHERAN HOME
LCPA 95007/RP 94=06/CUP 94-1 O/
CDP 94=06/HDP 94-08/V 94-Ol/ ‘xr PCD/GPC 95-03
W
‘9 c
I* l
LE.
.; !@, :
I
.
; ;
$1
I’- I I
I , , L
1
;I ..--c .- . ^
Iii * iI T
.---...
l
;, c I
”
*
0
<
.
2
.
*
J
i 1 j j / :I,
i
j :I
J- 5 -..- ..-..-.. - ..-.._
<!=
?
1 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._...._______ _.___ .___... 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ II
I 1 4
I I
< w m
: t-
)I m
n < M m
2 < u
i- .-‘-‘-~~i-.~ C! : _ . . ....._.__l : ij &@I i 1 j 11; WI II is j ,J ij ?fl 2 : 4
4r!!t3 f : -I -I 1 2 i? -I II I cL i..--1.J P
!
a 5
T i .--..-.. P ai
a go 6 CC 7 y-” -..-..-..-..-.._ I .., j I”’ “j / I / / .,,.. ~....__________ I
3
--‘---? .! ; .’ L ‘.“,.....‘. .’
Ii
-..- ..-.. &-
4
L
<
w
m
I I / J ;
I
: I-
>-~ m: ai < ml r/)i 2: <! U’ I
;
!
+I
$
,.I
I i
r:- FE
I&
I!
al- UE
-I !--
+ ;I 4
f+Lf
111 -I I,,,
--I <’
w
v7
W
I
I-
>
M
n
<
M
m
l I / 7 R-i I i
-’ I s -’
-I <.
HI7 -a -I
Uilx I .LLJt--lJ
P -- lil P !! I ;<. “’
l-l . .
Ii l I
8
<‘ l-jl a’
.-. -. -
=,
I ti < w
<E 0
-..-.. - ..-..-..-.. .._..-__-___
/l/+-J L-!/J
L ..-.. A..-..- ..-_.-..-.._..____
-..--..--..q-..-
ai
-j-
L.!
I
1.. : ’ I
f-
I
1,
!
1 ‘i
I i
E ; 2
I
B 5 9
1
7 -..-
5
i .
LE 0 -..-..-I.-..-..- 1
01 u’ fU 1
Y
~~~
01
?!.J
-1 p i...-,
15-3
r-
‘I i..
-v-e= -
0 1
7
m I
i :
&I”
-..-..-_. jg
-..
-I ‘?
b!T2
- fi”i
0.
oa -I j
< w v)
CD- UE
a OE
-
-..-.. - ..-..-..-.. +-..- .._.. -..-
D “E .-
-..-.._
L.. -q..-..-..-..-..-..- ..-..-
i-.-.- .-._. -. -!
1.
I
f
1’
I i
ai
I
E ’ f!; . .
3 8 s
1
q
wl
r/)1 I
!
:!
c-1
/
>-:
m:
ai
ql mi q
2;
<, W’
.
.i PP 0 a
il
a LI a
- ---
1 I ?I I- > m
n < m *i
ii < WI I
(Z t<vl
a# %+?I h (3 V--l
!I
t
1
;;i ij:
t a Illi
u
t .+.m t
t t
------I B
5 L ;
a ::
! t6 II
3
i
;
.
a n 1 i I
;i
4
W
CA
W
> m
n < m r/)
2 < w
-s .- t
! _- -
l-l
I -.-.-.-.-.-{I
: -J
.* -
I ‘;
% f : i : s !l----l
1111.1 ’ ‘” (Jf -
ql !i 1 L - n ; % -. 3
1
i
I
*
i
L
-_
i
i
I
-.
s-
r
.I -- 5 St
4
r 0 (DE .-. I - i
/
1 ,,
-.%l-
! ,I
?
I
c
”
D
t
Ei
5
5 d
. f; i
; i
r
s
3
; E
G
i
I
;
I
1
fi
3
1 =
I
3
II
I . -.. i 131 r 13 - i _.
I
I
1
I:
1
! /
I j r j
1
I i
i
I
I ,
i
b
-
l!il i 27 i i; 9 & 1 ,‘i f J
i
3
l I”\ IIj : &g
.
.*,---.*-la
. . . . . . . *- 8’
IL--
Ai
IIN! 4 11,:
L
/i/ij !‘j
/ & j
d gj ‘lil ab !.i
.*-
: % . : ., :5O ’
c;.: I ,
I
:.. I . ..’
‘... . ;.. I
1:;
i . .
‘. '(
.!/ : I
,'I I .I
"I
; I
,.
.I , I
,- ., 1 I'
_..
,.I' I '
:.
;' :>. I
. ,I
.
'I ':
.3..... '
.;:A
: ” ,i- . . . . . # I . . _’ I. ,.‘. ,; :; I .+
: 1’
/ “ .., li3ulsmm~.~’ *,&:,.i L .‘*.I k:,
J’ .::;
fl-SZ:Z;f
,. , J> .,;>
/
1 ,.J g,; r ~~+~
, - - 163
---
$
‘i; 2,’ I
&i
2
CT
4
.
2-c >r<.
‘-m“
---
-- /\ \\ ?: - (Lx : ‘\
T
7
XL IA \ f?
W I I--
2 m . -, .'* ev .-• 4 iE'i'[ -1 \ -- i 3, \i, l
-me J
..-._-.-.- *
-__-__-__-_-------------
?
1 ” [?J------
I I
I I 1
I I 1 Y
I
Ir .__..-.. -__-..-..-..- .
Ii ’ E t P.’ - \.,,I 7
I I
2 8 ; $ ’
% -1
5 iI1 5 ill 1
i
1 ,
,: -
I(r
1 rq$$ ]
: ii k&- -u “I -2 I
! -.dd ! Is 1 I %
=
r E
f
If 1
c b b ” I ! i
i! i z
I
= 1
-. + ;i ,, --A I f $gp I , I ’ c-. -. i ‘Q ,y-
=k- 1 4 i
< w m
?I t-
> es
a < m v)
I j I
/ I
I
i ,
!
a
m 8 A1 . I .i / .
g
p. i
2, d
5 x
5 ? /
LAND USE STUDY
LAND USES WlTHIN VILlAGE SUB-AREA 5
AND IMMEDIATE VlClNlW
PREPARED BY ADL PLANNING ASSOCIATES
7/7/95
BLOCK 1
PARCEL LAND PARCEL AREA CURRENT
NUMBER USE” ACRES USE
203-04141 OS 7.18 lnstttutional AwlNavy
BLOCK 3
PARCEL LAND PARCEL AREA CURRENT
NUMBER USE” ACRES USE
20314242 Ts 0.09 Motel’ Ebb Tide Inn
203-142-03 Ts 0.08 Office Cardinal Answering Serv.
2031424 OS 2.10 open Space’ Magee Park
203142-06 R 0.52 Institutional AwlNavy
TOTAL ACRES 2.79
BLOCK 4
PARCEL LAND PARCEL AREA CURRENT
NUMBER
203143-01
USE”
Ts
ACRES
0.34
USE
Realty Otfice
20314302 Ts
203143u6 Ts
203-W-07 R/I-S
0.14 Novelly shop’
0.10 lnstltutlonal St. Micheals
2.12 Institutional St. Micheals
0.55 Vacant Lot New Garfield Parking Lot
TOTAL ACRES 3.25
PARCEL LAND PARCEL AREA CURRENT *
NUMBER USE” ACRES USE
20323141 RjrS 1.65 Care Facility Co&bad By the Sea
BLOCK 6
PARCEL
NUMBER
203-232-03
2032320l
203-232X&
203-232Q8
203-232XI9
203-232- 13
203232- 15
203-232- 16
LAND PARCEL AREA
USE” ACRES
Ts 0.14
Ts 0.50
Ts 0.18
Ts 0.18
Ts 0.06
Ts 0.34
Ts 0.91
Ts 0.46
CURRENT
USE
Beauty Salon’ Town Square
Florkt/Novetty’ Town Square
Residential
Restaurant* Javs Gourmet Restaurant
Restaurant’ Jay’s Gourmet Restaurant
Vacant Lot Driveway to Town Square
Care Facility Cartsbad By the Sea
Restaurant* Henry’s
TOTAL ACRES 2.77
BLOCK 8
PARCEL
NUMBER
203-252-o 1
203252a
203252-05
203252-06
LAND PARCEL AREA CURRENT
USE” ACRES USE
Ts 0.15 Restaurant’ Kafanna Coffee House
Ts 3.60 Hotel’ Co&bad Inn
Ts 0.34 Restaurant’ Fidels
Ts 0.19 NoveHy shops’ Cartsbad Inn Shops
TOTAL ACRES 4.28
BLOCK 9
PARCEL LAND PARCEL AREA CURRENT .
NUMBER USE” ACRES USE
203260-14 R 0.17 Retail/Novelty’
203-2&J- 15 R 0.17 Retail/Noveity’
TOTAL ACRES 0.34
BLOCK 10
PARCEL LAND PARCEL AREA CURRENT
NUMBER
203250-15
USE”
Ts
ACRES .
0.38
USE
Open Space’ Sculpture Park
20325G16 Ts
203250-17 Ts
203250-21 Ts
203-250-22 Ts
0.12 Restaurant/Retail* Harbor Fish
0.28 Residential
0.36 Vacation Units’
0.18 Vacation Units’
TOTAL ACRES 1.32
BLOCK 11
PARCEL LAND PARCEL AREA CURRENT
NUMBER
203250-06
USE”
Ts
ACRES
0.34
USE
Restaurant/Retail*
203-250-25 Ts
203-250-26 Ts
203250-29 Ts
0.28 Lodge’ Beach View
0.69 Motel/Cafe’
0.24 Residential
BLOCK 12
PARCEL LAND PARCELAREA CURRENT
NUMBER
204-123-12
USE”
Ts
ACRES
1.56
USE
Hotel’ Tamarack Beach Resort
BLOCK 14
PARCEL LAND PARCEL AREA CURRENT .
NUMBER USE” ACRES USE
20317Wl C 0.34 Restaurant/Retail’ Royal Palms/Cessys
203175-02 C
203175-03 C
203-175-04 C
203175-05 C
203175G C
203175-07 C
20317508 C
203-26 143 C
203-26 147 C
0.16 Novelty Shop’ El Corral Pottery Shop
0.46 Misc. Retail’
0.23 Novelty shop’ Runzo Candy
0.23 Residentlal
0.23 Restaurant’ Mariahs
0.25 Residential
0.16 Restaurant Supply
0.34 Residential
0.67 Offkze
TOTAL ACRES 3.07
BLOCK 15
PARCEL LAND PARCEL AREA CURRENT
NUMBER
203174-01
USE”
C
ACRES
0.09
USE
Vacant Bldg.
203- 17443
203174Ql
203 174-05
203174-06
203- 174-07
C
C
C
C
C
0.03 Vacant Lot
0.06 Chiropractor Cffice
0.03 Chiropractor Cttlce
1.75 Restaurant/Shops* Village Faire
1.79 Restaurant/Shops’ Village Fake
TOTAL ACRES 3.75
BLOCK 16
PARCEL IAND PARCEL AREA CURRENT .
NUMBER USE” ACRES USE
203173-01 C 0.16 Misc. Retail/Office’ Att Karisbad
20317342 C 0.28 Vacant Lot
203 173-03 C 0.15 Residential
203173-04 C 0.19 Restaurant l Ralph & Eddies
203173-05 C 0.26 Parking’
203173-06 C 0.05 Parking’
203 173-08 C 0.36 Parking’
203173-09 C 0.35 Restaurant’ Koko Beach
203173-12 C 0.03 Vacant Bldg.
203173-13 C 0.04 Parking’
TOTAL ACRES 1.87
BLOCK 17
PARCEL
NUMBER
203 172-02
203172-03
203 1720I
203172-05
203172X&
20317247
203 17248
203172-l 1
203172-12
203172-14
203172-15
203172-16
203-l 72-20
203 172-2 1
203 172-23
LAND PARCEL AREA CURRENT
USE” ACRES USE
C 0.18 Residential
C 0.18 Residential
C 0.12 Residential
C 0.09 Residential
C 0.29 Residential
C 0.06 Vacant Lot
C 0.20 Residential
c 0.17 Vacant Lot
Ts 0.28 Residential
Ts 0.12 Bike Shop*
Ts 0.08 Real Estate office
C 0.26 Residential
C 0.16 Residentlal
Ts 0.31 Vacant Bldg.
Ts 1.13 Vacant Lot
TOTAL ACRES 3.68
PARCEL LAND PARCEL AREA
NUMBER USE” ACRES
203-051-01 Ts 0.15
2034X1-02 Ts 0.05
203-051-03 Twos 2.81
20345144 Ts 0.50
203-05241 OS 0.35
203-05242 OS 0.76
20345341 OS 0.90
203-17141 OS 0.38
CURRENT .
USE
Real Estate Cftice
lnstltutlonal Am-Wavy
Institutional Aw/Nwf
Motel’
Instttutlonal Army/Navy
lnstltutlonal Aw/Navy
Institutional AwlNavy
State ORice’ State Parks & Rec.
TOTAL ACRES 5.90
BLOCK 20
PARCEL
NUMBER
20329642
LAND PARCEL AREA CURRENT
USE” ACRES USE
OS 2.10 Open Space’ Washington Park
BLOCK 20
PARCEL
NUMBER
20329642
LAND PARCEL AREA CURRENT
USE” ACRES USE
C 2.10 Public Parking Lot’
Additional parcels outside Sub-Area 5 serving Tourist
Commercial uses in the immediate vicinity
PARCEL
NUMBER
203- 14443
203-233-03
20323542
203-235-03
20325G25
LAND PARCEL AREA CURRENT
USE” ACRES USE
Ts 0.62 Hotel’ Beach Terrace Inn
Ts 1.28 Hotel’ Ocean Manor
Ts 0.32 Hotel’ Beach Terrace Inn
Ts 0.28 Hotel’ Beach Terrace Inn
Ts 0.43 Hotel’ Beach View Lodge
TOTAL ACRES 2.93
’ Denotes land uses that are Tourist Serving Commercial
l * Land uses are per the Cartsbad village Redevelopment Plan dated April, 1981
/73
SUMMARY ACRES PERCENT
Total acreage wIthin Sub-Area 5 49.11
Current TS development within SubArea 5: 23.77
Land reserved for future TS development
within Sub-Area 5: 7.99
Not anticipated for future TS development
(Cal. Lutheran Homes and other Institutions): 17.35
Other current TS development
within the Immediate vicinity: 2.93
Total current and tuhue TS development
within Sub-Area 5: 31.76
Total cunent TS development and
land msefved far Ts development
within SubArea 5 and immediate vicinity: 34.49
48.40%
16.27%
3s. 3a7,
64.67%
70.64%
BLOCK SUMMARY WITHIN VILLAGE SUB-AREA 5
717195
.
The following ls a summary of the blocks wtthin Sub-Area 5. For block location and a
detailed list of each parcel, see the attached map and table.
BLOCK 1
Block 1 is comprised of one parcel, the Amy & Navy complex. The parcel is
approximately 7.18 acres.
BLOCK 3
Four parcels make up this Block. Two parcels, approximately 2.19 acres are being utilized
In a tourist serving commercial activity while the remaining two parcels, approximately
0.60 acres in s&e are being used as offices space and part of the Army & Navy complex.
BLOCK 4
Block 4 comprised of 4 parcels, approximately 3.25 acres. One parcel, .14 acres is
dedicated to tourist serving commercial uses. A 55 acre parking lot ls currently planned
as part of the Cartsbad by the Sea development.
BLOCK 5
Block 5 is approximately 1.45 acres. The block is currently owned by CLH and is being
operated as professional care facilfty.
BLOCK 6
Total area of this block is 2.77 acres and ts comprised of 8 IndMdual parcels. Currently 5
parcels, 1.34 acres are being utilked in a tourtst serving commercial actMty and a 84
acre parcel ls vacant in anticipation of future tourist serving commercial development.
The remaining two parcels, 1.09 acres are non tourist commercial uses.
BLOCK 8
Total area of this block is 4.28 acres. The block k comprised of 4 IndMdual parcels which
have all been dedicated to tourist serving commercial activities
BLOCK 9
Block 9 conskts of two parcels on the southern edge of the Village Redevelopment
Project Area. Both parcels, each .17 acre in ske are being utllked in a tourist serving
commercial acHvtty.
BLOCK 10
Block 10, approximately 1.42 acres, is comprised of 5 IndMdual parcels. Currently four of
the five parcels, 1.14 acres, are being utllked In a tourtst serving commercial activity.
The remaining parcel, .12 acre is residential.
BLOCK 11
Block 11 is comprised of 4 IndMdual parcels, 1.20 acres. Four of the five parcels,
approximately .% acre. are currently utilked in a tourist serving commercial activity. The
remaining parcel, .24 acre k residential.
/ 75
BLOCK 12 Total area of thk block k 1.49 acres. Currently the block k comprised of 1 parcel which is
utllked In a taurkt serving commercial actlvtty.
BLOCK 14
Block 14 k approximately 3.07 acres. Currently 5 of the 10 parcels exkt with tourist
serving commercial uses. Total area of tourist serving uses is 1.42 acres.
BLOCK 15
Block 15 k approximately 3.75 acres. Currently 2 of the 6 parcels, approximately 3.54
acres, exkt wtth tourist serving commercial uses. One parcel, 03 acre, is vacant in
antlclpation of future tourist serving commercial development.
BLOCK 16
Block 16 k approximately 1.87 acres. Currently 7 of the 10 parcels exkt with tourist serving
commercial uses. The total area of the parcels serving tourist commercial use k
approximately 1.41 acre. One parcel, .28 acre, k vacant in antlcipatlon of future tourist
serving commercial development.
BLOCK 17
Block 17 k approximately 3.63 acres and k comprised of 15 parcels. Currently 1 parcel,
.12 acre, exists with a tout&t serving commercial use. Three parcels, approximately 1.36
acres, are vacant in anticipation of future tourist serving commercial development.
BLOCK 18
Block 18 k approximately 5.90 acres and k comprtsed of 8 parcels. Two parcels. .88 acre,
serves tourist commercial uses. The remaining 5.02 acres consist of offices and the Army
& Navy complex.
BLOCK 20
The western portion of Block 20 k within SubArea 5. It Is currently a 2.10 acre park.
BLOCK 21
The western podkm of Block 21 k within SubArea 5. The 2.10 acre parcel k currently
being used for public parking.
In addttlon to the above blocks , In Sub-area 5, there are other properties in the
immediate vicinity outside the redevelopment dktrict such as the Beach view Terrace Inn
and the Ocean Manor Hotel currently providing tourist sewing commercial activities.
These parcels contribute another 2.93 acres of tourkt serving commercial uses.
f
. . . .
i
i
t E :
:
ii
C F r 3 -a C” l m 30 m 0 rn < m l- 0 71 3 m Z -I u 3 0 c f-n c)
1
D J3 n- D
VILLAGE AR&l LAND USE MAP
COMMfRCldL AREA
-1 &AL TREATMENT VILLAGE
CORE AREA
m COMMERCIAL - LlMlTED INDUSTRIAL
,fW[ TRAVEL SEIZVICES COMMERCIAL
w COMBlNATlON RiSiTBIIl: (RM, RMtiAd
m QPUI( %CE,
lZZESZl timi DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
I [ LOW kDlUM DENSI-IY ” .
-
LidPlMi?lg
LancLFcqpc Architecaue
.
co??tputer L4zn&nn Iuodt?iing
Urban Design
ADL PLANNING ASSOCIATES, INC. 5962 La Flaee Court
(619) 931-8637 Suite 205 Culsbad, California 92008
FAX (619) 9312645 TRANSMITTAL -
DATE 7//‘/% YU:
To:
P
0; FAX /No.
zMY;/ No. Pagcs(w/avcr)
Tune!ht
O’IJS.MJil
Attention: K Muralgcr
0 pickup
PROJECT NAME : SENDINO:
0 Oliginals
ADL Project 1y: Client Project %: 0 Prints
Description / comments:
‘-1
2. ) pel&& LCPA /a? WJ 8 RECfiWED
JULl I=
9 samplea
0 Speeifidlmr
.o sutnniuai
PURPOSE:
.lg Perikqucat
F CXYapUSC
-0 Review-&canmat
0.DldtAppmvd
ODkppKWd
.O.RUUIll
From: 7- /2urj4y 7
RlA2348
Copies to:
179
A REPORT TO TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION gb
Item No.
P.C. AGENDA OF: September 6, 1995
Application complete date:
Project Planner: Anne
Hysong
Project Engineer: Mike
Shirey
SUBJECT: LCPA 95-07/RP 94-06/CDP 94-06KUP 94-lO/HDP 94-08/V 94-Ol/PCD/GPC
95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME - Request to amend
the Village Redevelopment Local Coastal Program, and requests for approval
of a mitigated negative declaration and addendum, a major redevelopment
permit, coastal development permit, conditional use permit, hillside
development permit, height variance, and General Plan Consistency
Determination to allow the redevelopment of the existing Carlsbad by the Sea
Lutheran Home located at 2855 Carlsbad Boulevard and 201 Grand Avenue
in the V-R/R-3/BAO Zones and Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
Design Review Board:
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 228
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative Declaration including an
addendum, and Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 229, 230 and 231 as revised
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a revised plan for LCPA 95-07, RP 94-06, and CDP 94-
06 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
Planning Commission:
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3790
APPROVING the Mitigated Negative Declaration including an addendum, and Resolution
Nos. 3791, 3792, 3793, and 3801 as revised APPROVING a revised plan for CUP 94-10,
HDP 94-08, V 94-01, and PCDIGPC 95-03 based upon the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
LCPA 9507/RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/HDP 94-08/V 94-Ol/
PCD/GPC 95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
PAGE 2
II. INTRODUCTION
At the August 16, 1995 joint public hearing, the Design Review Board and Planning
Commission continued the project to September 6, 1995, to allow the applicant to respond
to concerns expressed by the Design Review Board/Planning Commission that: 1) the project
should consider including ground floor visitor commercial uses south of Grand Avenue along
Carlsbad Boulevard; and 2) too much onstreet public parking along Christiansen Way is lost
due to the partial street vacation. In response to these concerns, Carlsbad Lutheran Homes
has revised their project to offer approximately 3,200 square feet of area on the ground floor
of the Parcel B structure fronting Carlsbad Boulevard for commercial use. The applicant
is also requesting that if the commercial use is found not to be viable, then this area could
revert back to professional care units.
Additionally, in response to concern expressed at the public hearing regarding the loss of
parking on Christiansen Way due to the partial street vacation, the applicant has redesigned
the driveway access ramp to include only one entry point. As shown on the attached Exhibit
“W”, this revision results in a reduced area of street vacation due to the shortened driveway
ramp, and it enables the replacement of 12 public parking spaces on the south side of
Christiansen Way. This proposal necessitates the loss of approximately 12 parking spaces
in the Parcel A subterranean garages due to the placement of an interior access ramp.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Ground Floor Commercial Use - V-R Local Coastal Program
Consistent with this proposed revision, Condition No. 21 has been added to Design Review
Board Resolution No. 230 for RP 94-06 requiring visitor commercial uses on the ground
floor on Parcel B along the Carlsbad Boulevard frontage. This proposed revision to
incorporate visitor commercial uses should adequately address concerns expressed by
surrounding property owners at the August 16, 1995 public hearing regarding the lack of
retail continuity along Carlsbad Boulevard. The proposed revision would convert the three living units shown on Attachment “E” as units 147, 148, and 149, to retail commercial use.
The conversion of this 3,200 square foot area to visitor commercial use would result in
ground floor retail commercial uses along the entire Carlsbad Boulevard frontage between
Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue. The conversion of this ground floor space to
visitor commercial use is therefore consistent with the Village Design Manual visitor
commercial requirement. The 11 required parking spaces for the 3,200 square foot retail
commercial area will be provided in the project’s subterranean parking garage, and signage
proposed for the commercial area is conditioned to be consistent with the V-R zone sign
standards.
Project implementation is contingent upon approval of a Local Coastal Program
Amendment to exclude the remaining ground floor area from the visitor commercial
requirement; therefore, LCPA 95-07 remains as one of the project applications before the
Design Review Board.
LCPA 95-07/RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/HDP 94-08/V 94-011
PCD/GPC 95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
PAGE 3
B. Partial Christiansen Wav Street Vacation
In response to concerns expressed at the August 16, 1995 public hearing regarding the loss of public parking along Christiansen Way, Condition No. 1 of Design Review Board
Resolution No. 230 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 3791 has been revised, to
require the redesign of the project’s driveway access ramp on Parcel A in accordance with
the attached Exhibit “W” which results in the following:
(1) Reduction in the length of the driveway access ramp due to the elimination
of the lower garage entry;
(2) Reduced area of street vacation by approximately 3,400 square feet, resulting
in a revised Christiansen Way right-of-way of approximately 56’ feet (reduced
from 80’) along the majority of the roadway and to 38’ along the 120’ segment
in which the access ramp is provided;
(3) Partial replacement of Christiansen Way parallel parking spaces with 12 - 90”
onstreet public parking spaces between Carlsbad Boulevard and Garfield
Street;
(4) Building height reduced to 35’ along a portion of the Parcel A northern
building elevation due to the shorter driveway ramp; and
(5) The loss of 12 garage parking spaces which are eliminated due to the
placement of an interior ramp between garage levels.
With the proposed revision, public parking spaces provided on Christiansen Way will total
24 spaces. As previously reported, the construction of a 51 space public parking lot within
the Garfield Street unimproved right of way along with the Grand Avenue redesign will
result in no net loss of public parking spaces. The replacement of these 12 spaces within
the proposed Christiansen Way right-of-way will therefore add to the existing public parking
space inventory in the beach area as well as reduce the area of street vacation. As
previously reported, two fourteen foot travel lanes, 5’ sidewalks, and ninety degree parking
within the proposed 56’ of right of way, and no parking within the 38’ of right-of-way width,
is consistent with the City’s local street width standards. The proposed redesign to reduce
the area of proposed vacation and replace a portion of the parallel parking spaces lost due
to the partial vacation with ninety degree parking, will also result in a reduction in the
building area requiring a height exemption since grade adjacent to the building can be
created to satisfy the 35’ building height standard.
In accordance with Section 65402(a) of the California Planning and Zoning Law, the revised
roadway design requiring a reduction in roadway width from 80’ to 56’ and 38’ and the
replacement of 12 public parking spaces is consistent with the General Plan Circulation
Element as specified in the Carlsbad by the Sea Lutheran Home staff report dated August
16, 1995 to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission.
LCPA 95-07/RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/HDP 94-08/V 94-Ol/
PCD/GPC 95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
PAGE 4
Iv. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, the revisions to the project proposed by the applicant
have been reviewed by staff to determine if additional environmental impacts will result
from these changes. Staff has identified no additional impacts and determined that only
minor additions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration are necessary to make it adequate
under CEQA; therefore, an addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared and attached to that document.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Design Review Board Resolution No. 228
Design Review Board Resolution No. 229
Design Review Board Resolution No. 230 Design Review Board Resolution No. 231
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3790
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3791
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3792
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3793
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3801
Revised Attachment “E”
Exhibit “W” dated September 6, 1995.
d 7
iii
Am.
J.
!
‘1
1
I i
f- ;f
Q2
I r
al- UT= .
I I
I I . . ..-... . . . . i ,. . . . . . f ,i l ~, {&U.-.-I I I 1 I ’ j} *, J
4 !--I g! lai 9 I 0 i:: : .:,i:i.,i ~d$x.iLU,:’ 3; jl 4
#W-ir
111 ?, ..:.:.:::.:::. ;”
c l
I
I -1
A .-
.- V
< LLJ
I/)
2 I-
> a
n
< a m
ii
< u
-44 -’ I + i w” a- n=
CD- mlz .
i.-.-.-.,.,. -!
EXHIBIT 7
Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION/DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (Joint Meeting)
Time of Meeting: 530 P.M.
Date of Meeting: August 16, 1995
Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Welshons called the Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board to
order at 5:36 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The pledge of allegiance was led by Planning Commissioner Savary.
PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Monroy, Nielsen, and Savary
Absent: Commissioners Erwin and Noble
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ROLL CALL:
Present: Vice-Chairperson Welshons, Members Marquez, Savary, and VeSsey
Absent: Chairman Noble
Staff Present: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director
Anne Hysong, Assistant Planner
Eric Munoz, Associate Planner
Christer Westman, Associate Planner
Terri Woods, Associate Planner
Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer
Michael Shirey, Associate Engineer
Evan Becker, Director of Housing & Redevelopment
Debbie Fountain, Senior Management Analyst
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
There were no comments from the audience.
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AND PLANNING COMMISSION:
1) LCPA 95-07/RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-l O/HDP 94-08/V 94-01 /PCD/GPC 95-03 -
CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME - Request to recommend approval of a Negative
Declaration and to amend the Village Redevelopment Local Coastal Program; and requests for a
Major redevelopment permit, coastal development permit, conditional use permit, hillside
development permit, height and setback variance, and General Plan consistency determination to
allow the redevelopment of the existing Carlsbad by the Sea Lutheran Home located at 2855
Carlsbad Boulevard and 201 Grand Avenue in the VR/R-3/BAO zones and Local Facilities
Management Zone 1.
/w--
MINUTES
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) August 16,1995 PAGE 2
Design Review Board Member Marquez stated that she has a conflict of interest and could not participate.
She left the room at 544 p.m.
Chairperson Welshons advised the applicant that they have the right to be heard before a full Commission.
She inquired if they would like to be continued or be heard tonight. Mr. Jack Doyle, Chief Financial Officer
of the Carlsbad Lutheran Home, replied that he would like to be heard tonight.
Chairperson Welshons advised the applicant that the Planning Commission’s decision tonight is final
unless appealed to the City Council within ten calendar days.
Anne Hysong, Assistant Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that this project
consists of the demolition, redevelopment, and expansion of the existing Carlsbad by the Sea Lutheran
Home (CLH) located on three separate parcels. The proposed project will increase the overall size of the
existing professional care facility and add a structure to the vacant Ocean Street parcel. However, the
existing professional care uses will not change. Although professional care facilities are allowed in the
V-R and R-3 zones as a conditional use, the Village Redevelopment LCP requires that all projects in this
area provide visitor serving commercial uses on the entire ground floor. The proposed development,
therefore, requires approval of a LCP amendment to exempt CLH from this requirement. As designed, the
project requires the partial street vacation of Christiansen Way, an exemption to height standards at two
locations in the VR zone, and a variance to the R-S/Beach Area Overlay height and setback standards.
Ms. Hysong gave a slide presentation showing maps of the area and the existing use; she then explained
the actions to be taken by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. She stated that the
proposed CLH facility will increase the size and number of commercial living units from 102 living units and
59 skilled nursing beds to 157 living units, 33 skilled nursing beds, and two visitor units. She showed the
artists renderings of the proposed project and explained that the historical facade of the Carlsbad Mineral
Springs Hotel will be replicated in the new structure. She explained that the existing palm trees
surrounding the project and the central courtyard concept would also be preserved. She explained that
Grand Avenue will be redesigned to include a landscaped promenade to the beach access at the terminus
of Grand Avenue and diagonal parking spaces along the south side of Grand.
Ms. Hysong stated that the proposed project is consistent with all Mello II and Village Redevelopment
coastal zone policies and standards except for the visitor commercial ground floor requirement. The
project also meets or exceeds all required V-R, R-3, and Beach Area Overlay zone development
standards, except for the requested variances. She explained that the 26 on-street parking spaces lost to
the vacation of Christiansen Way would be replaced with spaces in the proposed Garfield Street parking lot
and additional diagonal spaces on Grand Avenue. In addition, residents, employees and guests of CLH
will utilize the subterranean parking which will also free up a significant amount of on-street parking.
Ms. Hysong reviewed the findings to exclude Parcel C from the provisions of the Hillside Development
Ordinance. She stated that the projects potentially significant environment impacts have been identified
and mitigated in accordance with CEQA guidelines and the Planning Director has issued a Mitigated
Negative Declaration. The required historical resource and noise mitigation measures have been added to
the project as conditions of approval.
In summary, Ms. Hysong stated that the necessary findings for the LCP amendment, the determination of
General Plan consistency for the proposed partial vacation of Christiansen Way, and all permits required
by the project can be made. Staff therefore recommends approval. She closed her presentation by
directing attention to the staff memo dated August 16, 1995 which listed errata changes to the resolutions
being considered.
/a
MINUTES
ZORRECTED
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) August 16,1995 PAGE 3
Chairperson Welshons noted the receipt of five letters from the public, as follows: (1) Letter dated July 3,
1994 from St. Michael’s By-the-Sea supporting the project but requesting access to parking lot for
parishioners, funeral coaches, and service vehicles; (2) Letter dated June 29, 1995 from Best Western
supporting project and partial vacation of Christiansen Way; (3) Letter dated August 15, 1995 from Bell
Family Partners opposing the improvements to Garfield Street; (4) Letter dated August 12, 1995 from
Sally Vigil opposing the CLH project due to beach congestion; and (5) Letter dated August 15, 1995 from
Carlsbad Village Business Association supporting the project and downtown enhancements. The letters
are on file in the Planning Department.
Commissioner Monroy inquired how the Garfield property becomes involved with this project. Ms. Hysong
replied that street improvements will be made to replace the parking being taken with the partial vacation of
Christiansen Way.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if improvements will be done on other undeveloped streets in the future.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, commented that each project is reviewed at on its individual
merits. In this case, this project meets the requirements for possible street vacation as well as providing
beach parking access, etc. The CLH project is somewhat unique and should not be considered to be a
Citywide precedent.
Commissioner Compas requested staff to reiterate the current and proposed public parking spaces. Ms.
Hysong replied that there are currently 130 on-street parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of CLH.
With the proposed project, there will be 132 spaces.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if curbs, gutters, and sidewalks are being required solely because of the
street vacation. Michael Shirey, Associate Engineer, replied that regardless of the street vacation, curbs,
gutters, and sidewalks would have been required around the entire perimeter of the project. Where the
City gets the addition is the creation of three underground garages. Currently, employees and visitors use
the on-street parking around the perimeter of the project and it is difficult for beachgoers to find a place to
park. The underground garages, in effect, increase the parking because employees and visitors of CLH
will use that parking and free up the street parking for beachgoers, etc.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if the Garfield right-of-way, where additional parking will be provided, is
owned by the City? Ms. Hysong replied yes. No private property is being dedicated; however, the Garfield
~AMI~/MW-MM/~~~~ improvements would not be required of Carl&ad Lutheran Homes.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if the project could be done without vacating Christiansen. Ms. Hysong
replied that they may be able to do the project but they would lose a substantial portion of the first level of
the main facility.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired g the first proposal was to vacate the street. Ms. Hysong replied that CLH
came in with a number of proposals. They attempted to find access around the facility but, because of the
steepness of the grade to access underground parking, it was impossible to get into the underground
parking from Grand or Ocean or Christiansen Way perpendicular to the project. They had to come in at a
lesser grade, either from Carlsbad Boulevard or Christiansen Way, which is what they proposed.
Design Review Member Vessey inquired about the height limitation on the buildings--36.5 ft. out front. He
notes in some cases the height shows 44.5 ft. Ms. Hysong replied yes. A height exemption is being
requested along the northern elevation. There is also a roof protrusion to screen equipment which is not
counted as part of the height. Member Vessey is concerned that when the neighbors see it they will
wonder what happened to the 35 ft. height limitation. He would not want to set a precedent. Ms. Hysong
replied that roof protrusions to screen equipment are allowed throughout the City and is provided for in the
zoning ordinance.
Af7
MINUTES
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) August 16, 1995 PAGE 4
Commissioner Compas requested staff to reiterate the changes which will be made at Grand and Carlsbad
Boulevard. Mr. Shirey replied that the roadway on Grand, from Carlsbad Boulevard to Ocean Street, will
be narrowed to accommodate the streetscape project. It will not affect the level of service. On the north
side of Grand, a 10 ft. sidewalk will be added (our standard is 5 ft.) which will provide more access for
pedestrians and will accommodate wheelchairs. The streetscape will match the City’s streetscape project,
including longitudinal pavers along the curb line, separate tree wells, benches.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if the streetscape is on private property or in the right-of-way. Mr. Shirey
replied it will be in the right-of-way. However, there is a 10 ft. setback on CLH property which will be
landscaped.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if the Village Redevelopment and R-3 zone bisects this building. Ms.
Hysong replied yes, and it is shown on the plans.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if any of the height variance is subject to the Planning Commission. Ms.
Hysong replied that the height variance is requested for Parcel C requires Planning Commission approval;
however, the height exemption on Parcel A is subject to Design Review Board approval.
Commissioner Monroy requested staff to explain how the parking requirements for the project were
applied. Ms. Hysong replied that the parking standard for professional care facilities is 45 spaces per bed.
The calculation was the number of beds times .45. The applicant is proposing parking substantially in
excess of the requirement, which will accommodate residents, staff, and visitors.
Commissioner Monroy inquired how the parking on Garfield affects the project. Ms. Hysong replied that
Garfield improvements are being done to replace the on-street parking lost as a result of the partial
vacation of Christiansen Way. Without the vacation, a number of rooms in the project would be lost in
order to design a driveway ramp under the structure that is entirely onsite.
Commissioner Monroy is concerned that there may be a loss of parking for beachgoers and residents.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that if you look at the parking today, including Garfield, it
is approximately 130 spaces. After you factor in all the improvements of this project, you end up with 132
spaces. There is a net gain of two spaces. In addition, the demand for approximately 60 spaces is taken
off the street, so the net gain is substantial.
Commissioner Monroy thinks that it is possible that our parking requirement of .45 is overstated, since
most of the residents of CLH do not own vehicles.
Chairperson Welshons inquired that it sounds like the City is reclaiming the street parking around this
project and placing the applicant’s parking back on site. Mr. Shirey replied that is correct.
Chairperson Welshons requested staff to reiterate the justification for the height variance on Parcel A. Ms.
Hysong replied that the variance is required to accommodate the driveway ramp located directly adjacent
to the northern building elevation, which leads to the subterranean parking. The location of the driveway
ramp next to the structure precludes the creation of grade to satisfy the height standard. Therefore, the
Christiansen Way road grade was used to measure building height. There is also a 13 ft. drop in elevation
along Christiansen Way between Carlsbad Boulevard and Ocean Street.
Chairperson Welshons stated that the .45 per bed parking requirement calculates out to 134 spaces. CLH
is supplying over 100 additional spaces. If Christiansen Way were not vacated, a few beds might be lost
but it seems that there would still be adequate parking. Ms. Hysong replied that units would probably not
be lost. The losses would be along the front of the facility where amenities such as the dining room,
MINUTES
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) August 16, 1995 PAGE 5
library, kitchen, etc. are located. Staff felt that the more commercial aspects of the project would be better
placed along Carlsbad Boulevard.
Chairperson Welshons commented that everyone seems to be questioning why it is necessary to vacate
Christiansen Way, and why the project cannot be wholly contained on site.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if the project is parking onsite legally. Ms. Hysong replied that it will be, as
proposed.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if the roof garden will block the ocean view from Ocean Street. Ms.
Hysong replied that it may not be a clear ocean view for everyone but it will be a pleasing amenity along
Ocean Street and an improvement to the typical development on Ocean Street in which a garage door is
all that is visible.
Chairperson Welshons invited the applicant to speak.
Jim Doyle, Chief Financial Officer, California Lutheran Homes, 2855 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad,
addressed the Board and Commission and stated that California Lutheran Homes (CLH) is a non-profit
organization providing professional care facilities. They currently own four homes and manage six others.
Carlsbad By-the-Sea is one of the four homes owned by CLH and has been operating in Carlsbad for 40
years in a 65 year old converted hotel building. The heating, electrical, and plumbing problems are all
indicative of the age of the building. The planning for this renovation has been in work for approximately
three years and they feel they have arrived at a project which the citizens of Carlsbad will be proud of. He
showed slides of the proposed project and stated that the project will provide many community benefits.
They have also held outreach meetings with their neighbors and tried to incorporate their suggestions into
the planning efforts. He feels the proposed project is excellent and maintains an historic landmark. He
sincerely hopes that the Design Review Board and Planning Commission will approve this project because
CLH would like to continue their long standing tradition of care and service to seniors and the community.
Mr. Doyle noted that the Community Conference Center has always been open to various local public
groups and will continue to be open to various community groups for their use. Lastly, CLH is a major
employer in the Village, with a staff of 125 persons. He thanked staff for their hard work.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if the skilled nursing beds are equivalent to living units, space-wise. Mr.
Doyle replied that the space required for a private skilled nursing room would be about half of an average
professional care unit.
Commissioner Monroy inquired how many living units would be lost if you put the ramp to the parking
garage on-site rather than using Christiansen Way. Mr. Doyle will answer that question as soon as his
staff is able to make the calculation.
Commissioner Compas inquired how CLH will ensure that residents, staff and visitors use the parking
garage as opposed to the street. Mr. Doyle replied that he believes seniors, especially, would prefer the
safety, security, and convenience of underground parking with elevators,
Commissioner Compas inquired where the current residents will reside during the construction period. Mr.
Doyle replied that CLH has contracts with their residents for life. CLH will be soliciting bids from their
competitors in the local area and will pay to move the continuing care residents to other facilities. The
estimated time of construction is approximately 18 months. The residents and their families are aware of
this time frame and the plans which are being made. Their monthly fees will not change. CLH will wver
any excess.
09 MINUTES
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) August 16, 1995 PAGE 6
Commissioner Compas inquired if the current residents have first priority to return to the new facility. Mr.
Doyle replied yes.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if CLH is a charitable, non-profit, non-tax-paying entity. Mr. Doyle replied
yes; they have a 501 (c)-3 status.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if the proposed project will provide 100 parking spaces in the new garages
in excess of the City’s requirement. Mr. Doyle replied that these parking spaces are not considered
“surplus.” Their marketing feasibility studies indicate that in the future seniors may require a parking
standard which is higher than the City’s calculation. They certainly would not be spending $15,000 per
parking space if they did not feel the additional spaces would be needed.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if it might be possible to allow the public to share the underground parking.
Mr. Doyle replied this had not been considered; it was expected that the garages would be used by
residents, staff, and guests.
Commissioner Savary inquired that a comment was made about giving nursing care to the community.
She would like to know how that is accomplished. Mr. Doyle replied that approximately 50% of the
residents in the skilled nursing facility are not contract residents of CLH but rather come from the
community at large.
Commissioner Savary inquired about their average length of stay. Mr. Doyle replied that the average is
three years. As new types of care have become available, the average length of stay has dropped. Many
HMOs require patients to receive nursing care at a specific facility, which could be 15 miles away, even
though they may reside next door to a facility offering the same type of care.
Chairperson Welshons inquired about the dialog in the outreach programs which were conducted. She is
specifically interested in the neighbors of Parcel B. Mr. Doyle replied that their outreach meetings were
conducted approximately 6 months ago. At a meeting on March 6, 1995 some generic concerns about the
proposed redevelopment were raised by Mr. Garner. On March 29, 1995 he wrote a letter to Mr. Garner
asking for a meeting, in an effort to resolve his issues. He met with Mr. Garner and his two daughters on
April 10, 1995. At that time, Mr. Garner proposed that CLH put their proposed plans in abeyance and
consider master planning the entire block with him. He wanted us to consider purchasing the Maldonado
property and Henry’s Restaurant. Mr. Doyle replied that he did not feel it was advantageous to purchase
properties which were not contiguous and that he was unsure there would be market demand for those
parcels. However, he advised Mr. Garner that the project team would study the proposal. Mr. Doyle then
spoke with Sarah Marquez on May 8, 1995 and told her that the project team did not want to proceed with
her proposal. She replied that she and her father, Mr. Garner, had another proposal which they would get
to him by that weekend. He replied that he had jury duty the following week so he asked that she FAX the
proposal to him and he would study it. On June 6, 1995, he had still not received the proposal so he called
Ms. Marquez and left a message on her answering device. He did not hear from Ms. Marquez until early
July when she called Tony Lawson to request another meeting. That meeting was held on July 21, 1995 at
Mr. Garner’s office. At that time, they presented a proposal suggesting that CLH swap its Carlsbad
Boulevard frontage and a portion of the Grand Avenue frontage for the same number of square feet of the
parking lot on Garfield. Under the Garner’s proposal, the square footage would remain the same, the
dimensions of the property would change significantly which, in turn, would change all of their plans which
had already been submitted and processed by staff. The justification of the Garners is that our
construction costs would fall substantially if we were building on a square piece of property rather than on
a rectangular piece of property. He mentioned that Carlsbad Boulevard property has more value per
square foot but Mr. Garner argued that square footage was square footage. Nevertheless, he agreed to
have the project team study the proposal while he was out of town for seven days. When he returned on
August 14, 1995, he met with the project team who unanimously agreed that the land swap would be of no
MINUTES /PO
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) August 16,1995 PAGE 7
merit or benefit to CLH, but there would be a definite increase in the retail benefit to the Garners. Also,
since the property dimensions would change significantly, it would mean that all of the plans would have
be scrapped and they would have to start over, He called the Garners the following morning and relayed
the project team’s decision to them. They appeared to be agitated and did not feel this was an appropriate
response.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if his team was able to arrive at an answer to Commissioner Monroy’s
earlier question regarding the vacation of Christiansen Way.
Tony Lawson, 5962 La Place Court ##205, Carlsbad, addressed the Board and Commission and stated that
no direct correlation was found between the parking spaces within the Garfield right-of-way and the
number of units proposed in the project. Rather, it is the relationship of impacts to Christiansen Way which
causes the need for additional parking on Garfield. The best explanation he can offer is that in the early
planning stages, many alternatives were reviewed. The nature of this project is very unique in the sense
that the type of construction is very expensive and there are many extra upgrades required because the
project is similar to a hospital. As a non-profit entity, CLH does not operate as a typical developer would
operate, i.e. with a certain amount of profit. However, they need to have a certain return relative to the
number of units and the cost of the project. Many different garage ramp configurations were considered,
including access on Grand Avenue, Ocean Street, and Christiansen Way. Christiansen Way had the least
amount of impacts because it is an extremely wide street with low traffic flows. The other alternatives
posed height problems as well as causing traffic problems. The ramp on Christiansen Way takes the space
of four parking spaces. Another large portion of Christiansen Way currently has a yellow curb to
accommodate service vehicles. Under the proposed plan, the area for the service vehicles has been
recessed to avoid circulation problems. They were unable to arrive at the number of units which would be
sacrificed if the ramp was totally on-site, since most of the area is used for purposes other than living
units.
Commissioner Monroy stated that it sounds as though there is no answer. Mr. Lawson replied that no
specific study was done to arrive at the number of units which would be lost under that configuration.
Commissioner Monroy stated that he is having difficulty with the proposal for Garfield and Christiansen
Way. He is afraid other projects will want to do the same thing in the future. Not long ago, the Academy
also wanted to do the same thing but no one could support it. It seems to him that if a few units were
sacrificed, the parking would still meet the objectives of the City.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if she understands correctly that the ramp location and design of the
building are economically driven. Mr. Lawson replied yes.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if the wsts being spent on Garfield were switched to the building, would
they have offset each other. Mr. Lawson replied no, it would not even be close. Adding those additions to
Garfield during the grading and asphalt process does not create a significant additional expense.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that since the proposed project provides a significant amount of underground
parking above the required parking ratio, he does not understand why some of the units or parking cannot
be sacrificed in order to have the entire project on-site. Mr. Doyle replied that the market feasibility study
which was performed indicated that future seniors will require 1.2 cars per living unit. They based their
underground parking on this feasibility study rather than the City’s guidelines. If the parking is needed in
the future and it is not available, people will not want to move into the facility.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that it sounds as though CLH cannot do the project without the abandonment
of the street. Mr. Doyle replied that is correct. They cannot go up, they cannot go down, so they are
MINUTES
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) August 16, 1995 PAGE 8
requesting permission to go sideways a bit. The mitigation they are offering is to provide street
improvements to Grand Avenue and parking on Garfield.
Commissioner Nielsen doesn’t see how the public is getting a parking benefit since the loss of parking on
Christiansen Way is being replaced by parking on Garfield, which already has parking. Mr. Doyle replied
that there will be 132 parking spaces where there is currently 130. In addition, they are taking 60 cars off
the street that would ordinarily be parked there by the residents, staff, and guests of CLH. The net effect is
62 additional parking spaces.
Ms. Hysong commented that Mr. Doyle is correct in his calculation. Another way to look at it would be that
it will free up on-street parking because CLH will be providing underground parking for its residents, staff,
and guests. Staff has always tried to encourage subterranean parking in the redevelopment area but most
applicants reject the idea because it is far too expensive. CLH accepted the idea of underground parking in
lieu of a large asphalt parking lot which is not very desirable. Their parking will not be visible and, from an
aesthetic standpoint, the project will be an asset to the redevelopment area. Although staff doesn’t take
street vacations lightly, it should be noted that Christiansen Way is very low use, which is not true of most
other streets in the City. Christiansen Way has an 80 ft. right-of-way and operates at about half its
capacity during peak hours. The excess right-of-way is not needed now and staff does not anticipate that
it will ever be needed. The partial vacation will not impact existing circulation patterns in the neighborhood
and the level of service will not change. Access to properties fronting on Christiansen Way is maintained
and these property owners support the proposed design. There is no net loss of parking in the area, even
without the additional 60 parking spaces which are being provided. Although there is parking on Garfield,
cars park all over the place so it becomes a safety issue. The parking lot which CLH will construct on
Garfield will be far superior to the existing informal parking. The City will also benefit by the streetscape
and promenade which will be provided and is not available today. Best Western and St. Michael’s have
reviewed the plans thoroughly and have indicated that they support the project.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, noted that there is a very important difference in this street
vacation. Quite often, when streets are vacated there is a ripple effect and it causes negative impacts on
the level of service on other streets and intersections. That is not the case here. That is a very critical
issue which allows staff to say it still meets the qualifications and is consistent with the General Plan of
providing circulation for both vehicles and pedestrians to that local area. It is a very important
consideration which staff does not take lightly.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired what happens if the property owner to the north wants the same rights.
Ms. Hysong replied that no further street vacations will be allowed. St. Michael’s is aware that the Fire
Department is requiring Christiansen Way to be open from Carlsbad Boulevard to Ocean Street so that fire
trucks can access the north side of the CLH project.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired Mhat would happen if they made that request based on the establishment
of this precedent for CLH. Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, stated that this request is for a partial
closure as opposed to a complete closure. Anyone can claim a prior precedent or bring suit, but there is a
legitimate distinction between the two. It is possible to say yes to one and no to the other; the basis is
partial as opposed to full.
Chairperson Welshons advised the applicant that after the public testimony, he would be given time for
rebuttal.
Chairperson Welshons opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Ludvik Grigoras, 5010 Caspian Drive, Oceanside, addressed the Board and Commission and stated that
he and his wife have worked in Carlsbad with the Sister City Committee, the Historical Society, and the
MINUTES
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) August 16,1995 PAGE 9
Carlsbad Mineral Water project. Carlsbad By-the-Sea has spent a lot of time, money, and energy to get to
this point and they tried to please everyone. They have increased the parking and they have preserved the
old building architecture as much as possible. He thinks the project will be a great addition to the City and
the adjacent neighbors. He supports the project.
Jack Balistreri 1565 Hotel Circle, San Diego, addressed the Board and Commission and stated that he is
the attorney for Sarah Garner Marquez and her father, Charles Garner, who own the Town Square
property, immediately adjacent and south of the proposed development. He believes that the sheer
number of amendments, exemptions, variances, and mitigation requirements associated with this project,
including the partial vacation of Christiansen Way, is detrimental to the community. His client has
operated their property for 40 years. Carlsbad Lutheran Home has only operated their nursing facility on
Parcel B for about 20 years. Now they have a single story structure on that site and they are going to a
bulky three story structure. His client has proposed a land swap which would enable CLH to have a square
parcel of property instead of a rectangular parcel. He feels this configuration will enhance the shelter
parking. Another item which was not discussed by staff or Mr. Doyle is the sewer easement on Parcel B.
He does not know how that will be addressed. He requested the Board and Commission to consider
keeping the key corner on Carlsbad Boulevard and Grand in commercial use.
Chairperson Welshons asked Mr. Balistreri if he is representing only one tenant in the Town Square. He
replied that he is representing the owners of the property.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if he is requesting that the Design Review Board deny the requested
exemption on Parcel B which would force CLH to comply with the coastal requirements of having
commercial units on the ground floor which would ultimately force them into a land swap. Mr.. Balistreri
replied that his request is to retain the commercial use of that corner consistent with the current uses
designated there under the Master Plan.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if he is using this gallery to justify a land swap because his clients have
been unable to negotiate the agreement otherwise. Mr. Balistreri replied that it is the right of any citizen to
oppose this project. His clients feel that the great number of exemptions, mitigations, amendments,
vacation requirements inherent to this proposal seem to be extreme to allow the use of a property which
does not seem consistent with the best beneficial use to the City of Carlsbad.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if he is specifically concerned with Parcel B. Mr. Balistreri replied that the
entire block is zoned commercial. His clients have been using their property for 48 years as commercial in
the expectation that future growth would also be commercial. He feels that the proposed project is not
consistent with a commercial use and is detrimental to his client’s right and the City of Carlsbad.
Chairperson Welshons advised Mr. Balistreri that Carlsbad Lutheran Home has been using this location in
a similar capacity for 40 years and are only requesting a reconfiguration of the structure. Mr. Balistreri
replied that CLH has been using Parcel B under a CUP since 1973. The CUP limits the use to a single
story building.
Noreen Sigafoose, 2805 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Board and Commission and stated that
she is the owner of Seashore on the Sand to the north of the proposed project. She doesn’t want anyone
to feel sorry for the Lutheran Church because they have a lot of money. They plan to spend $40 million On
this project alone. She parks on Christiansen Way because she is in a wheelchair and cannot negotiate
the street she lives on. Whenever she returns home, she calls her husband from her car and he wmes
and gets her. Many residents park on Christiansen Way because of the beach traffic. She would object to
any increase in the height requirements. It will impact the views from her property. No consideration has
been given to her. She is opposed to the project as presented.
MINUTES /83
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) August 16,1995 PAGE 10
Commissioner Compas inquired if she had discussed her concerns with the applicant. Ms. Sigafoose
replied that she had but they claim there’will be more parking. She does not agree.
Commissioner Savary inquired about her business. Ms. Sigafoose replied that Seashore on the Sand is a
vacation rental.
Commissioner Savary inquired about her parking requirements. Ms. Sigafoose replied that she has a
problem because of accessibility.
Commissioner Savary inquired if her tenants have parking problems. Ms. Sigafoose replied that she
cannot add parking to an old building. She parks on Christiansen Way.
Board Member Vessey inquired if she has tried to get a handicapped space in front of her building. Ms.
Sigafoose replied that she is trying to get an elevator.
Board Member Vessey advised Ms. Sigafoose that there is a lot of parking on Christiansen Way which will
no longer be used by staff and guests of CLH. There will also be parking on Garfield but it is further away.
Don Christiansen, 3715 Longview Drive, Carlsbad, addressed the Board and Commission and stated that
he is in favor of the project. He is surprised to hear the derogatory comments since the Lutheran Home
has gone to such lengths to discuss the project with everyone. He is a member of the Historical Society
and they were very concerned that the historical facade be maintained. This has been preserved. He
doesn’t see why there will be a parking problem if the staff and guests of the Lutheran Home will be parking
underground. He wants to go on record in favor of the project.
Frank Maldonado, 4213 Beach Bluff, Carlsbad, addressed the Board and Commission and stated that he
owns the northwest corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive. He purchased his property
on the assumption that it would be commercial. That is the highest and best use and he sees no reason
why that should change. He doesn’t see why it is right for some people to get exceptions when others have
committed themselves and their savings to a use which the City has called for. He is against the proposed
project unless they will use the entire bottom floor as commercial.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairperson Welshons
requested staff to respond to the comments which had been made.
Anne Hysong, Assistant Planner, commented as follows:
* Sewer Easement - The private sewer easement is covered under Condition #28. New construction
cannot hinder or obstruct an easement that is still in use. Plans to allow the continued use of the
easement will be required.
* Ground Floor Commercial - The LCPA is required even if the first floor along the Carlsbad Boulevard
frontage is used for commercial since the LCP requires that the entire ground floor be visitor
commercial.
* Seashore on the Sand Vacation Rental - Curb, gutter, and sidewalks will be constructed on both sides of
Ocean Street. There are 12 existing parking spaces on Ocean Street and the street improvements will
reduce that number to 11. There are approximately 14 parking spaces along Christiansen Way between
Garfield and Ocean Streets. Parking will still be provided on the north side but with street
improvements, there will only be 12 spaces in that segment. She reminded everyone that CLH is taking
their parking off the street which should make more spaces available.
MINUTES /Jw
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) August 16,1995 PAGE 11
* Ocean Views - The proposed structure will be lower than the parcels to the north and south. It should
not obstruct their views. The structure will not be higher or farther west than the parcels to the north and
south.
* Loss of Business due to Construction - The applicant was advised that they would be conditioned to
provide an alternate hauling route.
. Conditional Use Permit on Parcel B - The CUP was approved 20 years ago. The current redevelopment
plan has changed the vision for the area. There is now greater intensity envisioned in the
redevelopment area. She noted that Mr. Balistreri’s art rendering showed a large bulky building with no
windows; that is definitely not what the proposed project will resemble. There will be a lot of windows
and building articulation.
Commissioner Monroy requested staff to discuss the land swap proposal and if there would be any benefit.
Ms. Hysong replied that this is the first time staff has seen this proposal; they would need time to evaluate
it.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if Mr. Balistreri’s proposal is something new and, if so, does it deserve
merit and should it be looked at. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that the proposed
project now functions as a whole. Staff would require some time to assess the total impact of the land
swap. On the surface, the proposal is just a geometric shape. When it gets down to design, there could be
some tremendous impacts.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if staff feels there could be any merit to the proposal. Mr. Wayne replied
that there is a break in precedence here. Staff has been following a property rights policy for years. That
is, an applicant may prepare a project on the property he owns or controls. The applicant has submitted a
project on their property and now we are getting a proposal for property beyond their control. It basically
splits up the project and it may no longer work.
Evan Becker, Director of Housing & Redevelopment, addressed the Board and Commission and stated that
redevelopment staff had a chance to look at this concept for the first time yesterday in a presentation by
Ms. Marquez and her father. He would agree with Mr. Wayne that there has been insufficient time to
assess the potential benefits or drawbacks would be. Staff’s reaction to them was that, conceptually, the
commercial frontage along Carlsbad Boulevard and the retail continuity is desirable. If, somehow, jointly
developed parking could be done which helps with that problem, it would also be desirable. He believes
they may also have contacted the Mayor and members of the City Council regarding their proposal, but
this was not discussed. He also indicated that if the private parties wished to work something out, staff
would be willing to facilitate a project which would be agreeable to everyone.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if the sewer easement will cause any problems. Mr. Shirey stated that the
way the condition is written, it will not shut down the project unless an amenable solution cannot be
attained.
Chairperson Welshons inquired who could shut the project down. Mr. Shirey replied it would be the owner
of the easement which is South Coast Land, the commercial property to the south. The easement only
applies to Parcel B. The applicant must get that easement quit claimed or else come up with a design that
the City would agree to so that the easement can still exist, be maintained, and be operable.
Pat O’Day, O’Day Consultants, a civil engineer for the proposed project, addressed the Board and
Commission and stated that his engineers have designed a preliminary plan which allows the sewer to stay
in that easement and not interrupt the flow.
MINUTES / 95
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) August 16, 1995 PAGE 1
Chairperson Welshons inquired if this means the project can be built. Mr. O’Day replied yes.
Chairperson Welshons invited the applicant to make his rebuttal comments. Mr. Doyle, California LL
2
rtheran
Home, responded to Mr. Balistreri’s comments and stated that CLH did not feel it was unreasonable to try
and reconstruct a similar use project on land they already own. He understood that changes in use or
involving other property would certainly delay the process. Therefore, they proposed no change of use in
order to streamline the project.
Chairperson Welshons asked that since staff cannot render an analysis on the land swap proposal, would
he accept a continuance or a splitting out of Parcel B. Mr. Doyle stated that he would like Tony Lawson to
respond for him.
Mr. Lawson addressed the Board and Commission and stated that his concern about dealing with a
continuance on the project is that there are a lot of other issues. He would like to move forward tonight so
that all cards are on the table. He would like to take care of all of the project issues in case they are forced
into a compromise. He is also concerned about setting a precedence that after working with staff on the
project for over two years, and a proposal comes forward at the eleventh hour by one disgruntled party, all
of their work could be thrown out and they would have to go back to square one.
Chairperson Welshons stated that this could also work to the benefit of both parties and it might make the
Commission’s job easier. It would enable the two parties to meet with each other and staff and determine if
a compromise could be reached. If the two parties cannot reach an agreement, then the Commission
would act on the project as it has been proposed. If a continuance is granted on Parcel B, it would be to a
date certain. We could tonight take action on Parcels A and C. Mr. Lawson requested a recess so that he
could discuss the matter with the project team.
RECESS:
The Planning Commission and Design Review Board recessed at 8:26 p.m. and reconvened at 8:33 p.m.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if the applicant had reached a decision with regard to a continuance. Mr.
Doyle, CLH, replied that timing of this project is critical. He noted that 20 residents of Carlsbad
By-the-Sea had been in attendance but left due to the late hour. Mr. Doyle requested that the Board and
Commission make a decision on Parcels A and C and continue Parcel B to a date certain.
Mr. Balistreri, attorney for the Garners, stated that he would also accept a continuance to allow the parties
to meet and discuss the value of their proposal.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, commented that if the Commission wishes to continue a portion
of the project, staff would not process the other two parcels until the continued parcel could catch up. He
requested a continuance only until the first meeting in September or else it would have to wait until
October. If the parties cannot come to an agreement, staff would be back on September 6th advising the
Board and the Commission that no agreement was reached and Parcel B is as designed. However, if they
can come to an agreement, there is no possible way to have a project come forward for action for several
months. In that case, the applicant might wish to split the proposal and go forward with Parcels A and C
and come back at a later date with Parcel B.
Mr. Lawson, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and Commission and stated that if Parcel B
is not resolved in two weeks, he sees Parcels A and C being held hostage. He believes that time is of the
essence.
MINUTES 194
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) August 16, 1995 PAGE 13
Chairperson Welshons wants to resolve the issues on Parcels A and C tonight. If an agreement cannot be
reached between the parties, she will request that staff have verbiage prepared to break out the parcels but
that would not hold the project hostage.
Chairperson Welshons declared the public testimony closed and called for discussion.
Commissioner Compas inquired if the Planning Commission accepts the staff recommendations for
Parcels A and C as stated in the documents, can they be approved without any conflict tonight. Mr.
Wayne replied that it all comes down to a CEQA issue and it hasn’t been resolved yet.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, stated this is an incredibly complicated project. He is concerned that
if the project is separated, that the findings being made or conditions being imposed relate to the proper
parcels. The conditions come from either project conditions or mitigation measures required from the
CEQA analysis. It should be noted that the CEQA analysis which has been done considered the project as
a whole, not as individual parcels A, B, and C. It would be far too easy to accidentally impose a condition
on one parcel which actually relates to another parcel. He believes that trying to sort it out tonight would
be impossible.
Commissioner Nielsen thinks that the City Attorney is advising us not to separate the parcels; it sounds as
though the entire project needs to be continued to September 6th. Mr. Rudolf replied that by that date staff
can have it all sorted out.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if the project can be continued without another public notice. Mr. Wayne
replied yes.
Commissioner Monroy stated that the continuance should also allow additional time to discuss the issues
which will be raised by the Coastal Commission regarding commercial on the first floor. He thinks the
continuance will benefit the project and move it along faster in the long run.
Commissioner Savary would personally like to approve or disapprove the whole thing tonight but if
everyone else wants a continuance, she will go along with it.
Member Vessey doesn’t see why we should hold these people’s feet to the fire. The owners of the Town
Square property have known that this has been going on for a very long time and if they haven’t been able
to come to a decision yet, they probably won’t have one in three weeks.
Commissioner Compas stated that if he were on the Design Review Board, he would be in favor of making
the decision tonight.
Chairperson Welshons thinks th$ three weeks will be a good cooling off period. She believes the proposal
merits some consideration. She would appreciate hearing staffs evaluation of the suggestion. She would
be in favor of a continuance to the first meeting in September.
Chairperson Welshons polled those present to see if they have any other issues regarding Parcels A and C
which staff should also consider as they evaluate the project.
Commissioner Nielsen commented that he is concerned with the parking issues and partial street vacation.
He thinks we should get some parking benefit if they have surplus parking available in their underground
garage.
Commissioner Savary commented that she is in favor of making the decision tonight. Everything she was concerned with has been discussed.
MINUTES /97
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) August 16,1995 PAGE 14
Commissioner Monroy commented that he has the same concerns that Commissioner Nielsen has.
Commissioner Compas commented that he is prepared to accept Parcels A and C as proposed by staff.
Chairperson Welshons commented that her questions have also been answered on Parcels A and C and
they meet with her satisfaction. She called for a motion by the Design Review Board.
ACTION: Motion was made by Chairperson Welshons, and duly seconded, that the Design Review
Board continue this project to September 6, 1995. The proposed continuance is to allow
the applicant, property owners to the south, and staff to bring back a review of the
information proposed this evening so that we can make an informed vote that night.
VOTE: 3-O
AYES: Savary, Vessey, Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Welshons called for a motion by the Planning Commission,
ACTION: Motion was made by Chairperson Welshons, and duly seconded, to continue the
Lutheran Home project to a Special Meeting of the Design Review Board and the
Planning Commission convening at 5:00 p.m. on September 6, 1995 and, depending on
what is presented, the public testimony may be reopened.
VOTE: 5-o
AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Monroy, Nielsen, and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Member Marquez returned to the Chambers at 9:08 p.m.
/9g
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) September 6, 1995 PAGE 2
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. LCPA 9507/RP 94-OB/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-lO/HDP 94-08/V 94-Ol/PCD/GPC 95-03 - CARLSBAD BY
THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME - Request to amend the Village Redevelopment Local Coastal Program,
and requests for approval of a mitigated negative declaration and addendum, a major redevelopment
permit, coastal development permit, conditional use permit, hillside development permit, height
variance, and General Plan Consistency Determination to allow the redevelopment of the existing
Carlsbad by the Sea Lutheran Home located at 2855 Carlsbad Boulevard and 201 Grand Avenue in
the VR/R-3/BAO Zones and Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
Design Review Board Member Marquez stated that she has a conflict of interest and could not participate;
she left the room at 5:lQ p.m.
Chairperson Welshons asked the City Attorney about the ramifications of having only three Design Review
Board members in attendance. Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, cited s2.26.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code (CMC) and stated that it will require three affirmative votes by the Design Review Board to adopt the
resolutions. This is in contrast to the Planning Commission regulations which only requires a quorum of four
votes.
Anne Hysong, Assistant Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that at the August 16,
1995 joint public hearing, the Design Review Board and Planning Commission continued the project to
MINUTES
/w
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) September 8, 1995 PAGE 3
September 8, 1995 to give the applicant an opportunity to consider and respond to concerns by the Board
and Commission members and surrounding commercial property owners regarding the lack of retail continuity
along Carlsbad Boulevard, south of Grand Avenue. At that meeting, concerns were also expressed regarding
the loss of public parking spaces along Christiansen Way due to the proposed partial street vacation. In
response to these concerns, the applicant has revised the project to include approximately 3,200 s.f. of visitor
commercial space on the ground floor of Parcel B, fronting on Carlsbad Boulevard. This proposal is
consistent with this area and the village Local Coastal Program (LCP) requiring visitor serving uses on the
ground floor. Parking spaces to satisfy the commercial demand will be provided in the subterranean garage.
However, a LCP amendment is still required for the remainder of the project within the Village Redevelopment
zone.
Ms. Hysong stated that Condition #21 has been added to Design Review Board Resolution No. 230 for
Redevelopment Permit 94-08 requiring visitor commercial use in this portion of the Parcel B structure. The
project’s driveway access ramp on Parcel A has also been shortened to provide only one entry point at the
upper garage level and an interior access ramp. This change results in the loss of approximately 12 garage
parking spaces and widens the proposed Christiansen Way right-of-way to a minimum of 58 ft. along the
majority of that roadway, and to 38 ft. along the approximate 100 ft. adjacent to the driveway access ramp.
This 58 ft. right-of-way meets Carlsbad’s standards, They have added twelve 90 degree parking spaces on
the south side between Carlsbad Boulevard and Garfield Street, bringing the total number of on-street parking
spaces on Christiansen Way to 24 spaces, with an overall increase of 14 public parking spaces in the
immediate vicinity of the project. Also, Condition #l of Design Review Board Resolution No. 230 and
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3791 have been revised to require the submittal of revised plans
incorporating this change upon final project approval.
Using an overhead, Ms. Hysong reviewed the building area which requires a height exemption. The area
requiring the exemption has been reduced due to the reduction in the length of the driveway access ramp.
The only portions of the roof which will extend above the 35 ft. height limit are the pitched roofs in the
architectural facade. Ms. Hysong discussed the private sewer easement, which was brought up at the last
meeting, and directed attention to staff memo dated September 8, 1995 from Michael J. Shirey, Associate
Engineer, amending Condition #28 of Design Review Board Resolution No; 230 to preserve the private rights
of the easement. She also directed attention to a letter from Bob Ladwig, dated September 5,1995, regarding
the parking on Christiansen Way. Ms. Hysong completed her staff presentation by reviewing the actions
which would be required by the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission this evening. She stated
that staff is requesting a recommendation of approval.
Chairperson Welshons noted that Engineer Shirey’s memo should have stated that it was revising Condition
#29 rather than #28. Ms. Hysong acknowledged the correction.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if staff could contrast the number of existing living units with that of the
proposed project. Ms. Hysong replied that there are currently 102 living units, varying in size and
configuration. There are no kitchens. She does not have information on the size of the existing units. There
are also 59 skilled nursing beds. The proposed project would have 157 living units varying in size from 700-
1,500 s.f., each with one or more bedrooms and kitchen. There would also be 2 visitor units and 33 skilled
nursing beds.
Commissioner Nielsen requested the definition of a living unit. Ms. Hysong referred to CMC 91.04.093 which
defines a ‘commercial living unit’ as q ,.. a unit in a professional care facility, hotel, motel, time-share, or bed
and breakfast that provides the basic amenities for everyday living and may include but is not limited to a
sleeping area or bedroom(s), closet space, restroom, sitting/entertainment area and kitchen facilities.
Commercial living units are distinguished from dwelling units due to the assistance/services provided in
conjunction with the living unit and/or the use of the living unit for temporary lodging.” She also read aloud
CMC §21.04.295 which defines a ‘professional care facility’ as q ... a facility in which food, shelter, and some
form of professional service is provided such as nursing, medical, dietary, exercising, or other medically
recommended programs.” Not included are hospitals and mental hospitals.
MINUTES zw
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) September 8, 1995 PAGE 4
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if commercial living units are exempt from the affordable housing requirement.
MS. Hysong replied yes, because they are not considered to be residential units.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if there are other projects in Carlsbad, other than parking lots, which allow
a 28’ roadway and allows vehicles to back out of a parking space into the traffic lane. Bob Wojcik, Principal
Civil Engineer, replied no.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if staff feels that backing out into the traffic lane might be hazardous. Mr.
Wojcik replied no.
Commissioner Erwin stated that he had read the Minutes of the previous meeting and had listened to a tape
recording of the meeting. He feels qualified and will participate in this hearing.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the five parking spaces on Christiansen Way, near Carlsbad Boulevard, are
needed. Ms. Hysong replied that staff feels additional parking is always needed in the beach area.
Commissioner Erwin commented that he agrees with Commissioner Nielsen that backing up into the street
might be hazardous. He also doesn’t like the way it looks. Commissioner Erwin thinks that the area would
look better without those parking spaces.
Commissioner Erwin would like a condition added that requires the employees of Carlsbad by the Sea to use
the underground parking garage.
Chairperson Welshons inquired which resolutions would be affected by Commissioner Erwin’s
recommendation, if it is accepted. Ms. Hysong replied that it would affect Design Review Board Resolution
No. 230 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 3791,
Commissioner Compas inquired if California Lutheran Homes had been able to meet with the Garners since
the last meeting. Ms. Hysong replied that they had met but were unable to reach a compromise, which is
why retail has been added to the current floorplan.
Commissioner Monroy referred to Commissioner Erwin’s comment about the look of the parking and inquired
if landscaping could be used to hide the vehicles. Ms. Hysong replied that landscaping can be added but
it may need to be adjusted in order to provide adequate sight distance. Mr. Wojcik added that staff would
look at that very carefully to make sure there is no sight distance problem.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if taxes are lost on the retail portion, since this project is owned by a tax-
exempt organization. Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, replied that no property taxes will be paid on the
non-retail premises.
Member Vessey inquired what causes us to have the commercial requirement on the ground floor. Ms.
Hysong replied that this requirement is stipulated in the Village Local Coastal Program or Design Manual and
the Village Redevelopment Plan.
Member Vessey inquired why that rule has not been enforced in the past. Ms. Hysong replied that whenever
redevelopment occurs, the applicant is required to comply.
Chairperson Welshons inquired about the partial vacation of Christiansen Way and why this must still go to
the City Council. Ms. Hysong replied that decisions on street vacations must be made by the City Council.
The Planning Commission’s responsibility is to make the determination of General Plan consistency. Gary
Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, added that there is a state law which requires the Planning Commission
to make the consistency determination before the City Council can take action. The Planning Commission
is not recommending vacation of the street; they are only responsible to determine whether or not it is
consistent with the General Plan.
MINUTESJO,
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) September 8, 1995 PAGE 5
Chairperson Welshons inquired if the new footprint encroaches into the former right-of-way. Ms. Hysong
replied yes.
Chairperson Welshons inquired how often this happens. Ms. Hysong replied that it would only happen in the
event of a street vacation.
Chairperson Welshons referred to the reconfiguration design of Christiansen Way and inquired if 14’ travel
lanes are the same dimension as those on a cul-de-sac street. Mr. Wojcik replied that cul-de-sacs are
normally 38’ wide with parallel parking on both sides of the street. This leaves two 10’ travel lanes. In the
case of Christiansen Way, there are two 14’ travel lanes.
Chairperson Welshons referred to Resolution No. 230 and stated that there seems to be a conflict between
Condition #lQ and Condition #44. Ms. Hysong replied that this is a mistake; Condition #44 should be
deleted.
Chairperson Welshons inquired why staff is recommending a maximum of ten years for the building permits
to be issued. Ms. Hysong replied that this was done to coincide with the CUP and redevelopment permits,
which are for ten year periods. The applicant has also indicated that the project will be phased and this would
facilitate the phasing.
Chairperson Welshons inquired about the last two sentences in Condition #l, Resolution No. 230, which
states that substantial changes in the project will require an amendment to this approval. She would like to
know how an amendment would be processed. Ms. Hysong replied that if the applicant wishes to make a
substantial change to the project, they would have to apply to the Planning Department and Redevelopment
for an amendment to the applications. The amendment would have to come back to the Planning
Commission and Design Review Board. This is required by Chapter 21.35 of the zoning ordinance and will
also be addressed in the Village Design Manual which is forthcoming.
Chairperson Welshons inquired how much handicapped parking will be available on the street around the
project. Mr. Wojcik replied there are four spaces on Grand Avenue (two on the north side and two on the
south side).
Chairperson Welshons inquired if there is any handicapped parking on Garfield or Christiansen Way. Mr.
Wojcik replied no.
Chairperson Welshons inquired where parking will be located for the commercial uses on Parcel B. Ms.
Hysong replied there will be eleven parking spaces in the subterranean garage for this purpose.
Chairperson Welshons inquired how customers will access the retail from the garage. Ms. Hysong replied
that they will exit the subterranean garage on Garfield Street and walk around the project.
Commissioner Monroy commented that he needs more information on the ten year period to pull the building
permits. Since the project will be phased, it might be nine years before construction begins on Parcel B. He
thinks that ten years is a very long time. Evan Becker, Director of Housing & Redevelopment, replied that this
project is designed along the lines of the new Village Redevelopment Plan. He does not see a problem with
the ten years but will accept whatever time period the Planning Commission and Design Review Board feels
is necessary.
Commissioner Monroy is also concerned about parking on that block. If the permit is not pulled in 3-4 years,
he feels the project should come back for reconsideration. This would provide incentives to get the job done.
Mr. Becker replied that it may take longer than three years to get the whole block put together.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if there is any past precedent for a street vacation similar to this. Mr. Wojcik
replied that street vacations have been done in the past in older downtown areas. The only difference
MINUTES
CC202
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) September 8, 1995 PAGE 8
between them and this project is the right-of-way issue. The applicant has asked for an abandonment of
14,000 s,f. of right-of-way.
Chairperson Welshons invited the applicant to speak.
Jim Doyle, Chief Financial Officer, California Lutheran Homes, 2855 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, addressed
the Board and Commission and stated that the staff report speaks for itself. They have made changes which
were requested because they want to show they are flexible and that they are good neighbors.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if California Lutheran Homes would be willing to accept a condition to require
their employees to use the parking facility. Mr. Doyle replied yes.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if California Lutheran Homes will be paying property taxes on the property. Mr.
Doyle replied that a professional care facility is different from a residential facility in that they operate as a
501-C(3) institution. The 501-C(3) designation is considered non-profit and is exempt from taxes.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if California Lutheran Homes is excluded because they are owned by the
Lutheran Church. Mr. Doyle replied that their 501-C(3) non profit facility is not financed by the Lutheran
Church. Contracts are signed with residents for a life estate. There is typically an up-front payment and the
resident then pays monthly fees for the services they desire. Furthermore, Carlsbad by the Sea has 110
employees on their payroll, which is significantly higher than one would find in a rental complex. A 501-C(3)
professional care facility is not required to pay property taxes; however, they will pay property taxes on the
rental units which will be used for commercial/retail.
Commissioner Erwin inquired who owns Carlsbad by the Sea. Mr. Doyle replied that it is owned by California
Lutheran Homes, which is owned by the directors.
Commissioner Erwin inquired how many residents are planned for the proposed project. Mr. Doyle replied
that they expect to have 225 residents.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if the public would be allowed access to the underground garage. Mr. Doyle
replied that one space has been designated for each living unit. He believes the tenants will want to park in
the garage for their own safety.
Commissioner Compas commented that he is impressed by California Lutheran Homes response to the last
meeting. He inquired how long it will be before all of the units are rented. Mr. Doyle replied that he expects
full occupancy very quickly. He could not estimate a specific time frame.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if the applicant understands that changes to the project would have to come
back before the Design Review Board and Planning Commission in the form of an amendment. Mr. Doyle
replied that he is aware of this requirement.
Commissioner Compas requested Mr. Doyle to comment on his meeting with the Garners after the last
meeting. Mr. Doyle replied that he met with staff the following day to make sure that ‘land use’ and not ‘land
ownership’ was the issue. He then met with the Garners but they were unable to fully agree on all matters.
His compromise is to provide commercial/retail on the ground floor of Parcel B. A land swap, as the Garners
suggested, would take a considerable amount of time and he is not sure that all issues could be resolved to
everyone’s satisfaction.
Commissioner Compas inquired if California Lutheran Homes feels diminished by the compromises presented
tonight, as compared to the first proposal. Mr. Doyle replied that he believes the first proposal was the best
but they want to be flexible. He does not feel the project will be endangered by the changes being made.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if California Lutheran Homes is affiliated with the Lutheran Church. Mr. Doyle
MINUTES 2203
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) September 8, 1995
replied that they are affiliated in a very small way, but they are not owned by the Lutheran Church.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if residents of the facility pay a monthly stipend in addition to the initial fee.
Mr. Doyle replied yes, they pay both.
Commissioner Savary inquired if the monthly fee is tailored to each specific resident. Mr. Doyle replied yes;
it depends on the services they use.
Chairperson Welshons opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Lloyd Rochambeau, 3473 Don Arturo, Carlsbad, addressed the Board and Commission and stated that he
has been an administrator at Carlsbad by the Sea for 15 years. Chairperson Welshons asked him to
relinquish his time since the applicant had been given ample time to speak and she wanted to make sure that
all others desiring to do so have an opportunity to give testimony.
Lucile Thomas, 2855 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, addressed the Board and Commission and stated that
she is Chairperson of the Residents Council of Carlsbad by the Sea. She is speaking on behalf of the
residents. At the last meeting there was a question about how the residents felt about the project. She wants
the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission to know that everyone is very comfortable with what
is being done. Management has consulted with residents, neighbors, and the City. Furthermore, the
residents feel they are living on a time bomb. The whole Carlsbad by the Sea redevelopment project is based
on the existing facility’s susceptibility to earthquake damage. She urged the Board and Commission to base
their decision on the idea that this area is due any day for an earthquake.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the residents feel the existing building is unsafe. Ms. Thomas replied that she
is only stating what she has heard City staff state about the building. She has been told that the existing
building had to be either remodeled or redeveloped.
Ruth Ogilby, 2855 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, addressed the Board and Commission and stated that she
seconds Mrs. Thomas’ statement. She is a retired biochemist and in her profession she had occasion to visit
many professional care facilities. She moved to Carlsbad because she likes the area, but she certainly feels
that redevelopment is long past due. She hopes the Board and Commission will give approval to the
proposed project.
Jack Balistreri, 1585 Hotel Circle South, San Diego, addressed the Board and Commission and stated that
he is representing Sarah Garner Marquez and her father, Charles Garner, who own the adjacent Town Square
property. He noted that after the last meeting his clients did meet with Mr. Doyle and other representatives
from California Lutheran Homes. Unfortunately, it was not a glowing meeting. However, he is encouraged
by the addition of the commercial/retail on the ground floor of Parcel B. Mr. Balistreri is still concerned about
the 5’ block wall between his client’s property and the proposed project. He is also concerned about parking
for the retail uses. He understands that the parking will be underground but that the issue will be given further
consideration at a later date. Mr. Balistreri is most concerned about the sewer easement. There has been
no dialog about his client’s easement rights. The rights were granted in 1971 and still remain in force. He
wants to make absolutely certain there is no unreasonable interference with his clients’ use of the easement.
It would be unlawful for the applicant to place the sewer line deep underground. He is concerned that the
sewer line will be located under a very large building. Even if the project added a lift station, it would cost
his clients a considerable amount of money to make repairs, etc., which could be construed as unreasonable
interference. Lastly, he is concerned about the ten year period for the applicant to pull building permits.
Commissioner Compas inquired if he would be willing to accept the design if it is reasonable. Mr. Balistreri
replied that if the design is reasonable and it protects his clients property rights, he could accept it.
Geoff Armour, 2288 Janis Way, Carlsbad, addressed the Board and Commission and stated that he is
President of the Carlsbad Historical Society. He has been tuned in on this project for some time now with
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) September 8, 1995 PAGE 8
the height restrictions, parking, land swaps, etc. He will leave that up to staff. His major concern with the
project is historical preservation. He appreciates the efforts being made to preserve the facade of the former
hotel. He wants everyone to know that the applicant has gone out of their way to document the old hotel and
its history in early Carlsbad. Mr. Armour wholeheartedly supports the proposed project.
Bob Ladwig, 2842 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Board and Commission and stated that he is
speaking on behatf of himself. He supports the building program for this project but objects to the street
vacation and improvements on Christiansen Way. Currently, 38-40 cars can park on the street. With the
proposed improvements, only 24 cars will be able to park. He would like to suggest moving the southerly
curb back 4’ so there could be parking for 20 additional vehicles. The only impact would be a reduction in
the setback from 10’ to 8’. With this minor revision he would be in favor of approval. Using a wall diagram,
he indicated where the additional parking could be placed. He urged the Board and Commission not to
continue this item again. He would like the proposed project approved in concept and let the details be
worked out in the final design.
Commissioner Erwin asked Mr. Ladwig if he would like to eliminate a small section near the corner of
Christiansen Way and Carlsbad Boulevard in order to straighten the street out. Mr. Ladwig replied that would
not be necessary under his proposal, but staff could work out those details.
Don Christiansen, 3715 Longview, Carlsbad, addressed the Board and Commission and stated that he thinks
the applicant has gone out of their way to work out and develop the suggestions made at the last meeting.
It was a good project then and it is a better project now. He would like to go on record that he supports the
project.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Planning Commission or Design Review Board on this
topic, Chairperson Welshons declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among
Commissioners and Members.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, referred to Condition #29 which states that the sewer easement issue
must be resolved prior to the issuance of the grading permit, which is significantly different than the building
permit. The easement can be quit claimed (ii it is not being used) or mitigated during final design to allow
construction. The City Engineer will not be satisfied until he is certain that the private rights of the easement
holder are protected.
Commissioner Monroy commented that the easement holder will always have access to that sewer line. He
inquired what happens in the event of an earthquake. Mr. Rudolf replied that the project would have to be
designed in such a way that maintenance and repairs to the sewer line could be made reasonably.
Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, discussed the proposal by Mr. Ladwfg of widening Christiansen Way for
additional parking. He thinks a condition could be written to incorporate this recommendation.
Commissioner Compas inquired if the street is widened, what effect it would have on the building. Mr. Wojcik
replied that he is not totally sure. He believes it will impact the ramp and loading areas. He doesn’t think the
rest of the project would have any significant impact.
Member Vessey inquired if Mr. Ladwig’s proposal would result in a net gain in parking. Mr. Wojcik replied
there would be a net increase over what is currently proposed.
Commissioner Erwin asked Mr. Ladwig about the net parking gain. Mr. Ladwig replied that he sees 9
additional parking spaces on the south side and 11 additional spaces on the north side of the street. Mr.
Wojcik commented that this calculation is based on the length of the cars. However, having alternating on-
street parking might not be a good idea because it might affect those cars who are parked perpendicular to
the street and must back out of the parking space into the traffic lane.
MINUTES
amf-
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) September 8, 1995 PAGE 9
Chairperson Welshons inquired how close the cars can park to Carlsbad Boulevard. Mr. Wojcik replied that
they can park almost to the corner.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired about the center line of the existing street. Using an overhead projector, Mr.
Wojcik showed him the current center line and where the boundaries would be after the project is complete.
Chairperson Welshons inquired about the 5’ wall in front of Parcel B. Ms. Hysong replied that the wall will
not be built as originally planned because of the commercial use.
Chairperson Welshons inquired about the parking for Parcel B. Ms. Hysong replied that the applicant will
provide a portion of the underground parking for retail customers. There would have to be some type of gate
with a sticker or card for employees and residents to separate parking.
Commissioner Monroy commented that it sounds as though some of the underground parking will be for the
public. Ms. Hysong replied yes, 11 spaces.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if a condition should be included that 11 underground parking spaces will be
for the public. Ms. Hysong replied that it could be added to the condition.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about the required setbacks for the structure and how Mr. Ladwig’s proposal
would affect that. He would like to know if a variance would be needed. Ms. Hysong replied that the right-of-
way would be reduced by 4’. Since the R3 zone requires a 10’ setback, an administrative variance would be
required.
Commissioner Erwtn inquired how much of the building would have setbacks in excess of 10’. Ms. Hysong
replied about 50’ of the building would have setbacks less than of 10’. Using an overhead projector, she
indicated those areas which would be 10’ and those which would be less than 10’.
Commissioner Erwin inquired what this does to the landscape plan. Ms. Hysong replied that it would change
the landscape. There is a lot of landscaped area to work with.
Mr. Wayne commented that staff has not yet considered whether or not findings could be made for an
administrative variance. There must be unusual and extraordinary circumstances. He noted that four findings
must be made which are very difficult to make. He is not sure staff can make those findings to grant that kind
of variance. Commissioner Erwin would like to see a condition created with general wording so that Mr.
Ladwig’s proposal could be incorporated into the final design if staff determines that it is feasible.
Commissioner Monroy sees no problem with Mr. Ladwig’s proposal.
Commissioner Erwin asked the City Attorney if the staff memo dated September 8,1995 regarding the sewer
easement adequately addresses %e needs of both the applicant and the Garners. Mr. Rudolf replied that
it does if the word ‘design’ is changed to ‘project redesign.”
Chairperson Welshons allowed the applicant time for rebuttal.
Mr. Doyle, California Lutheran Homes, addressed the Board and Commission and stated that he is very aware
of the sewer easement and that it must be quit claimed or redesigned to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Commissioner Erwtn inquired if California Lutheran Homes can support Mr. Ladwtg’s proposal. Mr. Doyle
replied yes, as long as lt doesn’t change the building architecture.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if Mr. Doyle could accept a condition to provide public parking underground
for Parcel B. Mr. Doyle replied yes.
MINUTES
Job
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) September 8, 1995 PAGE 10
Chairperson Welshons inquired if Mr. Doyle could accept a reduction in the time for pulling building permits.
Mr. Doyle replied that he could accept a reduction from 10 years to 5 or 7 years. He thinks 3 years might
be a problem.
Commissioner Erwin would like to hear from the Garner’s attorney.
Jack Balistreri addressed the Board and Commission and stated that he appreciates the City Attorney’s
comments. He wants the easement designed so that his client’s rights are protected and that they have
reasonable access for maintenance and repairs.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if the easement is active. Mr. Baliitreri replied yes. It is a 4 inch line.
Commissioner Erwin would like to hear from the City Attorney again.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, commented that staff fully understands that the rights of the easement
holders cannot be impaired. The applicant has agreed to that condition.
Commissioner Compas inquired if the sewer line could run along the top of the garage. Mr. Balistreri doesn’t
know what the plan is for the easement. The only drawings he has seen show a huge building and a parking
garage.
Commissioner Monroy commented that the information he received is that the sewer line will be located in
the top portion of the garage.
Chairperson Welshons declared the public hearing closed.
Member Vessey stated that the easement is only 3’ wide. He inquired if the buildings could be separated to
allow access. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, doesn’t think the applicant would want to have the
building separated. He has spoken with the City Engineer and they are already looking at a design to
maintain gravity flow.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if Condition #18 of Design Review Resolution No. 230 should also indicate
approval of the plaque or art by the Historic Preservation Commission, and Arts Commission. Ms. Hysong
replied that the requirement could be easily added if the Board wishes.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if a variance for the hillside and setbacks on Parcel C need to provide a public
benefit. Ms. Hysong replied that a public benefit finding is not required. The findings needed are listed in
the resolution.
Commissioner Nielsen requested staff to review the justification for vacating the street. Ms. Hysong replied
as follows:
. It doesn’t impact circulation. The street will continue to operate at extsting levels. . It will not impact the operating levels of surrounding streets. . Parking on the street has been replaced in the immediate vicinity.
Commissioner Erwin requested staff to restate recommended changes to the resolution.
Chairperson Welshons itemized the following list and requested staff to identify corrections or additions, if any.
. Staff errata sheet dated August 18, 1 QQ5.
. Staff errata sheet dated September 8,1995 with a correction to Condition #29 and correcting
the word “designed” to “project redesign” on advice of the Assistant City Attorney. . Addition of a new condition to Resolutions 230 and 3791 that employees will be required to
MINUTES 207
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) September 8, 1995 PAGE 11
park underground. . Deletion of Condition #44 (Resolution 230) with renumbering. . Revised condition in Resolution 230 reducing the period for pulling building permits to 5
years. . Addition of generally worded condition to incorporate Mr. Ladwig’s proposal to move the curb
back 4’ on the southerly side of Christiansen Way, if feasible.
. Revised Condition #21 to add public parking under Parcel B for retail customers.
. Revised Condition #18 to require the plaque or art to be reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Commission and Arts Commission.
Commissioner Erwin stated that he would vote in favor of the proposed project. Most projects want to
encapsulate senior citizens into small living areas. He likes the size of the living units being proposed. His
major concern is adding a condition to require employees to utilize the underground parking. He likes the
idea of the retail customers being able to park in the garage. He can accept all of the changes read into the
record by Chairperson Welshons.
Commissioner Nielsen can support everything except abandonment of the street. He cannot support the staff
recommendation on this matter.
Commissioner Savary agrees with Commissioner Erwin.
Commissioner Monroy agrees with Commissioner Erwin. He would like the time limit for pulling permits
reduced to five years or else the project must return to both commissions.
Commissioner Compas can support the project. He also believes the building permits should be pulled in
five years.
Member Vessey can support the project. He thinks we need as much parking as possible in the downtown
area.
Chairperson Welshons can support the proposed project. She also agrees with the five year period for pulling
permits. She can also accept Mr. Ladwig’s proposal. She appreciates his ideas. She can also accept
Commissioner Erwin’s condition to require employees to park underground.
Chairperson Welshons took a straw vote on the following items: (1) underground employee parking; (2)
Condition #29 with staff changes: (3) deletion of Condition #44; (4) time limit of five years to pull building
permits; (5) public parking under Parcel B; (8) revision to Condition #18, Resolution No. 230 to require
approval by the Historic Preservation Commission and Arts Commission. The Design Review Board voted
3-O in favor of the changes. The Planning Commission voted 8-O in favor of the changes.
Chairperson Welshons requested staff to read aloud the condition to incorporate Mr. Ladwig’s proposal. Mr.
Wojcik replied as follows: 7he improvements to Christiansen Way shall be redesigned to maximize on-street
parking to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.”
Commissioner Compas inquired if all of the additional parking could be added to the north side of
Christiansen Way instead of half along the south side. Mr. Wayne replied that staff does not want to relocate
the street. They will see what can be done. Mr. Ladwig has recommended 4’ but it may only turn out to be
1’ or nothing, in which case we would be back to the existing proposal.
Phnina Commission:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Compas, and duly seconded, to adopt the new condition
to consider Mr. Ladwig’s proposal to increase parking, as read into the record by
Engineer Bob Wojcik.
MINUTES sag
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) September 8, 1995 PAGE 12
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
8-O
Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen, Savary, Welshons
None
None
Design Review Board:
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Member Savary, and duly seconded, to adopt the new condition to
consider Mr. Ladwig’s proposal to increase parking, as read into the record by
Engineer Bob Wojcik.
3-o
Savary, Vessey, Welshons
None
None
Phninn Commhsion:
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to accept the following changes
(1) Staff errata sheet dated August 18, 1995; (2) Staff errata sheet dated September
8, 1995 with a correction to Condition #29 and correcting the word “designed” to
“project redesign” on advice of the Assistant City Attorney: (3) Addition of a new
condition to Resolutions 230 and 3791 that employees will be required to park
underground; (4) Deletion of Condition #44 (Resolution 230) with renumbering: (5)
Revised condition in Resolution 230 reducing the period to 5 years for pulling
building permits; (8) Revised Condition #21 to add public parking under Parcel B
for retail customers; and (7) Revised Condition #18 to require the plaque or art to be
reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission and Arts Commission.
8-O
Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen, Savary, Welshons
None
None
Design Review Board:
ACT10 N:
VOTE:
AYES: NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Member Vessey, and duly seconded, to accept the following changes (1)
Staff errata sheet dated August 18, 1995; (2) Staff errata sheet dated September 8,
1995 with a correction to Condition #29 and correcting the word “designed” to
“project redesign” on advice of the Assistant City Attorney; (3) Addition of a new
condition to Resolutions 230 and 3791 that employees will be required to park
underground; (4) Deletion of Condition #44 (Resolution 230) with renumbering: (5)
Revised condition in Resolution 230 reducing the period for pulling building permits
to 5 years; (8) Revised Condition #21 to add public parking under Parcel B for retail
customers; and (7) Revised Condition #18 to require the plaque or art to be reviewed
by the Historic Preservation Commission and Arts Commission.
3-o
Savary, Vessey, Welshons
None
None
Planninn Commission:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission
MINUTES a09
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) September 8, 1995 PAGE 13
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Resolution No. 3790 approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration including an
addendum, and Resolution Nos. 3791, 3792, and 3793 as revised approving a
revised plan for CUP 94-10, HDP 94-08, and V 94-01 based upon the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein, including amendments and errata sheets.
8-O
Compas, Erwfn, Monroy, Nielsen, Savary, Welshons
None
None
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3801 as revised, approving PCD/GPC 95-03 based upon the findings
and subject to the conditions contained therein.
5-l
Compaq Erwin, Monroy, Savary, Welshons
Nielsen
None
Design Review Board:
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Member Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Design Review Board
Resolution No. 228 recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
including an addendum, and Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 229,230 and 231
as revised recommending approval of a revised plan for LCPA 95-07, RP 94-06, and
CDP 94-08 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein,
including amendments and errata sheets.
3-o
Savary, Vessey, Welshons
None
None
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
December 1,1995
City Manager
Anne Hysong, Associate Planner
CARLSBAD BY-THE-SEA LUTHERAN HOME
Per our telephone conversation, I am forwarding engineering plans illustrating the project
design including the Christiansen Way redesign required as a condition of project approval
by the Planning Commission and recommended for approval by the Design Review Board at
their joint September 6, 1995 public hearing. These plans should be distributed to the
Council members at their briefings.
The roadway redesign maximizes onstreet parking on Christiansen Way resulting in no loss
of parking along this roadway. The plan also illustrates the roadway design upon approval of
the proposed partial street vacation of Christiansen Way which will be presented to City .‘I Council as a Resolution of Intention on Tuesday. As conditioned, the project is required to
submit final exhibits illustrating changes imposed by condition to the Planning Department
within 30 days of final project approval. The plans are therefore not exhibits, but provided
for information purposes.
RONALD R. BALL
CITY ATTORNEY
D. RICHARD RUDOLF
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
JANE MOBALDI
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989
(619) 434-2891 FAX: (619) 434-8367
November 8, 1995
Jack A. Balistreri, Esq. Corona & Balistreri Second Floor 1565 Hotel Circle South San Diego, CA 92108
RE: CARLSBAD LUTHERAN HOME
Dear Mr. Balistreri:
The City Manager has requested that I respond to your letter to him of October 27, 1995 in the above referenced matter. Additionally, I am confirming our telephone conversation of November 7, 1995 in which you agreed to withdraw the appeal that you had previously filed in this matter.
Your appeal withdrawal is conditioned upon your opportunity to review the Design Review Board and Planning Commission resolutions from their joint meeting of September 6, 1995 and confirm that the matters with which you are concerned are contained in the Design Review Board action, and not the Planning Commission action. The importance of that distinction is that the Planning Commission actions are final, subject to appeal to the City Council, whereas the actions of the Design Review Board are all recommendatory, with the actual final decision maker being the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. Under these circumstances, your issues can be raised and dealt with by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission in the context of their receipt of the recommendation from the Design Review Board, for free, without the necessity of an appeal or the payment of an appeal fee.
Consistent with your agreement to withdraw the appeal because it is unnecessary, I've requested the City Clerk process a refund of your appeal fee which was paid in error. You should receive a check from the Finance Department in approximately two weeks.
As soon as the agenda package is formed for the November 21, 1995 Housing and Redevelopment Commission consideration of the recommendations from the Design Review Board, and City Council
approval of the Local Coastal Program Amendment, we will forward you that package, so that you can verify that the matters with which you are concerned are found only in the Design Review Board resolutions. If you determine otherwise, your appeal will be reinstated without prejudice with regard to any time defect, but of course, we will then retain or require resubmittal of the appeal fee.
By copy of this letter, I am informing the representatives of the California Lutheran Home of the procedural posture of its item before the Housing and Redevelopment Commission/City Council on November 21, 1995.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
L!s-z-J-~
D. RICHARD RUDOLF Assistant City Attorney
rmh
c: City Clerk J
City Manager Planning Director Housing and Redevelopment Manager Tony Lawson
-?I^-: ,gpq.:< .‘:,i ?,“‘&;,“.$ Y.” ., “,‘;‘“Ai y yeh.I-q*!q+lp&” yTG+L>py”u -wT’, >.-a,. ^‘ ~_ ‘. .i -‘65-$ :. 9 .’ +y$c?!wm~ph>“r
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
434-2867
,r
REC’D FROM /; j”’ ,;:f, $
,’
DATE ‘/- /->r 1
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
:<(,. 3 * : _ i / <‘/ ,.‘, /’ 1-i i ,’ y-, //,,.; /( i / ,,.’ i/(. j _ I . I 12‘ I
/ / I I -* I .
RECEIPTaB. ~59%
@ Riluedonrsydsdppr. -- . ..a+- _a-
NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY
CASN REGISTER
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the following decision of the -zL&rc)~,&C
-a /tiM/s5/Od V- ES/6E3 -z tit-&@bto the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): LC PA ?.s-07 / RP wfc&
c-b?=- 9 s’ -o&J r /A Fs 9 4 --HO,/ t-tbl- Ts/-c3'a c/Fv=v~
ct,/LPC, Ys-f3.I - (zf4@~Lsa& I37 r-7-e -se44 Lm-&Le4# ,
k-F Date of Decision:
Reason for Appeal:
72/Lpr-cTS c/d-I -%a%@ 7-7 OW?s
s. E%k-sLMU/ x?/tstf-z-~ OF
/J m eM2J
Name (Please Print)
/5Lb s .- recu= so. Address
S-i-> /E--LO. 9 2/O% /
L3PT - 3??-33//
Telephone Number
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2808 @
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD and
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, September 6, 1995 $m:y$ 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive ‘V”.“‘.( ““““A”.‘. .c..,,,, .., ,,., ,,,, :::i.i:,::::::::::::.:::::~~:.~!:::.:!:::.~!:!;~:.:!:~:!;~:!~~~~~:~ .’ ,.: ::: :::: ::::::: :a’. ,.A ~.~,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:?::~~:::::~~~?:..,,:j :r.:,:j::s:,.:.:.:. ::: :::, ,.,,,,,,.,, ,, ,,,,,, “) .,,, r,,*~, ,,,.... iv,. . . . . . . . . . . ,,,,,(,,,.,!,I., ,,,,, : : :,: : :,:,:, ;.: : : :,:.:.“:::::~~~~~~~~‘~~~~~.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~~...~....~..~.~ t,,,,_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~‘:~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ..< 7. . P IU:.:CxC+w,x ..,. ‘A. ,.. . . . ~~~~x~~~~~~~~!~..~~~~~~.,;a..~., . 6 5 : ~~~~~~‘~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A . . . . ..<. . . . . . . (,. . . . . ,* .iz%&:~*:>ti&<~~>x~:~..’ &x.v
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC:
1. .............................. ................. .......... .. ~*rt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~:~~~~~~
gljgK$k+& .::::..::.:.:::::.::. :.-: :...::;.: .: ..... .‘. .. .* .. . ...... ................ ..... ......................................... . ................. R. ...................... ......................... ......................................................................................... ................... I,., ................. :...:...:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...: .: ......... :.: ............ ;., :;.::...:.)~..:.:.:.: ... .,
...........
2. It is the Planning Commission’s policy to adjourn the meeting no later than 10 p.m.
3. Meetings are divided into categories shown below.
4. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address.
5. All persons requiring assistance or auxiliary aids in order to effectively participate may contact the Planning
Department at least 24 hours prior to the meeting to arrange for reasonable accommodations.
CONSENT AGENDA:
If you desire to talk about Consent Items a written “Request to Speak” form must be filed with the Minutes Clerk
prior to the time the Consent Agenda is called. The items listed under Consent Agenda are considered routine and
will be enacted by one motion as listed. There will be no separate discussion on these items prior to the time the
Commission votes, unless an item is removed.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
If you desire to speak about an item not listed on the agenda, a Time Reservation Request” form should be filed
with the Minutes Clerk. A total of 15 minutes is provided for the Public Comment portion of the Agenda.
Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
In conformance with the Brown Act, no action can occur on items presented during Public Comment,
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
It is not necessary to file a written request to speak on items listed on this agenda as Public Hearings.
ALL OTHER CATEGORIES:
For all other agenda items a “Request to Speak” form must be filed with the Minutes Clerk before the item is
announced. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. y-flm$ y&$.&~.;::.:~,
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ABSENT: NOBLE
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENT: NOBLE
ClTY CLERK
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD and PLANNIN G COMMISSION AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
PAGE 2
MINUTES: AUGUST 16, 1995 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ACTION: Approved as amended
VOTE: 4-o
PLANNING COMMISSION
PC ACTION: Anoroved as amended
VOTE: 5-O-l (Erwin)
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA
Please limit your comments to three minutes. (A total of five speakers may be heard).
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1) LCPA 9507/RP 94-06KDP 94-06/CUP 941O/HDP 94-
08/V 94-OI/FCD/GPC 95-03 - CARLSBAD BY THE
SEA LUTHERAN HOME - Request to recommend
approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration with an
addendum, and to amend the Village Redevelopment
Local Coastal Program; and requests for a Major
Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit,
Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development
Permit, Height Variance, and General Plan
Consistency Determination to allow the
redevelopment of the existing Carlsbad by the Sea
Lutheran Home located at 2855 Carlsbad Boulevard
and 201 Grand Avenue in the VR/R-3/BAO zones
and Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL
PUBLIC H-EARING:
2) RP 94-02/CDP 94-02/CUP 94-02 - ARMY AND NAVY
ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN - Request for
approval of a Negative Declaration, Major
Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit,
and Conditional Use Permit for a conceptual master
site plan to 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.
Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
RESO: 228.229.230.231
ACTION: AnDroved as Amended
VOTE: 3-o
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESO: 3790.3791.3792, 3793
PC ACTION: AnDroved as Amended
VOTE: 6-O
RESO:
VOTE:
3801
5-l (Nielsen)
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
RESO:
ACTION:
VOTE:
232, 233.234
Continued to 10/4/95
4-o
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESO: 3796.3797
PC ACTION: Continued to 10/4/95
VOTE: 6-O
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD and P LANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
” SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
3) RP 9503/LCPA 95.lO/CDP 95-03 - NEW VILLAGE
MASTER PLAN & DESIGN MANUAL - Request to
repeal the Village Design Manual approved on July
20, 1982, and amended in 1988, and adopt a new
Village Master Plan and Design Manual to implement
the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan for the
Village Redevelopment Area located in Local
Facilities Management Zone 1.
PLANNING COMMISSION
PC ACTION: Accented staffs report and
set a public hearing at a
special meeting; on 10/4/95 at
5:oo D.rn.
VOTE: 6-O
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
VOTE: 4-o
Staff Recommendation: NO ACTION REQUIRED
COMMENTS
Planning Commission Member Comments
Planning Director Comments
City Attorney Comments
ADJOURNMENT
TIME: 9:59 p.m.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Country of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
Blade-Citizen
a newspaper of general circulation, printed and
published daily in the City of Oceanside and
qualified for the City of Oceanside, City of Carlsbad
and City of Solana Seach and the North Country
Judicial district with substantial circulation in
Sonsall. Fallbrook, Leucadia, Encinitas, Cardiff,
Vista, Del Mar, La Costa, Olivenhain, Ranch0
Santa Fe, City of San Diego. County of San Diego.
and which newspaper has been adjudged a
newspaper of general circulation by the Superior
Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the date of June 30, 1989, case
number 171349; that the notice, of which the
annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller
than nonpareil), has been published in each regular
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
November 24, 1995
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct
Dated at Oceanside, California, this day 3!
_ Nov. 1995
A!!iLb--f&-- Signature
BLADE-CITIZEN
Legal Advertising
1722 South Coast Highway
Oceanside, CA 92054
P.O. Box 90
Oceanside, CA 92049
341 South Cedros
Solana Beach, CA 92075
6191433-7333
This space is for the Country Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Noticeof Public Hearing
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
LCPA 9597/RP 94=6/CDP 9406/ZCA 95-12
CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a joint public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, December 5, 1995, to consider a request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, an amendment to the Village Redevelopment Local Coastal Program, a Major Redevelopment Permit, a Coastal Development Permit, and a Zone Code Amendment to allow the redevelopment of the existing Carlsbad by the Sea Lutheran Home on property generally located at 2855 Carlsbad Boulevard and 201 Grand Avenue, in the VR/R-3/BAO Zones, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1, and more particularly described as:
Parcel A: Blocks 8 and 9 of Town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 365, filed in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder, on February 2, 1887; also all of Garfield Street adjoining said Blocks 8 and 9 as vacated and closed to public use; together with the South- easterly one half of Cedar Street as shown on said map adjoining said land on the Northwest, which upon closing would revert by operation of law, to the above described land.
Parcel B: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3488, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map on file in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder, being a division of a Portion of Block 12 of the Town of Carlsbad, according to Map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder.
Parcel C: Lots 50, 51, 52 and the south 15 feet of Lot 49, in Block ItAWl of Map No. 2 of the Hayes Land Company, Inc., addition in Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1221, filed in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder, November 4, 1909. .
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, Ext. 4477.
If you challenge the Local Coastal Program Amendment, Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and/or Zone Code Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office, at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: Carlsbad By The Sea Lutheran Home PUBLISH: November 24, 1995
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL & CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
l
CARLSBAD BY THE SEA
LUTHERAN HOME
LCPA 95=07/RP 94006/CUP 94-l O/
CDP 94=06/HDP 94-08/V 94-01
#
(F0r.m A)
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notide
LCPA 95-07/RP 94-06/CDP 94-06 - CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
for a public hearing before the ~%W&&i~HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT.
COMMISSION.
Please notice the ftem for the council meeting of
Thank you.
94 October fl, 1995
Date
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission of the City
of Carlsbad will hold a joint public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
C&bad, California, at 5:OO p.m. on Wednesday, August 16, 1995, to consider a request to amend the
Village Redevelopment Lr>cal Coastal Program, and requests for a Major redevelopment pennit, coastal
development permit, conditional use permit, hillside development permit, and variance to allow the
redevelopment of the existing Carlsbad by the Sea Lutheran Home on property generally located at 2855
Carlsbad Boulevard and 201 Grand Avenue in the VR/R-3/BAO zones and Local Facilities Management
Zone 1 and more particularly described as:
Parcel A: Block 8 and 9 of town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 365, filed in the Oflice of the
County Recorder of San Diego County February 2, 1887; also all of Garfield Street
adjoining said Blocks 8 and 9 as vacated and closed to public use. Together with the
Southeasterly l/2 of Cedar Street as street is shown on said map)adjoining said land on
the northwest, which upon closing would revert, by operation of law, to the above
described land.
Parcel B: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3488, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map on file in the Office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County, being a division of a Portion of Block 12 of the town of Carlsbad,
according to Map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San 8 Diego County.
Parcel C: Iots 50, 5 1, 52 and the south 15 feet of ILot 49, in Block “A” of Map No. 2
of the Hayes Land Company, incorporated, addition, in Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to Map thereof 1221, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, November 4, 1909.
Those petsons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies
of the staff report will be available on and after August 10, 1995. If you have any questions, please call
Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (619) 438-l 161, ext. 4477.
If you challenge the bcal Coastal Program Amendment/Major Redevelopment Pen-nit/Coastal
Development Permit/Conditional Use Permit/Hillside Development Permit/Variance in court, you may
be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: LCPA 95-07/RP 9406/CDP 9406/CUP !++lO/HDP 94-08/V 94-01
CASE NAME: CARISBAD BY THE SEA LU- HOME
PUBLISH: AUGUST 4, 1995
CITY OF CARISBAD
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD & PLANNING COMMISSION
AH.vd
a
WHC FOUR INVESTORS HAROLD & DOLORES JENSEN SHAUL & CAROUNE MEZRAHI
C/O DEREK SMITH 2924 CARLSBAD BLVD. C/O CLAIRS COLLECTION
555 S. FLOWER CARLSBAD, CA 92008 I 110 E. 9TH ST. # 8889
LOS ANGELES, CA 9007 1 LOS ANGELES, CA 90079 /
JOHN & MARY GRANT
7 173 OBELISCO CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
DANIEL & COLLEN SOT0 THATCHER TRUST
/ PO BOX 353 ! ROBERT SONNEMAN
CARLSBAD, CA 92018 325 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR. C2
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
FRANKIE RUN20
3000 HIGHLAND DR.
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
TED TANAKA & DIANA HO DAVID THOMPSON
GREEN EAGLE ENTERPRISES PROFIT SHARING PLAN
4223 GLENCOE AVE. #B- 107 580 BEECH AVE. #C
MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292 CARLSBAD , CA 92008
WIEHLE FAMILY TRUST
395 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR.
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
HAWTHORNE FAMILY TRUST
PO BOX 708
SAN DIEGO, CA 92112
LORI EMSLIE TRUST
2683 OCEAN ST.
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DAVID & ANA RICHARDS
2687 OCEAN ST.
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
EDWARD &JOANNE
KLOSTERMAN
1565 HILLCREST AVE.
GLENDALE , CA 91202
RICHARD KUNKLE
PO BOX 26048
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73 126
NANCY JOHNSON ROBERT & EUZABETH BRYANT FRED & BARBARA HAVENS
806 N. FOOMILL RD. TRS. 2 139 ARCHDALE ST.
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 273 1 OCEAN ST. RIVERSIDE, CA 92506
CARLSBAD , CA 92008
ROBERT WAILES & JACKELYN MARY BIXBY FAMILY TRUST MARIA SlDUN
HARRIS TRS. 2141 E. VINE ST. 2688 OCEAN ST.
2729 OCEAN ST. WEST COVINA, CA 91791 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
SCOll BARTEL & NICOLE
PAPPAS
2689 GARFIELD ST.
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
WILLIAM & MARY MANN JOHN MCGRATH
2701 OCEAN ST. 2685 GARFIELD ST.
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
FRED & BARBARA HAVENS
FRANK BELL
2 139 ARCHDALE ST.
RIVERSIDE, CA 92506
ALVIN & JAYNE BENEDICT TRS 8357 TURTLECREEK CIR.
LAS VEGAS, NV 89113
JAMES & SANDRA MiNOR
P.O. BOX 490
SAN JACINTO, CA. 92581
WAYNE & CAROL MINOR
P.O. BOX 490
SAN JACINTO. CA 92581
VIGIL FAMILY TRS.
290 1 OCEAN ST. #4 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JESSIE MINOR
P.O. BOX 490 SAN JACINTO, CA 92581
-
CHARLES AND SARAH GARNER :
25775 TOLUCA DR.
SAN BERNADINO, CA 92404 !
OCEAN MANOR GARDEN
HOTEL
C/O KURT GUNTHER
330 WISTERIA WY.
SIERRA MADRE , CA 91024
SEASLOPE ESTATES OWNERS
ASSOC.
PO. BOX 1300
RIVERSIDE, CA 92502
TOBO INVESTMENTS
2785 ROOSEVELT ST.
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
FRANK & EVELYN ROSE ROBERT & AGUSTA PHIPPS 32791 LUMERIA LANE 3015 OCEAN ST. DANA POINT, CA 95629 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CARLSBAD INN LTD
PO. BOX 4068
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
VIADISLAVA MUNDY
2733 WASHINGNTON
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
FRANK MALDONADO &
PATRICIA A. TRS
42 13 BEACH BLUFF RD.
~ARLSBAD. CA 92008
RR & PAULINE ROBINSON
2977 OCEAN ST.
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOSEPH & THERESA BAIA
17 11 SIRRINE DR.
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
THE MOORING APARTMENTS
C/O KURT GUNTHER
330 WISTERIA WAY
SIERRA MADRE, CA 91024
G&G
1 264 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR.
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
HOWARD MARX & KATHLEEN
MARX
3 BUTLER ST.
IRVINE, CA 927 15
MARY WELCH
351 BEECH AVE.
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
SEVERINE WRIGHT
2510 CHESTNUT AVE.
CARLSBAD , CA 92008
JACK PHILUPS
3702 INGRAHAM ST.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92109
REVA HOOPER & STELLA STAMP
3320 OLEANDER AVE
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
JACK PHILLIPS
9309 LA RIVIERA DR. # A
SACRAMENTO, CA 95826
ROBERT & JO ANNE CAAN TRS.
8038 VALLE VISTA
RANCH0 CUCAMONGA. CA
91730
CARLSBAD HISTORIC SOCIETY
PO. BOX 252
CARLSBAD , CA. 92008
RALPH SR., RALPH JR., & LANA
BURNETTE
33 15 MCKINLEY ST.
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BELL FAMILY PARTNERS
PO. BOX 151
ANAHIEM, CA 92815
JAY HOFFMAN & MARYON D. &
MARJA SELNA
4901 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PERRY REVOCABLE TRUST
PO. BOX 1102
RANCH0 SANTE FE, CA 92067
ANTHONY TOMARO
REVOCABLE TRUST
367 BEECH AVE.
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
HARRY & LAVlNA VOLLMER TRS.
3990 HIGHLAND DR.
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CHRISTIANSEN INTERNA-llONAL
PO. BOX 188
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD HOTEL
llOWESTCST.R 1901
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
GERICOS PARTNERSHIP
850 TAMARACK AVE.
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
I . .
f ROBERT & LYNDA ERICKSON
P.O. BOX 2120
CARLSBAD, CA 920 18
fly ~~- I; : NORINE SIGAFOOSE
2805 OCEAN ST.
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
,I ‘\
,!I
INTERNAT. REAL ESTATE DEV.
C/O GERALD PAXTON
: 2537 SUMMlT DR.
ESCONDIDO, CA 92025
ST. MICHAELS BY THE SEA
2775 CARLSBAD BLVD.
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
CAL. STATE PARKS AND REC.
SAN DIEGO COAST DISTRICT
LIFEGUARD DIVISION
9609 WAPLES, SUITE P200
SAN DIEGO, CA. 92121
DIRK & JUNE FEENSTRA
653 1 AVENIDA DEL PARAISO I CARLSBAD, CA. 92009
CLEASE FAMILY 199 1 TRUST SUZANNE HEYNE BILL & JUUANNE DEEN
4990 VIA MARTA W8CHURCH ST. #23 741 E. ST.
CARLSBAD , CA 92008 VENTURA, CA. 93001 BRAWLEY, CA. 92227
LAUREN & GRAY LUCIER THOMAS HODGES JOHN & VlRGlNlA GIPNER
3080 LINCOLN ST. #5 RTE. 3 BOX 390 JAMES & GEORGIE GIPNER
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 ESCONDIDO, CA. 92029 4250 DUSK DR.
OCEANSIDE, CA. 92056
ROBERT & LYNDA ERICKSON
P.O. BOX 2120
CARLSBAD, CA 920 18
PATRTCE;& LUDUSKA BILLER PO BOX 2303 VISTA CA 92085
NORRINE SIGAFOOSE
2805 OCEAN ST.
CARLSBAD, CA 92C08
TONY LAWSON ADL PLANNING 5962 LA PLACE CT 8205
CARLSBAD CA 92008
INTERNAT. REAL ESTATE DEV.
C/O GERALD PAXTON
2537 SUMMIT DR.
ESCONDIDO, CA 92025
ATTN:rJAMES DOYLE CA LUTHERAN HOMES 2313 FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803
ATTN: DAVE MOITANI THE STEINBERG GROUP 60 PIERCE AVE SAN JOSE CA 95110
. -
* . FACILITIES FOR CITY CLERK SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLANNING
5201 RUFFIN RD STE “B”
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CITY OF CARLSBAD .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PROJECT PLANNER
CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE
505 S WLCAN AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NO HILL ST
ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF VISTA CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
PO BOX 1988 330 GOLDENSHORE #50
VISTA CA 92085 LONG BEACH CA 90802
OWNERSHIPS SURROUNDING CARLSBAD BY THE SEA
/ 03-140-20
Jsd3- 140-24
&&ICI-26
4 3-140-27
46 3-140-29
Ll 203 140-30
)203-l&31
-3-1032
@%140-33
-ri 03-140-34
Lprd 3-140-35
d 03-141-10
Prepared by ADL Planning Associates
8/ 1 f95
Nancy Johnson
806 N. Foothill Rd.
Beverley Hilts, Co. 90210
Robert & Eliiabeth Bryant
2731 Ocean St.
Cartsbad, Co. 92008
Fred & Barbara Havens
2 139 Archdale St.
Riverside, Co. 92506
Hawthorne Family Trust
PO Box 708
San Diego, CA 92 112
Robert Wailes & Jackelyn Harris
2729 Ocean Street
Co&bad, CA 92008
Alvin & Jayne Benedict TRS
8357 Turtlecreek Clr.
Las Vegas, NV. 89 113
William & Mary Mann
2701 Ocean St.
Carlsbad, Co. 92008
Lori Emslie Trust
2683 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, CA 92GO8
David & Ana Richards
2687 Ocean Street
Cartsbad, CA 92008
Edward & Joanne Klosterman
1565 Hillcrest Avenue
Glendale, CA 91202
Richard Kunkel
PO Box 26048
Oklahoma City, OK 73126
Mary Bixby Family Trust
2 14 1 East Vine Street
West Covina, CA 91791 RECEIVED
AU0 0 1 m
c1l.Y OF CARJJWAD PUNMJNG DEPT.
CLH Property List Page 2
203-141-l 1
203-141-27-01
203-141-27-02
43-141-27-03
1&?&i43-01
203- 143-02
203- 143-06
203- 143-07’
~3-144-01
203- 144-03
203-171-01
/ld3- 172-02
a3- 172-03
203- 172-04
&C&-172-05
&ZO3- 172-06
L2d 3- 172-07
203- 172-08
Maria Sidun
2688 Ocean Street
Carisbad, CA 92008
Scott Bartel & Nicole Pappas
2689 Garfield Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Wailes & Harris Family Trust
2729 Ocean Street
Co&bad, CA 92008
John McGrath
2685 Garfield Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Saint Michaels by the Sea
2775 Co&bad Blvd.
Carlsbad, Co. 92008
Fred & Barbara Havens
Frank Bell
P-0. Box 151
Anaheim, Co. 92815
TO60 Investments
2785 Roosevelt Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
State of California Parks and Rec. Office, San Diego Coast District
Lifeguard Division
9609 Waples, Suite a200
San Dlego, Co. 92 12 1
Mary Welch
35 1 Beech Avenue
Cartsbad, CA 92008
Anthony Tomaro Revocable Trust
367 Beech Avenue
Cartsbad, CA 92008
Vladislava Mundy
2733 Washlngton
Cartsbad, CA 92008
Severlne Wright
2510 Chestnut Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Harry & Lavina Vollmer TRS.
3990 Highland Driie
Carlsbad , CA 9Xx38
CLH Property IJst Page 3
43-172-l 1
d-172-12
(,X%172-14’
203-172-15’
203-173-01’
4172-16
-3- 172-20
&Z&72-21
203- 172-23
&3- 173-03
203 173-04 203-173-12
Ralph Sr., Ralph Jr., & Lana Bumette
33 15 McKinley Street
Carlsbad , CA 92008
203-173-05 WHC Four Investors
203-173-06 c/o Derek Smith
203- 173-08 555 S. Flower St.
203-173-13 Los Angeles, Co. 9007 1
ti3- 173-09’ Gericos Partnership
850 Tamarack Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
43-174-01’
203- 174-03’
dfxb 174-04’
203- 174-05’
h3-174-06
203- 174-07
Jack Phillips
3702 lngraham Street San Dlego, CA 92 109
Reva Hooper & Stella Stamp
3320 Oleander Avenue San Marcos, CA 92069
Christiansen International
PO Box 188
Carlsbad. CA 92008
Jack Phillips
9309 La Riviera Drive #A
Sacramento, CA 95826
Robert & Jo Ann Coon TRS.
8038 Valle Vista
Ranch0 Cucamonga, CA 91730
Carlsbad Boulevard Hotel
llOWestCStreet#l901
San Diego, CA 92101
Carlsbad Historic Society
PO Box 252
Co&bad, CA 92018
Shaul & Caroline Mezrahi
c/o Claires Collection
110 E. 9th St. # 8889
Los Angeles, Co. 90079
Harold & Dolores Jensen
2924 Carisbad Blvd.
Cartsbad, CA 92008
WHC Four Investors
555 S. Flower St.
Los Angeles, Co. 9007 1
Cartsbad, CA 92018
. . . .
.
CLH Property bt Page 4
b-26 3-175-01
4Ld 3- 17502
G?f33- 17503
~17504
L-2&175-05
“903- 17506
-%S-175-07
203-l 75-08
w&3-232-03’
203-232-04’
203-232-05’
203-232- 13’
v4 03-232-08
203-232-09
&3-232- 16
LA 03-233-03’
‘&S-234-04
John & Mary Grant
7 173 Obelisco Circle
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Daniel & Colleen Soto
PO Box 353
Co&bad, CA 920 18
Charlotte Thatcher Revocable Trust
Robert Sonneman
325 Carlsbad Village Drive RC2
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Frankie Runzo
3000 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ted Tanaka & Diana Ho
Green Eagle Enterprise
4223 Glencoe Avenue XB- 107
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
David Thompson Profit Sharing Plan
580 Beech Ave X C
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Wiehle Family Trust
395 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Charles Gamer & Sarah Garner 25775 Toluca Drive
San Bernardino, CA 92404
Frank Maldonado & Partricia A. TRS
42 13 Beach Bluff Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
G&G
264 Carlsbad Village Drive
Co&bad&A 92008
Ocean Manor Garden Hotel, Inc.
c/o Kurt Gunther
330 Wisteria Way
Sierra Madre, CA 91024
RR & Pauline Robinson
2977 Ocean Street
Co&bad. CA 92008
CLH Property Ust
Page 5
4234-05
G&-234-06
d-234-07-0 1 l
b&65- -234-07-02*
d3-234-07-03’
4 03-234-07-04’
J 203-234-07-05’
~3-234-07-06’
a-2350 1
I/ 203-235-02’
203-235-03’
203-144-03
203-23505
c,Zd235-04’
w%i3-235-06
Howard Marx & Kathleen Marx TRS.
c/o Wesley Marx
3 Butler St.
lrvine Co. 927 15
Seaslope Condominiums
(21 separate owners) Association: c-234-06-21 >
Seaslope Estates Owners Association (Corp.) PO Box 1300
Riverside, CA 92502
Joseph & Theresa Bala
17 11 Sinine Dr.
Santa Ana, Co. 92705
James & Sandra Minor
P.O. Box 490
San Jacinto, Co. 92581
Wayne & Carol Minor
P.O. Box 490
San Jaclnto, Co. 92581
Vigil Family Trust
2901 Ocean St. % 4
Carlsbad, Co. 92008
Jessie Minor
P.O. Box 490
San Jacinto, Co. 92581
Robert & Lynda Erickson
P.O. Box 2120
Carisbad, Co. 920 18
Bell Family Partners
PO Box 151
Anaheim, CA 928 15
TOBO Investments
2785 Roasevett Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Callfomia Lutheran Homes
Norine Sigafoose
2805 Ocean St.
Carlsbad. Co. 92008
The Mooring Apartments, inc.
c/o Kurt Gunther
330 Wisteria Way
Sierra Madre, CA 9 1024
” . . -
. .
CLH Properly List
Page 6
d -251-01
93-251-02
a51-03
-203-251-04
-3-251-05
203-252-04
203-252-05
203-252-06
203-253-01
203-251-06
203-26 1-06-O 1
203-26 I-06-02
203-261-0603
203-26 l-06-04
203-261-W-05
203-261-0609
Jay Hoffman & Maryon D. & Marja Seina
4901 El Camino Real
Carlsbad. CA 92008
Frank & Evelyn Rose
32791 Lumeria Lane
Dana Point, CA 95629
Robert & Agusta Phipps
3015 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Perry Revocable Trust
PO Box 1102
Ranch0 Santa Fe, CA 92067
Carlsbad Inn LTD
PO Box 4068
Carlsbad , CA 920 18
international Real Estate Development
c/o Gerald Paxton
2537 Summit Dr.
Escondido, Co. 92025
Dirk & June Feenstra
653 1 Avenida Del Paraiso
Carlsbad, Co. 92009
Ciease Family 1 W 1 Trust
4990 Via Marta
Co&bad, Co. 92008
Suzanne Heyne
998 Church St. #23
Ventura, Co. 93001
Bill & Julianne Deen
741 E. St.
Brawley, Co. 92227
Lauren & Gray Lucier
3080 Lincoln St. +5
Carlsbad. Co. 92008
Thomas Hodges
Rte. 3 Box 390
Escondido, Co. 92029
.
. . . * . -
CLH Property Ust Page 7
203-261-0610 John & Virginla Gipner
James & Georgie Gipner
4250 Dusk Dr.
Oceanside, Co. 92056
l Denotes properties adjacent to CLH