Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-06; City Council; 19203 exhibits; Village Master Plan revisionsCOMMENT FORMS & OTHER CORRESPONDENCE PUBLIC WORKSHOPS CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional): Address (Optional): Telephone No. (Optional): E- If vou would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the developmentIf you would MK(ricr tee fte above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the rvetfotSon nS^ar; Cever, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help SourmZstanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Lived within the City for less than 1 year. ; Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Lived within the City for more than 10 years. ^ Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Memberof Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. Real Estate Agent/Broker XMembCT°f ^^ °f Cattam Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for foe vmle Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns objections, suggestions for Village Redevel°P™^ ^,^nnc ^^^ my ofoer information you may wish to provide as to foe forure a. Please Comments: // CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional): Address (Optional): Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address (Optional: , „ ^ .. .-^ ^ - r— ,M like to receive information about fotae worksfiSpl public hearings,.etc. on the development ff you ^^J^pjease complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous thestandards for the Village, p^^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^.appreciate the following information to help of community issues related to the Village development standards: r/> ^NorthwestQuadrantCityResident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D NortheastQuadrantCityResident D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. ~. A «tritv Resident D Liveti within the City for 6 to 10 years,D Southwest Quadrant City Resident <-• Z DSoutheastQuadrantCityResident ^Lived within the City for more than to ^Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner -within the City (Outside Village) J3 Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. : D Land Use or Development Consultant -D Live in the Village. ^tractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc.O Developer or Contractor/tmiKier ,' tmrf&~ D Member of Chamber of CommerceD Real Estate Agent/Broker ™ «rovide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for thePease prov.de^co 1 ^^^ of supportj concerns, objections, suggestions for ^8ch^olT^ent revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical Area Please use other side of this form for additional comments. — ^> uni-t 0 , CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional):. la,«MV«43> DEPARTMENT Address Telephone No. E-Mail Address (Optional:, » •w Tf vou would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Please mark «" below that apply to vou: ££ Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. Lived within the City for more than 10 years. ^.Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. X Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) ^T Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. X Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad ^Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder K Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker -^Member of Chamber of Commerce Please urovide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Vfflaae Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for nther changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future viskL or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: A^TS f*\CO3 CU Zcflnsft, "I X/5> eJbsX<tf\1o AvCKJL I &JQST* *xCf*A 3, ^ <-'' At** J . I CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25, 2007 Name (Optional):. RECEIVED ..•. *%-! .G:2b Address (Optional): Telephone No. (Optional):. E-Mail Address (Optional:_ If vou would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: pi,..c* mark all below that apply to you: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years; D Lived within the City for more than 10 years. D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. HLProperty Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Live in the Village. D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoe. D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for other changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. /VO7T; &>,XgS STT CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional): Address (Optional): TelephorieNo. (Optional): E-Mail Address If you like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development illage, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous the onnot n'ecessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to helpuT^ plvtovou: D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Northwest Quadrant City Resident ^Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident DSoutheastQuadrantCityResident ' Q Lived within the City^more than 10 years. ^Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) ^Visit the Village 4 or jpere times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker ^Member of Chamber of Commerce anv comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for fee omnent Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns objections, suggestions for *~ chances or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future ^n or P^ii deSgn of fee Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. ients: - - - • ' • - -te-^JVutfct &ca^£^'/ tW*J C^^idU^ja , ^ J^#?1M frn^^Si^ ^Ci^^ ' ' dAAUJ&s***?. ,^t^h<tfs<<JU^$ ^^L^A^^t^xMx^/ QMbLjr^^dJyfe^ ^Pjs^uaJL O^nCCuvuut- t^tt^ tffa. <#yi^^W fS/ll>tjvpif 4/l<*3~' fc&^ije. /^^O > r CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 RECEIVED Name (Optional): _ J< ^ - ' ,x ^Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address (Optional: —.it If you would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development tandards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the Sbove information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Pl^cg mark all below that apply to you: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Southeast Quadrant City Resident B Lived within the City for more than 10 years. m Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. ffi Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) B Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for ther changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: .p '*•*>" , £#. /L«___ Q/ CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP .JANUARY 25, 2007 Name (Optional): Address (Optional): Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address (Optional: If you would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on^he development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather rejfraiifanonyrnous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Please mark all below that apply to you: )£JNorthwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. h ifD Southwest Quadrant City Resident [X Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for more than 10 years. j- W Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) U Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. KJ* D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) JS Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village B\jsiness Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for other changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments:J^_i "fa*-* g|*; \\ l(~,~ ^ - \ j/geff-ttr CwPo^Uff ^V^ ex-Ac. *ra c-Ygj><a.-^r <; O .r i/f[fge-TcP '^ rotE'-f £. -te? 7 f U-* le?l c k >TV(cgc>€^tusker £&-*'£' 'b> 'Tiff T <L i t> o \ _ i^L4g^gr-«3Y»r>cy«- -iQ o *« CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional): Address (Optional): 1^ Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address (Optional: m D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. 1 within the City for more than 10 years. D Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident r^iwes, Quadrant City Resident O Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad O^isUthe Villages or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village.^ „ -^rtm./B,riMa. d Member of CarTsbad Village Business Assoc.D Developer or Contractor/Btiuaer <->. . ./nmv«- Q-Member of Chamber of CommerceD Real Estate Agent/Broker P,ease provide any Village ' revisions to the development standards for the ££»t, concerns, objections, suggestions for ry other information you may wish to provide as to the future d*lgn o™llage Area Please use ofter side of this form for addmonal comment. CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY o VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP C*, JANUARY 25,2007 ^ •^,^''3° Name (Optional):-- "~\t""'-) —A/. ' LJ ^M^*QAddress (Opticmri):,. ^^ * ~" W C4-&L&AP ^^^ Telephone No. (Optional): 7/6 Y29 E-Mail Address (Optional: **<*- rygr If you would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Please mark all below that apply to you: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Southeast Quadrant City Resident & Lived within the City for more than 1 0 years. Iffl Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. E Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) OB Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for other changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 re& Name (Optional):.Llflldi Address (Optional):. 77.0- m O JTL o /5 Telephone No. (Optional):_ E-Mail Address (Optional:_ would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help wiuTo^derstanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. Lived within the City for more than 10 years. tf Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City.Resident ^ Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month Bf Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) $ Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Land Use or Development Consultant D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Real Estate Agent/Broker Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Work in the Village. D Live in the Village. X Member of Carlsbad Village BusineSS AsSOC' D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns objections, suggestions for anees or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future Tp^^W of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: The presentation of possible land use for 6, 10 and 15 units on property that starting at 10,000 sq. ft. as well as the depictions of building concepts was very well done. The feel of the "Village" seemed to be maintained while allowing a more realistic density. It appears that there is great value to your proposed change in the allowance of slightly taller buildings. Another helpful concept was your idea of not including spaces such as restrooms, stairs, etc. in the gross floor space when considering the parking requirement for restaurants and the idea that the parking allowance would become double the current standard for restaurants and slightly more for residential improvements. Continued use of the "in-lieu of parking program will also continue to be helpful in creating new property improvements within the Village area. I would like to see the height restrictions that will apply to the "core area" also apply to District 6 as there are very few residential applications in this area. Of special interest would be having the north side of Oak Street in District 6 be included in the proposed change of height. That side of Oak will be facing the districts where the higher standard is applicable. This would be desirable as it will allow the development on the north side of Oak (including where the City Yard is currently located) to compliment the eventual new and better improvements on the south side of Oak. It will give incentive for owners on the south side of Oak to invest in improvements that will create a much more active and pleasant atmosphere than currently exists and could create a very attractive anchor to the south end of State Street that would greatly complement projects on State and Roosevelt as well as Oak. A dream of a better and more attractive part of the vital downtown area of Carlsbad could become reality. It would also help the whole of District 6 as it is changes from garages and auto repair shops to less obsolete usages as time goes by. This is an area that is upgrading and becoming more of an asset to the City, and will do more so when the core area standards are applied to District 6. Why wait to do it later? This whole presentation was very well constructed and presented. We appreciate the tune and thoughtful work that went into it. Thank you. Mac Morris and Janet Venable 3640 Feliz Creek Road Hopland, CA 95449 (707)744-1625 Subject: Carlsbad Downtown Hearings- Redevelopment We own the property at 3048 Jefferson, just next to the Carlsbad Christian Assembly Church. The property has a lovely green yard with numerous fruit trees, including an absolutely huge avocado tree left from "the old days" when avocado orchards flourished in the Jefferson Street area. During our early marriage in the 1970s, we lived in one of the 4 units there. We bought the property from an aunt in the early 1980s and now offer the apartments to renters of modest means. Prospective tenants vie for the opportunity to enjoy a downtown lifestyle in an affordable, garden surrounded homey apartment. They live, shop, entertain and play downtown. Several of our current tenants even have jobs downtown and "walk every place" (their words, not ours). We have long held plans to return to Carlsbad in our retirement - living, shopping, entertaining and playing alongside a few tenants in the Jefferson place. This is all wonderful but the building is quite old, with severely outdated plumbing, electricity, insulation, etc. We have looked into improving and/or redeveloping the property several times, most recently just a few months ago. After careful consideration, we always realize that to "improve" the property, a combination of finances and city ordinances will require that we destroy the very attributes that make the property so lovely and coveted by us and by our tenants. The Joannie Mitchell song always reverberates in my head: "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone? Pave paradise; put up a parking lot" From the standpoint of beauty and enjoyment, pavement for parking does seem to be one of the more destructive elements of redeveloping. The other destructive factor is that the amount of square feet needed to pay the mortgage, T & I translates into a huge building footprint, engulfing the remaining gardens. To make it feasible for us to redevelop this old place, while keeping the avocado trees (3 total), fruit trees, garden, and lovely green lawn alongside reasonable rents to suit most people's income, we need the following four areas addressed: 1. Minimize parking requirements: the more minimal, the greater the garden and tree area - perhaps requiring a builder's contribution to a city parking lot or garage where, in addition, tenants would pay the city for monthly rental of parking for a second vehicle. 2. Maximize height requirements: so we can keep the footprint of the building within its current area (retaining the existing gardens) but still maximizing the square footage of the building for reasonable returns within lower rents. 3. £ change in zoning in those blocks (Carlsbad Village Drive south towards Oak or Pine) from the current commercial-only emphasis. This is an absolutely great place to live - whether you are young and environmentally oriented or retired an want everything at your fingertips. Anybody so inclined can literally walk to everything. Encourage us to live here! 4. Allow mixed residential & commercial/professional in the same building: stores/offices downstairs, townhouse/apartments upstairs. We strongly favor keeping the current emphasis on open space for gardens and landscaping. Setbacks can be changed without allowing a building to fill a lot. Thank you for your consideration of a new, more vibrant vision of the Village. If we achieve the above changes, then the living, working, shopping and playing that are aJl part of a real village could become a happy reality. Sincerely, ~\<a^W*-AQt:V*-^—^ Janet Venable and Mac Morris CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional):. Address (Optional):,PQ Telephone No. (Optional):, E-Mail Address (Optional:. Tf vou would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous the aSveinformation is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Plpase mark P" below that apply to vou: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident W Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. 1R Lived within the City for more than Wyears. D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. tf Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month, D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 1 2 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant j^Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for chanses or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future f this form for addrhonmments.n canses orvSon or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for addrhon^mments. Comments: 7) '9 /VAX i i/J CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25, 2007 Name (Optional^: 7\ s /" rt I*/ A. /<>L. Address (Optional!:, D 9 7 7 Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address (Optional: /ft' n . would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development for the Village please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above imbrmation is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help w4oS understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: piMCP mark all below that apply to you: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Southeast Quadrant City Resident Solved within the City for more than 10 years. D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visitjhe Village 12 or more times a month. O^siness Owner within the Village of Carlsbad DM^ork in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker Bomber of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the SSL Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns objections, suggestions for Village RedeveJ°P.fferent reyisions gnd/m any other information you may wish to provide as to the future design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional): Address (Optional): Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address (Optional: .<±LVEo> If vou would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development If you wouia "*6V ]ease complete me above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help jty issues related to the Village development standards: D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 1 0 years. within the City for more than 10 years. pi^OP ™ark all below that apply to you: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident T^ Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D^Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) ^Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Live in the Village. D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns objections, suggestions for revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as o the future of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ' VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25, 2007 Name Address . C4 . Telephone No. (Optional): 7G>O E-Mail Address (Optional:fey P> &Cu/£'Si>/iaa<i . If you would like to receive information about future workshops, puhlic hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Please mark all below that apply to you: G| Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. O Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. Lived within the City for more than 10 years. Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Southeast Quadrant City Resident S Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad , D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. TZJ Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month.r\ D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. El Land Use or Development Consultant D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Live in the Village. D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for other changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments:.- JJ r-> CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional): t'*' i /—? c^\ iAddress Telephone No. (Optional):, E-Mail Address (Optional:, If you would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Please mark all below that apply to you: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for more than 10 years. D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for other changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments:, (7^1ptfMfy \r\'bale . . .-J m V\&\<M\Y rt CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name v—r--——,—. • . «^ , ,i *-. '' ^»s*i •* sf * t 1 r .*. i r lift. Address (Optional):. I'^f (\L 4 Telephone No. (Optional): ~]l/0 E-Mail Address (Optional:_ . . If vou would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development tandards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: PI««« mark all below that apply to you: ^Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for more than 10 years. D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. Q Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. "Ji Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad ^ Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the V'llaee Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for ther changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: . CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional): Address E-Mail Address Telephone No. (Optional* ItflD If you would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: D NorthwestQuadrantCityResident DNortheastQuadrantCityResident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident DSoutheastQuadrantCityResident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Lived within the City for more than 10 years. D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. 0 Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) W Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Land Use or Development Consultant D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Real Estate Agent/Broker IjEL Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Work in the Village. D Live in the Village. Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. Member of Chamber of Commerce Please Village ' you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggests for £^ other information you may wish to provide as to the future Area'please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: Debbie Fountain - CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US ...I'^".'.i^".^... .......^113..11'..__. .".'.' Pa9e 1 ~.*«"K ^.^..-^..v.-^. ....... From: <daveyw@sbcglobal.net> To: <Planning@[205.142.109.13]> Date: 1/26/2007 3:45:17 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, Planning. ********************************************** FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE.********************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: For Debbie Fountain Was not able to attend the meeting about your proposed downtown redevelopment plans, but did read the NCT article. I enjoy living in Carlsbad , but one of my concerns is the poor appearance of Carlsbad Village Drive as you enter the Village area starting at 1-5 . The first thing you see is an uninspiring concrete sign reading welcome to Carlsbad. This is followed by a collection of gas stations, the antiquated Albertsons strip mall ( complete & then on the left a church parking lot totally devoid of any landscaping whatsoever. Further down, one property owner on the north side of the steet did coordinate the disparate appearance of one block of stores & it is a serious improvement. Need more of this. I hope you will exercise your leadership role to endevor to improve the poor image of this part of Carlsbad Village Drive. Encinitas recently managed a major overhaul to their downtown appearance that appears to have been very successful Would appreciate you comments & insight. David Woollard David Woollard 2221 David Place Carlsbad, 92008 daveyw@sbcglobal.net Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; YPC 3.2.0; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; yplus 5.1.03b) 71.134.211.13 CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional): Py-ftH80SMQ ANOfcE0EYELO?ME«TDEPARTMENT Address (Optional):. _^ Telephone No. (Optional):_ E-Mail Address (Optional:_ «• , ™™1H like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development ! TJ, for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, thestandards fOT toe Viuag^P^^ Hwm, we W0uld greatly appreciate the following information to help understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. ^Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Southeast Quadrant City Resito.^/; ^Livecl within the City for more than 10 years. D vro^^^^^1^^0^^19^ ^f Visit Me Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad ^ Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. 0 Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit tlie Village 12 or more times a morrfh. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Land Use or Development Consultant D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Real Estate Agent/Broker PI c. ™-ovide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for thePlease proyiaey ^^ comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for ^^tTSercnt revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future Stan «^physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: Work m the Village. D Live in the Village. D- Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Member of Chamber of Commerce City of Carlsbad RECEIVED Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency Village Development Standards? P 3-.^ Workshop January 25, ;07 UMXLSBAOwS|fS^Lop^KT Mario and Margie Monroy ^ART^M, 749 B Magnolia Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-729-7242 1. Northwest Quadrant residents 2. Visit Village 12 or more times per month 3. Presentation was excellent. 4. The difficulty the city has had in developing the Soto property illustrates the need to change the standards in the entire redevelopment area not just parts of it. 5. We need to encourage foot traffic from the surrounding neighborhood to support businesses downtown. 6. Even though we go to the Village often, we seldom shop there. We go to the bank, get haircuts, eat at restaurants, patronize the Farmers Market, the book store and the bakery. If we need clothes or household goods we have to go elsewhere. 7. The recent report by the Police Department on gang activity and graffiti is of grave concern to all of us and it must be handled by the city council promptly. This issue affects the entire Northwest Quadrant. CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25, 2007 Name (Optimal): B Telephone No. (Optional): C E-Mail Address (Optional: t/M<cH" 346 If you would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Lived within the City for more than 1 0 years. O Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. WLand Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. 'fa Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please orovide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the vmaee Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns objections, suggestionsfor nA« chaw*Tor different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future v!s£nt^physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional^ comments. Comments: CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 RECEIVED Name (Optional): JL^ ^^^V^.r. A ft Ufl Address (Optional):,2144 Telephone No. (Optional):. E-Mail Address (Optional:. would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development rH* for the Village please complete the above information If you would rather remain anonymous, the KnvP information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help Sourunderstanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Northwest Quadrant City Resident \3 Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) fafProperty Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad P Land Use or Development Consultant D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. pJ Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Lived within the City for more than 10 years. U Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. M Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Work in the Village. M Live in the Village. D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Member of Chamber of Commerce orovide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the vp Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for ^r rhloes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future visioncTphysical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: \rCelvA6 ••'3 CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name Address Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address (Optional: If vou would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: *, mark all belowjhat apply to you: ! Northwest Quadrant City Resident Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. Lived within the City for more than 10 years. Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month, iusiness Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad ^ Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant N^ live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder $. Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker JJ Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for other changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: / / ' —/ /A> CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY <, 0 VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25, 2007 Telephone No. (Optional): /f/? £/ s3^ £/ ~~ / S ^X E-M.il Address rOotiona!: If you would like to receive infonnation about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following infonnation to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Please mark all below that apply to you: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. 5t Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Southeast Quadrant City Resident K Lived within the City for more than 10 years. D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. Sf Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) ^ Visit the Village 1 2 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. , /D Land Use or Development Consultant ^ Live in the Village. j2£ Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for other changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: _ /( ' '*' CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Name (Optional): t-II VINE. VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25, 2007 RECEIVED 2081 F£B -1 A !Q: CITY Or CARLSBAD Address rOptionaT): ^37 DATE AYE. _ HOUSING AHD^REOE^LOPHEtfr ~ ' .—.i~ --••--.- UC.T Mr i i I ii_ii i Telephone No. (Optional): T^'SObO _ ___ _ E-Mail Address (Optional: LimKE ffi ftDELPHIA . NET _ ___ If you would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Please mark all below that apply to you: H^Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Southeast Quadrant City Resident QTLived within the City for more man 10 years. 0" Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) CTVisit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. GiT Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker Q Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for other changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: *^A* ^yS .^£4s4^y^ f^-t^^y^* ^g^^t-fc-^fc^-x-jfex CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25, 2007 TelephoneNo. (Optional): E-Mail Address (f^nal: Tf vou would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the abTve information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following informal to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Lived within the City for more than 10 years. mark «" below that apply to you: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad feTvisit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times^a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad 0 Work in the Village. ^Jfyfa^rttfl, D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please wovide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for anges or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Co OV pacific February 20, 2007 * Debbie Fountain CD 2g Redevelopment Director City of Carlsbad 2965 Roosevelt Street Suite B Carlsbad, California RE: Proposed Village Development Standards Amendment. Dear Debbie. Thanks you very much for taking the time to meet with us last week. Knowing your busy schedule, we appreciate it greatly. The purpose of this communication is to ask for your consideration in making one fundamental change to the proposed Village Development standards. We own property on the east side of Jefferson. These properties front on Jefferson and have Jefferson addresses. They are located between Home Avenue and Laguna Drive. Our request is that these properties be included in Zone 7 of the new Guidelines. This addition would include only properties which front on Jefferson and in their existing parcels. The entire west side of Jefferson is included in Zone 7. The result will be that the parcels on the west side will have an incentive to redevelop by the benefits of the new standards. Yet, the 10 or so parcels on the east side will have no incentive to improve. This would crerate a possible scenario of one side of Jefferson being newer development and the other continuing in their present condition. We believe that it would be to all parties benefit to have both sides of Jefferson to have the same incentive to improve. Please give this suggestion some thought. Feel free to call on me to discuss this matter in more detail. Sincerely, Doug Avis PH: 760.450.0444 • 550 Laguna Drive, Suite B, Carlsbad, California 92008 • FAX: 760.450.0442 Debbie Fountain - Urban Cpncept for Carlsbad Village ^^^^ . Page 1 From: "Lee Ann Lilinthall" <leeann12@roadrunner.com> To: "Debbie Fountain" <dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 1 /16/2007 10:21:28 PM Subject: Urban Concept for Carlsbad Village Debbie, I love the idea for the Urban Concept for Carlsbad Village. My one concern is parking. I feel strongly that we can not reduce our parking minimum, we don't have enough parking as it is. I don't have a problem with tandem parking, however I do feel we need that extra .5 space per unit. 1. Residents will have more than two cars, or water toys, desert toys, or need storage space. In my neighborhood less than 50% of my neighbors put all their vehicles in their garage. 2. Residents will park extra cars in village lots or in front of merchant stores reducing parking availability for employees or customer parking. 3. Then we have the issue of guest parking, guests just find a place anywhere, as they are unaware of the effect on businesses. See you on January 25th. Yours Truly, Lee Ann Lilinthall rage i 011 Debbie Fountain - Carlsbad Downtown Planning From: "Lloyd, David" <David.LLoyd@nrgenergy.com> To: <dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 1/17/2007 12:58 AM Subject: Carlsbad Downtown Planning My wife and I have been discussing what to do with downtown Carlsbad, and offer a couple of suggestions. The "District" at Green Valley in Henderson, NV, is a beautiful development that provides living and work opportunities (3 story buildings with lower level shops and upper level homes/apartments). It looks like a similar outdoor mall is being proposed for the Shoppes at Summerlin in Las Vegas, although residences will be in high rise condominiums. Since this would require at least 3 stories for buildings, the City should seriously reconsider the 35' building height restriction for the downtown area. As I sit in Chamber of Commerce Board meetings and listen to various issues involving the City, a multiple use development of the area south of Carlsbad Village Drive with a similar District would be a nice addition to the City. The new shops and overhead living space along Carlsbad Blvd is a good start. Carlsbad will be the next LaJolla as North County grows. David Lloyd file://C:\Documents and Settings\Dfoun\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 00001 .HTM 1/17/2007 ^ ( CITY OF CARLSBAD A^o CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY "a ' ; / 77 VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSJjjpP0f c JANUARY 25, 2007 Name (Optional): Address (Optional):. Telephone No. (Optional):. E-Mail Address (Optional: CT& fldwds £> &£ <® /La L . If you wovild like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Please mark all below that apply to you: £? Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City'Resident D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) 1^1 Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad ST Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Land Use or Development Consultant D Developer or Contractor/Builder El Real Estate Agent/Broker D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. "P- Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Lived within the City for more than 10 years. D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. S Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Work in the Village. 0 Live in the Village. D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for other changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments- CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP :: : •» Qr .3ANIJARY25,2007 Name (Optional):. Address (Optional):. Telephone No. (Optional):. E-Mail Address (Optional:. If you would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Please mark all below that apply to you: Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Northeast Quadrant City Resident ]fi Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for more than 10 years. D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. 0 Properly Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant Jja Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for other changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: n . . ' , , _ £/ ^ itf rfosM^L £fa*± JtAtreAsiiy pAAult.4itoL afe/?< IK ' ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25, 2007 Name (Optional): Address (Optiond* Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address (Optional: If you would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Please mark all below that apply to you: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. Da Lived within the City for more than 10 years. D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. S3 Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month, D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant IjaLive in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for other changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANU Name (Optional):__£fe^ Address (Optional) : Telephone No. (Optional) : >. O.E-Mail Address (Optional: If you would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: D Lived within the City for less than 1 ye.ar. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years; IE Lived Please mark all below that apply to you: H Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident 12 Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Viltege 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D. Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Real Estate Agent/Broker B Live in the Village.tmu. vftL^^ D Member of Cartsbad Village Business Assoe. D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for other changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wi,sh to provide as to the nature vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: '^^4 (JLv~~ FT"''-*- u &fb Jt » ,V* ^ TTx^ - *A //i^ (Lm^j^L^-h^dia jd^ ^U^AJ IA^CJAJZL. Unryj^L nLuj^iv ?CUU*^- ^J&JU , k£zt&i*^ P/P^P J&-S)A 9 — CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional^ /lMf FR 0ft Address rOptionalV BA <&>. Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address rOptional: If you would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Please mark all below that apply to you: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 6 to 1 0 years. D Southeast Quadrant City Resident /§1 Lived within the City for more than 1 0 years. D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. B£ Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for other changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the nature vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: oF /S TO A IT op f/\<L OM of 4 Bi. Tt> 5C4feo(A tMi/lH CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25, 2007 Name (Optional): Address (Optional): Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address (Optional:. - would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development e complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous the -«y.- However, we would greatly appreciate the following mformafcon to help of ocmnn^ issues related to the Village development standards: D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Lived within the City for more than 10 years. that applv to vou: D NorthwestQuadrantCityResident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. 0 Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the «y comments of support' concems' objection,S) SU88tT,for j information you may wish to provide as to the future Village Area'please use other side of this form for additional comments. Lute 70 sf<? wi* MU.+G€ TO THE- JT wit* Ac.ru/irl CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT ^TANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional): Address (Optional): Telephone No. (Option; E-Mail Address (Optional: Tom J. DeCno 4155 Skyine Road, tdecino@owl.csusm.ed M. If you would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Please mark all below that apply to you: ^Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. ^EJ Lived within the City for more than 10 years. property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D PropertyOwnerwithintheVillageofCarlsbad ^Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Real Estate Agent/Broker nmments vou have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Please prov.de any °°™™f ^j^noteLy comments of support, concerns, objections, suggests for Village^developmenl[^^^ other information you may wish to provide as to the future other changes or different rf?SM™ ^^ "ypl „„ fttllAr M* Of this form for additional comments, vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please Comments: D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Member of Chamber of Commerce -January 29, 2W1 Thank you for the "Workshop". I attended the mid-day session. I thought the • presentation was very well done and tnere was enough time tor questions. However, I have several problems with the redevelopment plan for the Village. Admiliedly I am against development which results in congestion and inconvenience when spending time in the Village T have livpH in TarkVia^ gjixp 1980 and recall Elm Street. There have been many positive changes to the downtown area since I have lived heie bul I already attempt to visit the Village at oil- peak hours to avoid traffic and parking problems. _ - _ --- _ • The biggesi pioblem I have is the fact that you appear to be planning the doubling of density and decrease in parking without being awarp nf nr rnnrpmpH w|th the traffic and parking problems which may arise. I did get the impression at the meeting that this had • nut been ihoughl Irough very well. It would be reassuring to know that the traffic and parking ppnple are involved in the planning rather than rallpH intn fn fiv -a prnMpm ^ftgr jf occurs. You Stated that it is difficult to tnm a profit fnr reHevplnpmpnf nnrW flip mrrr»nt regulations. If that is the case, why are there so many projects planned at this point? Also is it thai no profit can be made or is more prolit desired? 1 recall you stating that the financial ip^ie is only nne part off VIP Hpsirp tn rpdpyplnp T wnnlH Irvue tn h-avp t well-planned Village that I could accomplish all my activities on foot. I am concerned thai the plan to increase density and decrease parking will not be workable since the attractions T ^ke to frpqiipnt arp spread nut in flip Village anH nnt withi^ pflFy Wfllking distance. T love gT>Jng tn thp Vi11a£P h"t thp nnly attraptinns that T rannnf finH pW.wfrara m fl^ Ojty are the post office and the beach. The areas I usually visit are the beach, post office, bank, Mexican market, restaurants and the hardware store. If parking and congestion become biggpr issues T wrmlH nf rnnrgp hp 1p<:<! ]i1fp1y to vi^it th*3 Village. - •. As fol" suggestions to improve tJie plan 1 would recommend planning parking structures and a shuttlf gervif-P Tt is Hiffirnlt tr> parV in flip Tnasfpr pgrVing Int -anr^ in the ghopping center where Starbucks is. 1 also stated at the meeting that traffic flow in the north south "direction is sometimes dillicuJt and likely to get worse. Perhaps with free parking Structures; Tbp parking nn State and Knnsevplt Strppts rrmlH hp rpmnverl nnd nnnthar ]nna put in. I know this is not your idea of what you would like. I get it that you want people to Walk in the Village and leave their cars at home. But lor now that would be difficult without rnorp parking nn the ppriphpry anH a mpthnH to £pf qrrmnH in the Villnga T walk for many miles at this stage of my life but I may not have the time. Some people in "the community such as the elderly would have a difficult time enjoying the Village on Thank you lor Ihe opportunity to have some input into the development plan. CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional): Address (Optional): Telephone No. (Optional) E-Mail Address (Optional:.•iv\ Vf i 'N.\^x — *—•^i _-~t:, -_-*-——_ I ^ If you would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Southeast Quadrant City Resident ^Lived within the City for more than 10 years. G/Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. [/Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad [^Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Memberof Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker ^Member of Chamber of Commerce have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the - note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for revjMuns and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional) Address (Optional): Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address (n^^ial: /^W^ h Cnjtfr Ug^ (O <IflAMA nOlcAu^C c/ c7 Tf vou would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development t Lards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the boveinformation is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Plpase mark all below that apply to you: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast .Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident QUve^Lived within the City for less than 1 ,Ja*f /tt#tonu4- £ <(ffc IM D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years; D Lived within the City for more than 10 years. D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village A or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. & Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad IZf Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoe. D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please wovide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the VinaM Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for tCchances or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side^of this form for additional comments. Co ' ^ nK~ {A. \W_ .7 CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25, 2007 Name (Cfr*™™*)- _ ^/tAW. /^pL/^|veA£- Address Telephone No. (Optional): _ ^^O _ T"3-7 - / 7 & 2- E-Mail Address (Optional: U) p / . V (f O At ^ A/ C If you would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Please mark all below that apply to you: Jj Northwest Quadrant City Resident .> D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Northeast Quadrant City Resident ':• D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Southwest Quadrant City Resident^ ^ Lived within the City for 6 to 1 0 years. D Southeast Quadrant City Resident " D Lived within the City for more than 10 years. D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. ^ Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. /., D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 1 2 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad ^ Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant g Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder .--• D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker ^ Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for other changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. a **/ 6*U>'fieLu*4 , a**7^ O&"W> VJUL\_~ " ' '(^ - ^>*& erf '»1 CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional):_nsnn Address (Optional):,UiUvJie^ Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address (Optional: O £ \T\Y\ \i ( YD PO^n JL V\ n6 f . If you would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Please mark all below that apply to you: a^Northwest Quadrant City Resident / D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years.£>dLived within the City for more than 10 years. Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident NX^jZsProperty Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Live in the Village. D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for other changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: T \\Wct-4Au V \r l CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional): Address (Optional): Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address (Optional: like ,o receive in ation r^arV all belowjhat apply to you: ^ . *e following in—. «o he,p issues relat* to the ViUage development sundards: \ *_i Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. n Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. *-! * - i • - n. /? *<=• i ^ /j<2^ iNuiui&ooi ><i»i»—..— , esident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for more than 10 years, .kfproperty Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. / r/*^A Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) JQ Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. • Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. JS Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for — . —•_: AI™ nM, omer information you may wish to provide as to the future- - *» .* » f* e* 1J*** i comments. \S ,/ornVprIjZXReal Estate Agent/Broker Comments: _Z CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional): Address (Optional): Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address (Optional: if vo« would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development . TJ, for me Village please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous the T £1^0!is no' necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help ^oufuT^ 0NoNorthwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. [3 Lived within the City for more than 10 years. ^ -I LJWW «**'**•"'* ^C" D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad fe%ork in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Real Estate Agent/Broker I -Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. E/Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for other changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: 0 t AJC'/ P^xo'\^gfe { Cti&fjfeS' P^Ly^_s CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional): Address (Optional): Telephone No. (Optional):_ E-Mail Address (Optional: would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above miormation is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: Tf mark g" hftlnw that apply to you: $ Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. jS[ Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Lived within the City for more than 10 years. D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Land Use or Development Consultant fl Developer or Contractor/Builder Estate Agent/Broker Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. ' D Work in the Village. )( Live in the Village. D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the e Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns objections, suggestions for chafes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as o the future o! physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: A Si"2~£ ?C of M' CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Address (Optional): Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address (Optional: tf Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for .ess than 1 year. O Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D SouthwestQuadrantCityResident )*LivedwnhintheCityfor6to 10years. D Southeast Quadrant City Resident d Lived within the City for more than 10 years. rf Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. ^Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad 0 Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. mDeveloperorContractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Esfcte Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce v, ™ +K« «rr>nn«!fid revisions to the development standards for theP,ease provide any comment y™Jta«^» *w££?^ ^^ options, suggestions forVillage Redev^entAr^Pl^senme any .^^.^ may wish to provide M ,0 me „„« SntX"al dS °fT Village Area'p.ease use other side of this form for addifonal comment, Comments: ;T TZ?; _ ^F- v/TlVfT)^ TU/5 CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional): Address (Optional) J 0 ( B Telephone No. (Optional): f t\ ^ ~ 'W C E-Mail Address (Optional: '9 H> issues related to the Village development standards: D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 1 0 years. D Lived within the City for more than 10 years. Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. Visit me Village 8 or more times a month. . mark all below that apply to you: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visitthe Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. ^ Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Asso, D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce •A ™v comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Please P^de^C^^^?*ote any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestums for Village Redevelopment A™-™^™*^r ^ information you may wish to provide as to the future other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: •"*? •'"' Ay "z w L/M\T — 0 A \c s-H />/•/< i v-e>C.fa\ArsA^Cr: v _ , V f•' iX CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional) Address (Optional) : Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address (Optional:, If you would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: c r .\\coo Please mark all below that apply to you: orthwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Southeast Quadrant City Resident EKived within the City for more than 10 years. D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. ETPr^perty Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad E^rk in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant q^e in the Village. EKDeveloper or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. GHSTal Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce •A Q™ rnmments vou have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the =Sft£ SE.'WSI S°f™' Vfflage Area'please use other side of this form for additional oommenU. Comments:, , , ei^J s J* n~'ls?~,. t-r a ^. r-c^~4} - *s ' S-^v~J-e<? u to ii* VL 5"K:c> { C CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional): Address (Optional):_ $\ 3 * /fy Telephone No. (Optional):. E-Mail Address (Optional: "Trsr^^^t±££3££no 'n„ However, we would greatly appreciate the following mformafon to help *roufuTeSmg of community issues related to th. Village development standards: O Nortavs* Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D ***** Quadrant City Resident D Southed Quadrant City Resident D Lived within fe City for less than 1 year. D Lived within tie City for 1 ,o 5 ye«s. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Lived within the City for more than 10 years. D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D PropertyOwnerwithinmeVillageofCarlsbad D visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within me City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. Easiness Owner within the Villageof Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder O Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker O Member of Chamber of Commerce •A ,™ romments vou have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Please provide W"*™^*^ °™e ° J^, of support, concerns, objections, suggestions forVUlage RedevelopArPlease note y mfonMtion may wish to provide M ,o me fotore ArJpUase use other side of mis form for additional comments. *—&&=- <jfy/y .J1UAJ . AjU»- &&^ OAjfLJJ-, (tij.'l^J^UMJt- (I /A-, G i / D v , n nn ^ j @flt^sj)1 (7/1 f A- UL^JS ^aJLuM^j/v ,J^JH^< U. & hjj ^4^*1,^) oA^td^'. \U fLo r^y^ ; ,/7w vtw. f_^^> A /w*^J— ^ X ^^A . C/<3 ll^^-f! <l_ (} j+ ^tD ; CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25, 2007 NamefOptionan: Address (Optional); &W Telephone No. (Optional): '7Co - ? 3 / - 0^-( O E-Mail Address (Optional: J i M C @L, d 3Lg If you would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident J^aLived within the City for less than 1 year. D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. &. Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for more than 10 years. •^§t- Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) -6tT Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the *ve ^J^ of suppOrt, concerns, objections, suggestions for information you may wish to provide as to the futureArea please use other side of this foral for ' At/wife g J ^n%uptt2 ypQgiteO 0/0 4 "Pff CO 0yi,g-iA)fr fftyr- v//3trz?a^ --- X o(L CO/i€. Tl^T /hte S (/t5tr0ts. 4WO Tlttttl * Ate* 4*J0 Jfo bt, >U40*. friTltf, StiVTYllS AvO TlV> I fit TV if- A- UxM. AM. USlV(r THtt $#*& LdW4 AVI) . «-Ai CA L M X - - ' jUQT fitAti^^u <XJ(/1f Lt&K. H&SlSne*'* iMP&^'B® OU Ar \T woo^ &t *>tc<. jt> * IF 2' TO "-Slfc. q>ifrfrr V^Vg 6t>7*. /feSd> /3-S MV Wife PO(*JT<> TD Ttwr's /'r - Cnroo LUC^. CAX,,MI 4 G*&4*r CITY OF CARLSBAD 7 CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY , VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP 'JANUARY25,*2007 ' ; •-: ' •v-:-;'. E-Mail Address (Optional: Tf you would Hl$e to .receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development ' standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above informatfdii is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciave the following, information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: ' ••'••,•,'',•' . <;;-?t '• Q Northwest Quadrant City Resident: l^^astj^adiint City Resident ' LT Southwest Quadrant City Resident Southeast Quadrant -City Resident Q Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within Hie City for 1 .to 5 year*.. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. '• - • ••••, I within Vie City for more than .10 years. property Owner Within the City (Outside Village), ,D -Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. 3 Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Vilkge 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad H Land Use or Development Consultant D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Real Estate Agent/Broker PI fl,e movide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the !/CevelZient Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for ge Redevelopmen ^ ^.^ ^^ my ^ information you may wish to provide as to the future of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. isit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Work in the Village. D Live in the Village. D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoe. D Member of Chamber of Commerce .^.~MiteHI " TtM. *nx*cn\te aAfief>u*)!R*M W5/ TED ' SOME ; OK HOV3U6 twzwfwws wx INF ses*&r'F0"K cvA an MUWW, WHICH Moving) CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 RECEIVED im jam P e 25 CITY OF CARLSBADHiUSING AHO REOEW1 OPHFMT Name (Optional):. Address (Optional):. Telephone No. (Optional):. E-Mail Address (Optional:_ — - . - . - - - — - if vou would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development s for me Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous the ^on^Lesszry. However, we would greatly appreciate the following informal to help uXstanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. within the City for more than 10 years. pi»goP mark all below that apply to you: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident J&f Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident H Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns objections, suggestions for ^orTff^ni revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as o the future o! 1^ design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments:, x-*-e- <7 i && *e*—'~r CITY OF CARLSBAD- CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 2 Name Address (Optional): Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address (Optional: If you would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearing,--:, etc. on the development standards for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the above information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help with our understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: mark all below that apply to you: D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City fi >r 6 to 10 years. D Lived within ±e City lbr more ±an 10 Visit the Village 4 or tftore times a month. D Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident ^Southeast Quadrant City Resident^ D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. Estate Agent/Broker D Member of Chamber of Commerce Pkaseprovide any comments you have on the prop6sed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for other changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future vision or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form5 for additional comments. CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP JANUARY 25,2007 Name (Optional):. Address (Optional): Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address (Optional:_ w lil» to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development If you 7^t^la r'fLTeie complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous the T^^Son^faS'ncSLy. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help SSoSSSSS^^fcomm^ityissuesrelatedtotheVillagedevelopmentstandards: ^ormwestQuadrantCityResident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. D NortheastQuadrantCityResident D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. DSouthwestQuadrantCityResident XLived ^ *' ^ *" 6t° '^ D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for more than 10 year, D Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D PropertyOwnerwithintheVillageofCarlsbad D Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Land Use or Development Consultant r tractor/BuilderD Developer or Contractor/tJuiiaer * *m^v«-D Real Estate Agent/Broker isit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Work in the Village. D Live in the Village. D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Member of Chamber of Commerce •APlease provide Village have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the ^y events of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for ar any other information you may wish to provide as to the future Village Area'please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: ' A /s Jan 30 07 02s07p Marian Edwards 760-434-4330 p.2 CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMJEWSTAglf^RDS WORKSHOP '25,2007 Name Telephone No. (Optional): E-Mail Address (Optional: ir would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development rds for the Village, please complete the above information. If you would rather remam anonymous the nfonn tion necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following informal to help unTersunding of community issues related to the Village development standards: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Southeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived wUhin the City for less than 1 year. D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Lived within the City for more than 10 years. ^Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the VillaBe 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner wilhin the Village of Carlsbad D V,sit the Village 8 or more times a month. isit the Village 12 or more times a month.^Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. D Land Use nr Development Consultant O Developer or Contractor/Builder l Estate Agent/Broker D Live in the Village. D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. >n^Mcmbcr of Chamber of Commerce Please provide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Village Redevelopment Area, Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for other changes or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future or physical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. 2LL? Jan 30 07 02:07p Marian Edwards 760-434-4330 p.3 ' / .sf ^\g%^fc - riv. / ^ ^ J , CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHOP Name (Optional): Address [n.llil,lllly Telephoned (Optional): E-Mail Address (Optional: <*,'*, if vnn would like to receive information about future workshops, public hearings, etc. on the development t H ds for the Village please complete the above information. If you would rather remain anonymous, the information is not necessary. However, we would greatly appreciate the following information to help understanding of community issues related to the Village development standards: all below_that apply to you: D Northwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for less than 1 year. *C Northeast Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 1 to 5 years. D Southwest Quadrant City Resident D Lived within the City for 6 to 10 years. D Southeast Quadrant City Resident jtf Lived within the City for more than 10 years. ^Property Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 4 or more times a month. D Property Owner within the Village of Carlsbad ^1 Visit the Village 8 or more times a month. ^Business Owner within the City (Outside Village) D Visit the Village 12 or more times a month. D Business Owner within the Village of Carlsbad D Work in the Village. TZ&and Use or Development Consultant D Live in the Village. D Developer or Contractor/Builder D Member of Carlsbad Village Business Assoc. D Real Estate Agent/Broker ^ Member of Chamber °f Commerce orovide any comments you have on the proposed revisions to the development standards for the Redevelopment Area. Please note any comments of support, concerns, objections, suggestions for rhanees or different revisions and/or any other information you may wish to provide as to the future OTphysical design of the Village Area. Please use other side of this form for additional comments. Comments: • From: "Jack Nelson" <jngn@adelphia.net> To: "Debbie Fountain" <dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 3/17/2006 11:55:11 AM Subject: Re: Village development Ms. Fountain: Thank you for your reply. I would be interested in attending meetings on this matter and look forward to hearing about them. Jack Nelson Original Message From: "Debbie Fountain" <dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> To: <jngn@adelphia.net> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 8:02 AM Subject: Re: Village development > Dear Mr. Nelson. Thanks so much for your comments. The Council and Staff > have not yet decided whether or not to support the changes noted in the > article. We were actually just looking for community input. These > changes have been requested by developers, some Village property owners > and some Village business owners as a way to encourage more > redevelopment in the area. These changes were requested because there is > a feeling that current development standards are causing constraint to > new desired development. There is a concern that new desired uses (like > more restaurants, residential and mixed use development) are not > developing in the Village because of our current development standards. > So, we decided to put the request out into the community and see what > residents think. I am very happy that the article is working and I am > getting input. It is extremely helpful to hear from the residents > directly. So, I appreciate the time you have taken to send me your > comments. We are going to continue to ask for community input over the > next couple of months and then present the request to the Council for > action (with the comments received from residents). We will have a > couple of public workshops in April on this matter as well. I will make > sure that you are on the invitaiton list just in case you want to come > and share any additional thoughts or suggestions on the development > standards. Thanks again for taking the time to share your comments with > me! > »» "Jack Nelson" <jngn@adelphia.net> 03/11/06 1:37 PM »> > Greetings: > We read your column on Village area development in the latest > Village News. Thank you for writing so clearly and for having an > interest in community views. That is one of the reasons we like > Carlsbad - good long-range planning and a concern for citizen views. > We live in the Old Carlsbad area near the Village center and are in > that part of Carlsbad on a daily basis. We have a strong interest in > improving the Village area to become one of the best and nicest small > business areas in California. However, that does not mean the largest > or tallest or the most developed or popular. > The series of revisions you noted were under consideration by the > Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency for redevelopment of the Village area are > of much concern to us because they seem to be in opposition to improved > beauty and style, to preservation of small village charm, and to easy > convenience for walkers and drivers. > We wonder why we would want no setbacks on any sides of commercial > buildings, height limits increased to allow 4-story buildings to blot > the scenery, and less parking for residents who live there and for those > who want to use the nice restaurants. None of these addresses our > concern for Village atmosphere, quality of visual beauty, and > improvements over what is now there. It sounds more like a typical > ugly town area with jammed storefronts of 45-foot-tall buildings, > inadequate parking and nothing to suggest a real village. How do these > ideas provide "repose", "relaxation", and a great place to "work and > play" - as you indicate are proposed by David Sucher in developing an > urban village? The proposed ideas appear to be mainly suited to provide > advantages for developers and some of the more greedy store owners. > What does "quick access to the global market" mean for Carlsbad > Village? We already have quick access through a variety of avenues > without becoming like the overdeveloped and ugly towns that surround > many cities. They have lost the village atmosphere; we should not. > Perhaps worst of all the items noted in your column is the > consideration of eliminating compliance with the Planned Development > Ordinance. Our son is a chief city planner in the Philadelphia area and > he has remarked very positively about the Carlsbad planned development; > we have taken pride in meeting people outside Carlsbad who recognize our > village as a particularly well planned and developed community after the > planning decisions of the 1980s. Assuming that the Planned Development > Ordinance was passed after due consideration and modified as necessary > over time, why should it be abrogated now? > There is no evidence provided - or readily apparent in looking > at the current Village area - that such draconian measures need to be > taken to provide major improvements there. > We appreciate the opportunity to comment and look forward to > further deliberations. > Sincerely, > M/M Jack L. Nelson > 1360 Las Flores Dr > Carlsbad, CA 92008 > Phone 760 720-5420 From: Chris Tempesta <ctempesta@nethere.com> «po: Debbie Fountain <dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 3/9/2006 7:16:37 AM Subject: Re= Comment on Village revisions Dear Debbie- Good, I'm glad these aren't predestined to happen, and will openly be debated. I'm a firm believer that some development should be constrained! I'll be happy to receive whatever you send me. -Chris Debbie Fountain wrote: > Thank you very much for your comments. The reason for the article is to > find out how residents feel about the requested standards modifications. > At this time, neither staff nor the Council have indicated support for > the requested revisions. We are simply considering them as requested by > a number of property owners , business owners and developers in the > Village Area. Many property owners and developers in the Village have > indicated that the current standards are causing constraints to future > development, which in turn makes it difficult to get some of the desired > uses. However, at this time, the City is only researching the requested > modifications and trying to get community input into the process. We > will hold some public workshops on this issue in April. I will send you > notice of the workshop(s) and also include the written comments you > provided in our analysis. Thanks for taking the time to review the > proposed modifications and to provide your input. I am glad to see that > the article was read and is encouraging residents to contact me. If you > have any additional comments or suggestions, please feel free to contact > me again. Thanks. > > »» Chris Tempesta <ctempesta@nethere.com> 03/08/06 8:27 AM >» > As a former marketing director for an architectural firm, and a > long-time Carlsbad resident, I am shocked by the drastic revisions being > considered for the Village. No setbacks? Building coverage to 100% of > property? So you are encouraging "concrete boxes" with no landscaping, > peoplescaping, or other softscaping around? And getting away from "roof > pitch"? > Please. This is not promoting relaxation and quality of life; this is > promoting bad design, > ugliness, and a path to the destruction of bur formerly quaint town. > > > I'd like to know: Are you trying to get rid of the downtown charm, > which is hard enough to preserve as it is > (tacky signage, ugly paint choices, etc. are hard enough to control). > It looks like you are bowing to certain development/business interests. > Know this: You relax these rules, the envelope will be pushed to limits > you may not be prepared for; that's almost always how it goes. > If the general public understood these plans in plain English, thee > would be an outrage. > Increasing residential density is a terrible idea, too, from 40 to 50 > units per acre. I am not > as currently familiar with parking requirements, but going from one > space per 100 > s.f. to 200 seems like too much. The rest, I am not > informed enough to comment on. But clearly, more discussion and public > knowledge on this subject is called for. Explain what these points > mean. Most concerned citizens would not fully understand them as > written in The Village > News. > > In conclusion, these changes are /clearly/ in the wrong direction. > Sincerely, > Chris Tempesta > 7220 Daffodil Place > Carlsbad, CA 92011 > (760) 438-4041 DRAFT MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M. Date of Meeting: SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lawson called the Meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Lawson asked Board Member Whitton to lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lawson proceeded with the roll call of Board Members. Present: Board Members: Julie Baker Michael Schumacher Frank Whitton Chairperson: Tony Lawson Absent: None Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director: Debbie Fountain Assistant City Attorney: Jane Mobaldi APPROVAL OF MINUTES ACTION: The Board unanimously approved the minutes of the March 29, 2007, meeting as written. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA There were no comments from the audience. NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Lawson asked Ms. Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment, to present the item on the agenda tonight. Ms. Fountain said the item before the Board tonight is a local Coastal Program amendment and a Zone Code amendment to address revisions to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and City Council Policy number 65, related to signs on public property. The bulk of the discussion will be about revisions to the Village Master Plan and the related chapter of the Municipal Code, which is Chapter 21.35. Ms. Fountain stated as an introduction to this item as it relates to revisions to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and amendments to Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and other revisions to policies, these are really being done tonight for two purposes: • One is to clarify and or revise policies for consistency purposes. We did have some situations over the year where we have had the different documents not consistent in terms of how an application of a standard or a policy is made. • We also have some proposed revisions to the Development Standards. As background, the Redevelopment Plan for the Village Redevelopment Area was adopted in July of 1981. The Village Master Plan for the area was adopted in November 1995. What happened from 1981 to 1995 is we were working off what was referred to as "The Village Design Manual." It is a generic document, very general, it didn't have goals and objectives, and it didn't have a vision statement for the Village. So we worked on a Master Plan with goals and objectives, vision, specific development standards for the Village DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 2 of 32 Area Design Guidelines for about four years, and then adopted that in November of 1995. The Master Plan serves as the regulatory document for the Village Area when it comes to Development Standards or other related policies. It, together with any related Council policies or Housing and Redevelopment Commission policies, and the Redevelopment Plan make up the local coastal program for the Village Area. Staff is looking at these documents and making revisions to address the inconsistencies or incorrect policy statements that were unintended at the time the Master Plan was adopted. Also, in March of 2006 the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approved a Resolution of Intention to potentially amend some of the Development Standards within the Master Plan. Staff did a study on what we thought were appropriate amendments. Staff has been working on that for a little over a year, and that is what will be presented tonight. The bulk of tonight's presentation will be spent on the Development Standards. Subsequently, I will go over some of the revisions staff will be making to the Master Plan. Our intention in the Development Standards revisions is to continue the story we started in 1981 to build an urban village downtown to revitalize, to redevelop properties, and to do what staff thought needed to be done in order to encourage new development. Staff did research on what exactly it means when we say "urban village." I thought this was probably one of the best definitions that I came across. It shows there is competing interests. A lot of times when you are trying to create an urban village, we often want the quiet, tree-lined streets, but we also want that quick access to the global market, we want all the services, we want the exciting retail at the same time. Sometimes it seems like competing, but it is actually possible to do in a variety of different ways. When creating a village atmosphere we need to have the places where you can go and relax and you can enjoy the area, but also the services are being provided and you have enough space for those to be provided, whether it is retail space or office space or residential units. Some of the characteristics you would see in an urban village are: • Buildings that are built closer to a sidewalk; • Higher residential densities; • Walkable human scale neighborhood; • People-gathering places; • Promote creativity and flexibility in your standards or your policies; • Choose simple and economical solutions; maybe not always have that architecturally, award-winning project, but you have a project that functions well and serves the purpose it was intended to serve; • Building urban villages generally happens one building at a time; it is a more organic approach; you don't necessarily knock down blocks of buildings and build new buildings; they will happen in smaller increments. The current boundaries of the Village Redevelopment Area is about 200 acres in size, bounded on the north by the city limits between the City of Carlsbad and Oceanside with the Lagoon through the middle, we have I- 5 on the east, Walnut Avenue on the south, and Ocean Street or the ocean on the west. The Village Redevelopment Area is divided into nine land use districts. Within each of these districts there is a matrix showing the types of uses allowed, not allowed, conditionally or provisionally allowed, and we also have development standards that apply to each district. This will show how it is broken down in terms of the Village core, which is District 1, District 9 is more tourism service areas or support areas, Districts 2 and 3 have more freeway-serving commercial uses, Districts 5, 6, 7 and 8 are more generally residential areas so the land uses should be compatible with those residential uses and more likely single-family homes, though there are multi-family homes in those areas as well. In terms of the Village Vision, we have pictures to show the Board what they might look like. The pictures are to show the Board that development is intended to be a little bit more intense than you might find in other areas of the cities. They are intended to be more pedestrian-oriented, transit-oriented and the pictures give the Board some general ideas of what potentially that intensity of development might look like. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 3 of 32 There has been a lot of effort already in the Village Redevelopment Area to revitalize and proceed with redevelopment projects. There has been a lot of public activity in terms of code enforcement, street improvements, marketing, property acquisitions, various beautification projects, plans and studies. To date, there has been about $26,000,000 in public funds that have gone into projects specifically related to the revitalization effort. We have had a number of projects that have been approved over the years. We break it down to prior to 1995 when we finally adopted the Master Plan, what happened after that from 1995 to 2006, there are approved projects in the area that are pending construction, and new applications. They are color coded. The green relates to the 1981 to 1995 projects where there were about 11 of those. These are only focused on new construction projects. They are not focused, at this point, on remodels or other types of projects that have occurred, but new construction projects that have happened from a private development standpoint. We have had about 17 projects that have been built from the 1995 to the 2006 period; 17 projects that have been approved and are moving forward to get building permits at various schedules. We also have four major redevelopment applications in process. Since 1981, we have seen about $258,000,000 in private investment in the Village Area. The question that has come up within the last couple of years is: What can we do to encourage more redevelopment or to encourage more revitalization efforts so we can continue to meet our goals and objects and visions for the area? The answer that was returned to us was: Let's take a look at our development standards and see if they are causing a constraint to development in the Village area, and what can we do to either revise them, delete standards, add new standards, or what might need to happen? We completed some financial scenarios on impacts of development standards: What does it cost to build a project? What does it cost to buy property? And what would it take for us to revise our standards, to maybe make those more financially feasible to proceed with? We also consulted with developers, property owners and architects that are familiar with our standards and have tried to do projects in the Village Area; if it has been successful or unsuccessful and discussing with them as to why that may have happened, either way. We have also reviewed previous and current project applications to see where we had the greatest struggle in trying to get those to the point where they could be recommended for approval. We also looked at the standards of other coastal cities in Southern California to see how we compare to those cities in terms of our standards. We also spent time looking at other areas we considered urban villages and researched their development standards to see what they might be doing differently. Our current standards are: • We have setback requirements that are in ranges; right now we have a 0 to 20 feet range, depending on what district you are located in. We have said development should go to the top of the range unless there is good reason shown to bring it to the bottom of the range; • We have open space requirements at 20%; • Building coverage is in a range from 50 to 100%, depending on what district you are in; • The parking will vary by use; whether you are a retail use, an office use, or a residential use; • The density right now is 15 to 23 dwelling units to an acre is our highest range we have with a growth management control point of 19; • Height varies from 30 to 45 feet, again depending on which district; primarily you could go to 45 feet in the core downtown area; as you move towards the periphery of the Village Area, that is where we get into some of the 30 foot maximum height limits; • Currently the planned development standards apply to condominiums or home ownership opportunities in the Village Area. Some of the existing projects that have been built under those existing standards within the last two to three years: • Laguna Point Condominiums; • The Village By the Sea Project; • Office building on Jefferson; • Extended Stay, which is at the end of Grand, next to the freeway; 2t1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 4 of 32 • Village by the Sea Retirement Community in Carlsbad actually went through the application process much earlier than when we set these standards, but they would typically build to those same standards. We have some projects that have been proposed to date and approved, but not yet built. Several were mixed use projects with retail on the bottom floor and residential on the top floor. The results of the Economic Feasibility Study indicate: Escalating land values and construction costs are outpacing sales income and lease revenue for buildings. This means we needed to find a way to allow larger floor areas or more residential units to provide additional revenues to offset the building construction costs and land costs. The suggestions out of this Economic Feasibility Study were we needed to consider revisions to our height standards, setbacks, building coverage, and parking. When we did our standards comparison to other coastal cities, the standards we have in the downtown area were comparable or actually more liberal than some of those other areas. It shows we weren't necessarily out of line with what other coastal cities were doing, but it doesn't necessarily mean what the other coastal cities are doing is not preventing development or causing constraints to development. It is just a comparison as to how we were doing in comparison. We toured other cities and looked at other areas that might potentially have the same type of characteristics we were looking for in the Village. We looked in Orange County for projects we felt were consistent with the scale we were looking for, the three- or four-story buildings; those buildings are brought up a little closer to the street, and in some cases mixed-use projects. We took trips up to Northern California to look at areas such as Walnut Creek and Carmel. We also visited Santana Row in San Jose, which has a new development that has a mix of uses in it. We also reviewed pictures of areas such as Salem, Massachusetts, and Whistler Village, Canada, to look at some of the characteristics like buildings closer to the street and having the height of three- to four-story buildings. There is an area called the District at Green Valley in Henderson, Nevada, which is characteristic of some of the types of features our proposal development standards would support, again, three- and four-story buildings, moving buildings closer to the street, but also incorporating people-places or areas we would typically think of as a village; places you could sit down and enjoy the pedestrian space there. It might be outdoor dining; it could be a pocket park, or just benches on the street. In terms of our studies, we also accessed information through academic types of surveys and reading books and magazines and articles about various issues we were dealing with. Some of the issues brought up related to parking, that you have to be careful on how you set your parking standards, because if you ask for too much parking or an excess in parking, alternative modes of transportation might be discouraged, you may unintentionally be reducing density or intensity of development and it does increase the cost. The more parking required can sometimes create an uninviting built environment when you have large amounts of surface parking lots that may be empty for a large part of the day and are mainly filled when there are peak uses. It could overall degrade the natural environment if there isn't adequate landscaping. The suggestions coming out of a number of studies related to parking are: When looking at what parking requirements should be, there is a situation of both an art and a science. It is often done within a political context. A parking requirement may be arbitrarily set because of political reasons such as people not providing enough parking or providing too much parking, with maybe a compromise somewhere in the middle. The suggestions were to look at what the goals are for the Village in setting your parking policies. If encouraging the use of public transportation is a goal, you could give a reduction for a project if they were within so many feet of a public transit stop or if they were near, like in our case, the transit station or some type of program was provided that would encourage the use of public transportation to cut down on the need for parking at their location. In terms of Design Review, some of the suggestions were to be careful about not being too concerned about just an external appearance of the built environment, but really how the building will be used and how the people who are accessing it will use that building. Both the public realm as well as the built environment needs to be looked at and what needs to be reestablished or reinforced through our standards or our guidelines. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 5 of 32 With talking to the developers, architects and the property owners, we received feedback such as: • Our parking requirements are difficult to meet; this was not a surprise as with every project that comes through, the most difficult time we usually have is how to meet the parking requirements; • There was concern the density levels currently set within the Village are too low and they need to be increased to make development more feasible, and also to meet more of our goals in terms of providing more residential opportunities downtown and as a result providing more people downtown to access the businesses; • Reduced setbacks and increased building coverage would be desirable; • The planned Development Standards are not appropriate for the Village. As a result of all of our discussions, the studies done, and the review, we are making some proposals tonight on revisions to our standards. In some cases, they may just be slight modifications of our standard to make it work better. In other areas it might be a complete deletion of a requirement. In some cases it might be an addition of a requirement in order to meet what our goals were, and ultimately, not only assist in development, but assist in the overall revitalization effort for the downtown area. We are proposing our setbacks would allow, at the ground floor level, to go to zero feet. We would not have a range of them where the higher of the range would be the preferred. We have actually allowed them to go to zero feet at the first floor, but on the second and third floor we would like that tostep back. We wanted to allow some flexibility, however, so we said an average of 10 feet over the second, third, fourth level; whatever point they can get to. This way the building will have some articulation. Some parts of the building might set back more significantly than other parts of the building, but when you average the setbacks, you would get to at least 10 feet. This would primarily be related to Districts 1 through 4 on the map, which we generally refer to where we want to intensify the retail and residential uses. Again, Districts 7, 8, 5, and 6 get more into single-family home areas, and we were trying to be sensitive to the fact we might not want intense types of development in those areas. District 9 is considered more of our tourist serving commercial uses, and it may be okay in some cases and not in others. Building coverage and setbacks go together if zero feet setback is allowed, which will probably get to 100% coverage. In terms of the height, currently we do allow in District 1 through 4 and 9 for a project to go to 45 feet in height, but we currently also have a roof pitch requirement, 5 and 12 roof pitch, and to get to 45 feet you have to build over parking. We are suggesting leaving all of our height standards the same as they are in terms of maximums, but not require the roof pitch and not require them to be built over parking. If some other alternative suggestion is made for how parking might be met and it is not on site, then they would still have the benefit of being able to go to 45 feet, because most likely they could have a more expensive alternative for going off site. It might be a better alternative in the long run. To deal with fa?ade modulation and the pitched roof, we would encourage that more as a design feature rather than an actual development standard, which would give us a little more flexibility. In terms of parking, we have a number of suggestions. We actually have not recommended any changes to our parking requirements. If you have a retail use, for example, your parking requirement is going to be one space for every 300 square feet of gross floor space. Instead of revising those standards, we have suggested reconfiguring how we calculate the parking requirement. Rather than doing it on a gross floor space, we are proposing to do it on a net floor space. This would mean we would remove from the calculation any restroom facilities, any stairwells, elevators, storage areas, and those types of areas that are not actually accommodating people. We are just focusing on where people actually would be located, and that might be employees in a kitchen, if it were a restaurant, or customers sitting at tables in the dining area. I do have an example of how these will work and I will walk you through that so you can see how it might affect the overall parking requirement of a project. We are also suggesting allowing parking credit for existing commercial buildings on a site. If a building is torn down and a building is going to be rebuilt that is comparable in size or larger, then it would receive credit for that existing on the site that is being removed. We are also proposing to allow on a discretionary basis, so it would be project by project, up to a 15% reduction in parking for programs that support public transportation. If you happen to be near the transit DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 6 of 32 station or you decide to implement a program where you buy an annual pass for every resident within your complex to use the coaster or the bus and in someway trying to reduce the overall demand for parking, you will receive credit. It could be anywhere from a zero credit or a reduction up to 15% depending on the extent of what that developer is willing to do or where the building is physically located. Tandem parking for residential would also be allowed, which would mean one car could park another in either a garage or some other type of surface level parking, but only for residential. We weren't proposing to do that for commercial or office uses. We would also allow creative parking solutions such as parking lifts, parking elevators, types of things you might see in other more intense downtown areas or even European cities but haven't been used to date in our village area. In terms of other requirements, open space is being proposed to remain at 20%. We did want to clarify that it can be either public or private open space within a project. A condition we haven't had in the Master Plan before relates to wall heights. We have had this issue come up on projects in terms of how tall we could have the walls that are dividing property. We are suggesting to you we have a limit on wall heights of six feet. However, there is flexibility within it to go above six feet if there are certain findings that can be made as to what that benefit is. We are proposing to eliminate the planned development standards for the Village Area, but we will suggest there be a couple of additional standards added to the Master Plan to address recreational vehicles that might be in a project or how their parking is provided on site. One of the most controversial standards we are proposing is a change is the maximum density allowed for residential development or a mixed-use that included a residential development. We are proposing to go to a maximum density of 45 dwelling units per acre in Land Use Districts 1 through 4. Again, these are the areas we have identified to intensify development. However, we are proposing to leave the maximum density of 23 dwelling units to the acre in Land Use Districts 5 through 9. Again, District 9 is more of a tourist serving, commercial serving area so our intent was not to necessarily increase the number of residential units in that area, but still allow higher density. Again, Land Use Districts 5, 6, 7, and 8 are areas that transition into primarily residential areas and single-family homes. We are trying to be sensitive to the compatibility issue there. We did propose a minimum density of 15 dwelling units to the acre in the Village area. This chart provides a comparison between the existing and proposed standards. District 1 is our largest area with the most number of properties in it. Some of the standards are slightly modified and in other cases we have actually added or deleted. In terms of front setbacks, the difference between having a range and actually starting at zero feet and you need a 10 foot average on your second, third and fourth level. Building coverage, again, was a range in District 1 and we are just proposing to allow up to a maximum of 100%. Building height is taking away the roof pitch requirement and the need to provide over parking. We don't have a stories limit. So that could be three or four stories, depending on how the building is designed. Open space, again, would remain 20%. We are not proposing any changes to that. We are just proposing a clarification on it. The area of greatest change would be the density in this area. We are still proposing the 15% inclusionary requirement. In terms of the PD standards, the PD standards included such things as minimum driveway widths, recreational space requirements, recreational vehicle storage requirements, minimum balcony and patio, and we felt like we needed more flexibility in the Village Area. If a project is just built to the Development Standards we are proposing, we felt that was adequate. However, we were suggesting with the elimination of those PD standards to still address the storage of large recreational vehicles and not allow them actually on site. We would not like them parked on site, and we don't want them parked on the street. We want them parked in an off-site location. Small recreational vehicles may be stored, however, on site, if they are screened. Small recreational vehicles might be such things as jet skis or something that might be able to fit into the size of a regular parking space. We did want the storage areas to be screened from public view. The parking does vary by use, but our major change in this area is the change in calculation from gross square foot calculation to a net square foot calculation. In terms of tandem parking, it is not permitted under our existing standards. Under the proposed standards, it would be permitted for residential. The parking space credits are permitted for commercial but not residential for our current standards. Under the new standards, the parking in-lieu fee is currently permitted and will continue to be permitted under the proposal. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 7 of 32 There will be a 15% reduction for transit oriented projects, which is not permitted under our existing standards, but would be permitted under the new standards for all uses. One additional point proposed to be added to the Village Design Manual is a clause about when standards modifications could be granted. These would be different than variances, which require different types of findings that are set forth in our code. Standards modifications would include such things as a standard modification to density or height or parking for certain types of uses we would see beneficial to the Village Area. They would be done on a case-by-case basis. We would look at each project and determine the appropriateness of applying any standards modifications. It would be a burden on the developer to provide us with acceptable evidence that modification is financially necessary to make the project feasible. Or the application of our standards would preclude residential development, specifically at the minimum permitted density. So if we couldn't get a project to the minimum density of 15 dwelling units to the acre, we could allow some standards modifications to be able to get them to the minimum. That directly relates to our policies within our Housing Element. If we set a certain density range for our area and we go below that density range that was used in the Housing Element that causes us problems in not having adequate land to possibly accommodate our needs. We want to at least meet the minimum density if a property has been identified for residential development. We also wanted to allow standards modifications for development that would be at a silver or higher lead certification. This would relate to green buildings. If a project was going to go for this higher certification and some development standards needed to be modified to do that, than if they could show it is financially necessary to make the project feasible to get to that certification, provides a public benefit. We also already allow standards modifications for affordable housing in the Municipal Code. Staff decided to also put that language into the Master Plan. This slide provides an example of the proposed parking changes. A project that was recently approved, Roosevelt Center, on the corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Roosevelt Street, was an intense project with mixed use. It had retail, restaurant, office and two apartments in it. The project, as it stands, had about 2,400 square feet of retail, 3,300 square feet of restaurant, 6,500 square feet of office, and two apartments. The existing building on the site is about 2,400 to 2,500 square feet. If we applied the new rules we currently have, it would get to a different parking requirement. Under the existing rules, it would have and did have a requirement for 68 parking spaces. That breaks down to 30 spaces total for the retail and the office, 33 spaces for restaurant, and 5 spaces for apartments. That project actually did buy into the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program for all of its commercial parking. The only parking provided on site was the 5 spaces. Under the new scenario, they could potentially still buy out of the commercial requirements and provide their residential on site, but if we apply our new rules, in terms of changing the calculation from gross square footage to net square footage, their total parking requirement would have actually been reduced to 56 parking spaces instead of 68. If we further take the other reductions we would potentially allow under our proposed policies if they received the full 15% transit reduction because they are within 1,500 feet of the transit station, they could get another 8 parking space reduction and they would get 8 parking spaces of credit for the existing building on site. Their total parking would be 40 parking spaces. They would have been required to buy 40 spaces instead of 68 spaces. That would probably be the most intense type of situation. We also tried to prepare some visual demonstrations of these potential development standards and what they might look like under the existing situation and then under the proposed situation. We did this more for massing and scale studies so you could see what happens at the street level. We did it for a small lot, about 10,000 square feet, which is typical of a lot of the lots we have downtown. Then we did it on one of our largest lots we have without having to consolidate properties at .7 of an acre, about 30,000 square feet. The pictures are not detailed enough to say in all cases how each of the standards was applied. We wanted to focus on what happens at the street level and not so much at what happens at the side and the rear level, but how close it brings it to the street in both circumstances and how many residential units you can get under the existing standards and the new standards. With the small lot of about 10,000 square feet we can get about 5 town homes on it, probably averaging about 2,500 square feet in size. That is going to the maximum of the density that we allowed on this site; also about a 3,400 square feet restaurant or retail. We are focusing more on restaurants with outdoor dining areas in this picture. If we go to the proposed standards on that same 10,000 square foot lot, under the density you could get about 10 town homes on it, but that would reduce the size of those units from about 2,500 square feet to about 1,500 to 1,600 square feet. You would get more DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 8 of 32 units on site. Physically, the outside of the building doesn't look much different, but you have created smaller units, which at some point hopefully would be more affordable units. The restaurant or retail space doesn't change significantly, about 3,700 square feet. Again, it brings it closer to the street, gets the articulation we are looking for, under both standards, but you get a more intense development under the new standards. A bigger difference is noticed on the larger site. On the 30,000 square foot lot, currently you can get about 16 town homes on it; again, larger town homes ranging 2,800 square feet and you can get about 11,600 square feet of restaurant and retail. This is assuming you are buying some of the parking off site. You are not parking the entire project, which you can do under the existing standards as well as the new standards. You are required to park residential on site. In this particular project it is underground parking. Under the proposed standards, you substantially increase the number of town homes in the project, but the units do become smaller, closer to 1,500 to 1,600 square feet. You can get more restaurant and retail under the proposed new standards to about 14,700 square feet. If you look at the difference of what you have at the street, between the existing and the proposed, there aren't substantial changes on the street level. It is what happens inside that overall form of the building. You can tell it is a little more intense under the proposed standards than the existing standards. In the proposed standards, you are able to get to a fourth story and still actually have a pitch on the roof if you wanted. You could potentially still get portions of the building to that fourth story. In terms of increasing density, because this is one of the most controversial points, is why would we want to substantially increase the residential density of downtown? • Increasing the number of residential units in the Village is good for business; • It does bring more residents to shop in the stores that we currently have and may have in the future; • If we can get residents near the services, it would hopefully take some of the cars off the road because they would be walking to these retail uses or these shops in the Village and not be required to use their car on a regular basis; • Increasing the number of residential units in the Village does help create the desired 7/24 living environment; if we have people downtown, it helps improve the safety of the Village area; • Increasing density can ultimately reduce the size of the units and subsequently increase their affordability. Some of the headlines on the Development Standards: • The increased density from 23 dwelling units maximum to 45 dwelling units maximum in Districts 1 through 4; • Changing how the parking is calculated from gross to net; • Providing parking credit for existing buildings; • Encouraging buildings to be closer to the sidewalk, at least at the ground level, and then stepping back at the second levels and above; • No change in the maximum height limits, but removing the requirement to build over parking for the 45 foot height limit and eliminating that roof pitch requirement; • Up to a 15% reduction in parking requirement for transit oriented projects; • More creative parking solutions; • Standards modifications on a case-by-case basis for lead certification, which is at silver or higher and/or affordable housing. Why make these revisions? Why are they important to the Village and why should we do them? More residential opportunities within the Village provide more customers for businesses in the Village. Increase the opportunities for providing retail space or new service space for new businesses or existing businesses that would like to expand and grow. We have a very low vacancy rate in the Village. It is actually hard for people to find office space or to find retail space that would meet their needs when they do want to come into the Village Area, so this would create some new opportunities by encouraging development, enhance the overall attractiveness of the Village, both from the services and retail that can be provided, the residential opportunities, and overall the visual attractiveness of the Village and create interesting people places. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 9 of 32 There are clean up items we have included in these revisions. These are things staff has needed to do for a number of years, but each time we were ready to move forward with some amendments to the Master Plan we'd either find another item that needed to be amended or in the case of the Development Standards, we started working on amendments to them. Because it is so difficult and such a lengthy process to go through to amend the Master Plan, because it does ultimately need to go to the Coastal Commission, we decided to put all of them in at one time. Many of them are just clean up to create more consistency between documents. Some of them we have been doing in practice, but didn't have in the Master Plan so it is putting it in black and white. We had an inconsistency in our document for a number of years that we were actually requiring a variance if someone exceeded the setback standard, which is not what was intended. But the language that got into the Master Plan created an inconsistency there. We are going to fix that and not require a variance if you exceed a standard, only if you go below a standard would you have to get a variance. We would like to put in language that says: Administrative variances can be approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director. It is assumed that is the case, but it was never written into the Master Plan. We want to allow an exemption for demolition from redevelopment permit requirements so they do not require a public hearing. We would like to better define the rooftop sign. We set standards for when pole signs would be allowed. This was an issue a few years ago. We currently don't allow pole signs in the Village Area. If a new business came into the Village Area and there was an existing pole sign, we wouldn't allow them to reface that sign. They would have to bring their signage into conformance. It might state it was okay to have a pole sign if you meet certain conditions. We are adding language about consistency determinations. This is when the Housing and Redevelopment Director could make a determination if some changes were done. This would outline when the Director could make those changes and when they would have to come back for public review. We are proposing to prohibit the use of temporary structures and storage containers. As a practice, we have done this over the years but there wasn't actual language in the Master Plan that described exactly what was intended by that so we wanted to clarify in the Master Plan. We are also setting forth the process for extensions. We did have a process that we were implementing, but it wasn't actually stated in the Master Plan and we wanted to take care of that. There is one clean up that is related to when the Master Plan was originally adopted and this relates to the transportation corridor and more commonly referred to as the North County Transit District right away for the railroad. When we came forward with the Master Plan originally, we intended to allow development in the transportation corridor that would be consistent with development allowed in other areas around it. If we allowed retail development or office development in the adjacent properties, we would allow that in the transportation corridor. Currently the transportation corridor would only allow transit related development. It would have to be something that is related to the railroad or the buses. We intended to allow other uses. However, when we went to the Coastal Commission, they said they did not want to allow any other type of development until we have a Master Plan from North County Transit District that says they can still meet their transit needs with having other private development that might be commercial development or residential development. We included their requested language in the Master Plan, but now North County Transit District is moving forward to the completion of their Master Plan so we want to amend the Village Master Plan to allow other uses. We are also clarifying definitions for restaurants and bars with or without entertainment in the Master Plan document itself. We have some related amendments to Chapter 21.35 of the Municipal Code. There was an inconsistency between the code and the Master Plan on what constitutes minor redevelopment permits. We are clearing up some of the language related to the $60,000 permit value. Again, no redevelopment permit for demolition. We are clarifying the Design Review Board's role in approving projects in the Village Area and also approving changes to the ordinance like 21.35 and other program implementation that is clearly a role for the Design Review Board who acts as the Planning Commission for the Village Redevelopment Area and set forth the process for appeals and granting extensions. We have some minor changes to the Council Policy 65, which relates to signs within the public right-of-way. The first case was to correct some inconsistency between that policy and the Master Plan on when A-frame DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 10 of 32 signs or off-site signage in the public right-away is allowed for a business. We wanted the standards to be consistent in both documents and there were some slight changes needed to be made. As far as banners, we wanted to clarify they would not be for commercial advertisement in the Village Area, but if there was a city sponsored or co-sponsored event and we wanted to display some event information on those banners, that would be allow. We did an Environmental Review for the proposed changes. We have issued a negative declaration that was noticed for public comment. The notice of intent to adopt the negative declaration was posted on July 23, 2007, and the public review period ended on August 22, 2007. There was no potentially significant impacts from the changes that are proposed. We did receive three letters and they are in the packet; from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Game, they provided a joint letter, the California Public Utilities Commission, and the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. Our responses to their letters are in the packet. There was not any challenge to the negative declaration. It was just some reminders as we are moving forward. We accepted those comments. The Design Review Board actions before you tonight are four Resolutions, which we are asking you to approve. They do relate to the recommendation approval of the negative declaration, the recommendation of the amendments to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, the revisions or amendments to Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and City Policy 65. These are all encompassed in the local coastal program amendment 95-10(a) and zone code amendment 95-10(a). The next step after the action tonight at the Design Review Board, if these resolutions are approved and there is a recommendation from the Design Review Board to move the project forward, it will move on to the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The Design Review Board does serve as the Planning Commission for this area so the DRB acts as a recommendation just as the Planning Commission would do in the rest of the city. We wouldn't subsequently go to the Planning Commission. It will go directly to the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission. If it is approved by the City Council and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, the application will have to go forward to the Coastal Commission since we are doing a local coastal program amendment. However, we are proposing the revisions that are approved by the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission would be effective 30 days after the Council and Commission take action on them for all areas outside the coastal zone in the Village Area. Any areas in the coastal zone, the new regulations would not take effect until the Coastal Commission approves them. Once we get through Coastal Commission approval and we know which changes have been approved or what modifications might need to be made, we will ultimately revise the actual document, which is the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. It will be reformatted and reprinted with the changes and then redistributed or made available for reference purposes. The new ordinance will also be placed into the Municipal Code. Chairperson Lawson commented Ms. Fountain did a remarkable and extremely effective job on her presentation. It was noted for the record the Design Review Board did receive at least three additional letters, one from the Chamber, another one from Phyllis Hall, and another one from the Carlsbad Village Improvement Partnership. BREAK Board Member Schumacher commented on a fantastic presentation. Mr. Schumacher asked about one of the letters from Ms. Hall about the issue of a zero setback as it pertains to joint use driveways when you have small property owners who don't have access in the back by way of an alley. They have to share access with a neighbor, and if the neighbor builds out the property to a zero setback line, it could cause problems with access, getting in and visibility and getting out of the site. Has that been considered by traffic or if it has come up at all? Ms. Fountain said staff is aware of Ms. Hall's concern. We haven't addressed that in what has been proposed to you now. If we want to put some conditions in there, such as if you have joint access or that access is needed for whatever purpose, we need to come up with some other standard and we will have to DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 11 of 32 come up with what that standard is. It is not currently incorporated into the proposal that is before you tonight. Chairperson Lawson asked if tonight's actions would exacerbate her concern by approval of what is being suggested. It is interpreted, and correct me if I am wrong, that it is staff's position any of our actions this evening would not necessarily compound the problem. Is that true or not? Ms. Fountain commented Ms. Hall is here to speak tonight so we might want to let her speak and then try and answer the questions more after that. This way she can explain the situation to you. The concern that is on her particular property is because she is on Carlsbad Village Drive, and she has a very narrow driveway into her back parking area. Right now she is sharing an access, which creates a wider area. If the property next to her that is to the west develops and has a zero setback on the side and a zero setback at the front, then she is limited to access into her property by only her driveway, which I am not sure what the actual width is there. It would make it more difficult for delivery trucks and that type of vehicle to actually get into the driveway. You might want to move the corner of the building back a little bit further for visibility purposes. When we look at projects that have such a situation, we work with them on a project-by-project basis so we may suggest pulling the building back from the corner to allow reasonable access into the property next to the property. It is unique in the way her driveway and her parking are set up, but that is something we would generally look at on a case-by-case basis and work with the project next to it. We do not have a specific standard stating that. If there is something we want to add to the language to guarantee in those cases there would be some other type of setback on the adjacent property, then we could look at that in terms of forming a standard. Board Member Baker asked on Ms. Hall's property, if they at some future time wish to develop it, then 100% of that site could also be developed too so then the parking lot and the driveway would be gone. Of course, that would be assuming they buy parking off site. Ms. Fountain said correct. That problem would be fixed with the new development. Board Member Whitton asked what restaurant is this. Ms. Fountain answered it is the Mariah's Restaurant. Board Member Whitton asked how a setback at 10 to 20 feet could affect outside dining such as Vigilucci's. There needs to be a free sidewalk and then to provide for outside dining, is the setback going to be in addition to that? Ms. Fountain answered the setback is from the property line. It is not necessarily considering what the public sidewalk setback is. It is from the property line's side of the public sidewalk. With the zero line, you can build up to your property line, and then if you had adequate sidewalk to put dining on the sidewalk, then you would get a separate permit from the city to place it on the sidewalk, which is what Vigilucci's and Caldo Palmadoro did. If they setback their building further because they want to put outdoor dining in front of their restaurant, than they can incorporate that. They would not be penalized by moving it back further. Chairperson Lawson asked if Ms. Fountain can explain the conditions to which the city would give reason to grant the use of the public sidewalk and relinquish that to a restaurant user. There probably needs to be some clarification. Ms. Fountain said the Master Plan allows outdoor dining on the public sidewalk, but you have to meet certain conditions. You need at least 5 feet of sidewalk still remaining the public can use. They have to go through the Housing and Redevelopment Office to get a permit. They have to provide us with insurance so if there is an injury that is in the public right-of-way, the city and the Redevelopment Agency are covered. We approve a permit, but if they are going to serve alcohol, then ABC has to provide a permit. Any improvements they place in the public sidewalk requires an encroachment permit so if at some later date we say they have to be removed, they are obligated to remove those. Also if we have some type of safety issue that comes up after we issue the permit, we have a way of going about revoking that permit for safety reasons. There is a DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 12 of 32 process and it is allowed within the Master Plan but does have to meet certain conditions. Not every restaurant with a public sidewalk would be able to meet the conditions. Chairperson Lawson commented for clarification, there is no action taking place this evening that will influence any of that process. Ms. Fountain said correct. It would not change any of those regulations. Board Member Baker asked if there is language in the revisions or somewhere in the Master Plan that if a project was so extraordinary or desirable yet there were some standards they were unable to meet, most likely parking, would there be a mechanism for that to happen? Ms. Fountain said we currently haven't written anything into the standards that would give staff that kind of flexibility. We could incorporate something like that under the standards modification section where we allow it for LEED certification or we allow it for affordable housing. You can add other types of projects that either benefit or continue your efforts for meeting your goals and objectives in the village area, or something that has a significant public purpose or serves to help meet your goals. Board Member Baker commented Ms. Fountain mentioned in the staff presentation the lengthy process it takes to change standards. I was thinking if something comes along we are not even thinking about today because we haven't imagined it yet, that there might be a way it could be accomplished without having to do either variances or go through the lengthy process of making changes to the Master Plan. Ms. Fountain said if we can jointly agree it would satisfy certain goals, we might be able to write a standard around that. Board Member Baker said it seems like $60,000 or anything over that really doesn't seem like a huge amount of money to require. Maybe somebody might have some advice on a number that might be more reasonable. It just seems that the costs of construction is increasing so dramatically lately, that it wouldn't be difficult to hit that $60,000 threshold and yet still meet the intent of what we are thinking about here. Ms. Fountain said staff did do some research based on building valuation that our building department uses. It depends on what type of use it is. With residential it would be around $100 a square foot for a wood frame, new construction. If you use $100 a square foot, under our permit process, you could get about 600 square feet of an addition or new construction. If 600 feet doesn't seem like enough of an addition to do under a minor redevelopment permit, then you might want to raise it if you think 1,000 square feet would be more appropriate, which would be $100,000. Our building permit valuations may not be the same as what a contractor will build it for. For an office, it ranges from about $75 a square foot to $118 a square foot. Stores or retails range anywhere from $44 a square foot to $90 a square foot. It's more of what is the magic number you want to pick and how much square footage you think is appropriate for them to get through a minor redevelopment permit process. Originally the number was set based on the Council wanting to see all new major projects coming through. They were okay with certain additions being done or small buildings being done. It is just trying to decide on the number that would be okay to be approved by the Design Review Board rather than, the City Council. If you do want to raise it, this is the time to do that when we are making these amendments. Board Member Baker asked how long has it been $60,000. When was that number set? Ms. Fountain answered that was set in 1995 when we adopted the Master Plan. Board Member Schumacher referred to Ms. Baker's question earlier as to if there is a project that requires exceptions to the rules, what happens in July or June 2009 when the redevelopment district expires, which was supposed to expire this year but was extended for two years? Does this document live on through that? Ms. Fountain said it will be a future decision the City Council will have to make. Our recommendation would be that it just continues forward as the regulatory document. There would still need to be some language changes within the document. The City Council could decide they want to rezone all the properties and bring DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 13 of 32 it under the Municipal Code or they could do a new Master Plan or other specific plan for the area or overlay zones. There are a number of land use strategies they could use to regulate the Village Area. Since this is already in place and has studies done on why these standards are applied, it would be reasonable that it would be continued to be used after 2009. It is not necessarily tied to the Redevelopment Plan, other than we do have some language changes that would have to be made. From a law standpoint, you don't have to have the Redevelopment Plan in place to have this Village Master Plan. There are just some other actions that will need to be taken to let it stand on its own. Chairperson Lawson asked regarding the parking and the parking credit as it relates to demolition that may take place on a site, is there a time limit from which the demolition occurs till that credit stays viable for a certain period of time. Because someone could remove something from their site and than two years later they might decide to move forward, could they still go back and get credit for what they demolished two years prior? Ms. Fountain said staff's proposal is it would be what existed on the site when they had their permit approved. It wouldn't be something that could be two or five or ten years earlier. It would be something that was on the site, and as they came forward with the Redevelopment Permit, they propose to demolish that building and rebuild a new one. We would want it tied to some specific development that was going to occur. If the Board would like to see something different, that can be written into the standards. Our intent was it would have to be what existed on the site at the time the Redevelopment Permit was approved. Chairperson Lawson said he is not suggesting anything. He just wanted to get clarification on that point. That was what I was hoping the answer would be. Mr. Lawson continued that at the beginning of the staff presentation Ms. Fountain made reference to some comparisons to other cities and location that was part of the background through all of this. Recognizing that Carlsbad has a tourist component to it, and I know some of the cities you made reference to may or may not necessarily, could staff elaborate on what kind of additional elements you take from cities that require or have a tourist influence? When looking at some of those, whether they be comparing Carmel versus Irvine, I don't think that Irvine is seasonally influenced by tourism as Carlsbad is; where I do think Carmel might have some of that. Ms. Fountain answered when staff did the standards comparison, we were primarily looking at coastal cities that had similar characteristics, like had the tourist and the visitors. When we were looking at the built environment when we did our tours, we were looking not necessarily where there was always a tourist influence, but it was looking for buildings and areas that had similar characteristics like three- and four-story buildings and buildings that are moved to the sidewalk. We had two different things we were trying to accomplish with our review. One was looking at similar cities and seeing what their actual Development Standards were. The other one was identifying the types of buildings that we might like to see in the Village Area and not necessarily distinguishing between whether they were a high tourist area or not a high tourist area, and taking into consideration higher densities and more intensity. For example, Walnut Creek is more regionally based in terms of residents living in that area. It is not a coastal city. It is not necessarily a high tourism city, but it had characteristics of what we thought were appealing and more comparable to what we were trying to encourage. In some cases, we were really looking at comparable areas to see what their standards were. In other cases we were looking at the built environment and comparable types of building we might want to encourage. Mr. Lawson said he greatly appreciates that. He thinks that is an important thing to note. Also, part of the presentation when you were comparing the renderings that are on the wall and you made reference to where under existing there might be a certain number of units and those units might be in the 2,800 square foot for residential, but then dropping it down to maybe 1,600 or along those lines. Did staff have any discussion with builders, architects, leasing agents or whatever to confirm that within a village environment those are still viable square footages for this type of a location as compared to someone looking for a 3,500 square foot house with five bedrooms wouldn't necessarily be looking in the village. Typically in urban areas, you are looking for smaller square footages. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 14 of 32 Ms. Fountain said staff did have discussions with developers, property owners and architects about what should be expected in an urban environment. The expectation is that you should have a more dense product that would be smaller types of units because of the types of demographics of people you would have moving into urban areas are different than you might have in single-family home communities. Those larger 2,500 to 3,000 square foot homes are, as you said, not necessarily what those living in an urban environment are necessarily going to be looking for. The 1,500 to 1,600 square feet is actually a reasonable size. We had some developers who thought we should go even smaller and were a little more extreme on what they thought would sell. Based on the information we have, the 1,500 to 1,600 is a reasonable product for an urban environment and can accommodate the types of demographics you would have in people moving into the area. PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS OPENED Robert L Nielsen, 355 Carlsbad Village Drive: Mr. Nielsen said he has been a Carlsbad resident for 32 years with an office at 525 Carlsbad Village Drive and lives at 355 Carlsbad Village Drive, across from the Village Faire for the last five years. On January 25, 2007, Redevelopment had a public hearing to announce proposed changes to the plan. There was excellent attendance and good responses from the public. There were 54 slips turned in with comments and I broke them down: • Yes, they liked the idea; • They had their own ideas that conflicted; • They didn't like the idea. The responses ranged between 13 and 19 in each category. Overall, it was well done by the participants. On March 13, 2007, there was an exchange of e-mails between Jack Nelson, the Village Voice columnist, and Debbie Fountain, the Director of Redevelopment. This is from Debbie to Mr. Nelson, dated March 13, 2007: "The Council and staff have not yet decided whether or not to support the changes noted in the article. We were just actually looking for community input. The changes that have been requested are by developers, some village property owners, and some village business owners as a way to encourage more redevelopment in the area." There is more verbiage, but I will skip down. "We are going to continue to ask for community input over the next couple of months, and then present the request to the Council for action with the comments received from residents. We will have a couple of public workshops in April on this matter as well. I will make sure that you are on the invitation list just in case you want to come and share any additional thoughts. Mr. Nielsen continued that he does not believe that happened. He does not believe we had any public meetings or any public hearings. Should it have? I think so because it appears we haven't had any citizen input at this point, at least none I have heard. I am not going to go through the basic changes as you know what they are: Double density from 25 to 45 units to an acre, private patios on down to signage. In 1977 the Redevelopment Committee concluded the major problem in the Village was parking and signage. Today, thirty years later, it hasn't changed except the newest fix is to double the density and to reduce parking requirements by 25%, approximately. I was on that original Commission so I know the dates and I know what the problem was. The reduction of parking without alternative city sponsored off-street lots or structures in place brings the following questions: Is there a parking plan currently in our district? How many spaces are available existing now? I believe Redevelopment said there are 300 in five lots ranging from Harding to Lincoln. How many spaces are needed? The newly approved project on Roosevelt and Carlsbad Village Drive requested 63 or 6'8 spaces to purchase in-lieu, and we have already sold I don't know how many in-lieu parking spaces. When will the new spaces and/or structures be located and how are they going to be financed? When will they be completed? Here we are giving away spaces, and we have no replacements. Is the City Council ready, at this time, to invest millions of dollars because that is what it is going to take. There is only one major center in the city Council approved parking reduction was in the Village Faire in the 1980's. They now have security employees marking cars and towing at least five to ten a day that exceed the 20 minute, one hour and three hour parking limit, which makes great PR for our city. One last comment is on the negative declaration on the EIR: Increased traffic section 15(a), insufficient parking capacity, 15(f). Really was it less than a significant impact, the fact we are doubling density and decreasing parking? I think that should have been considered in the EIR. I am here as a property owner and as a resident. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 15 of 32 Unfortunately, I am having a tough time because as a property owner, I would love to see these standards come in. I could be a typical carpetbagger, do the development like some of the developers and leave town, but fortunately, I live here, I want to stay living here. I have been five years in the Village. Therefore, that is why I am obviously concerned about this. I request a public hearing or workshops prior to any vote. I think the public should have an opportunity to give input. Michael Babowal, 4560 Cove Drive, Unit A, Carlsbad, CA: Mr. Babowal said he is the Director of Government Affairs with the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, which he is here on behalf of tonight. He mentioned the Chamber has over 1,800 members and over 70,000 employees and several hundred of them are in the Village. He is here to state the Chamber is supportive of the Design Standard changes in the Village. We believe it will encourage good, an innovative sign in the Village Area. He pointed out the zero setbacks, the elimination of building over parking to reach 45 feet, and also the creative parking solutions are great things and the Chamber supports them fully and commend the staff on a great job they have done. Phyllis Hall, 4046 Garfield Street: Ms. Hall said she has been a property owner in the Village for 30 years. She has owned and operated two restaurants in the Village. As a property owner at 377 Carlsbad Village Drive, I have participated in the Redevelopment Plan of the early 80's and the implementation of Streetscape, which for myself, resulted in economic hardship. Some plans in theory are easily accomplished, but the devil is in the detail. Implementation of a plan is often more difficult than expected and sometimes impossible. The Village has had many challenges in respect to its original layout of the 1920's, including the size of its lots. Trying to blend yesterday's hardscape with today's vision is not an easy task. I am here this evening to address the zero setback as it pertains to the joint use driveways access. When Streetscape was implemented in the 1980's, joint use driveways were a very important issue for both the city and the property owners. Tonight I am speaking only of my property, but it pertains to mid-block properties throughout the Village with 50 feet wide or less, like mine, frontages and no ability of rear access. Not all properties have the possibility of side or alley access as described in your plan tonight. That being said, both the city and the property owners in the 1980's acknowledged that in the Streetscape plan joint use driveways were the preferred access. The city then proceeded to install its curb cuts, sidewalks, and Streetscape to that standard. In the plan before you tonight, has any thought or consideration been given to how the proposed changes might impact my lot or other mid-block owners. This is part of the detail in the Design Guidelines that I hope you will discuss and decide on tonight. In my case, if the joint use driveway that I have shared for the last thirty years with the adjoining property owner is not part of the Design Guidelines for the future, it could create another hardship. Customers in the future will have to enter my driveway from the fast lane on the inside line, cross over the slow lane, in order to make that right-hand turn into the very narrow ten foot driveway. Customers exiting could be faced with turning out onto Carlsbad Village Drive with no visibility. With the proposed zero setback, there could be walls in excess of ten feet high on both sides, all the way to the curb line. From a safety standpoint for both the city and me, I request this issue be addressed in the decisions being made this evening. The restaurant has existed in excess of 50 years now and I have owned it for 30 years. Your decision tonight should cause me no further hardship. Tonight I speak in the detail and the difficulty that I am faced with, but there are many property owners that could also soon face this issue. Fifty foot wide lots with no rear access are common throughout the Village. The plan tonight gives greater advantage to the large lot owners over the small lot owners. Speaking from the small lot owner perspective, the Village is a winner today and the numbers are working. I have done my research based on the city's design workshop and for me, what is being proposed does not pencil out. Owners of small lots need to be given strong consideration and your protection. Great visionary plans can only be successful if its decision maker's, such as you, take the time and the necessary steps to explore the details and impacts in order to create solutions prior to moving forward. Good planning and an eye for the details is what makes Carlsbad work. We thank you for that. Tonight you are being asked to vote on a plan that will change the character and the workability of the Village forever. I have tried to stay apprised of this plan and be part of the ongoing process. It was my understanding there would be another workshop at Legoland. I would like to have that opportunity to better understand more about the proposed plan such as signage, parking and architectural design. I am unable to address all of my issues and concerns in the allotted time given, and respectfully ask for your continuance on this item so there can be another workshop to discuss the final details of what is being proposed. I hope you have questions about my driveway access, and I welcome the opportunity to answer them. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 16 of 32 Brent Turner, 539 Carlsbad Village Drive: Mr. Turner said he owns Turner Real Estate in the Village of Carlsbad at 539 Carlsbad Village Drive. He wanted to drop off some information from J. Corralis and also from the United States Green Building Council. Our position is, if you are going to build, build it green. We appreciate the sensitivity you are showing to the U.S. Green Building Council and their information they have attempted to impart. They are sending this with me now as they caught word of this, and they happen to be in Chicago. They sent me an e-mail, which I printed out and I will give to staff. You can have information regarding Arlington, Virginia, and their program they did there with a bond measure. The request was, from J. Corralis and Mr. Hartkey from the United States Green Building Council, that you take a look at this information and see if it is something we can incorporate here. Again, we applaud you for your good work and your acknowledgement of the green building movement and putting language in that now this is within the conversation. That is appreciated. (Attachment 1: Information given by Mr. Turner) Scott Molloy, 9201 Spectrum Center Blvd, Ste 110: Mr. Molloy is with the Building Industry Association of San Diego County, which represents about 1,450 member companies in San Diego County comprising a workforce of 165,000 San Diegans. These are all people who live and work in the region of San Diego. Contrary to what some might believe, they often times live and work in the cities they do business in. We are very supportive of the city's efforts to update the Village Master Plan. We support the strategy the staff is proposing for parking, including allowing the use of tandem parking and putting more emphasis on walkability and less emphasis on driving. We also encourage the city to consider the recommendations as it relates to off-site, public parking; shared parking facilities. These are a very effective ways to get people out of their cars and get them on to the pedestrian layout of the Village so they can really participate at the street level in what the Village has to offer. No doubt you are going to get some negative reaction to adding density and adding retail space to the Village. While you should definitely consider the merits of these comments, we really strongly encourage you to stay focused on how this can be a positive outcome for the city. That is really what this is about. It is about maximizing the benefit to the city with this update. The Development Standards are just part of that. Another major part of this is the quality of the design and architecture you are going to permit and establishing design theme for the Village; making sure the development that occurs in conjunction with the street furniture and the landscaping and the way you design your streets and your pedestrian crossing all fits together in a unified themes that really adds to that value you are trying to create. That needs to be embraced by the community, the property owners and local businesses. There are a lot of successful village models throughout the country. There are a lot in beach cities and other cities like Walnut Creek in California, and we strongly encourage you to focus in on what those cities did right to make their villages work and try to employ those same strategies here. Lucinda Vigne, 3880 Hibiscus Circle, Carlsbad 92008: Ms. Vigne commented on the great job Ms. Fountain did and all the work that was done is very much appreciated. It sounds like we are moving in the right direction. She is an owner of property downtown. Like Phyllis Hall, I have a small lot in the village and it is on State Street, and it is therefore backed up by railroad parking and the city parking. Our access to our property is very limited as is probably everybody's on State Street because of the fact the railroad owns the property behind us. That is one of my concerns. I was wondering why the density in area 5 would not be changed to more than 30 feet. I know that is a residential area, but there are also commercial properties on Roosevelt. Why is this only 30 feet as opposed to 45 feet or even 35 feet as is the case in other areas. I would also like to see the height of area 6 increased to 45 feet. I think our whole area is increasing in a better and upscale direction. That area also has a lot of commercial as well as quasi industrial. If we increased the density in there as well as the height maybe some of that will go away. My husband and I own the piece of property at the end of State Street where there is a rental yard at 505 Oak. It is really ugly, and eventually that whole piece of land right next to the city's maintenance yard, which should go away, and something really nice should be put in there that would support that end of State Street. The maintenance yard should go away too. Something better should be in there; maybe a nice parking lot. I was thinking about the good idea of the reduction of 15% parking requirement when you are within 1,500 feet of the public transit. I was wondering if we couldn't also maybe adjust something like have a 15% reduction for people who are within 500 feet of a public parking area. I also did not understand about not allowing any temporary structures. I would like a little better definition of what that is comprised of. Is there just a temporary period of time when you can have one? I'd also like clarification on the A-frame signs. I didn't understand if you are for them or for getting rid of them. Because our parking is so constricted here in the Village, why couldn't we have tandem parking for employees. I know that our employees come to town, and they have to park here all day long too. If we had some kind of idea of better parking for employees, they wouldn't have to shuffling their DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 17 of 32 cars around every three hours or parking permanently in a space that takes up space for eight hours or for however long they are at work. Gary Hill, 3289 Donna Drive, Carlsbad: Mr. Hill said he didn't hear anybody that is more from the consumer side or that lives outside of the Village so I will say a few words. An interesting concept of walkability was mentioned here, and I lead a group called Imagine Carlsbad. Recently they went online to a website called walkscore.com where you can type in your address and it uses Google maps and the distances from different amenities like grocery stores or recreation, and it gives you a walk score; 100 being the best and 0 being the worst. Of all the folks in Carlsbad, 8 was the worst, and 71 was the best. Seventy-one was an address right in the middle of the Village. It just so happens that 71 is at the very lowest end of an easily walkable area. I thought that was a little embarrassing for Carlsbad. On my address on Donna Drive, I am about V2 mile above the mall and above the shopping centers below me, my walk score was only a 51. That was at the very low end of the just walkable area. Most of the folks here in Carlsbad, the walk scores were far less than 50. They were not in the walkable area whatsoever. The average of all of those I received was about 37. If walkability is important, than we really need to consider what does make an area walkable. What you are considering here is more from a physical standpoint, setbacks and heights and those types of things. You can do all of that perfectly and have a place that nobody is going to walk because the other half of it would be the "soft" areas. What are the amenities the people are going to see? What are the mix of stores? What are the mix of things to do? Are there things to do that you don't have to go shopping to do? What does the area feel like? Is it pleasant to walk from the parking lot to the store down the street or the restaurant or go from the restaurant to the Village Theater? Those are the things you really need to look at. You have to have the right mix to make all of those happen. On my house on Donna, it is a little bit over 3,000 square feet and my kids have now left, we are empty nesters and I am beginning to feel guilty after the recent article in the paper that says Magnolia School they are looking at closing because there are not enough kids in the area. I am part of that reason. I moved in that area so my kids could walk to Magnolia School and the high school and the junior high, and now they are gone and I am taking up space in a big house that I don't need. It was designed for a family that had five boys. In order to get me out of the house, you will need to provide me something better that will fit my needs. Right now the Village doesn't do it. There is not enough activity. It is not walkable enough. There are not enough types of housing that I would like, and there is a train that blows its horn all the time. You need to look at those things if you want to attract some of us from the outer reaches of the Village and get us into the Village so that we will shop at the restaurants and the stores and be able to support them. Better stores will help that. I believe the plans we have heard tonight are a good step in the right direction. I see 10 years, 20 years, 30 years out, and I see these will be revised over time. We are beginning to see that all of us that drive everywhere we go are causing some fairly severe damage to future generations via all of the carbon dioxide that our automobiles are putting out. A lot of us over the next decade or so are going to realize we are doing this damage, and we are going to try and not damage the earth as much for our grandkids and their kids and so forth. We will want better walkable villages, kind of like what you are trying to design here. I would encourage you to go forward. I would hope at sometime you would look for even more opportunities to bring things closer together so everybody can live and work and play and shop, do all the things they need, without using the automobile. PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED Chairperson Lawson said he took notes while the public spoke. For purposes of general clarification, it is his understanding we are here addressing this issue not for the sole purpose of trying to amend the Master Plan, to revisit all the aspects of the Master Plan and to evaluate all of the different aspects, but our focus more specifically was on things that are creating specific problems and addressing those for the most part. That other type of conversation may be appropriate for a different situation at a different time. Could you clarify if my understanding is correct because there were some comments that were brought up that would be appropriate for looking at trying to improve the overall Master Plan of the Village as compared to just trying to eliminate some of the heartburn problems we have with it? Ms. Fountain said Mr. Lawson's understanding is correct. The reason why we got to where we are tonight was two-fold. One, we have a vision document, we have the Master Plan that sets forth a vision. We didn't move forward at this time to relook at that vision or the goals and objectives or the design guidelines or the other things in there. We were specifically looking at direction from the Council to go look at our Development Standards; look at what might be causing constraints to new development to get the types of DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 18 of 32 uses we would like to see in the downtown area, like more residential or more space for retail opportunity or services. We were specifically focused on what the standards are that might be causing some constraint and which ones do we need to revise. The other part of what we were doing was to clean up some of the issues that were causing us some pinch points or some problems with implementation and they were going in a direction that wasn't originally intended for the Master Plan, and we needed to fix some of those. Pretty much all of these were fixes to try and improve what we were doing but still implementing the vision we had from when the Master Plan was adopted in 1995. And really going back to 1981 when the Redevelopment Plan was created into what our goals and objectives were and revitalizing the Village Area. It is correct that was our sole focus, and we weren't going through and doing a wholesale change to the Master Plan or changing our design guidelines, but really focusing on what some of those pinch points that were causing us, as you said, some heartburn or causing us some difficulty in reaching our goals and objectives that were already set forth. That was our purpose. Ms. Fountain continued by saying we have several programs going on at the same time. One of them is looking at our Development Standards. We have also been working with a consultant for a couple of years now on a study of our uses downtown, which would be the other side of it. What other types of new uses do we need to encourage? How can we do that? Once you have the physical space for them to come in, how do you get the right businesses and the right uses into those spaces so they can assist the visitors and the residents in meeting their needs? We have that ongoing at the same time. We can address what new things need to happen to make it an interesting place to come, which is different from focusing on the built environment and looking at that which was mentioned by Mr. Hill. We are not just doing one thing at a time. It is trying to make all of these components match up together. I did want to clarify the process we have been going through on this. We did have public workshops in January to receive input on the recommendations that were being made at that point in time. We had not made any decisions that those were going to be the actual recommendations. We were asking for feedback. We had three public workshops as was mentioned by Mr. Nielson that were very well attended. We did get a mix of responses during them. We took a lot of that information we received and tried to figure out how we could better set forth some recommendations for the Design Review Board and the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission. At that time, we had fully intended to go forward with this public hearing and then the City Council public hearing in about April timeframe. That was our original intent for holding the workshops in January. We ultimately decided in February/March timeframe we were going to work with Decision Theater at Arizona State University to help us with some modeling of our standards and see if we needed to further redefine them in some way. That process took longer than we originally expected so we didn't get to our public hearing before the Design Review Board until tonight. We do apologize if there was some confusion, but the process we had always intended on following was to have the public workshops, get the public input, allow people to continue to comment until we went to the public hearing. Then at the public hearing they could comment additionally. Chairperson Lawson said topics or items that were raised during those previous workshops, just because they are not being presented here tonight specifically does not mean that they are being ignored or not being taken into consideration. That is still part of the ongoing process, right? Ms. Fountain said right. That was the reason the comments were placed in your packet of information so you had information of what was shared about the different recommendations. At that point, we were still completely open to changing things or seeing if we are going too far. We tried to wrap back around to what were our goals and objectives when we started the process and what we were trying to accomplish. Just because we didn't take somebody's comment and it immediately resulted in some major change to the recommendations, doesn't mean it wasn't heard and it is not respected. It was just that we may have had a difference of opinion on how best to move forward on it. Chairperson Lawson said with that in mind, could we quickly respond to some of the specific comments? Ms. Fountain answered yes. Chairperson Lawson said he thinks Ms. Fountain has addressed most of Mr. Nielsen's comments regarding the background and the workshop and the public input. Are there any schedules for any future workshops? It was also referenced in another speaker regarding the anticipated workshops or presentation at Legoland. Is there something in the future planned for those? DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 19 of 32 Ms. Fountain said actually the presentations staff was going to make at Legoland were specifically related to the work we had done with Decision Theater and they were just intended to show the demonstrations. They were not intended as public workshops where we were going to be accepting public comments. It was just an opportunity to share the demonstrations. Our work with Decision Theater wasn't as productive as we had hoped. We didn't have anything available to present. We ultimately decided we were not going to continue with that approach to making those presentations. We decided instead to use some other ways to demonstrate the Development Standards revisions. At this point, we have no other public workshops scheduled. We have started the public hearing process, which the first hearing is tonight with the Design Review Board and the public. This is an opportunity for them to share with you if they would like to have any of the Development Standards changed or anything added. The next public hearing will be before the City Council and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission if the DRB recommends it move forward. Obviously, that doesn't mean the DRB or the City Council or the Housing and Redevelopment Commission cannot direct staff to go back and hold additional public workshops and then come back and go through the process at a later date. That is still open for direction if that is what you feel is necessary to do. We felt that because we had held the public workshops and we have had quite a bit of time if people still wanted to comment on them. We had never really intended any other public workshops before we started the public hearing process. With that said, it doesn't mean we can't go do that if that is the direction of the DRB and the Council. Mr. Nielson did bring up a number of questions about the parking. We know the parking in the Village Area has been controversial and has been an issue for a long time. I have seen reports back to the late 70's that said there is a parking problem in the downtown area, and we need to do something about it. The difficulty with the parking issue is: What are we trying to accomplish? Are we really trying to accomplish pedestrians getting out of their car and walking around and making it easy as possible for pedestrians to do that, or are we trying to accommodate parking vehicles? That is always the age old debate you get into in any downtown area. Ours is not unique by any means. Kennedy Smith, who is working with us on the retail analysis, said every single downtown area she has worked in, parking has been the number one issue that is constantly raised. In some cases you want to have a parking problem because that means you have exciting and interesting things for people to come to. In other ways, that creates problems for businesses that are down here that maybe the parking management is not well done. We currently do not have a specific plan that would say: We are going to build a certain parking structure by a certain date. We have been having on- going discussions for a number of years with North County Transit District about building additional parking on their site. We have looked at other sites. We actually did a study in 1999 to identify a number of different potential sites for parking structures, and at some point that will move forward to get that done. We just don't have a specific schedule right now. Again, we want to make sure we are addressing all types of components when it comes to parking and not be single minded in that we just have to keep adding public parking, but look at other opportunities to maybe reduce where there is a need for vehicle trips and do a better job in integrating those types of policies as well. Where can we reduce the demand for parking, and at the same time recommend that parking needs to be added? There are issues in various areas throughout the Village about parking. Sometimes we have employees and business owners parking right in front of their store rather than parking in the public lots. We need to figure out how do we manage that better. There are other policies we need to deal with. They are not necessarily directly related to Development Standards, but more on parking management. We will need to continue to work on that. Michael Babowal was sharing he was supportive of the revisions so I didn't see any questions there. The issue Ms. Hall brought up about the zero foot setback and the joint use driveways, some history and why this is causing concern. When the Streetscape project was done in the late 80's on Carlsbad Village Drive, there were cases where there were separate driveways to enter into properties so there may be two driveways right next to each other on Carlsbad Village Drive. When they came through and did the improvements to the sidewalks, they made a field judgment to say you have two driveways right next to each other, do you want just one big driveway? That is what we are talking about in terms of this joint access. There wasn't a policy decision made at that time that were going to have joint access throughout the Village Area where it seems appropriate. It was just a project decision that was made at that time. If you have two, would you just want one big one. So there wasn't really, as part of the Streetscape, a decision made that this was what we are going to encourage throughout the Village. It just seemed what was more practical at that particular time. There aren't any official documents or anything that say anything about that. With that said, we understand DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 20 of 32 the concern in trying to figure out how do you get access into a driveway that is going to be impacted if you have zero foot setbacks. They would not come to the curb line. There would still be a property line behind the sidewalk so there still would be the case where you would have a five foot sidewalk so if someone is pulling out of the driveway, they may have some blockage of site right at the point of the property line, but as they move out into the curb area, they would have access to that. That does create a situation if you have one piece of property developed to the full extent of the standards and the other one doesn't. The only thing I did want to share there is under the existing standards, you can do that. You can have zero setbacks under the existing standards. What we were doing with the setback standard is just saying we are not having a range anymore. We are saying you can come to a zero setback. That is just the requirement for the first floor, and then you have to step back the second, third or fourth levels. We would already have that problem under the existing standards, even if we don't change them because it would allow that adjacent property owner to come out to zero setback. As I mentioned, when a project comes in we look at those issues and try to figure out a solution to the problem at that time in terms of impact on the adjacent property. If we want to put something into the standards that makes that more of a requirement, obviously we can. Sometimes it is better to do that at a project specific level instead of trying to legislate it because you may need some more flexibility in it. If you put it into a standard, you might have difficulty coming up with the exact, correct standard. With that said, if we do decide we need something else done, we will try to come up with a standard you can approve. Chairperson Lawson said the other part of the situation there is dealing with the width of the lot and access to parking in the rear and other aspects of that. Are there not provisions or requirements associated with some state law and code that if there is an existing condition that exists, you can't do something that provides unusable activity or makes the adjacent property limited for their usability. In other words, if you have a common shared driveway and you develop yours, you can't develop to the extent that your neighbor who shares that driveway can't now use and utilize their property. Is there not already some level of provision within some kind of code or law that would safeguard that from happening? Ms. Fountain said she will let Ms. Mobaldi address the legal aspects to it. What we have happen in the Village Area is we have some cases where if there wasn't an easement granted across somebody else's property, there would be a landlocked piece of property, and usually that is worked out between property owners. In this particular case, there is not any agreement for joint access or easements. Then it is left to when the property gets developed, the city or the Redevelopment Agency in our case trying to figure out how do we best maintain both viable properties and not do something for one that negatively impacts the other. That is addressed through project design and working with that property owner and acknowledging the situation we have and we need to figure out how to best keep both properties developed. To just cut off somebody's access to them and ignore that would be inappropriate by the decision makers. It would be something we would deal with on a project basis. Ms. Fountain continued regarding Brent Turner on the Green Building Council, staff is happy to take whatever information that he submitted. We were proposing we leave some flexibility in our process to accommodate if there is some unique situation related to green building that we could address that through standard's modifications. We didn't try to get a lot of information real detailed in that standard, but just recognizing that is something we think is a public benefit. If we can accommodate it in some way, we would choose to do that. Mr. Molloy didn't look like he had any questions. Ms. Vigne's comments on district 5 and district 6, the reason we decided not to pursue an increase in height in that area was there has been some concern over the years about when you start transitioning into single-family home communities that you need to be more sensitive to what your Development Standards say can be accomplished in that area. If you allowed extremely higher density and higher heights than are currently allowed in those areas outside that jurisdiction, you may create a compatibility issue or a negative unintended consequence on those other properties. We said because 5 and 6 are starting to transition into that single-family community, we would just stay with the standards that were set forth when we adopted the Master Plan when there was a lot of public input from that neighborhood that they didn't want the taller buildings or the higher densities. Now if that position has changed and the public wants to let us know that has changed or subsequently if there are changes to the land use plan for those adjacent areas that would increase heights or increase densities, then it would make sense to go ahead and make that change in the Master Plan. That was the reason why it was intended to stay the way it was because it was seen as a transition area just like 7 and 8 on the other side of Carlsbad Village Drive because they did start to move into the single-family and you might have a compatibility issue. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 21 of 32 With that said, if you think it is appropriate for district 5 and 6 to have taller buildings and to have increased densities, that would be okay as well. It was just trying to respect that transition area. The 15% reduction for being near a public parking lot; we were actually trying to focus on what would encourage the use of public transit. If we say you are within 1,500 or 600 feet of a public parking lot, it seems like that is going on the other side where you are encouraging people to bring their vehicle and use those public parking lots. The intent and the goal was to give incentive if you have programs or if you are in a location that has a bus stop near you or has the commuter rail station. Again, it doesn't mean you couldn't do the other. Fortunately in the Village Area, a lot of properties are going to be within 1,500 feet of either the commuter rail station or a bus stop because there are a number of bus stops and the commuter rail station is fairly well situation. Probably most people will find they can get that benefit from the 15% reduction. In terms of the A-frame signs, all we were really doing in the policy is just making it consistent with what is already in the Master Plan, which does allow for A-frame signs. It doesn't change any of the standards, it doesn't say where you can place them, or it doesn't change anything. It just said in the sign policy there was some inconsistencies about always having to put them at the curb, and we were saying the Master Plan allows them to be moved away from the curb and they could be at a different location. We were just fixing those types of inconsistencies. It is not changing the policy on whether or not we are going to allow them, whether we like them or don't like them. It was just making the two documents consistent in allowing them. Could we have employee parking? Sure, the answer is always you can do a lot of things if you have the money to do them, you have the property to do them, you have the policy to do them. There is not anything that will say no, from a legal standpoint, you can't have parking for employees. Employees can use our public parking lots. There is no reason why they can't park in our all-day parking lots and walk to their place of business. We have no restrictions on that. If you work in the Village all day and you want to park in one of the public parking lots all day, you have the right to do that. We have employees of our own department that use the public parking that is across the street sometimes if our parking lot is full. Those are all acceptable; whether you want to dedicate one specific parking lot for all employees to park in, that could be part of a parking management program to say that is where you park and leave these other public parking lots for customers just like you leave the parking on the street for customers. In terms of Gary Hill, I didn't really hear any questions; just encouragement to continue supporting walkability and encouraging more of things people like to do. It is not specifically something we were addressing as one of your Development Standards, but one of our goals with improving the Development Standards is maybe we can create more space that can be used for entertainment uses or it can be used for more restaurants or it can be used by more services by creating additional space those uses can accommodate. Chairperson Lawson said Ms. Vigne had, with respect to employees, a question about provision for employees to park tandem. Is there a provision for that? Ms. Fountain asked if you had a commercial development and allowing tandem parking on your site? Chairperson Lawson answered correct. Ms. Fountain said we don't currently plan for tandem parking for commercial properties in the Development Standards we are proposing. We have only proposed tandem parking for residential. Operationally it is harder when you have a commercial piece of property because we don't specifically call out a requirement for employee parking versus your customer parking. We just state your parking requirement is based on your gross square footage, and if you choose to manage it on your property that certain spaces will be for employees and certain spaces are for customers, obviously you can do that. If you make those spaces long enough and you had enough area that you could put two employees parking in a space, we wouldn't necessarily say no to that. We were just saying in your parking requirement we are not saying the tandem spaces count in meeting your parking requirement. It would still be one large space. If you wanted a policy to accommodate that, it could be incorporated. Chairperson Lawson said Ms. Vigne also wanted some clarification on temporary structures. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 22 of 32 Ms. Fountain said that provision is intended to indicate that we are not interested in having temporary office trailers on properties or moveable modular buildings on a site for a long period of time which becomes a permanent structure. We will allow them in certain circumstances. If you are constructing a new building on your site and you are going to put a temporary office trailer so you could still have your office at that site while you are under construction, we would allow that. It would have a permit that would say you can have that until your C of O or until you have your building built and then that has to be removed. The same thing with temporary storage, the large storage containers can be on your site if you are remodeling or if you are building a new facility, but not as an addition to your property that then takes up a parking space or takes up some other space and you are intending to use it long term as your storage. You would, instead, have to go through the permit process to expand your building, to accommodate storage, or to build a permanent storage facility on your site. We didn't want those large storage containers or moveable modular buildings being used as long-term buildings on the site. It will be negotiated as to how long you can keep it on your site, depending on how long your construction is. For example, we had Army Navy Academy have a fire in one of their dormitories. They said they still had an intermediate need to house cadets at that location so we are going to get a temporary office modular and then we will move people around so we can accommodate the sleeping needs of the cadets. We agreed to that, but it does have a limited life span. Until they build the new dormitory, they can keep that. Once the new dormitory is built, that will have to be removed. Board Member Whitton asked if there was going to be a parking structure any time soon. Ms. Fountain said it is getting closer. Part of that was waiting for North County Transit District to finish their land use study for their property, and they are getting closer to having that done. I think they have to have that completed by this December. We don't have an exact schedule as to when that might happen, but we are getting closer to the possibility. Board Member Whitton said than there is more of a reality there will be a large parking structure. Ms. Fountain answered correct. Board Member Whitton said there are some places downtown like Ms. Hall's place that do have small driveway problems. Being from a small town and knowing how those things existed in perpetuity for 30, 40 or 50 years and then one, as in this property, can be a residential and the other a commercial building and then we have an argument because we have problems with access and egress to these different buildings. I would like to see something written now in the documents that govern this type of thing that protects that type of property. I don't know if you could use adverse possession because private property has been used for that type of purpose for many years. But this is two private properties. I really don't want to let this go for another 10 or 15 years or even 5 years because even tomorrow someone could buy out the place next door and there goes the problem. It is already enough of a problem with getting in and getting out of that place. I think the property owner in this particular case that has that type of situation deserves to have something memorialized to protect that piece of property. I don't think we should wait for somebody else to do it. We are here now, and I think it should be done on our watch. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, said with regard to adverse possession, that is something that couldn't be determined by the city or the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. That is a legal determination. You would have to go to court and you would have to possess the property, open it for a certain period of time without objection, etc. As Ms. Fountain pointed out, typically in situations where there are access problems or encroachments, there will already be some type of private agreement between the two land owners, often times an easement. Assuming that were not the case and there was a problem because of a new development, then I think it would be addressed by way of a request for a variance. That would come before the Housing and Redevelopment Commission and they would make a determination at that time as to whether or not there should be some variation in the standards based on a peculiar need. Board Member Whitton commented he knew Ms. Mobaldi would answer that way on the adverse possession. He said he does agree, but there isn't a signed lease easement agreement on either party here. I am sure it is probably the same for the others. I think it is something we should step into and somehow to facilitate an agreement that will be recorded so these situations are protected for the future. There are only a couple of them. I don't think they should be ignored. We are not all going to be here so I would like to see it done now. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 23 of 32 Board Member Whitton continued that he would like to see the parking spaces standardized in the terms of size. We have the compact size, the standard size, and everybody uses them regardless, and I know a lot of people are getting tired of getting their doors banged up. I would like to see the parking spaces standardized. It would probably help because it is an easy way to come up with accountability for some of these developers. They just make the parking spots smaller in width. Chairperson Lawson said he would like to open this up for discussion before entertaining a motion. One of the things in particular we should finalize is where we are going with all of this. A certain amount was made regarding workshops and meetings and whether or not there has been enough public input at this point and time. In our discussion, I would like to get some direction in where we are going and the comfort we have to move forward with making a motion here this evening. If there is anyone here that feels that things that were said tonight are reason to not move forward with the motion on the action before us, I'd like to bring that up first before we actually address any kind of a motion. If not, it would be appropriate to move forward with a motion. Does anyone have concern about the amount of public testimony input and workshops and so on. Board Member Baker said there were the three public workshops that were held in January. She attended one of them and there were many other people. In addition to that, the Carlsbad Chamber has had a committee that has devoted their interest and their time on issues in the Village and has been talking about this. Mr. Schumacher and Mr. Whitton have both been involved in that for many years. She feels there has been plenty of opportunity for people to participate, attend workshops, and that is what a public hearing is all about for the public to come and express their viewpoints. She believes there has been plenty of opportunity for the public to participate. In looking through the numerous letters provided for us, it appears many people have had an opportunity to speak on this issue. Board Member Schumacher said he agrees with Ms. Baker. We have been given a stack of a copy of all of the letters from all of the three workshops, and I have read them all. I paid most attention to the people who checked they were either a business owner or a property owner in the Village, not excluding the others. It seems to me even the ones that had some negative comments it was in the context of a larger "yeah, it's a good thing, but I have some concerns." There didn't seem to be one common thread everyone is concerned about. Has anything changed since this was presented to the public in January at these workshops? Has anything changed in what we are seeing today on the proposed, is anything different? Ms. Fountain said there are no significant changes in the issues we were addressing. There were some different ways we decided to address issues. For example, in January we proposed that some of the parking requirements actually be reduced like for residential and restaurant. We had a number of people commenting they don't think that is a good idea. On the other side, we had people commenting we need to address the parking. We tried to come up with different policies to address parking rather than necessarily saying we were reducing parking requirements arbitrarily. It may seem to some we had specific goals and objectives that were trying to be met in the parking reductions or something like that. The issue of parking and somehow modifying that parking standard hasn't changed. How we are proposing to do it has changed some from when we had the workshops in January. A lot of it was based on feedback we were getting through that process as to the changes we were proposing to make and then making that available for people to read and think about. The density issue is the same as we were proposing before. Actually before we didn't have a minimum density we were recommending. We just proposed to go to 45 dwelling units to the acre, and we didn't have a minimum on that. We added a minimum. The issue hasn't changed, but the actual language and how we decided to modify it has changed in some cases. Board Member Whitton said he thinks everything has been adequately addressed. He thinks there is a little confusion between some of the meetings we are talking about, the Design Guidelines and the others about the improvement of the downtown area. Overall, he thinks there has been adequate meetings and sources of information so we can move ahead. Chairperson Lawson greatly appreciates that. He wants to make sure we are all on the same page with respect to where we are compared to the input. To provide one additional point of clarification, staff made clear the intent of the meetings to take place at Legoland were not intended as a workshop, but they were presentations. The reason it was scheduled for that particular location was there was a hope this process at DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 24 of 32 the time we were going through it was going to be yielding some 3D graphics that could be observed, and the only place to have the audience observe those was the facility at Legoland. They had the theater that was already set up to accommodate that. Given the fact those graphics did not yield what we had anticipated, there was no reason to have those. The graphics presented here today are what would have been presented had we not entertained that potential of having that other medium to use. While it might be interesting and may work in some situations, it wasn't the appropriate thing to use here. For clarification, it was not intended as a special workshop. It was simply that type of information could not have been presented here because it would not have been effective based upon the way it was presented to us as that form of a medium. I agree we have had plenty of opportunity and enough input. With that in mind, I would entertain a motion for our item here this evening. Board Member Baker said before she does that, she wants to ask some clarification. There were a couple of issues still on the table. One is the mechanism to deal with the access on the small lots, and then the suggestion made earlier to create some language that would allow something in the future that doesn't meet existing rules but might be something that would fit in with the overall intention of the Master Plan. Board,Member Whitton added, the dollar value. Board Member Baker agreed, the dollar value. If someone is knowledgeable about that and it seems like a reasonable thing to increase it, that would be fine. Chairperson Lawson asked if she would like staff to respond to those requests? Board Member Baker said we could take a quick break to talk about or Ms. Fountain and Ms. Mobaldi can discuss how best to language this. Ms. Mobaldi said on the dollar amount, we would have to.know whether the Board has any suggestions regarding that. Board Member Baker said Ms. Fountain mentioned $100,000 given the $100 a square foot and the 1,000 square foot. She would defer that to people who have more experience in building than herself. Ms. Fountain said on that one you could just decide you want to go to $100,000 because you want to accommodate 1,000 square feet addition at $100 square foot. She would like a chance to talk with Ms. Mobaldi about the other language. She drafted something, but hasn't had a chance to discuss it with her. She would like to discuss it with Ms. Mobaldi before we put it out to the DRB. The access we will need to talk about because she is not exactly sure if we can write a standard at this point to do that or just acknowledge it needs to be addressed in a project specific way when projects come forward. Maybe have that as a minute motion to address it needs to have attention brought to it in the future unless you have a suggestion you would like us to look at and talk about. Board Member Baker asked if it is possible to handle that through a policy rather than an actual rule in the Master Plan. Ms. Fountain answered, yes potentially. Her only concern is not ratchet it down so much we do not have flexibility to work with it at a project specific level. It is understood it is important, and it is something we need to pay attention to. Board Member Baker suggested a ten minute break. Chairperson Lawson said he would agree the issue Ms. Hall brought here would be best if we could respond in some fashion. We will recess for ten minutes. Board Member Whitton added the standardized parking spaces. Ms. Fountain acknowledged the standardized parking spaces. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 25 of 32 Chairperson Lawson reconvenes the meeting of the Design Review Board. We left off at a request of staff to suggest responses to some of the question that came up. Ms. Mobaldi said first the most straight forward issue was the one about the value of the threshold for applying for a minor redevelopment permit. The suggestion was that $60,00 was too low, and I believe you were all in consensus $100,000 was an appropriate amount. If that is the case, that amendment could be made. Ms. Fountain and I did consider though you then only have a $50,000 difference between the value for the minor redevelopment and the major redevelopment permit. You may then also want to consider widening the gap there, presumably costs have gone up which would also impact the major redevelopment permits. We would need some input as to how much you want. The previous differential was $90,000, whether you want to keep that or go $100,000 or $200,000 for the major redevelopment permit. We can do one issue at a time or we can move on. They have some language drafted with regards to providing some flexibility in the standards which Ms. Fountain can read or I will read it. It would say: Development Standard modifications may also be permitted by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission if the applicant can provide acceptable evidence at application of the Development Standards will preclude the construction of a residential development at densities at or about the minimum set forth for the applicable land use district or will preclude development of a project that has a significant public benefit as determined by the Commission or assists the Commission in meeting the goals and objectives set forth within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. That suggestion was drafted to respond to the desire to have flexibility in parking standards and other standards as needed. With regard to the other two issues, with the standardized parking, which Board Member Whitton brought up, I don't know that we have a consensus on that issue. That is one thing I want to make sure on each of these suggestions we have a majority of the Board in favor of those before we pass them on as a recommendation. Because if we do change that, then we have considerations of whether we just change it in the manual and we also look at the parking standards in the Municipal Code and doing away, for instance, with the compact space could have implications for how many parking spaces you can ultimately get on a lot or a property. There are a lot of ramifications you might want to consider before a majority of you want to do that. That brings me to the final issue, Ms. Hall pointed out the devil is in the detail. It certainly is because with regard the questions of making access more difficult, if people build out to the setbacks, it is hard to write something, without knowing what the individual circumstance is, and we can't really base our standards on individual properties, so we need to have something that works for a particular situation. In trying to draft that, I am coming to the conclusion I'm not sure what situation we are talking about. If someone is allowed to build out to their property line and they want to do that, and the adjacent property owner still has legal access to their property, I don't know we can prevent that. Certainly when there are safety concerns such as line of sight for driving, that might be an issue. It is very difficult at this late hour, to craft something that will be meaningful and will work. I would suggest if you want to have that looked at, you make a minute motion and suggest the Housing and Redevelopment Commission and/or the City Council direct staff to look at that issue. Perhaps to also look at the compact parking issue so when you get something, it is something that has been carefully considered and all of the ramifications of it have been considered. You can then write it so it really works. We don't want to go from one problem to another. Board Member Whitton asked Ms. Mobaldi if she wanted to put that in the form of a minute motion? Ms. Mobaldi said yes or would you like to go back to the valuation question first? Chairperson Lawson said let's address these one at a time. The valuation was the first one, correct? Ms. Mobaldi said correct. Chairperson Lawson asked do we have some discussion regarding that? A good point was brought up. When do they both become one in the same without a differential? Board Member Schumacher asked Ms. Fountain to give her opinion. I think that would impact how many projects she sees administratively that might change versus not. Will that have an impact on some of your projects, if they fall somewhere in that range, if we ratchet that number up, that can have a difference, could it not? DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 26 of 32 Ms. Fountain agreed. For clarification, in the dollar value anything less than $60,000 that is new construction can be approved administratively. Anything from $60,000 to $150,000 can't be approved administratively. It has to go to a public hearing and that can stop at the Design Review Board. Anything over $150,000 in value is considered a major Redevelopment Permit and it has to go to the City Council. There are a couple of considerations. Are you okay in increasing when something needs a public hearing to $100,000 rather than keeping that administratively. Is that $100,000 mark going to get you more into the minor category if you bump the major category up to $200,000. You haven't really seen a lot come to the Design Review Board in that Minor Redevelopment Permit category. They are either administrative permits or they are Major Redevelopment Permits. The question is, is there something in between that could be more at the Design Review Board level and doesn't necessarily need to go to the Council. It depends on how much square footage you would be willing to let somebody have at the administrative level versus the minor versus the major. Right now that would probably be an addition of a little over 600 square feet would get them into a Minor Redevelopment Permit based on $100 square foot valuation. If you think it is okay for staff to approve everything under 1,000 square feet, then with that valuation that would be the decision. Does that seem reasonable? Is 1,000 square feet a lot or a little if you are adding it on to a commercial establishment or a residential establishment. Does that seem reasonable that could be administrative? I am still okay with the $60,000 mark, but construction costs have increased over the years. We haven't increased it since 1995 so it makes sense to look at it. It is up to the Board. Chairperson Lawson asked if the valuation formula includes property owners who are doing upgrades or maintenance as opposed to new space is part of that? Ms. Fountain said no. Any maintenance or remodels is going to be under an administrative permit. Board Member Baker said since she brought it up and no one feels particularly strongly about it, she doesn't see any reason to change it. Chairperson Lawson said it is a reasonable question because it would be hard to get anything done for $60,000. For purposes of the process, it is reasonable. We have a consensus we can drop that one. Now number two. Ms. Mobaldi said number two was the language we provided regarding standards modifications. Chairperson Lawson asked how does that relate to the Design Review Board? Does any of this guide this body in any way? Ms. Fountain said it would. You would be making a recommendation to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The project would come forward first to the Design Review Board. Ultimately, the final decision rests with the Housing and Redevelopment Commission because this board is a recommending body for most of those new construction projects. Chairperson Lawson said this language here does not necessarily need to make reference to the Design Review Board. Ms. Fountain said no. It is really who the ultimate decision maker is. That is covered in 21.35. Unless you feel like it should say either the Design Review Board or the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. Ms. Mobaldi said it should just say, by the approving body. Ms. Fountain said we could say, by the approving body. Chairperson Lawson said this works fine for him. It looks like we have unanimous support on that one. And now the third item. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 27 of 32 Ms. Mobaldi said the third item was for the standardized parking. The first thing we need to do is have a vote to see if it is something the majority of the Board is in favor of. We also need to know exactly what is meant by standardizing the parking. Chairperson Lawson said before we go into a vote, we should have a discussion. It is a valid item, but should we take a vote this evening on this item. Typically when these topics come up in this fashion, the staff then recognizes it and is aware. Unless there is someone here that feels we need to take a specific action on it, it is a good thing to look into but maybe we don't need to make a motion or action. Board Member Whitton said he thinks this is something that not only affects the Design Review Board, but it affects the city overall. A minute motion to be brought back to study is absolutely appropriate because you will have to pick up what a standard space is and to me it is what you can park a normal sized car in. Chairperson Lawson said he would be fine with that if someone would like to move forward on that. Is this the appropriate time to do that then? Ms. Mobaldi said yes. Board Member Baker said she moves to make a minute motion to consider the standardized size of parking spaces throughout the city as it affects the Redevelopment Area. Ms. Mobaldi asked would that be in effect to require all parking spaces be a standard size as opposed to compact? Board Member Whitton said "a standard size is to be determined." Ms. Mobaldi said there is a standard size. Board Member Whitton commented he is sure there is. Ms. Mobaldi said the dimensions are in the Municipal Code. Board Member Baker said it is just we allow a certain percentage to be compact spaces. I think people are going to start driving smaller cars again. Then we will be stuck with all of these big parking spaces. Board Member Whitton said that is what they said when they put this in effect in the first place. Board Member Schumacher asked is there flexibility already in the size of the parking spaces, depending on if the project warrants it as a variance? On a practical standpoint from a building perspective, the Village has small lots, as we know, and there will be underground parking or at least under the structure, and the columns for a building and the columns for a parking structure are never the same. The parking underneath buildings is always very inefficient. So to have the flexibility to have the Redevelopment Agency to have the flexibility to make that call on a project-by-project basis is good. We are going through an effort here to have flexibility in parking and do the 15% and then to make it more strict could hurt us. Ms. Mobaldi suggested you modify the motion to suggest the City Council and/or the Housing and Redevelopment Commission decide whether or not they think staff should look into this whole issue of parking and what is appropriate. Board Member Baker asked Ms. Mobaldi, didn't the Planning Commission already send up a minute motion to Council about this a couple of years ago? Ms. Mobaldi said it does sound familiar. Board Member Baker said now that we are discussing this, I remember a Planning Commissioner who had an issue with this and we sent up a minute motion already about this and the Council chose not to follow through with it. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 28 of 32 Ms. Mobaldi said I'm not sure. Ms. Fountain said she thinks it was related to garage sizes. I think it was about garage doors. Board Member Baker said no, there was another one. Ms. Mobaldi said it wouldn't hurt to do it again and see what the response is this time. Ms. Fountain said you can say you just want it looked at. The size of parking spaces we use for the Village Area is the same as the rest of the city. It is in the 21.44 Code. That is not before you tonight to review. If you do a minute motion to say: Council, we think this is something that needs to be looked at. If the Commission says they are not interested in looking at that, then you are done. If they do want to look at it, then we would look at it in the context of 21.44 of the Code. That would be brought back separately at a separate time. It wouldn't be incorporated into the Master Plan. Chairperson Lawson said for clarification, my understanding of 21.44 does have specific provisions when you are dealing in a parking structure and additional width to accommodate because of the columns and the end units that don't have room to swing open doors. Would you like to modify the motion because it didn't get a second. Board Member Whitton said it was never put in a form or asked for a second. Board Member Baker said, I move to make a minute motion the size of parking spaces be studied. Board Member Schumacher seconded that minute motion. Board Member Whitton said "standardized." For example if you go to the Mexican restaurant down in the village and you go down to some of those stores, there are standardized spots, but if you park into the perpendicular spots down by the street, same parking lot, if you can get into the space, you are lucky. If you can get out of your car, you are even luckier. There is no standardization. Board Member Baker said aren't we being a little nanny government here. If the space is too small, don't park your car there. Board Member Whitton said that is how you count the spaces to get away with enough. Board Member Baker said that is a good point. Chairperson Lawson said we have a motion, it has been seconded, and I think we understand the merit of that. VOTE: 4-0 AYES: Baker, Lawson, Schumacher, and Whitton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Ms. Mobaldi said the last item has to do with access for existing small property owners and the impact they would have or how to protect them from adverse impacts when new construction builds to a zero setback or some type of minimal setback. I would suggest you make a minute motion on that if you want to have it reviewed. That needs to have more consideration and we need to know exactly what we are talking about. Chairperson Lawson said in Ms. Mobaldi's initial summation of that she was concerned we can't address every individual piece of property. First and foremost, we need to have the sense staff feels comfortable our current process has the mechanism to assure these things already can be properly addressed. At one point, I heard typically the way we handle these things is on a case-by-case basis and anything coming forward will DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 29 of 32 be evaluated at that time. Is there reason to think the system right now doesn't already address those types of concerns? We don't know every single concern and every little nuance that will happen on every piece of property. I understand that particular situation, but like you, it is just peripherally. We don't' know all of the specific nuances and details, and we can't necessarily come up with something right now to address that. I think it would be inappropriate to do so. My position on this right now would be if staff gives me the comfort we have the provisions in place right now and we should be safe, then we should just move forward and not add anything to it unless there is a reason to. Ms. Fountain said whenever staff has a development application submitted, just because you have a set of Development Standards, doesn't always mean everybody is going to be able to develop to the maximum of them. We look at each project on a case-by-case basis. We look at the design of the project, how it function, access in and out of the property, and we do review adjacent properties and the impacts on it, whether it is a wall that needs to be built or whatever the case may be. From a staff standpoint, we feel comfortable that can be addressed on a case-by-case basis at the design level. If it is raised to this attention, then it will get even more attention during the design. I knew of Ms. Hall's concern, and if I had something I could propose to you that I thought was reasonable, I would have presented that to you. Because we have unique circumstances throughout the Village where we have properties that are difficult to access; they are small, they can't meet driveway width requirements, or it takes up their whole frontage to do that. We have to look at each one on a case-by-case basis and figure out the best way to get access into and out of properties and how other projects may impact that. It would be really hard to write a standard to address all of those individual conditions throughout the Village that will come up. There are not a lot of them that have the same circumstances Ms. Hall has on her property, but there are similar ones we will have to work through. With that said, if you want to make a minute motion to say we need a policy, we are happy to come back with a policy. Chairperson Lawson said he would agree. I do question how to come up with this. It looks like we have the means to be able to address it, but not fully. Not with just Ms, Hall, but I'm sure there are others in a similar situation. Board Member Whitton said there are only three, four or maybe a handful of these types of properties in town. He feels a minute motion is appropriate. We could say something like: To protect the total width of the vehicle to two continuous properties to that which existed on such and such a date, then you go back in history to such and such a date. Then you are protecting that when you are in design review. That is a scientific wild shot at it. My point is, I think we ought to discuss it. I think it ought to be in a form of a minute motion so it can be discussed in a leisurely fashion and not now. Chairperson Lawson said he would like to caution us about getting into too many details on this. It needs to be very generalized in nature. We don't want to open the door for every little deviation that exists. Board Member Whitton said he is not disagreeing. He is saying there are a couple of unique situations out there, and those situations ought to be addressed now. I am not opening it up to every property in town. First of all, we don't know about them so we don't need to address them. This is specific. This is a driveway, and I think we ought to at least take a look at it. Board Member Schumacher asked is there language we can put in there? The gist would say that basically the design is going to mitigate for the impacts on the neighboring property. You are already doing that. You are already looking at the design to mitigate an impact. I agree with Mr. Whitton that we should do a minute motion. I don't think we are going to figure it out tonight. Maybe there is language in there that suggests the neighboring property owners that are in the unique situation have some protection, some kind of right that at least the design is going to consider that situation; without being too specific about the width. Board Member Baker said it is difficult this evening to come up with language that would fit all situations. We could potentially give one property owner relief only to take away the rights of another property owner. That is why perhaps the minute motion is the best compromise because we could be creating a chain reaction of events. In an effort to protect one situation, we've created a problem for someone else. I don't want to create a problem for either property owner. Perhaps the best way would be to do a minute motion to give staff some time to think about the full ramifications of any specific language that got put in the Design Review Standards. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 30 of 32 Chairperson Lawson said he would agree that method would be more comfortable to support. Could Ms. Mobaldi guide us through a motion on that? Ms. Mobaldi said someone could move that staff look into possible solutions to access problems existing property owners might have for small lots based on the implementation of the new Development Standards. It is your motion so make it the way you want. Board Member Whitton said we ought to identify the one or two peculiar situations. There were a couple mentioned here tonight. With a minute motion we could use those as an example and examine a way we might be able to resolve this without giving one property owner an advantage and putting another at a disadvantage. We are only looking at those unique circumstances that resulted from a grandfathered situation that existed years ago and is perpetuated. When modern development comes in, it isn't going to happen. I'm not sure how to put it in a minute motion other than to say: I suggest we identify the two or three unique situations that are in town and use those as a basis upon which to study the feasibility of protecting the rights of those property owners to that particular access to the property. Ms. Mobaldi said she is not clear on what is unique about them and which rights we are talking about protecting. I think that is what we need clarity on if we are going to study that. Board Member Whitton said the problem we have here are two pieces of private property that have been using a particular access point for 30 or 40 years without benefit of any agreement between them. Ms. Mobaldi said she doesn't think we necessarily know that. We didn't hear any testimony about that. Board Member Whitton said yes we did. Ms. Mobaldi said she didn't. I don't think the Board should address a particular property owner's situation. We may talk about a group of properties that have a situation that is unique for historical reasons and needs to be addressed. I think whatever those properties may be, they may need to be identified. It may not be just Ms. Hall's property. There may be others as well. I don't' know that one way or the other. Board Member Whitton said he is in agreement with Ms. Mobaldi in the way she phrased that. He wants to have a couple of pieces of property that happen to have that kind of a situation existing. Unfortunately, one of them has a name attached to it that is well known. That is the unfortunate part of it. There are two or three properties out there that could serve to come with an evaluation as to how to handle these in perpetuity. Chairperson Lawson said Mr. Whitton is making an assumption when he says there are two or three, there could be fifty. Board Member Baker said there could be none. Chairperson Lawson agreed. He said he is leaning towards Ms. Mobaldi's generalized approach to recognize we see there is access that needs to be somehow preserved and direct staff to evaluate the impacts of the standards to be able to safeguard some of those aspects. Where they exist right now, frankly, we shouldn't concern ourselves. We just know they exist out there. Board Member Whitton said he is really not trying to concern himself with any particular piece of property. Just the idea or the thought you just expressed without being so general, you are looking at everything in the City of Carlsbad. He is just saying that the driveway's egress and ingress from property that has a unique circumstance attached to it. Maybe the "unique" is what is hanging you up. You need to generalize it a little bit, I agree. Board Member Schumacher said unless he misunderstood, Ms. Fountain, in this case, Ms. Hall's property, under the proposed plan her neighbor could go to zero property line. Ms. Fountain said right. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 31 of 32 Board Member Schumacher continued under the existing plan the neighbor could go to zero. Ms. Fountain said correct. Board Member Schumacher said that is not always the same, and there are nine different districts. That could be a different situation in other districts, right? Ms. Fountain agreed. Board Member Schumacher asked is this problem even related to the changes we are making because we are not really making a change? Ms. Fountain said the problem exists now under the existing standards because the property owner could go to zero setback. If they chose to do that and that access issue wasn't addressed, that would be a problem. They can do that under the existing standards, so you are not changing anything that makes that problem worst. Board Member Whitton said let's just go to the minute motion rather than trying to rush it. Ms. Mobaldi suggested that Mr. Whitton phrase the minute motion the way he would like to have it phrased, we'll see if there is a second and we will vote on it. Board Member Whitton commented Ms. Mobaldi knows he isn't good with words. He recommended: A minute motion to review the ingress and egress of properties in the downtown Carlsbad area that have historically existed over time and to determine how we can address those properties and retain the access and egress to those properties if they share contiguous property lines. Board Member Schumacher asked if we can just say properties that have joint use. Board Member Baker said it is not a joint use driveway though. Board Member Whitton said it is not a joint use driveway. That is the problem. Chairperson Lawson asked if there is a second to his motion. Seeing none, we need to move on. There was a recommendation for some language that Ms. Fountain offered. Did you want to comment regarding that? I was in support of that. Ms. Baker was in support of that. Mr. Whitton was not in support, but Mr. Schumacher has not given his answer yet. Board Member Whitton said you have a recommendation on the floor for a minute motion. Chairperson Lawson said it didn't get a second so it died. Board Member Schumacher asked Ms. Fountain to read that recommendation one more time, the last section you proposed. Ms. Fountain said she was saying we would acknowledge we had zero setbacks and the second and third and fourth floor needs to be an average of ten feet with consideration given during design to ensure adequate access for the property that is being developed and adjacent properties. Board Member Schumacher said then that would protect somebody in Ms. Hall's situation? Ms. Fountain said correct, she would be an adjacent property. Ms. Mobaldi said she has a little concern with the way that is worded, "with consideration." In essence, we will say then you are not necessarily entitled to a zero setback. Considerations would lead one to believe you shouldn't have a zero setback. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 32 of 32 Board Member Baker said then maybe we should go back to the minute motion and the full ramifications of any language can be thoroughly thought of. Maybe a motion to the effect: Access to small lots within the Village be further studied. Chairperson Lawson said Ms. Mobaldi offered one initially with language for a minute motion. Ms. Mobaldi said she put it out there and if she has a second, that is fine. Board Member Schumacher seconded the minute motion. Chairperson Lawson asked do we have enough language for that so we can go ahead? Ms. Mobaldi said yes, there is a lot in the record. Chairperson Lawson said those in favor of the minute motion. VOTE: 4-0 AYES: Baker, Lawson, Schumacher, and Whitton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chairperson Lawson said the Board has decluttered back to the original recommendation of staff and if that is in deed covered, then can I entertain a motion on the original staff recommendation. Board Member Baker moves the Design Review Board adopt Design Review Board Resolutions 324, 325, 326 and 327 recommending Housing and Redevelopment Commission and/or City Council approval of the Negative Declaration and amendments to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual as well as revisions to City Council Policy 65, Signs- on Public Property, and a Local Coastal Program Amendment to clarify and/or revise policies for consistencies and/or to revise one or more Development Standards and amend Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 21, Chapter 21.35 to correct inconsistencies between the existing ordinance and the Village Master Plan and Design Manual as originally approved and amended by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission including language added to the standards modification section that has already been read into the record. VOTE: 4-0 AYES: Baker, Lawson, Schumacher, and Whitton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Ms. Fountain does not have anything else for the Board tonight. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Special Meeting of September 6, 2007, was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debbie Fountain Housing and Redevelopment Director PATRICIA CRESCENTI Minutes Clerk (9/13/2007) Debbie Fountain - Design Review Board meeting tonight Page 1 From: "Lee Ann Lilinthall" <leeann12@roadrunner.com> To: "Debbie Fountain" <dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 9/6/2007 10:09 AM Subject: Design Review Board meeting tonight Dear Debbie, It is with great concern that I find that the Design Review Board is still recommending to downsize the parking requirements while increasing the density in the Village Development area. I am in support of the higher density. Parking is the issue and has been for the past 25 years I have been involved in the village. Homeowners/renters still need a place to park their cars for use when leaving the village. These same people will have guests coming to visit, they will be parking in front of stores that already don't have enough parking for the customers. Not to mention employees, as the city lots are often full or unviable. With increased office space, people still need to get to their offices and park, and they will have clients coming to their offices to generate business. Businesses are suffering due to not enough parking now, with the increased density, parking will be even more difficult. When customers can not find parking to shop they shop in areas where they can find parking. I have heard this over and over from customers local and tourists over the years. We need more parking not less. Please reconsider this change in policy. Thank you Lee Ann Lilinthall 28 year resident of Carlsbad Former 25 year business owner in the Village CARLSBAD^> CHAMBER OF COMMERCE September 6,2007 Tony Lawson, Chairman Carlsbad Village Design Review Board 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Support: Village Master Plan and Design Manual Revisions Dear Chairman Lawson and board members: Oh behalf of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce and its almost 1,800 members, which represent over 70,000 employees, I am writing you to address the proposed changes to design standards in the Carlsbad Village redevelopment area. To encourage good and innovative design, the chamber supports the proposed changes to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The chamber fully supports the concept of tiered developments with zero setbacks for the first floor and 10' setback for additional floors in the Village of Carlsbad. The elimination of the current roof pitch requirement and eliminating building over parking to obtain 45 feet will also encourage new development. In addition, the chamber believes the change in parking calculations, addition of parking credits and ideas of creative parking solutions, especially the 15% reduction in parking for programs that support the use of public transportation will help ease the development restrictions within the Village of Carlsbad. In order to create a vibrant commercial atmosphere there must be residents, therefore, the chamber fully supports the increase in the permitted density from 23 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) to 45 du/acre in the Village of Carlsbad. The chamber feels that allowance for standards modifications and/or residential density increases above the maximums for Silver or higher LEED project certification will encourage smart and efficient design in the Village of Carlsbad. Again, the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce fully supports the proposed changes, and believes these changes will encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of the Carlsbad Village redevelopment area. If you have any questions, comments or concerns please do not hesitate to contact the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce at (760) 931-8400 for any clarification. Thank you for your leadership in modifying the design standards for the Village. Ted Owen President/CEO 5934 Priestly Drive • Carlsbad, California 92008 Phone: (760) 931-8400 • Fax: (760) 931-9153 • E-mail: chamber@carlsbad.org • Web: www.carlsbad.org August 28, 2007 City of Carlsbad Redevelopment Department 2965 Roosevelt Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attn: Design Review Board We are writing in support of the Proposed Revisions to the Village Master Plan regarding changes in the design standards for the Village area. As members of the working group for the newly formed Carlsbad Village Improvement Partnership (CVIP), we believe the proposed changes in the design standards will encourage redevelopment that will enhance the Village. An increase in density will make it possible for property owners to develop mixed used projects and create a favorable live/work community with varying levels of business and housing. We believe this is a critical time to make these changes as members of the CVIP develop a new mainstreet-type organization for economic development and promotion of the Village. The Carlsbad VIP working group represents over 400 businesses and residents in the Village. We look forward to working with the City to develop a unique and prosperous Village that attracts residents and tourists from all over the world. Sincerely, Carlsbad Village Improvement Partnership, Working Group members: Andrea Korogi Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce Robin Young Carlsbad Village Business Association P eter Gordon City Arts Manager Sarah Marquez Property Owner John Prieto Village Resident Mario Monroy Village Resident Robert Richardson Village Worker John Simons Village Developer Don Schempp Lender Active in the Village Richard Zall Village Business Owner Jodi Dickson Village Business Owner Lance Shulte Transit District Kurt Burkhart Convention and Visitors Bureau DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC September 5, 2007 Courtney Enriquez Management Analyst Housing & Development City of Carlsbad RE: Signatures for Changes Courtney, I have asked several people to obtain signatures for changes in the current Village Plan. Laurie Merrit who is engaged to Adam Phankuch who is one of the new Affordabtes in the Blirffs obtained many of these signatures. Jolee White, Real Estate Agent Beach and inland Realtors obtained signatures. Our belief is to get as many people involved as possible. 539 Carlsbad Village Drive, Suite 100, Carlsbad, CA 92008 • 760.729.6865 • (Fax) 760.729.7195 " 7 Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt SL #8 Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am wn^rig you to address the proposed changes to trie devetopm In the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and 1 support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease trie parking requirements hi the Village will allow orderly transition from letaateonvnefciaiiisetoaMIXEDUSEthaftailaws residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts Intend 9 there is a 45 toot height allowed and we want this to continue the test of the Districts 5-8 wffl stay the same at 30 to 35 feet Removmg the 5:12 pitch wiH give the opportunity to alow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the residents onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsite determines the number of residential unfts. So, 9 you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more livabifity intheViBage. The recommended changes wB encourage good and ffmovative design in the redevelopment process of JheVflageof Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 stoiy buildings wiH kffl the character of the Village" and you will get no objection from us. In the Village Design Standards as they are written AND wiH continue to be enforced wffl NOT allow this massing. The standards require that going adcBUonaUKxxs above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we wffl have a look of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thartcs for yotir continued assistarra in tt^ RETAIL LANDOWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR Date: Name: ***** f -f, Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St#B Cartsbad,CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Vltage Redevelopment areas, t want to encourage good and innovative design and 1 support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the VHIage will allow orderly transition from retaa/cornmerctal use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1~4and 9 there is a 45 foot height aRowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5-6 wiH slay the seme at 30 to 35 feet Removing the 5:12 pitch will give the oppoitiirtty to alow an additional floor for ie^ with the ability to park the resident's onsite. Vvhatisovertoc*edmanaryzkigtr»eadd determines the number of residential units. So, if you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more ft/ability in the Village. The recommended changes wffl encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of the Wage of Carlsbad. Some have stated that •1tossiiigof5stofybuiWing^w»kfflthec no objection from us. hi the Wage Design Standards as they are written AND wiH continue to be enforced wffl NOT allow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we wil have a kxik of orderly transftKm and NO massif Thanks for your continued assistance in RETAIL Date: Name: Address: */0 / ,J 'i>' Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St#B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards In the Carlsbad Wage Redevelopment areas* I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow onlertytrarisrfonfromretaiVaxTimeft^ltiseto residential unite above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want thfe to continue the rest of the Districts 5-8 WW stay the same at 30 to 35 feet Removing the 5:12 piteh will give the opportunity to aflow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the abifity to park the resktenfsonsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the additwrial residerrtial use is Parkirig Onsrte determines the number of residential unite. So, tf VQU can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more livability intheViHage. The recommended changes wffl encourage good and amovative design in the redevelopment process of the Wage of Carlsbad. Some have stated that •Massing of 5 story buildings wiB kffl the character of the Village'and you will get no objection from us. hi Hie VMage Design Standards as they are written AND wffl continue to be enforced wtt NOT aBow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level imist be "Stepped badf. This means we wffl have a look of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thanks for your continued assistance In thfe irnportant ordinance update. RETAIL LANDOWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR Name: Address: Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St. #B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad VBlage Redevelopment areas, f want to encourage good and innovative design and i support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition irom retaiVcoinmen^ use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retaB. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5^ wB» stay tr*5SSfT»e at 30 to 35 feet Remo^ the opportunity to aflow an additional floor for residential This can ONLY occur with the abffity to park the residents onsite. What Is overlooked in analyzing the addrtiooal residential use is Parking Onsfte determines the number of residential untts. So, g you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more fivabifity in the Village. The reconirnended changes wffl encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of toe VHage of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story bufldings wffl kffl the character of the VSUage'and you will get no objection from us. hi the VBage Design Standards as they are written AND wffl continue to be enforced wH NOT aflow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we wffl have a look of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thanks for your continued assistance in this important ordinance update. /^ ^^-x _r/V«L LANDOWNER ( RESIDENT J INVESTOR Date: Address: Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St#B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Vfflage Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderty transition from retaiVcommercialusetoaMlXEDUSEthataHows residential unite above the ground floor retaa. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height aitowed arid we warrt this to contm^ Districts 5-8 will stay the sane at 30 to 35 feel Removing flie 5:12 pitch wiH give the opportunity to altow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the resident's onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the addftwnal residential use is Parking Onsfte determines the number of residential units. So, if you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more fivabiKty in the Village. The recommended changes wff encourage good and ninovative design in the redevelopment process of ItieVfiage of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story buildings wil kn the character of the Village* and you wiH get no objection from us. to theVitage Design Standards as they are written AND wiU continue to be enforced wiH NOT aflow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be •Stepped back". This rrieanswewfflriavealcwkoforctertytrartsitionandNOmass^ Thanks for your continued assistance in this Irnportant ordinance update. RETAIL LANDOWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR Date: _ _ Name: Address: redovctopiniMtiltur Iff' Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St. #B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from retail/commercial use to a MIXED USE that allows residential unite above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5-8 will stay the same at 30 to 35 feet Removing the 5:12 pitch will give the opportunity to allow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the resident's onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsite determines the number of residential units. So, if you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more livabittty in the Village. The recommended changes wffl encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of the VBIage of Carlsbad. Some have staled that "Massing of 5 story buildings will kill the character of the Village'and you will get no objection from us. In the Vttage Design Standards as they are written AND will continue to be enforced wiU NOT allow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we will have a look of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thanks for your continued assistance in this important ordinance update. RETAIL LANDOWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR Date: 5/8/67 Name: Address: redovdupiiuitkitter Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St #B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Cartsbad Village Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from retail/commercial use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5-8 wHI stay the same at 30 to 35 feet Removing the 5:12 pitch will give the opportunity to aHowan acMifional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the resident's onsite. What Is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsite determines the number of residential units. So, W you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more livabilHy in the Village. The recommended changes wH encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of Ihe Village of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story buildings wffl kffl the character of the Village" and you will get no objection from us. hi flie VMage Design Standards as they are written AND will continue to be enforced will NOT aflow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This meanswewfflriaveakx&ofonierlytFartsrtkma^ Thanks for your oontfrttied assistance in this imr^^ LANDOWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR DaterO// ^/l __L^L t? •iiiii *im» «••!**••••••^ta^j*!!*redevwoprreioewer Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt SL #B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad VHage Redevelopment areas, I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recomrnendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village wflt allow orderly transition from retaflAxirrimerciaJ use to a MIXED USE that altows residential units above the ground floor rated. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want Ihfe to continue the rest of the Districts 5-8 wit stay the same at 30 to 35 feet Removing the 5:12 pitch will give the opportunity to aHow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the abffity to park the resident's onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsite determines the number of residential unite. So, if you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more Irvability in the Village. The recommended changes w$ encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of «ie Wage of Carlsbad. Some have stated that -Massing of 5 story buildings w» kffl the character of the Village11 and you will get no objection from us. In ttie VHage Design Standards as they are written AND will continue to be enforced wffl NOT aHow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This meanswewfflhaveakx>kcrfcHrierrytrajisitK>nart Thanks for your continued assistance hi this important ordinance update. RETAIL LANDOWNER ^5SiDE7ft> INVESTOR redevetopnrttetter Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St #B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from retail/commercial use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 46 foot height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5-8 wHI stay the same at 30 to 35 feet Removing the 5:12 pitch Witt give the opportunity to allow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the abffity to park the resident's onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsite determines the number of residential units. So, ff you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more KvabHity in the Village. The recommended changes wH encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of the Village of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story buildings wW MR the character of the Village" and you will get no objection from us. in theVfllage Design Standards as they are written AND will continue to be enforced wffl NOT allow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we wBI have a look of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thanks for your continued assistance in this important ordinance update. RETAIL LANDOWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR Date: Name: redevetopfimttetter Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St#B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and i support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from retail/commercial use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retaN. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5-8 will stay the same at 30 to 35 feet Removing the 5:12 pitch will give the opportunity to aHow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the resident's onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsite determines the number of residential unite. So, tf you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more livability in the Village. The recommended changes wffl encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of theVWage of Carlsbad. Some have stated that •Massing of 5 story buildings wifl ktt the character of the Village" and you will get no objection from us. In the Vfflage Design Standards as they are written AND win continue to be enforced wffl NOT alow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we wW have a look of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thanks for your continued assistance in this wnportant ordinance update. RETAIL LANDOWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR Date: Name: Address: redsvetopnmUBUm \v Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St. #B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from retaa/commercial use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Distncts5^willstaytnesarneat30to35feeLRernovir^the5:12pitchwillgwe the opportunity to aBowan additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the residents onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsite determines the number of residential units. So, ff you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more Ih/ability in The recommended changes wW encourage good and mnovative design in the redevelopment process of flie Vfflage of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story buildings will kill the character of the Village" and you will get no objection from us. In the VMage Design Standards as they are written AND win continue to be enforced win NOT aflow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we wW have a took of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thanks for your continued assistance in this impoftant ordinance update. RETAIL LANDOWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR Date: Name: Address: Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St. #B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from retail/commercial use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5-8 will stay the same at 30 to 35 feet Removing the 5:12 pitch will give the opportunity to allow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the resident's onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsite determines the number of residential units. So, if you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more In/ability in the Village. The recommended changes will encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of the Village of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story buildings will kill the character of the Village" and you will get no objection from us. in the Village Design Standards as they are written AND will continue to be enforced will NOT allow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we will have a look of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thanks for your continued assistance in this important ordinance update. RETAIL LANDOWNER (^RESIDENT^) INVESTOR Date: T^, —--""' Name; Address: redevetopmnttetter \v Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St. #B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from retail/commercial use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5-8 will stay the same at 30 to 35 feet Removing the 5:12 pitch will give the opportunity to allow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the resident's onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsite determines the number of residential units. So, if you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more livability in the Village. The recommended changes will encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of the Village of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story buildings will kill the character of the Village" and you will get no objection from us. In the Village Design Standards as they are written AND will continue to be enforced will NOT allow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we will have a look of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thanks for your continued assistance in this important ordinance update. RETAIL^ LANDOWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR Name: Address: Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St. #B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from retail/commercial use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5-8 will stay the same at 30 to 35 feet Removing the 5:12 pitch will give the opportunity to allow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the resident's onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsite determines the number of residential units. So, if you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more liability in the Village. The recommended changes will encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of the Village of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story buildings will kill the character of the Village" and you will get no objection from us. In the Village Design Standards as they are written AND will continue to be enforced will NOT allow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we will have a look of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thanks for your continued assistance in this important ordinance update. ^—-<-->[RETAIL/ LANDOWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR Address: redevelopmntietter Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St. #B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from retail/commercial use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5-8 will stay the same at 30 to 35 feet. Removing the 5:12 pitch will give the opportunity to allow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the resident's onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsite determines the number of residential units. So, if you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more livability in the Village. The recommended changes will encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of the Village of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story buildings will kill the character of the Village" and you will get no objection from us. In the Village Design Standards as they are written AND will continue to be enforced will NOT allow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we will have a look of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thanks for your continued assistance in this important ordinance update. - """"""VRETAIL; LANDOWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR Pater so-<=*<-> <-o / Address: redevelopmntietter Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St. #B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from retail/commercial use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5-8 will stay the same at 30 to 35 feet. Removing the 5:12 pitch will give the opportunity to allow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the resident's onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsite determines the number of residential units. So, if you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more livability in the Village. The recommended changes will encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of the Village of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story buildings will kill the character of the Village" and you will get no objection from us. In the Village Design Standards as they are written AND will continue to be enforced will NOT allow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we will have a look of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thanks for your continued assistance in this important ordinance update. f~-—' LANDOWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR Date: Name: Address* redevetopmntietter 7 2JL? Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St. #B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from retail/commercial use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5-8 will stay the same at 30 to 35 feet. Removing the 5:12 pitch will give the opportunity to allow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the resident's onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsite determines the number of residential units. So, if you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more livability in the Village. The recommended changes will encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of the Village of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story buildings will kill the character of the Village" and you will get no objection from us. In the Village Design Standards as they are written AND will continue to be enforced will NOT allow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we will have a look of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thanks for your continued assistance in this important ordinance update. LAND OWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR Name: redevelopmntletter Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St. #B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from retail/commercial use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5-8 will stay the same at 30 to 35 feet. Removing the 5:12 pitch will give the opportunity to allow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the residents onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsite determines the number of residential units. So, if you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more livabil'rty in the Village. The recommended changes will encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of the Village of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story buildings will kill the character of the Village" and you will get no objection from us. In the Village Design Standards as they are written AND will continue to be enforced will NOT allow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we will have a look of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thanks fats^ou! continued assistance in this important ordinance update. IETAIL/ LANDOWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR Name: Address: ^OQ/ Q^rl^haJ @>Jud. $lL/1ji, G C&shboJ*—" **' I f redevelopmnttetter •I p,>£•*-•• Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St. #B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from retail/commercial use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5-8 will stay the same at 30 to 35 feet. Removing the 5:12 pitch will give the opportunity to allow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the resident's onsfte. What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsfte determines the number of residential units. So, if you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more livability in the Village. The recommended changes will encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of the Village of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story buildings will kill the character of the Village" and you will get no objection from us. In the Village Design Standards as they are written AND will continue to be enforced will NOT allow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we will have a look of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thanks for your continued assistance in this important ordinance update. RESIDENT INVESTOR redevelopmnttetter Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St. #B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from retail/commercial use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5-8 will stay the same at 30 to 35 feet. Removing the 5:12 pitch will give the opportunity to allow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the resident's onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsite determines the number of residential units. So, if you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more liability in the Village. The recommended changes will encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of the Village of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story buildings will kill the character of the Village" and you will get no objection from us. In the Village Design Standards as they are written AND will continue to be enforced will NOT allow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we will have a look of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thanks for your continued ajsisjanoe in thisjmpQrtent ordinance update. RETAIL (LANDOWNER V RESIDENT ) INVESTOR Date: Name: Address: redevetopmnttetter •t:-'/ Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St. #B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from retail/commercial use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is ajj£Jopt height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5-8 will stay the same at 30 to 35 feet. Removing the 5:12 pitch will give the opportunity to allow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the resident's onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsite determines the number of residential units. So, if you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more liability in the Village. The recommended changes will encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of the Village of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story buildings will kill the character of the Village" and you will get no objection from us. In the Village Design Standards as they are written AND will continue to be enforced will NOT allow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we will have a look of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thankslor your continued assistance in this important ordinance update. RETAIL ) LANDOWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR Address: redevelopmnttetter Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St. #B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from retail/commercial use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5-8 will stay the same at 30 to 35 feet. Removing the 5:12 pitch will give the opportunity to allow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the resident's onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsite determines the number of residential unite. So, if you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more liability in the Village. The recommended changes will encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of the Village of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story buildings will kill the character of the Village" and you will get no objection from us. In the Village Design Standards as they are written AND will continue to be enforced will NOT allow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we will have a look of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thanks for your continued assistance in this important ordinance update. RETAIL LANDOWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR Name- Address: Zoot e/ redevetopmntletter pi- Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St#B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards inthe&MlsbadVi&ageRecleveiopme^ innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The reconvnendation to ease the parking requirernentsintheVBtegewillaHow orderty transition from retafl/conifneix^iisetpaMIXEDUSEtrtataBows residential units above the ground floor retafl. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want this to continue 1he rest of the District 5^ witt slay the same at 30 to 35 feet Reiricvir^ the opportunity to altow an additional fkor for resio^^ with the abTrty to park the resident's onsitB. What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential ijse is Parking Ortsite determines the number of residential units. So, f you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more fivabifity in the VjBage. The recornrnended changes wii encourage good and innovative design HI the ; of the Vtoge of Carlsbad. Some have stated that •Massingjbf 5 story buildings wfl Mi the character of the Village" and you Witt get no objection from us. hi the VBage Design Standards as they are written AND wtt continjue to be enforced wM NOT allow this massing. The standards require that going^additional floors above ground level rnust be "Stepped back*. This means weiwffl have a look of orderly transftkxi and NO nrassing of structures. continued assistance In this important oidinance LANDOWNER RESIDENT Address: Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St#B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to ttie devetopmert standards in the Carlsbad VHage Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the reccHtimendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the VBIagewiH allow orderty transition from retaH/cximmercial use to a MIXED USE that aSows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height aOowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5^ wffl stay the same at 30 to 35 feet Rerncving the 5:12 pitch wiHg^ the opportunity to alow an additional floor far residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the resident's onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the addftkmal residential use is Parking Onsfte determines the number of residential unte. So, f you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more gvabftrty The recommended changes wtt ericourage good and irmovative design in the of tt»Vlage of Cartebad. Some have stated ttiat "Massing til 5 story buddings wM Ml the character of the VTCage" and you will get no objection from us. In Hie VMage Design Standards as they are written AND wffl contMue to be enforced wffl NOT aflow this massing. Tne standards require that going! additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means wei wfll have a look of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thanks forlyour continued assistance in this fe RETAIL LANDOWNER RESTDENT INVESTOR Date: I/ i _ Name: Address: Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt SL*B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to flie development standards m the Carlsbad V&age Redevelopment areas. I want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from retafl/commerctal use ID a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height attowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5-8 will slay the same at 30 to 35 feet Removing the 5:12 ptehwfll give the opportutity to alow an acldKiofialfbor for resided What is overlooked in analyzing the additional residential use is Parking Onsite deternrines the mniber of residential un^ say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more Rvabflity inthe Village. The recommended changes wH encourage good and irmovative design in the redeveiopmont process of ihft VMugo of Carlsbad. Some hove stated that "Massing of 5 story buftfingswX Ml the character of the Village" and you will get no objection from us. hi the VBage Design Standards as they are written AND wiH continue to be enforced wffl NOT alow this massing. The standards require that going additional floors above ground towel must be "Stepped back". This meanswewfflhaveatokofordeftytransitkma Trtanteforyotrcoiiiimiedaasi8tB«i»inttfc RETAIL LANDOWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR Date: Name: Address: Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St #B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Cartsbad Village Redevetopment areas. t want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will altow ofdertytransiticHifromretaiVc^ residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height aflowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 54 wffl stay the same at 30 to 35 fisetRen^ the opportunity to alkw an acktitionalfkxv to with the ab8fty to park the resident's onsite. What is overlooked in analyzing the adcfitional residerrtial i«e is Parking Onsrte determines the number of residential unite. So, if you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more fivabffity in the Village. The reconinenUed changes wS encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of fte Vfflage of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story biddings w* Ml the character of the Village" and you win get no objection from us. hi the VBage Design Standards as they are written AND wiH continue to be enforced wW NOT alow this massing. The standards require that going addMunalfltaore above ground level must be "Stepped back*. This a^ Thanks for your continued assistance in this irrf>cNrtant ordinance update. RETAIL LANDOWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR Date: _ _ Nama Address: Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St#B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment areas. I wart to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease flie parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from n3tafl^x)iTmTeraal use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 45 foot height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Districts 5* will stay the same at 30 to 35 feet Removing the 5:12 pitch w8l give the opportunity to aflow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the ability to park the residents onsfte. Whatisoventokedinanaly^theadditi^ dotBfmine& the number of leskloiitial units. So, if you can ease the parking for say the guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more Rvabifity intheVittage. The recommended changes wffi encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of the VBage of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story buildings w« KS the character of the ViBage" and you wfll get no objection from us. In the VHage Design Standards as they are written AND wiH continue to be enforced wffl NOT alow this massaig. The standards require that going additional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This means we wW have a took of orderly transition and NO massing of structures. Thanks for your continued assistance in tnisirnportantmUataiice, RETAIL LANDOWNER RESIDENT Date: Name: Redevelopment Agency Attn: Debbie Fountain Director 2965 Roosevelt St#B Carlsbad, CA 92008 I am writing you to address the proposed changes to the development standards in the Carlsbad Vfflage Redevelopment areas. | want to encourage good and innovative design and I support the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. The recommendation to ease the parking requirements in the Village will allow orderly transition from retaa/cxxnrnercial use to a MIXED USE that allows residential units above the ground floor retail. Currently, in Districts 1-4and 9 there is a 46 foot height allowed and we want this to continue the rest of the Distrk^5^wfllstaythesaiT»at30to35feetReni the opportunity to allow an additional floor for residential. This can ONLY occur with the abffity to park the resktenfsonsfte. What Is overlooked in analyzing tie additional residential use is Parking Onsite determines the number of residential unite. So, tf you can ease the parking for say me guest parking requirement as proposed, then you can get more HvabiHty in' The recommended changes wH encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of theVOage of Carlsbad. Some have stated that "Massing of 5 story buildings wH Ml the character of the Wage" and you will get no objection from us. hi the VBage Design Standards as they are written AND will continue to be enforced wffl NOT afiowthis rnassing. The standards require that going addRional floors above ground level must be "Stepped back". This Trianlcsforyourcc>ntirMiedassi8tafK»Hitrrisirr^ RETAIL LANDOWNER RESIDENT INVESTOR Name: Address: ««h«CflMM»b^MM«^B^k«Utf^rreoBVBiQfifnnmiBr Village Master Plan & Design Manual Revisions Design Review Board September 6, 2007 Introduction * Revisions to Village Master Plan and Design Manual (LCPA 95-1 Oa) * Amendments to Chapter 21.35 of CMC (ZCA95-10a) * Revisions to City Council Policy No. 65 * Clarify and/or revise policies for consistency 0 Revise development standards Background Redevelopment Plan Adoption - July, 1981 Village Master Plan Adoption - November, 1995 Master Plan and related policies together withRedevelopment Plan = Local Coastal Program for Village Inconsistent or incorrect policies need revision Commission ROI to amend standards - March, 2006 Continuing the Story: Building an Urban Village Urban Village. . .the brilliance of the phrase is that it sums up our coexisting desires for autonomy and community. We want the quiet, tree-lined street with quick access to the global market. We desire a place of repose as well as a place of activity. This tension in human relations with the environment is an old one. Interesting places grow and evolve out of the / Don't lOvcrcinpliasi/c I The \ Purely / \ visual 4, ."V Mfaiai* One at a time \ Interesting Buildings Promote Creativity Be Flexible Walkable, Human-Sealed Neighborhood /Choose simple [And economical \ solutions , David Sucher's City Comforts I [o\v to Build an Urban I 'i Village Redevelopment Area District 1: Village Center District 2: Office Support District 3: Freeway Commercial District 4: Residential Support District 5: Mixed Use Support District 6: Service Commercial Support ? District 7: Office Support District 8: Residential Support District 9: Tourism Support Village Master Plan Adopted 1995 - Sets Forth Vision, Land Uses, Development Standards & Design Guidelines Village Vision usirafive Vision of North State Street North from Grand Avenue dona Afby & NCTD Property Village Public Projects • Code Enforcement • Commercial Rehab loans » Facade Improvement Grants • Off-Street Parking (300 spaces/5 lots) » Beautification Projects » Plans & Studies * Streetscape Improvements * Street Furniture & Landscape Planters * Marketing Materials & Promotional Events * Property Acquisition * Senior Center & Affordable Housing Approximately $26 million to date New (Private) Construction Since 1981, seedy bars and rundown establishments have been replaced with an assortment of shops, businesses and, restaurants.Approximately $258 million in private investment to date ||S||R:^''* :'*%..-. Question: What can we do to encourage more redevelopment? Answer: Review development standards Review Development Standards for Village * Completed financial scenarios on impact of development standards. • Consulted with developers/property owners and architects. * Reviewed previous and current project applications. » Researched standards of other coastal cities in Southern California. • Visited other Urban Village areas and researched their development standards. Current Standards Setbacks: 0'-20' Open Space: 20% Building Coverage: 50% to 100% Parking: Varies by Use Density: 15 to 23 du/acre; 19 GMCP Height: 30'-45' PD Standards - condos Existing Projects Kent Jesse Office Meet current standards Constructed within last 2 to 3 •sears Existing Projects Proposed Projects Casa Cobra Mixed Use - Roosevelt Street Roosevelt St. Town Homes State Street Mixed Use Proposed Project Economic Feasibility Study * Escalating land values & construction costs are outpacing sales income & lease revenue. * Need to allow larger floor area to provide additional revenues to offset building construction costs. * Consider revisions to height, setbacks, building coverage and parking. Standards Comparison Carlsbad Del Mar Encinitas Oceanside Solana Beach Laguna Beach San Clemente Carlsbad Village Standards are comparable to other cities surveyed or more liberal in most cases. '-^TW» "*"*" *w"iTT tr**'1 KIvT*?- hUkfe sfr Walnut Creek, Ca ' Whistler Village, Canada Santana Row - San Jose, Ca Salem, Ma Fhe "District" at Green Valley lenderson, Nevada Parking Requirements Excessive Parking can: • Discourage alternative modes of transportation • Reduce Density and/or Intensity of Development • Increase the Cost of Development • Create an uninviting built environment • Degrade the natural environment -Parking Standards by Michael Davidson and Fay Dolnick Parking Requirements • Determining appropriate amount of off-street parking is both an art and a science, and is done within a political context. « Goals for the Village should be considered in setting parking requirements. • Goal: Increase use of public transit • Parking Requirement: Reduced by 15% if project within 1500 ft of public transit. -Parking Standards by Michael Davidson and Fay Dolnick 12 Design Review » Should not be concerned solely with the external appearance of the built environment, but rather with how people actually use it. » Design review allows the public realm to be re-established and reinforced. « A means to obtain development that strengthens community quality and character. - Design Review by Mark L. Hinshaw Feedback/Study Findings • Parking requirements difficult to meet. • Density too low. • Reduced setbacks and increased building coverage allowance is desirable. • Planned Development Standards are not appropriate for Village. 13 Proposed Revisions Setbacks (Front 0 feet - 1st floor; Front average 10 feet minimum for 2nd and above floors; Side and Rear - 0 ft all floors; Districts 1-4) Building Coverage (100%; Districts 1-4) Height to 45' (Districts 1 -4 &9); not required to build over parking Roof Pitch (None - allDistricts) Facade modulation and pitched roof will be encouraged as a design feature. Proposed Revisions Parking requirements based on net floor space rather than gross floor space (all Districts) Allow parking credit for any existing commercial building on a site. Up to 15% reduction in parking for programs that support public transit Tandem parking for residential (all Districts) Creative parking solutions (all Districts - as deemed appropriate) 14 352- Proposed Revisions • Open space 20% - public or private » Wall heights limited to 6 feet • Eliminate PD Standards » Maximum Density of 45 du/ac (1 -4) » Maximum Density of 23 du/ac (5-9) » Minimum Density of 15 du/ac (all areas) Comparison - District 1 Front Setbacks Building Coverage Building Height Open Space Density Inclusionary Existing 0' to 10' -all floors Commercial: 80 - 100% 45' Maximum with 5:12 roof pitch & over parking 20% (private & public) 15to23du/ac;GMCP19 15% Proposed 0' -1st floor &10'avg. for all other floors Commercial: 100% 45' Maximum 20% (private & public) 15 to 45 du/ac; GMCP 45 15% 15 Comparison - District 1 PD Standards Parking Tandem parking Parking space credit for existing Parking In-Lieu Fee 15% reduction for transit- oriented projects Existing Minimum driveway (24'); recreational space; rec vehicle storage; min. balcony/patio Varies by use; gross square foot calculation Not permitted Not permitted Permitted up to 100% Not permitted Proposed No PD standards. No storage of large rec vehicles on site; small rec vehicles may be store on site if screened Varies by use; net square foot calculation Permitted for residential Permitted for commercial Permitted up to 100% Permitted for all uses Standards Modifications (including additional density) * Case-by-Case basis » Acceptable evidence that modification is financially necessary; » Or, that application of standards preclude residential development at the minimum permitted density « Permitted for development at Silver or higher LEED certification • Permitted for affordable housing 16 Parking Example New Mixed Use Project: 24 lOgsf retail; 3,332gsf restaurant; 6502gsf office; 2 apts (2 bdr). On-site: 2475sf existing retail building. Current Rules Parking Required: 30 spaces for retail & office 33 spaces for restaurant 5 spaces for apartments Parking Required: 68 total D* Proposed Rules Parking Required: 26 spaces for retail & office 25 spaces for restaurant 5 spaces for condos Parking Required: 56 Total 15% transit reduction: 8 Parking credit: 8 After Reductions: 40 total Existing Standards M Approx. 10,000 sf lot Stownhomes (2500st) 3400 sf restaurant/retail 17 Proposed Standards Approx. 10,000 sf lot 10 townhomes (1568 sf) 3700 sf restaurant/retail l-f Approx. 30,000 sf lot 16 townhomes (2800 sf) 11,600 sf restaurant/retail Existing Standards 18 Proposed Standards Approx. 30,000 sf lot 30 town homes (1530 sf) 14,761 sf restaurant/retail Increasing Density * Increasing the number of residential units in the Village is good for business; more residents to shop in stores & use services. * Increasing the number of residential units in the Village helps to create the desired 7/24 living environment. * Increasing density may ultimately reduce the size of units and subsequently increase their affordability (with enough of them). 19 Development Standard Headlines Increased density from maximum of 23 du/acre to 45 du/acre in Districts 1-4. Change how parking is calcujated (net vs. gross), and provide credit for existing buildings. Encourage buildings closer to sidewalk at ground level, but stepped back at 2nd level and above No change in maximum height limits, but remove requirement to build over parking for 45 ft and eliminate roof pitch requirement. Parking space credit for existing buildings 15% reduction in parking requirement for transit- oriented projects More creative parking solutions (in-lieu fee, lifts, tandem, etc) Standards modifications on case-by-case basis for Silver or higher LEED Certification and/or affordable housing Why make the • Provide more residential opportunities within the Village. • Provide more customers for businesses in the Village. • Increase opportunities for new businesses or expansion of existing business to serve the entire City. « Enhance the attractiveness of the Village. » Create fun and interesting people places. 20 Clean-Up of Master Plan * No variance if exceed a setback standard * Administrative variances can be approved by Housing & Redevelopment Director * Exempt demolition from redevelopment permit requirements Clean-Up of Master Plan * Define roof top sign * Set standards for when a Pole Sign would be allowed * Consistency Determinations * Prohibit use of temporary structures and storage containers * Set process for extensions 36? 21 Clean-Up of Master Plan • Permit property in Transportation Corridor to develop same uses as adjacent districts (1, 4 & 6) * Clarify definitions for restaurant and bars with or without entertainment Amend Chapter 21.35 $60,000 permit value ( or less) relates to new construction only & requires minor RP No RP for demolition Clarify DRB role Set forth process for appeals Granting of extensions 22 346 Council Policy No. 65 • Consistent regulations between Master Plan and Policy for A-Frame Signs in public right-of-way • Policy for display of lamp-post banners. No commercial advertisement. Display for City sponsored or co-sponsored events. Negative Declaration * No potentially significant impacts. * Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration posted on July 23rd. * Received 3 letters: US Fish & Wildlife & California Dept of Fish & Game; California PUC; San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. Responses provided. 23 DRB Actions » Adoption of Resolutions 324, 325, 326 and 327 » Recommendation of Approval of the Negative Declaration * Recommendation of Approval of amendments to Village Master Plan, Chapter 21.35 and City Council Policy No. 65 • LCPA 95-10(a) and ZCA 95-10(a) Next Steps • If recommended for approval by DRB, proposals will be presented to City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission for approval (October, 2007) * If approved by Council/Commission, application submitted to Coastal Commission for approval. * Revisions effective 30 days after Council/ Commission action for all areas outside the Coastal Zone • Village Master Plan and Design Manual will be reformatted and reprinted with changes and redistributed or made available for reference. 24 MEMORANDUM October 16, 2007 FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ) ifc TEDATE CITY ATTORNEY TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY ATTORNEY RE: AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 REVISIONS TO VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL L^L^mliSroT t0 add t0 ^ rec°mmended action amendments to Chapter 2.24 to add the i rvcvicw ooaru ano riousmg Redevelopment Commission and C^nT™8 Yf delete,th°f same responsibilities from the Planning Commission and City Council. Therefore, under the recommended action add an item 5 as follows: 5. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2007-277 introducing Ordinance No NS-863 amending Carlsbad Municipal Code section 2.24.080 shifting the certain responsibiiitie7"^ me Planning Commission to the Design Review Board. Copies of the appropriate documents are attached to this memorandum. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. RONALD R. BALL City Attorney rn/enclosure City Clerk Interim City Manager 1M\ 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 SEE AGENDA BILL #19,233 dated 11-20-07c CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2007-277 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OB^ARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT (CHAPTER 2.24) TO CLARIFY AND/OR REVISE POLICIES FOR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DESIGN REVIEU/BOARD WHEN DESIGNATED AS THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER CERTAIN PURPOSES. CASE NAME: VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL AMENDMENTS CASE NO.: ZCA 95-10(A)/LCPA/95-10(A)/MCA95-01(A) WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has prepared an amendment to Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 2, Chapter 2.24, Section 2.24.080 relating to roles and responsibilities of the Design Review Board when designated as planning commission for certain purposes; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is set forth in Ordinance No. NS-863. and noted as Exhibit "Z," and attached heret^ and WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 16th day of October, 2007 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribecf 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, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the City Council considered all factors relating to the Municipal Code Amendments. NOW, THEREFQRE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council as follows: a) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. b) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council hereby APPROVES MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS MCA 95-01 (a) and INTRODUCES Ordinance No.NS-863 approving MCA 95-01 (a). c) Ttoe proposed amendments will be effective thirty (30) days after approval date, in all areas of the Village. 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 JointPASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a^Special Meeting of the City Council /\ of the City ofCarfeDad otFfJie 6ffiIa3aysof°Rovember, 2007, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin and Nygaard. NOES: None. ABSENT: Hall and Packard. /LORRAINE (SEAL) WOOD, £fry Clerk '*;„*.' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 24 27 Exhibit Z ORDINANCE NO. NS-863 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.24 (PLANNING COMMISSION) TO CLARIFY AND/OR REVISE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WHEN DESIGNATED AS PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES. CASE NAME: VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL AMENDMENTS CASE NO.: ZCA 95-10(A)/LCPA 95-10(A)/MCA 95-OKA) The City Council, does ordain as follows: Section 1. That Section 2.24.080 of Chapter 2.24 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 2.24.080 Design review board designated as planning commission for certain purposes. Whenever in Title 20 or Title 21 it is provided that an action or a decision on a project, permit, or tentative map shall be taken or made by the planning commission and such permit or project is processed according to Chapter 21.35 and consolidated in the redevelopment permit under Section 21.35.120, then the design review board shall act as the planning commission with respect to such project, permit or map. 18 Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption. 19 20 21 22 //// 23 till 25 mi 26 " III! 28 Illl 1 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Special Meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on 2 the 6th day of November, 2007, and thereafter. 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the 4 City of Carlsbad on the day of , 2007, by the following vote to wit: 5 6 AYES: 7 NOES: 8 ABSENT: 9 ABSTAIN: 10 11 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY 12 13 RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney 15 16 CLAUDE A LEWIS, Mayor 17 18 ATTEST: 19 20 LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) 221' 23 24 25 26 27 28 Chapter 2.24 PLANNING COMMISSION* 2.24.010 Created. 2.24.020 Composition-Appointment. 2.24.030 Absence from meetings. 2.24.040 Regular and adjourned meetings.* 2.24.050 Officers-Rule adoption-Records. 2.24.060 Duties. 2.24.065 General plan conformance-Time for or waiver of report. 2.24.070 Quorum and vote. 2.24.080 Design review board designated as planning commission for certain purposes. * For statutory provisions directing the establishment of a planning agency and as to local planning generally, see Gov. Code § 65100 et seq. 2.24.010 Created. Under and pursuant to an act of the legislature of the state, known as the "conservation and planning law,' a planning commission for the city is created and established. (Ord. 1020 § 1) 2.24.020 Composition-Appointment. The planning commission shall consist of seven members to be appointed by a majority vote of the council, and of four ex officio members who shall be the community development director, the city engineer, the city attorney and the planning director. Of the seven members of the commission first appointed under this chapter, two shall be appointed for one-year terms, two shall be appointed for three-year terms, and one shall be appointed for a four-year term. Their successors shall be appointed for terms of four years. If a vacancy occurs otherwise than by expiration of term, it shall be filled by appointment by a majority vote of the council for the unexpired portion of the term of the member so vacating. The terms of ex officio members shall correspond to their respective official tenures. No ex officio member shall be entitled to a vote. Each member shall hold office until he is reappointed or his successor is appointed. (Ord. NS-676 §§ 1 (part), 2 (part), 2003; Ord. 1256 § 1, 1982: Ord. 1200 § 1, 1977: Ord. 1157 § 1, 1973: Ord. 1020 §2) 2.24.030 Absence from meetings. If a member of the planning commission is absent from three successive meetings of the commission without cause, the planning director shall inform the mayor of such absence, who may therewith remove the member from the commission without further notice. (Ord. NS-676 § 2 (part), 2003; Ord. 1261 § 2,1983: Ord. 1020 § 3) 2.24.040 Regular and adjourned meetings.* A regular meeting shall be held at least once a month, or more often if the planning commission may by rule adopt. Any meeting held pursuant to rule of the planning commission, or any special meeting advertised as a public hearing, shall be deemed a regular meeting. The commission may adjourn any regular meeting from time to time to meet at a time and place specified at the regular meeting and any such adjourned meeting shall be deemed to be a regular meeting. (Ord. 1020 § 4) * For provisions on attendance of city manager at commission meetings, see § 2.12.125 of this code. 2.24.050 Officers-Rule adoption-Records. The planning commission shall elect from among its appointed members a chairman and vice- chairman to serve for a term of one year. It shall adopt rules for the transaction of business and shall keep a record of the resolutions, transactions, findings and determinations, which record shall be a public record. (Ord. 1157 § 2,1973: Ord. 1020 § 5) 2.24.060 Duties. In addition to the duties specified by this chapter, the planning commission shall perform the duties and have all the rights, powers and privileges specified and provided for by city or state law. (Ord. 9424 § 1,1975: Ord. 1020 § 6) 2.24.065 General plan conformance-Time for or waiver of report. (a) The planning commission shall report as to conformity to the general plan as required pursuant to Section 65402 of the Government Code. When such report is required as the result of a proposed division of land or some other project for which planning commission action is required, it may be included as part of and at the same time as the action taken by the planning commission on such proposed division of land or other project. (b) Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 65402 of the Government Code, a report as to conformity to the general plan is not required for a proposed subdivision or other project which involves (1) the disposition of the remainder of a larger parcel which was acquired and used in part for street purposes; (2) acquisitions, dispositions or abandonments for street widening; or (3) alignment projects, provided such dispositions for street purposes, acquisitions, dispositions or abandonments for street widening, or alignment projects are of a minor nature. (Ord. 9424 § 2, 1975) 2.24.070 Quorum and vote. (a) Four members of the planning commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. (b) Except when otherwise provided by law, a majority vote of the quorum shall be required for any planning commission action, provided that a recommendation for approval of a general plan amendment shall be made by at least four affirmative votes. (c) Tie votes shall constitute "no action," and the matter voted upon remains before the commission and is subject to further commission consideration. If the commission is unable to take action on a matter before it because of a tie vote, the matter shall be again considered at the next regular commission meeting. If the matter receives a tie vote at the subsequent meeting, the matter shall be deemed denied. (d) Every commissioner should vote unless disqualified by reason of conflict of interest. A commission who abstains from voting acknowledges that a majority of the quorum may decide the question voted upon. (Ord. NS-135 § 1, 1991; Ord. 1247 § 1, 1982; Ord. 1244 § 1, 1982: Ord. 1159 § 1,1973) 2.24.080 Design review board designated as planning commission for certain purposes. Whenever in Title 20 or Title 21 it is provided that an action or a decision on a project,permitjjr [Deleted; or tentative map shall be taken or made by the planning commission and such permit or project is processed according to Chapter 21.35 and consolidated in the redevelopment permit under Section 21.35.120, then the design review board shall be the planning commission with respect to f DetetedTor such project.permit or map. (Ord. NS-330 § 1,1995: Ord. 1254 § 2,1982) 31° Ill I I ^^^ AGENDA ITEM # *4* C^JfMurT I / K Mayor City Council City Manager From: <mdmorel@hotmail.com> r-iZr«i v To: <Council@[205.142.109.13]> CitycierK Date: 10/16/200710:09 AM . Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ****+**•*•******#******•************'*"*'********'*** Below, please find the information that was submitted: I have read the agenda for tonight's (10/16/07)Council meeting, and looked at some of the public comments regarding the proposed zoning changes for the Village. I would encourage the Council to reject changes to the code that would allow an increase in building height, or a reduction of available parking. As a long time Carlsbad resident, I enjoy raising my children in an environment that is sadly becoming all too rare, that is, a town with a "Village" look and feel, vice another urban development zone. Of the many out-of-state visitors that I've shown about, every one of them has commented on what a neat downtown we have....how it is inviting and unspoiled by over-development. If you need to see examples of good vs. bad zoning in coastal communities, please go tour Redondo Beach and Huntington Beach in the Los Angeles area. One allows huge buildings and has destroyed the character of the community. The other restricts building size and is still a gorgeous place...with higher property values because of that retained charm. The current property owners were aware of the regulations, so fair use is certainly not being denied. To the contrary, retaining the character of a seaside village will do more for their property values than trying to maximize the utilization of every possible square foot. Please do the right thing for all the residents of Carlsbad, including our children. Please reject the zoning and building regulation changes, and therefore preserve the charm and attractiveness of the Village for everyone. Thank you for your attention, Mark Morel Mark Morel 2301 Shawn Ct. Carlsbad, CA 92008 mdmorel@hotmail.com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; Q312461; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; lnfoPath.1) 129.46.190.160 AGENDA ITEM* £ c: Mayor City Council City Manager From: <vballgee@aol.com> CityAttorney To: <Council@[205.142.109.13]> CityClerk Date: 10/15/2007 9:57 PM . Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: Hi, Please reject the Village redevelopment plans that you will vote on tonight. I see nothing creative in these plans to revitalize or improve the Village. It should be plain to you that this is "overdevelopment" and "increased density". This will add more people to live in the area, but I see nothing that will draw in people to the downtown. In fact, you are getting dangerously close to going the opposite of what you intend. People don't like being crowded, having no parking and looking only at brick and mortar left and right. Try something more creative, like tax-free days, theme nights, etc. Good luck! Dee Ann Gee Carlsbad, CA vballgee@aol.com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) 75.11.181.221 CARLSBAD V^> CHAMBER OF COMMERCE October 16, 2007 Claude "Bud" Lewis, Mayor City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Support: Village Master Plan and Design Manual Revisions Dear Mayor Lewis and Councilmembers: Oh behalf of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce and its almost 1,700 members, which represent over 70,000 employees, I am writing you to address the proposed changes to design standards in the Carlsbad Village redevelopment area. To encourage good and innovative design, the chamber supports the proposed changes to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The chamber fully supports the concept of tiered developments with zero setbacks for the first floor and 10' setback for additional floors in the Village of Carlsbad. The elimination of the current roof pitch requirement and eliminating building over parking to obtain 45 feet will also encourage new development. In addition, the chamber believes the change in parking calculations, addition of parking credits and ideas of creative parking solutions, especially the 15% reduction in parking for programs that support the use of public transportation will help ease the development restrictions within the Village of Carlsbad. In order to create a vibrant commercial atmosphere there must be residents, therefore, the chamber fully supports the increase in the permitted density from 23 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) to 45 du/acre in the Village of Carlsbad. The chamber feels that allowance for standards modifications and/or residential density increases above the maximums for Silver or higher LEED project certification will encourage smart and efficient design in the Village of Carlsbad. Again, the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce fully supports the proposed changes, and believes these changes will encourage good and innovative design in the redevelopment process of the Carlsbad Village redevelopment area. If you have any questions, comments or concerns please do not hesitate to contact the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce at (760) 931-8400 for any clarification. Thank you for yourjeadership in modifying the design standards for the Village. Sincerely, Ted Owen President/CEO 5934 Priestly Drive • Carlsbad, California 92008 Phone: (760) 931-8400 • Fax: (760) 931-9153 • E-mail: chamber@carlsbad.org • Web: www.carlsbad.org August 28, 2007 City of Carlsbad Redevelopment Department 2965 Roosevelt Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attn: Design Review Board We are writing in support of the Proposed Revisions to the Village Master Plan regarding changes in the design standards for the Village area. As members of the working group for the newly formed Carlsbad Village Improvement^ Partnership (CVIP), we believe the proposed changes in the design standards will encourage redevelopment that will enhance the Village. An increase in density will make it possible for property owners to develop mixed used projects and create a favorable live/work community with varying levels of business and housing. We believe this is a critical time to make these changes as members of the CVIP develop a new mainstreet-type organization for economic development and promotion of the Village. The Carlsbad VIP working group represents over 400 businesses and residents in the Village. We look forward to working with the City to develop a unique and prosperous Village that attracts residents and tourists from all over the world. Sincerely, Carlsbad Village Improvement Partnership, Working Group members: Andrea Korogi y^/^JLLL*— A^Y^^y Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce Robin Young fl-j&t*^ £fo&~^~£!. Carlsbad Village Business Association ^ s City Arts Manager roperty Owner Village Resident Village Resident illage Worker Village Developer ;ender Active in the Village illage Business Owner Peter Gordon Sarah Marquez John Prieto Mario Monroy Robert Richardson f John Simons Don Schempp Richard Zall Jodi-BiKoC Lance Shulte Kurt Burkhart Business Owner 'ransit District Convention and Visitors Bureau AGENDA ITEM # « Mayor City Council City Manager CityAttorney Honorable Mayor Lewis and Council Members, City Clerk As a life long citizen and homeowner in Carlsbad, I ask that you recoi reject other adjustments to the Carlsbad Village planning document. My opinion is derived from 15 years of operating a business hi the Carlsbad Village area, combined with 15 years of experience in the revitalization/restoration field, having assisted over 30 cities nationwide with specific plans and downtown restoration strategies, and, in 2004, being the recipient of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Great American MainStreet Award, The top prize among 1800 cities nationwide. Currently, as the Hwy 101 Coordinator for the city of Encinitas, as one of my responsibilities, I am charged with developing standards for the Cardiff by the Sea Specific Plan area. I am facilitating a 13 member stakeholder group, staff and consultants, through an eight month process developing those standards every Tuesday evening from 6pm-8pm. I am writing you this letter, as I will not be able to attend the Carlsbad City council meeting held on the same night due to this schedule conflict. My professional occupation in Encinitas, and my home and affection for Carlsbad, has created a small dilemma that I have struggled to balance for a decade. Mayor Lewis, to use a baseball phrase, If I were involved in Carlsbad Redevelopment efforts, it would be similar to "Playing for the Padres, and Coaching for the Dodgers" during the same season. Based on my general experience, and speaking as a Carlsbad citizen, I would offer a few basic points for your thoughtful consideration. 1. Height standards should be determined by road widths. There is a natural relationship between the width of a road and the height of building. When this is in scale, it creates an inviting pedestrian atmosphere. When this is out of scale, it is not inviting to pedestrians. Developing for people as opposed to an economic equation leads to great cities. 2. Loosening development standards to encourage economic stimulation (an extra floor with a flat roof) is analogous to putting a city on a 25% off sale. What you end up with is a degradation of community fabric, Less architectural diversity, and a strain on existing infrastructure, all so that it makes "economic sense" for a developer. The real question that needs to be dealt with is; is the village serving the needs of the citizens and visitors to Carlsbad? If not strategies to alter it's desirability in the marketplace need to be developed. I would suggest to you generally that successful strategies are more about people, human relationships and congregation, than about buildings, hi other words, if you think that raising a building height will fix a perceived problem in the village, I would suggest that you would be wrong. You will have taller buildings and the same problems. 3. Relaxing parking standards for both commercial and residential units in a district already suffering from a parking shortage exacerbates the problem and is not sustainable. Requiring a developer to pay an in lieu fee for commercial parking deficiencies, and requiring residential project developers to purchase a commensurate number hi lieu of annual Coaster passes as part of the development agreement and CC&R's for projects near rail stations are sustainable and advisable strategies. 4. To most aggressively promote mixed use in the village, discard the residential density standards (R-25, R-45) altogether. Instead, develop a minimum standard for unit size (as an example 800 sq. ft. for studios, 1000 sq. ft. for 1 bedrooms and 1300 sq. ft. for two bedrooms) if you desire, the ratio of units can also be set, and let the number and size of units be determined by the building envelope. Your setbacks, FAR, lot coverage, and parking requirements. This is an example of form based planning that allows maximum flexibility on the part of the developer and architect and is more responsive to market forces resulting in better projects. These suggestions can be easily dismissed as sentimental or an effort to reduce development in the village. Peder you're a naysayer! My professional experience and intuition differ with the proposed changes for Carlsbad Village. I have witnessed and participated in, what has been accomplished by strengthening community standards, not watering them down, developing community culture, and requiring excellence in architecture and historic preservation, all of which has resulted in vibrant robust local economies. Dozens of extremely high quality development projects supported by the community are now underway along the entire coast of Cardiff, Encinitas and most recently in the past year, Leucadia. All of these areas have 33 ft. or 30 ft height limits. Two story or three stories with mixed use requirements, and rigorous parking and zoning use requirements. These strong community standards have been a key to the healthy restoration, community adoption, and greatly increased property taxes and sales taxes generated by these once consumer neglected areas. The same can be true for Carlsbad. Res Peder Norby __...._ (11/06/2007) Council Internet Mailbox - CITY OF CARLSBAD I CONTACT US AGENDAITEMS I "~f ''~|5igi_J - : - i - : - : - _ - _ - • - < - : - : - 1 - : - .U— - — ! - — - u_ - —^ - f*.\t*M,M*tf*,f-*,*MXM.,W.,. ..... ., ..-..* ..•.•..^-J.»,^.».^.,».i..;i...M.....=.. c: Mayor City Council City Manager From: <vballgee@aol.com> CityAttorney To: <Council@[205.142.109.13]> City Clerk Date: 11/04/2007 9:35 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US ' A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: Mayor and City Council, Residential: You are considering the Village Dev Standards. Have you noticed that you are driving out single family homes (SFHs) from the Village? I think before approving any increased density, you should do a quick study for 2005, 2006, and 2007, reporting on the number of single family homes that have been eliminated from the Village. If this trend continues, you will have a transient Village population which tends to destabilize an area. Once you eliminate the SFHs, there is no going back. I see you following in the downtown Pacific Beach style. I don't think you intend to do that. You need to reverse course now. Otherwise, families won't be able to live in the Village anymore. Parking: One of my main considerations when I shop in the Village is whether I can park close the front of the building and/or even find a parking spot. This is so critical for people with kids. Your new parking changes will decrease ease of parking in the Village. I don't think you will gain customers by reducing parking. Best wishes, Dee Ann Dee Ann Gee Carlsbad, CA vballgee@aol.com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) 75.11.185.215 FROM : ESP/RL SHLEMMER PHD FftX NO. : 760 729 1457 Nov. 06 2007 09:43flM PI c: Mayor City Council Confidential %%£ Richard L. Shlemmer, Ph.D City Clerk Clinical Psychologic 740 Oak Avenue, Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92008 760 - 729 -1457 (Tel/Fax) e-mail (caivcstx%bcglobal.nFT) www.e>pexperts,con< Attention: Mayor Bud Lewis and City Council Members Fax Number: 760 - 720 - 9461 Phone Number: From: Richard L. Shlemmer, Ph.D & Jo Anne T. Shlemmer Fax Number: 760 - 729 - 1457 Phone Number: Number of Pages: 1 Date: 11-6-07 Message: Thanks for delaying the proposal to allow bigger buildings and ease parking restrictions in downtown Village. We are pleading with you and the council members not to change the downtown building and parking restrictions. As I told you before, "everything about our quant village is the result of preserving the original character of our town." Please vote against the developers! Richard & Jo Anne Shlemmer TJiisfax and content thereof are intended solely for the person and confidential utt of the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient and may be legally privileged. Access by any other party is unauthorised without the express prior written permission ofihe sender. Tfyou are not the intended recipient but are able lo forward this fax to the intended recipient t, please do so as soon as possible. If you have received tnisjax in error you may not copy, disclose or disseminate to any third party or use the contents or information in anyway. Please destroy it immediately and notify Richard L Shlemmer. Ph.D at (760) 729-1457. Thankyou. AGENDA ITEM #. c: Mayor CityCouncfl City Manager Carlsbad Councilperson, I am writing to express my opinion regarding the new re and my strong support in general for them. My only objection is to the parking credits for existing parking spaces. According to staff interpretation, the developer gets a credit for existing spaces which are then eliminated from the village parking total. We are already allowing the purchase of spaces for non residential use which is a very good idea. We are already selling spaces for about 50% of what it will cost the City to provide them. Why give away the spaces? The developer should be able to or have to purchase those replacement spaces also. We are not so desperate to develop that we need to be giving cash credits to developers like other cities. This also creates discontinuity of values between existing old buildings with parking ($ credits for preexisting spaces) and empty lots (no credits). The developer with the empty lot, developing the same building, needing 25 spaces for example pays for 25 subsidized spaces. The developer of the existing building (assume 10 existing spaces) also needs 25 spaces but only pays for 15 spaces. This makes the existing building worth $140,000 more than the lot (10 X$ 14,000 per space) The City or taxpayer also eventually makes up the difference by providing the spaces in a parking garage somewhere. AH spaces should be paid for by the developer. Allowing the purchase of all non residential spaces is sufficient to spur development. (in addition to increased density and other relaxed requirements ) A good example of this is the Roosevelt Center AKA "Black Whale Lighting" development on Carlsbad Village Drive and Roosevelt. They have 10 spaces and need 60 and will pay for 60 and provide none on site. Why give them a $140,000 credit and have them pay for only 50 of the 60 they need? Sincerely, ^——-^ C-O<i^(/ ^Jessim November 5, 2007 Dear Carlsbad Councilperson, I wanted to express my concern that no significant progress is being made on a parking garage or significant numbers of spaces for the "in lieu fee" for parking in the village. We do have a parking problem in the village. We don't have enough parking spaces to allow 20 more Roosevelt Center type developments (20 developments times 60 spaces is 1,200 spaces. Delays in providing parking ahead of development will create a de facto moratorium on the desired higher density development. If developers can't wait, they will build a less desirable development such as Carlsbad Animal Hospital with parking on site and less intense use. This makes for fewer employees and residents downtown. This leads to lack of pedestrians and the loss of the places we work hard to bring to the Village. The loss of Sonoma Valley Market and impending loss of The Poached Pear are a direct result of not providing parking ahead of development. Merchants may be able to wait out more pedestrians or more parking if they know when it's coming. It's hard to do if you don't think anyone is working on parking (and I believe no one is working on it seriously) with no goals or potential dates. How will the restaurant, offices, and retail shops function in Roosevelt Center function when most parking within 2 blocks is nearly full? What happens if I propose a similar development on the Bank of America property at CVD and Roosevelt Street. Imagine 2 restaurants, retail, office and Condos with a need for 100 spaces. It would be very beneficial to the Village if parking spaces were available so that the businesses would function. Probably I would get the project approved and find that I could not pull permits as no parking credits are available to be purchased. I suggest more movement on this issue after approval of some updating of redevelopment standards so this defacto moratorium does not occur. s>-et— /1 /3 "v v y in /^^ / /?//, /fe2-<^r^<£O ^e^r^f ^/^-^C<£<_- c^<JcC' ^^#L^^ / /U&tcf-^ G-&t<^~tfjL^$t y —jU / //'^ * / 7^7't^e^O" ^U^C%^ CAa^^L^ I'l-jSt^Lg* «t^^<_-' ^s^ ^*#n_ cs—^f . c^l^c^t^-*^--/ y^> . . . ."^^-/ // ^^-Jfel/) "(^^c^L^i i 1 . .*, ^ j ^ ,7 fsL >-^* /I / t) SI **^ 2, / / » f^-\ <tf / P 2, ^ /%L&LJ>~ £^*4L, />^~ <r / (9 Village Master Plan & Design Manual RevisionsHousing & Redevelopment Commission and City CouncilNovember 3, 2007 BackgroundRedevelopment Plan Adoption – July, 1981Village Master Plan Adoption – November, 1995Master Plan and related policies together with Redevelopment Plan = Local Coastal Program for VillageInconsistent or incorrect policies need revisionCommission Resolution of Intent (ROI) to amend standards – March, 2006 Review Development Standards for VillageCompleted financial scenarios on impact of development standards.Consulted with developers/property owners, architects, business owners, business groups and residents.Reviewed previous and current project applications.Researched standards of other coastal cities in Southern California.Visited other Urban Villageareas and researched their development standards. Proposed ActionsRevisions to Village Master Plan and Design Manual (LCPA 95-10a)Amendments to Chapter 21.35 (ZCA 95-10a) and Chapter 2.24 (MCA 95-01a) of CMCRevisions to City Council Policy No. 65Clarify and/or revise policies for consistency Revise development standards Why make the revisions?Provide more residential opportunities within the Village.Provide more customers for businesses in the Village.Increase opportunities for new businesses or expansion of existing business to serve the entire City.Enhance the attractiveness of the Village.Create fun and interesting people places. What is an Urban Village?People live, work, shop and entertain in it.It is self-sustainable. It is vibrant.It is environmentally friendly.Encourages community development and bonding.Common to see shops on ground floor and a mix of offices and residential on upper floors. Village Redevelopment AreaDistrict 1: Village CenterDistrict 2: Office SupportDistrict 3: Freeway CommercialDistrict 4: Residential SupportDistrict 5: Mixed Use SupportDistrict 6: Service Commercial SupportDistrict 7: Office SupportDistrict 8: Residential SupportDistrict 9: Tourism SupportVillage Master Plan Adopted 1995 –Sets Forth Vision, Land Uses, Development Standards & Design GuidelinesCARLSBAD VILLAGE AREA Development Standard RevisionsExistingProposedInclusionaryRequirement(affordable)15%(all Districts) 15%(all Districts)Planned Development StandardsApply(All Districts)Do not Apply(all Districts)Standards added for parking large recreational vehicles off-site and screening on-site parking for small recreational vehiclesOpen Space20%(private & public – all Districts)20%(private & public – all Districts)Safe Access for Parking –Design Guideline AdditionNot currently addressed inDesign GuidelinesAdd language to encourage shared or joint use driveways; setbacks may be adjusted ifSafe access to parking on adjacent property can’t be addressed with other efforts Staff Recommendation on Additional languageAdd following to design guidelines for parking and access within Village Master Plan: 12Safe Access for ParkingIf necessary to maintain safe vehicular access for parking purposes on adjacent properties, shared or joint use driveways will be encouraged. In the absence of an agreement between adjacent owners for shared or joint use driveways, setbacks may be adjusted only to the extent necessary to provide safe vehicular access to existing developments, upon a finding that the setback reduction is the only feasible alternative for safe access. Development Standard RevisionsExistingProposedFront SetbacksRanges: 0’ to 20’ – all floors –varies according to District 0’ – 1stfloor 10’ avg. front setback for all other floors(Districts 1- 4)Building CoverageCommercial Range: 60 – 100%Residential Range: 60 – 80%All Projects: 100%(Districts 1 – 4)Building Height45’ Maximum (Districts 1- 4 & 9)35’ Maximum (Districts 6, 7 & 8)30’ Maximum (District 5)45’ Maximum (Districts 1 – 4 & 9)35’ Maximum (Districts 6, 7 & 8)30’ Maximum (District 5)Roof PitchRequired for all districtsNot Required – All DistrictsBuilding over parking to obtain max height of 45’Required for Districts 1- 4 & 9Not required for all other DistrictsNot Required – All Districts Development Standard RevisionsExistingProposedParkingVaries by use; grosssquare foot calculationParking requirements setby use (all districts)Varies by use; netsquare foot calculationParking requirements set by use – no change(all districts)Tandem parkingNot permitted(all districts)Permitted for residential(all districts)Parking In-Lieu FeePermitted – 25% to 100%, depending on proximity to public parking lot(all east of railroad tracks)Permitted – 25% to 100%Depending on proximity to public parking lot(all east of railroad tracks)Parking space credit for existing buildingNot permitted(all districts)Permitted for Commercial(all districts)15% reduction for transit-oriented projectsNot permitted(all districts)Permitted for all uses(all districts) Parking ExampleCurrent RulesProposed RulesParking Required: 30 spaces for retail & office33 spaces for restaurant 5 spaces for apartmentsParking Required: 26 spaces for retail & office25 spaces for restaurant5 spaces for apartmentsParking Required: 68 totalParking Required: 56 Total15% transit reduction: 8Parking credit: 8 After Reductions: 40 totalNew Mixed Use Project: 2410gsf retail; 3,332gsf restaurant; 6502gsf office; 2 apts (2 bdr). On-site: 2475sf existing retail building. Public Parking Lots:A = 55B = 55C = 50D = 45E = 39F = 43G = 28H = 30I = 12J = 311Total = 668ABCDEHGFIJOccupancy:80% w/ Coaster Parking64% w/o Coaster Parking Development Standard RevisionsExistingProposedResidential Density15 to 23 du/acre –Current maximum range(all Districts)15 minimum du/acre45 maximum du/acre(Districts 1- 4)15 minimum du/acre 23 maximum du/acre(Districts 5 -9) Development Standard RevisionsExistingProposedStandards Modifications –case-by-case; requires Council/Commission approval.Allowed for affordable housing developments(all Districts)1. Allow for affordable housing developments (all Districts); and2. Allow for Green Buildings at Silver or Higher LEED certification (all Districts); and3. Allow for developments that can’t meet the minimum density due to the standards (all Districts); and4. Allow for other projects that meet the goals of the Master Plan (all Districts). Proposed StandardsApprox. 10,000 sf lot10 townhomes (1568 sf)3700 sf restaurant/retailResidential Parking: 25 on-site Commercial Parking: off-site Proposed StandardsApprox. 30,000 sf lot30 town homes (1530 sf)14,761 sf restaurant/retailResidential Parking: 71 parking spaces on-siteCommercial Parking: off-site Village Master PlanClean-Up Language1. No variance required if exceed standard or range7. Prohibit Use of Temporary structures & storage units2. Administrative variances approved by H & R Director8. Add policy for processing extensions of RPs3. Demolition exempt from Redevelopment Permit9. All adjacent land uses in Transportation Corridor4. Clarify definition of roof sign10. Clarify definitions for restaurants, bars, etc.5. Allow pole signs under certain circumstances6. Add language for consistency determinations Amendments to CMC 21.351. Consistent language for administrative permits2. Exempt demolition of structures from redevelopment permit3. Clarify Design Review Board role & responsibilities4. Set forth the process for appeals of H & R Director decision to DRB5. Establish a process for granting extensions Amendments to CMC 2.24Clarify that DRB shall act as Planning Commission for matters related to processing of permits and maps under Title 20 and Title 21 for projects in Village Redevelopment Area. Additional MCAStaff is recommending a Municipal Code Amendment to Section 2.24.80 to clarify DRB role regarding tentative maps process.Amendment to indicate DRB will be designated as Planning Commission under Title 20 for projects within Village Redevelopment Area. Amendments to CC Policy No. 651. Modify standards within policy to be consistent with A-Frame display standards set forth within the Village Master Plan.2. Add language to guide the display of banners within the public right-of-way within Village Redevelopment Area; no commercial advertisements; for city sponsored or co-sponsored events only. DRB ActionsRecommendation of Approval of the Negative Declaration Recommendation of Approval of amendments to Village Master Plan, Chapter 21.35 and City Council Policy No. 65 LCPA 95-10(a) and ZCA 95-10(a) DRB Additional Recommendations….Development standard modifications may also be permitted by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission if 1) the applicant can provide acceptable evidence that application of the development standards will preclude the construction of a residential development at densities at or above the minimum set forth for the applicable land use district, or 2) for projects that have a significant public benefit as determined by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission or that assist the Commission in meeting the goals and objectives set forth within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. DRB Additional RecommendationsRequest that the City Council instruct staff to study the size (width and length) of parking spaces and develop a standardized size to apply to the Village Area, and preferably city-wide.Request consideration for impact of the proposed setback standards to maintain adequate ingress & egress to existing small lots with adjoining driveways. (Additional language proposed by staff to address this issue) Commission ActionsAdopt Resolution No. 446Approve revisions to Village Master Plan and Design ManualConcur with Council adoption of a Negative Declaration for the project. Council ActionsAdopt Resolution No. 2007-273 approving Zone Code Amendment (95-10a) and introducing Ordinance NS -862 to amend Title 21.35.Adopt Resolution No. 2007-274 Approving LCPA 95-10(a), and approving the Negative Declaration for the project.Adopt Resolution No.2007-277 approving MCA 95-01(a) and introducing Ordinance No. NS-863 to amend Section 2.24.08 of Title 2.Adopt Resolution No. 2007-275 approving amendments to City Council Policy No. 65. Village Redevelopment AreaDistrict 1: Village CenterDistrict 2: Office SupportDistrict 3: Freeway CommercialDistrict 4: Residential SupportDistrict 5: Mixed Use SupportDistrict 6: Service Commercial SupportDistrict 7: Office SupportDistrict 8: Residential SupportDistrict 9: Tourism SupportVillage Master Plan Adopted 1995 –Sets Forth Vision, Land Uses, Development Standards & Design GuidelinesCARLSBAD VILLAGE AREA Development Standard RevisionsExistingProposedInclusionaryRequirement(affordable)15%(all Districts) 15%(all Districts)Planned Development StandardsApply(All Districts)Do not Apply(all Districts)Standards added for parking large recreational vehicles off-site and screening on-site parking for small recreational vehiclesOpen Space20%(private & public – all Districts)20%(private & public – all Districts)Safe Access for Parking –Design Guideline AdditionNot currently addressed inDesign GuidelinesAdd language to encourage shared or joint use driveways; setbacks may be adjusted ifSafe access to parking on adjacent property can’t be addressed with other efforts Development Standard RevisionsExistingProposedFront SetbacksRanges: 0’ to 20’ – all floors –varies according to District 0’ – 1stfloor 10’ avg. front setback for all other floors(Districts 1- 4)Building CoverageCommercial Range: 60 – 100%Residential Range: 60 – 80%All Projects: 100%(Districts 1 – 4)Building Height45’ Maximum (Districts 1- 4 & 9)35’ Maximum (Districts 6, 7 & 8)30’ Maximum (District 5)45’ Maximum (Districts 1 – 4 & 9)35’ Maximum (Districts 6, 7 & 8)30’ Maximum (District 5)Roof PitchRequired for all districtsNot Required – All DistrictsBuilding over parking to obtain max height of 45’Required for Districts 1- 4 & 9Not required for all other DistrictsNot Required – All Districts Development Standard RevisionsProposedOptionFront Setbacks0’ – 1stfloor 10’ avg. front setback for all other floors(Districts 1- 4)0’ front setback– first floor –commercial or mixed use only10’ average front setback – first floor- multi-family only(Districts 1-4)Building CoverageAll Projects: 100%(Districts 1 – 4)Building Height45’ Maximum (Districts 1 – 4 & 9)35’ Maximum (Districts 6, 7 & 8)30’ Maximum (District 5)Roof PitchNot Required – All Districts50% of total roof structure (per property) must have at least a 5:12 roof pitch - all DistrictsBuilding over parking to obtain max height of 45’Not Required – All DistrictsParking must be provided on-site to obtain 45’ height limit Development Standard RevisionsExistingProposedParkingVaries by use; grosssquare foot calculationParking requirements setby use (all districts)Varies by use; netsquare foot calculationParking requirements set by use – no change(all districts)Tandem parkingNot permitted(all districts)Permitted for residential(all districts)Parking In-Lieu FeePermitted – 25% to 100%, depending on proximity to public parking lot(all east of railroad tracks)Permitted – 25% to 100%Depending on proximity to public parking lot(all east of railroad tracks)Parking space credit for existing buildingNot permitted(all districts)Permitted for Commercial(all districts)15% reduction for transit-oriented projectsNot permitted(all districts)Permitted for all uses(all districts) Parking ExampleCurrent RulesProposed RulesParking Required: 30 spaces for retail & office33 spaces for restaurant 5 spaces for apartmentsParking Required: 26 spaces for retail & office25 spaces for restaurant5 spaces for apartmentsParking Required: 68 totalParking Required: 56 Total15% transit reduction: 8Parking credit: 8 After Reductions: 40 totalNew Mixed Use Project: 2410gsf retail; 3,332gsf restaurant; 6502gsf office; 2 apts (2 bdr). On-site: 2475sf existing retail building. Development Standard RevisionsProposedOptionParkingVaries by use; netsquare foot calculationParking requirements set by use – no change(all districts)Tandem parkingPermitted for residential(all districts)Parking In-Lieu FeePermitted – 25% to 100%Depending on proximity to public parking lot(all east of railroad tracks)Parking space credit for existing buildingPermitted for Commercial(all districts)Incorporate into consideration under Standards Modifications15% reduction for transit-oriented projectsPermitted for all uses(all districts)Incorporate into consideration under Standards Modifications Development Standard RevisionsExistingProposedResidential Density15 to 23 du/acre –Current maximum range(all Districts)15 (min); 45 max du/ac(Districts 1- 4)15 (min); 23 max du/ac(Districts 5 -9)Total New UnitsDU/Acre Multi-Family Mixed Use(Permitted & Provisional Uses) 23 - all 1433 64330 – all 2005 99735 – all 2418 124340 – all 2799 146645 – all 3188 1708Districts 1- 4 (30du); Others (23du) 23/30 1886 853Districts 1- 4 (35du); Others (23du) 23/35 2199 988Districts 1- 4 (40du); Others (23du) 23/40 2524 1128Districts 1- 4 (45du); Others (23du) 23/45 2832 1273 Development Standard RevisionsProposedOptionResidential Density15 minimum du/acre45 maximum du/acre(Districts 1- 4)15 minimum du/acre 23 maximum du/acre(Districts 5 -9)15 minimum du/acre35maximum du/acre(Districts 1-4)15 minimum du/acre23 maximum du/acre(Districts 5-9) Development Standard RevisionsExistingProposedStandards ModificationsAllowed for affordable housing developments(all Districts)1. Allow for affordable housing developments (all Districts); and2. Allow for Green Buildings at Silver or Higher LEED certification (all Districts); and3. Allow for developments that can’t meet the minimum density due to the standards (all Districts); and4. Allow for other projects that meet the goals of the Master Plan (all Districts). Village Master PlanClean-Up Language1. No variance required if exceed standard or range7. Prohibit Use of Temporary structures & storage units2. Administrative variances approved by H & R Director8. Add policy for processing extensions of RPs3. Demolition exempt from Redevelopment Permit9. All adjacent land uses in Transportation Corridor4. Clarify definition of roof sign10. Clarify definitions for restaurants, bars, etc.5. Allow pole signs under certain circumstances6. Add language for consistency determinations Amendments to CMC 21.351. Consistent language for administrative permits2. Exempt demolition of structures from redevelopment permit3. Clarify Design Review Board role & responsibilities4. Set forth the process for appeals of H & R Director decision to DRB5. Establish a process for granting extensions Amendments to CMC 2.24Clarify that DRB shall act as Planning Commission for matters related to processing of permits and maps under Title 20 and Title 21 for projects in Village Redevelopment Area. Amendments to CC Policy No. 651. Modify standards within policy to be consistent with A-Frame display standards set forth within the Village Master Plan.2. Add language to guide the display of banners within the public right-of-way within Village Redevelopment Area; no commercial advertisements; for city sponsored or co-sponsored events only.