The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-04-22; City Council; 19412; Roosevelt Street ResidencesCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL AB# MTG. DEPT. 19,412 4/22/08 PLN ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES SDP 06-10 DEPT. HEAD \M Tfi CITY ATTY. tfgs CITY MGR. U RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2008-119 APPROVING Site Development Plan SDP 06-10 for the Roosevelt Street Residences as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. ITEM EXPLANATION: Project Applications Ocean Street Residences: CT 05-12 CP 05-11 CDP 05-28 Roosevelt St. Residences: SDP 06-10 Administrative Approvals Reviewed and Final at Planning Commission X X X To be reviewed - Final at City Council X On March 5, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted 5-1-1 (Dominguez: No; Douglas: Absent) to recommend to the City Council approval of a Site Development Plan (SDP 06- 10) to convert seven (7) market-rate units to income and rent-restricted affordable units within an existing 10-unit apartment building located at 3366 Roosevelt Street in the northwest quadrant of the City in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The project would serve as an alternative to the construction of new Inclusionary Housing units and would satisfy the Inclusionary Housing requirements for the Ocean Street Residences project (CT05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28). The Ocean Street project, which consists of the demolition of an existing 50-unit apartment complex built in 1965 and construction of a new 35-unit condominium project located at 2303 Ocean Street, was approved by the Planning Commission on March 5, 2008 and is considered to be a separate, but related project. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance states that whenever reasonably feasible, new inclusionary units should be built on the residential development site. However, the Ordinance allows the City Council to approve an alternative to construction of new units when it can be demonstrated by the developer that the alternative supports specific housing policies and goals, and that these goals would be better served by allowing some or all of the inclusionary units associated with one project to be produced and operated at an alternative site(s). As stated in the developer's letter (Attachment 16 of the March 5, 2008 Report to the Planning Commission), there are circumstances that warrant the developer's proposal for approval of an off-site alternative to the construction of new affordable units. These circumstances include economic infeasibility, small project size, price and product type disparity, and lack of funding sources to subsidize on-site inclusionary units. The Roosevelt Street project is located about one mile south of the Ocean Street project in the northwest quadrant of the City. The developer, Planning Commission, and staff concur that the site has locational advantages which include close proximity to public transportation, jobs, schools, libraries, DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Barbara Kennedy 760-602-4626 bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY. COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED CONTINUED WITHDRAWN AMENDED *: Dnn D CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN RETURNED TO STAFF OTHER - SEE MINUTES D Dnn Page 2 - Roosevelt Street Residences - SDP 06-10 shopping, and parks. The off-site proposal advances the City's General Plan Housing Element goal to preserve and rehabilitate the City's existing housing stock for the purpose of providing units affordable to low-income households, and to contribute seven rehabilitated units toward the City's quantified objective to provide 25 rehabilitated units for occupancy by low-income households. The developer is proposing a number of interior and exterior renovations to the Roosevelt Street property which will improve the appearance and condition of the property. The existing building was constructed in 1964 and consists of ten, 460 square foot (1-bedroom/1-bath) units. The interior improvements for all of the units include new carpets, ceramic tiles in the kitchen and bathroom, bedroom ceiling fan, new mirror and toilet, new window coverings, and new paint throughout the interior. The exterior appearance of the property is outdated and the building has been poorly maintained over the years. The proposed exterior improvements include rehabilitating the facades to incorporate a Spanish-themed architectural style. Site improvements will include new wood perimeter fencing and landscaping. The building and site improvements will significantly enhance the aesthetic quality of the property and will result in an overall improvement to the visual character of the neighborhood. The Affordable Housing Policy Staff Team supports the proposal submitted by the developer. Conditions for the Ocean Street Residences include the requirement that, prior to approval of a Final Map, the developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to deed-restrict seven dwelling units in the ten unit Roosevelt Street Residences project as affordable to lower-income households at 70% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for a period of 55 years. In the event that the Roosevelt Street project is not approved, the conditions of approval allow the developer to participate in another off-site alternative subject to the discretion of the City Council. Three members of the public spoke at the March 5th Planning Commission hearing, but their comments were related to the Ocean Street Residences project. The Planning Commission supported the two projects and was pleased that the development would result in a substantial upgrade to both neighborhoods. A full disclosure of the Planning Commission's actions and a complete description and staff analysis of the proposed projects are included in the attached minutes and Planning Commission staff report. The Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval of the proposed discretionary action. FISCAL IMPACT: All public and private infrastructure required for this project will be funded and/or constructed by the developer. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The Planning Director has determined that the Roosevelt Street Residences project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15301 - Existing Facilities of the State CEQA Guidelines. In making this determination, the Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution No. 2008-119 2. Location Map 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6397 4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated March 5, 2008 5. Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated March 5, 2008. EXHIBIT 1 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2008-119 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SITE 3 DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP 06-10) TO CONVERT SEVEN 4 (7) MARKET-RATE UNITS TO AFFORDABLE UNITS WITHIN AN EXISTING 10-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING 5 AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW INCLUSIONARY UNITS IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE 6 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT FOR THE OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES PROJECT (CT 05-127 7 CP05-11/CDP 05-28). THE ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3366 8 ROOSEVELT STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES 10 CASE NO.: SDP 06-10 11 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the 12 Planning Commission did, on March 5, 2008, hold a duly noticed public hearing as 13 prescribed by law to consider a Site Development Plan (SDP 06-10); and 14 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 22nd day of April 2008, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Site 16 Development Plan and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests, 17 and comments of all persons interested in or opposed to SDP 06-10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of 20 the City of Carlsbad as follows: 21 1. That all recitations are true and correct. 22 2. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the Site Development Plan (SDP 06-10) is approved by the City Council and 23 that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6397, on file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 25 3. The action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City 26 Council. The Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply: 27 28 1 "NOTICE TO APPLICANT" 2 The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, 3 which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by 4 Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than 5 the nineteenth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision 6 becomes final a request for the record of the deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such record, 7 the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the 8 record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his 9 attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the 10 City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA. 92008." 11 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the 12 City of Carlsbad on the 22nd day of April , 2008, by the . following vote, to wit: ,<- AYES;Council Members Lewis, Kulcbin, Hall, Packard and Nygaard. 16 NOES: None. 17 ABSENT: None. 18 19 20 21 22 ATTEST: 23 " 24 -<- LQRRA/t^E M. W(DO(p, City C'lerk25 / T r ^ ~' ' 26 (SEAL) 27 28 -2- EXHIBIT 2 SITEMAP NOT TO SCALE Roosevelt Street Residences SDP 06-10 EXHIBIT 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6397 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 06-10 TO CONVERT SEVEN (7) MARKET-RATE UNITS TO AFFORDABLE UNITS WITHIN AN EXISTING 10-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3366 ROOSEVELT STREET ON THE EAST SIDE OF ROOSEVELT STREET BETWEEN WALNUT AVENUE AND CHESTNUT AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES CASE NO.: SDP 06-10 WHEREAS, Roosevelt Group, LP, "Owner/Developer," has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as The northerly one-half of Lot 5 and all of Lots 6 and 7, Block 42 of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2,1888 ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development Plan as shown on Exhibits "A" - "K" dated March 5,2008, on file in the Planning Department, ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES - SDP 06-10 as provided by Chapter 21.06/Section 21.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on March 5, 2008, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Site Development Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 2 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning 3 Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES - SDP 06-10 based on the following findings and subject to the ^ following conditions: Findings; 6 1. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental 7 settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which ° the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or 9 traffic circulation, based on facts set forth in the staff report dated March 5, 2008 including, but not limited to the following: 10 a. The Roosevelt Street Residences project is proposed as an alternative to on- 11 site construction of new inclusionary units for the Ocean Street Residences project and will be used to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements for said project pursuant to Section 21.85.030 of the Carlsbad municipal Code. b. The Roosevelt Street Residences project supports specific Housing Element 14 policies and goals, and assists the City in meeting its state housing requirements in that the proposal would preserve and rehabilitate the City's 15 existing housing stock for the purpose of providing units affordable to low- income households, and would contribute seven (7) rehabilitated units toward the City's quantified objective to provide 25 rehabilitated units for 17 occupancy by low-income households. ] 3 c. New construction of affordable units within the Ocean Street Residences (CT 05-12) project would be infeasible or present unreasonable hardship in light 19 of such factors as project size, site constraints, market competition, price and product type disparity, developer capability, and financial subsidies available. d. The Roosevelt Street Residences project is located within the same quadrant 22 (northwest) as the Ocean Street Residences project as required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. 23 e. The Roosevelt Street Residences project has locational advantages as an 24 affordable housing project including a close proximity to public transportation, jobs, schools, libraries, shopping, schools, and parks. 26 f. The Roosevelt Street Residences project has a "useful" or "economic life" of a minimum of 55 years. 27 2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in 28 that the project is an existing 10-unit apartment building. PC RESO NO. 6397 -2- 3. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust 2 the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained, in that the 10-unit apartment building is an existing 3 structure that was constructed in 1964. Interior and exterior improvements, including fencing and landscaping, will be provided to enhance the property's 4 aesthetic quality and to improve the overall character of the neighborhood. 4. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic 5 generated by the proposed use, in that the existing street system adequately serves the existing development. 7 5. That the project is consistent with the City's Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal " Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B). 6. That the Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the 1 1 preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15301 - Existing Facilities of the state CEQA Guidelines. In making this determination, the Planning Director has 12 found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines do not . „ apply to this project. 14 7. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in'this resolution and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed 15 to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. 16 Conditions:17 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. 19 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be 20 implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all 22 future building permits; deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the 23 property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Site Development Plan. 25 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections 26 and modifications to the Site Development Plan documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development, different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. PCRESONO. 6397 -3- 3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and 2 regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 3 4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are * challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with 6 all requirements of law. 7 5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims 9 and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Site Development Plan, 10 (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation 13 survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's approval is not validated. 14 6. Developer shall submit to the Planning Director a reproducible 24" x 36" mylar copy of the Site Development Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision- 16 making body. 17 7. Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plancheck, a reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24" x 36" blueline drawing 8 format (including any applicable Coastal Commission approvals). 19 8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required 20 as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. 21 9. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within two (2) years from the date of project approval. 23 10. Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape and 24 Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City's Landscape Manual. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans', and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving 26 condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. 27 11. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project's building, improvement, and grading plans. PC RESO NO/6397 -4- °\ 12. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy 2 #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by 3 Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void. 13. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction executed by the owner of the real property to be developed. Said notice is to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Site Development Plan by Resolution No. 6397 on the property. 9 Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any 10 conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer 12 or successor in interest. 13 14. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department). 15. Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all rental offices associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be approved by the 17 Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the Planning Department). 1 8 16. Prior to the approval of the final map for the Ocean Street Residences - CT 05-12 or any phase of this project, or where a map is not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the Developer shall enter into an Affordable 20 Housing Agreement with the City to provide and deed restrict seven (7) dwelling units within the Roosevelt Street Residences - SDP 06-10 as affordable to lower-income households for 55 years, in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in 22 Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than 60 days prior to the 23 request to final the map. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest. 24 17. Developer shall construct all required interior and exterior improvements for the required inclusionary and market-rate units located within the Roosevelt Street 26 Residences project concurrent with the Ocean Street Residences project's market rate units, unless both the final decision-making authority of the City and the Developer agree 27 within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule for development. 18. The three (3) market- rate units within the Roosevelt Street Residences project may be designated as affordable units at a later date in the event that future development PCRESON0.6397 -5- ID projects could utilize them to meet their Inclusionary Housing requirement in the 2 Northwest Quadrant, subject to City Council approval of an amended Affordable Housing Agreement. 3 19. The exterior renovations shall include provisions to ensure that individual 4 residential satellite dish antenna can be located behind the roof parapet to ensure r that any future installations of satellite dish antenna are adequately screened from view and do not detract from the overall appearance of the building. 6 20. Prior to renovation or demolition activities, a comprehensive asbestos survey shall 7 be conducted as recommended in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 3366 Roosevelt Street, SES Environmental, Inc, dated May 4,2006.o 9 21. All water leaks, water damage, and areas affected by mold shall be repaired as recommended in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 3366 Roosevelt 10 Street, SES Environmental, Inc, dated May 4, 2006. Engineering; General: 13 22. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site 14 within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. Fees/Agreements 23. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required. 17 24. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall 18 cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer for the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the site plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 and/or to the formation or annexation into an 20 additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be on a form provided by the City Engineer. 21 Grading22 23 25. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a 24 grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 25 26. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the City's Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). Developer shall provide improvements constructed pursuant to 27 best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level 28 prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to PCRESON0.6397 -6- 11 1 and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be 2 limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following: a. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with 4 established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste products. 5 b. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, " antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such - fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, 8 herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective 9 containers. c. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. 12 27. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP)." The SWMP shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban 14 Storm water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order R9-2007-0001 issued by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad 15 Municipal Code. The SWMP shall address measures to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water, to the maximum extent practicable, for the post-construction 16 stage of the project. At a minimum, the SWMP shall: 17 a. Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concern. 18 b. Identify the hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies that could be impacted by this project. 20 c. Recommend source controls and treatment controls that will be implemented with 21 this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging offsite. d. Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine cleanup. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee education on the proper 24 procedures for handling cleanup and disposal of pollutants. 25 e. Ensure long-term maintenance of all post-construction BMPs in perpetuity. f. Identify how post-construction runoff rates and velocities from the site will not 27 exceed the pre-construction runoff rates and velocities to the maximum extent practicable. 28 PC RESO NO. 6397 -7- 28. Developer shall cause property owner to process, execute and submit an executed copy to 2 the City Engineer for recordation a City standard Permanent Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Maintenance Agreement for the perpetual maintenance of all 3 treatment control, applicable site design and source control, post-construction permanent Best Management Practices prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first for this Project. Dedications/Improvements 6 29. Developer shall provide the design of all private streets and drainage systems to the 7 satisfaction of the City Engineer. The structural section of all private streets shall conform to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. Developer shall pay the standard improvement 9 plan check and inspection fees. 10 Utilities 11 30. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map, Developer shall meet with the Fire 12 Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the j 4 satisfaction of the District Engineer. 31. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges for connection to public facilities. Special Conditions 17 32. The Developer shall install (potable water and/or recycled water services) and meters at a location approved by the City Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected 19 on either new public improvement plans or via a revision to an existing improvement plan subject to City processes and fees. 21 33. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the City Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on either new public improvement plans or via a revision to an existing improvement plan subject to City ~T processes and fees. Fire 24 25 34. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be provided. 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6397 -8- Code Reminders 2 The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to 3 the following: 35. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on the site plan are for planning purposes only. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal 6 Code, respectively. 7 36. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. o 37. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building 10 permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. 11 38. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal 12 Code Section 18.04.320. 13 39. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning 14 Director prior to installation of such signs. 15 NOTICE 16 Please take NOTICE that approval of your-project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, 17 reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." 18 j Q You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 20 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely 21 follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. 23 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, 24 zoning, grading, or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6397 -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on March 5, 2008, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Baker, Boddy, Cardosa, Montgomery, and Chairperson Whitton Commissioner Dominguez Commissioner Douglas 'FRANK WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6397 -10- Hem* 3 Mr. Clyde Wickham, P.L.S Associate Engineer City of Carlsbad Subject: Public Hearing - Planning Commission - March 5, 2008 CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 Ocean Street Residences Dear Mr. Wickham: Mr. Austin Gavin and I, enjoyed our discussion with you and Mr. Steve Jantz this afternoon on the proposed development of 35 residential air-space condominium units on a lot immediately east of our property on Ocean Street. (Our property is the Beach, Rue des Chateaux, Carlsbad, 92008) Our understanding is that the Planning Commission is considering the approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit and Coastal Development Permit on Wednesday, March 5, 2008; for the above' described property. Mr Gavin, who is the President of our Beach Home Owners Association, and I, as Treasurer, wish to express our belief that this development, based on our brief and preliminary examination of some of the development drawings, believe that this development is a very positive and attractive one, that will enhance the immediate neighborhood. As usual, however, without full details as to some aspects of the development, we wish to reserve our right to raise certain issues of concern to us. One issue deals with the request for an easement over our property on the east of the Development for the replacement and extension of an existing City-owmed storm drain. We don't fully understand the request by the City that the Developer secure from our Association such an easement and we request that this issue be further considered in the final design and approval of the project. We, of course would like to make input on this issue. A second issue is that we request the right to have input in the final design and approval of the project relative to the treatment and disposal of the storm water runoff generated by the Project. Present plans seem to indicate that this storm water, generated by the Development will be discharged across our property. There are several ways this can be accomplished, and in the final design we want the City and the Developer to allow us to make input, and the right to comment as to whether or not the final design conforms to the California Storm Water Best Management Practices, and will prevent undue erosion contamination and other problems to our property. A cursory review of the Staff Report on the Project shows a storm flow of 127 cubic feet per second. We would like to review the hydrology study that came up with this value, as it appears excessive. This amount of flow, if discharged on our property in the location shown on the plans, would create excessive erosion. The part of our property which this flow may be conveyed thru, is immediately adjacent to the Buena Vista Lagoon and is a very sensitive environmental habitat.. Possibly a concrete pipe storm drain that flows directly to the lagoon would be a better solution. Again, the two of us, while at this time do not speak for our entire Home Owners Association, wish to state our belief that the proposed development appears to be an important upgrading of our Ocean Street area. We ask that the City and its Planning Commission grant us the right to participate in further deliberations and considerations in the final design and approval of this development, relative to our above expressed concerns. Regards: William J. Carroll 2315 Rue des Chateaux, Carlsbad, CA. 92008 Austin Gavin 2325 Rue des Chateaux, Carlsbad, CA. 92008 The City of CARLSBAD Planning Department EXHIBIT 4 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: March 5,2008 Application complete date: Project Planner: Project Engineer: October 3, 2007 Barbara Kennedy Clyde Wickham SUBJECT: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 - OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES AND SDP 06-10 - ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES - Request for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to demolish an existing 50-unit apartment complex and to subdivide the 3.05 acre site and construct 35 residential air-space condominium units on one HOA lot; and a request for a recommendation of approval for a Site Development Plan to convert seven (7) market-rate units to affordable units within an existing 10-unit apartment building as an alternative to the construction of new Inclusionary Housing units. The Ocean Street Residences project is located at 2303 Ocean Street on the north side of Ocean Street and west of Mountain View Drive within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and the Roosevelt Street Residences project is located at 3366 Roosevelt Street on the east side of Roosevelt Street between Walnut Avenue and Chestnut Avenue, within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6393 ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6394, 6395, and 6396 APPROVING a Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-12), Residential air-space Condominium Permit (CP 05-11), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 05-28), and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6397 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Site Development Plan (SDP 06-10), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II.INTRODUCTION The developer is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to demolish an existing 50-unit apartment complex located at 2303 Ocean Street and redevelop the 3.05 acre site with a 35-unit residential airspace condominium project. The Ocean Street Residences project meets the City's standards for planned developments and subdivisions, and as designed and conditioned, the project is in compliance with the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, and relevant zoning regulations of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project would not have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been issued for the project. The Planning Commission has authority to approve projects with less than 50 units and the Commission's action on the Ocean Street Residences project will be final, unless appealed. n CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 - OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES AND SDP 06-10 - ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES March 5,2008 Page 2 In order to meet the City's 15% Inclusionary Housing requirement, the developer is also requesting approval of a Site Development Plan to allow the conversion of seven market-rate units to affordable units within an existing 10-unit apartment building located at 3366 Roosevelt Street. The Roosevelt Street Residences project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA, Class 1, Section 15301-Existing Facilities and all necessary findings can be made for the approval being requested. The City Council has the final authority to approve alternatives to the construction of new Inclusionary Housing units. Therefore, the Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation of approval for the Site Development Plan. HI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND t The development proposal consists of two separate, but related projects. The Ocean Street Residences project consists of the demolition of an existing 50-unit apartment complex and redevelopment of the site with 35 market-rate condominium units. The project requires Planning Commission approval of a Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-12), Condominium Permit, (CP 05-11) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 05-28). In order to meet the City's 15% Inclusionary Housing Requirement, the developer is requesting City Council approval of a Site Development Plan (SDP 06-10) for the Roosevelt Street Residences project to allow the conversion of seven market-rate units to affordable units within an existing 10-unit apartment building. In the event that the SDP is not approved, the developer of the Ocean Street Residences project CQuld request City Council approval for the purchase of seven affordable housing credits within a combined Inclusionary Housing project located within the Northwest Quadrant. The two projects are described and analyzed separately in the following sections. Ocean Street Residences The 3.05 acre project site is located on the north side of Ocean Street and west of Mountain View Drive. The site is currently developed with 50 apartment units within five two-story buildings with tuck-under carports. Several one-story carport structures are located throughout the site as well. A single-family residence, an open space lot and the Buena Vista Lagoon are located north of the site; existing detached single-family and multi-family developments are located to the south; a condominium development is located west of the site; and a tennis court is located east of the site. The development proposal includes demolition of the existing apartments and re-grading the site for the development of a 35-unit residential airspace condominium project with a subterranean parking garage. The site is currently split into two pads which are separated by about a 20 foot high graded slope. Redevelopment of the site would utilize a similar split pad design with units on the upper and lower portions of the site. The finish floor elevation of the units facing Ocean Street (Ocean Street flats) would be about three feet above the existing grade of the sidewalk. Raising the pad elevations enables the Ocean Street flats to sewer towards the street whereas the Lagoon flats on the lower level sewer to a private sewer pump station. The grading design also allows for the subterranean parking garage to be placed entirely below grade. Due to the topography of the site, the project is designed with a series of terraced walkways between the buildings. Retaining walls are also necessary along the east and west sides of the project. The retaining walls vary in height with a maximum height of 6-feet high, except for a segment of 18 CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 - OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES AND SDP 06-10 - ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES March 5,2008 Page 3 wall along the driveway that faces into the project and has a height of about 10 feet. Landscaped terraces are used between the retaining walls to minimize and soften the appearance of the vertical mass through the use of vines and cascading shrubs. Grading for the project is within the acceptable range of 4,328 cubic yards per acre and includes 13,200 cy of cut, 5,800 cy of fill, and 7,400 cy of export. The entrance to the project is located on the west end of the site via Ocean Street. The gated vehicular access to the parking garage and visitor spaces is controlled through an intercom kiosk at the circular driveway. Pedestrian access is provided along a sidewalk located on the right side of the driveway. All of the resident parking (2 spaces per unit) is provided in the underground parking garage. The parking garage also contains the required RV storage area and 5 of the 12 required visitor parking spaces. The remaining 7 visitor spaces are located along the north end of the site to provide more convenient access to the Lagoon flats. Public parking is permitted on Ocean Street, but is not counted towards the required visitor parking spaces. The stacked flat condominium units are located within 18 two-story buildings. The 14 Ocean Street flats are designed within 7 buildings over the subterranean parking garage. The 21 Lagoon flats and the fitness building are located within 11 buildings which are generally configured as two attached units. The Ocean Street flats range in size from about 2,600 to 3,000 square feet (sf) and contain 3 bedrooms and 3 % baths. The Lagoon flats range in size from about 1,600 to 2,100 sf and contain 2 bedrooms and 2 Vz baths. Each unit has a private storage area with at least 400 cubic feet of space. The Craftsman style buildings all have a height of 30 feet (ft) or less. The buildings feature abundant detailing including building walls with Hardie shake, board/batten, or stone veneer; gable roofs with composite shake, exposed rafter tails, and knee braces; Craftsman style window details and unique window shapes; and heavy wood support piers, trellis elements, and deck railings. The Ocean Street flats are designed with front porches to encourage social interaction. Private recreation space is provided for each unit in the form of either a patio or balcony with a minimum dimension oflOftx 10ftor6ftx 10 ft, respectively. A minimum of 200 sf/unit (7,000 sf) of community recreation area is required for the project. This requirement is met through the provision of both active recreation areas (1,700 sf indoor fitness area and spa/pool area) and passive recreation areas (fire-pit, bbq, and overlook seating areas). The site is richly landscaped and includes new street trees along Ocean Street. Trees and shrubs are used between the site and the existing condominiums on the west side as a method of screening and to ensure privacy of the existing and new residents. The site is richly detailed and includes enhanced paving within the driveway and common areas, and the use of stone veneer accents on the garage entry wall and the retaining walls on Ocean Street. Roosevelt Street Residences A separate, but related project includes interior and exterior upgrades to an existing 10-unit apartment building located at 3366 Roosevelt Street. The Roosevelt Street Residences project (SDP 06-10) is proposed as an alternative to the construction of new inclusionary housing units. In order to satisfy the City's 15% Inclusionary Housing requirement for the Ocean Street condominiums, seven of the existing market-rate units are proposed to be rent-restricted as CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 - OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES AND SDP 06-10 - ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES March 5,2008 Page 4 affordable to lower-income households. The remaining three units are proposed as market-rate units. The project includes a complete upgrade to the building including interior upgrades, exterior facade improvements and new landscaping, fencing and paving improvements. These features are described in more detail in Section G of the staff report. IV. ANALYSIS The Ocean Street Residences project is subject to the following regulations and requirements: A. General Plan RMH (Residential Medium-High Density) Land Use Designation; B. Beach Area Overlay Zone (Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 21.82), R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zone (CMC Chapter 21.16), Planned Development (Condominium Permit) Regulations (CMC Chapter 21.45), and City Council Policy 66; C. Local Coastal Program (Mello II Segment), Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203), and California Government Code Section 65590; D. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); E. Inclusionary Housing (CMC Chapter 21.85); and F. Growth Management (CMC Chapter 21.90). The Roosevelt Street Residences project is subject to the following regulations and requirements: G. Inclusionary Housing (CMC Chapter 21.85). The recommendations of approval for these projects were developed by analyzing the respective project's consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables. A. General Plan The General Plan Land Use designation for the Ocean Street Residences is Residential Medium-High Density (RMH). The RMH designation allows for the development of multiple-family residential units at a density range of 8 - 15 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 11.5 du/ac. The site has a net developable acreage of 2.98 acres and the existing 50- unit apartment complex has a density of 16.78 du/ac. The new 35-unit project would have a density of 11.74 du/ac which is within the RMH density range of 8 - 15 du/ac, but is slightly above the RMH GMCP of 11.5 du/ac used for the purpose of calculating the City's compliance with Government Code Section 65863. At the GMCP, 34.27 dwelling units would be permitted on this property. Although the project exceeds the GMCP for the RMH General Plan Land Use designation by a fractional unit allocation of 0.73 dwelling units, the General Plan Land Use Element allows the City to CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 - OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES AND SDP 06-10 - ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES March 5,2008 Page 5 approve residential development at a density that exceeds the GMCP provided the proposed residential development complies with certain findings as discussed below. To exceed the GMCP, the project must be consistent with the following required General Plan findings: 1) that the project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for the density in excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City's public facilities plans will not be adversely impacted; 2) that there have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities below the control point so that the approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit; and, 3) all necessary public facilities required by the City's Growth Management Program will be constructed, or are guaranteed to be constructed, concurrently with the need for them created by this development and in compliance with the adopted City standards. The proposed project is consistent with the above required findings in that the existing development on the site consists of a 50-unit apartment complex. The proposed 35-unit condominium project will reduce the current need for public facilities. The project does not exceed the quadrant limit and results in the transfer of 15 dwelling units back into the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (50 units - 34.27 units - 0.73 units =15 units). All necessary public facilities have been constructed, or are conditioned to be constructed,, repaired, or replaced. The project is conditioned to pay the appropriate fees to comply with City's Growth Management Program, and the City's public facilities plans will not be adversely impacted since the site contained 50 dwelling units at the time the facilities plans were prepared. The project complies with all the Elements of the General Plan as outlined in Table 1 below: TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT Land Use Housing USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM Site is designated for Residential Medium-High Density (RMH) development at 8-15 du/ac. with a GMCPofll.5du/ac. 15% Inclusionary housing requirement = 7 units. PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS 35 residential air-space condominium units at a density of 1 1.74 du/ac. is within the RMH density range of 8 - 15 du/ac but is slightly above the GMCP of 11. 5 du/ac (34.27 DUs). The project includes the conversion of 7 existing market-rate units to affordable units within the Roosevelt Street Residences project. COMPLY Yes Yes 21 CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 - OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES AND SDP 06-10 - ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES March 5,2008 Page 6 TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE CONTINUED Review new development proposals to consider emergency access, fire hydrant locations and fire flow requirements. Public Safety Expand the use of automatic fire sprinkler systems. The project includes or has been conditioned to provide facilities to ensure that the development proposal complies with Public Safety Requirements. The project is conditioned to sprinkler the building. Yes Open Space & Conservation Minimize environmental impacts to sensitive resources within the City. Utilize Best Management Practices for control of storm water and to protect water quality. Project will not have any environmental impacts to the previously developed site or on the adjacent Buena Vista Lagoon. The project will conform to all NPDES requirements. Yes Noise Residential exterior noise standard of 60 CNEL and interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. Project is not impacted by potential noise generating sources such as Interstate 5 or the railroad. Yes Circulation Requires new development to construct improvements needed to serve proposed development. All public facilities including curb, gutter and sidewalk exist along the property frontage and the project is conditioned to repair or replace these facilities as necessary. Yes B. Beach Area Overlay Zone/R-3 Zone/Planned Development Permit/City Council Policy 66 Projects of 5 or more dwelling units located within the Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ) require the processing of a Planned Development Permit (Condominium Permit) to ensure consistency with the BAOZ standards per Section 21.82.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The BAOZ is intended to supplement the underlying zoning by providing additional development regulations to: 1) ensure that proposed development is compatible with existing surrounding uses; 2) provide adequate parking for residential developments; 3) ensure that public CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 - OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES AND SDP 06-10 - ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES March 5,2008 Page? facilities exist to serve the beach area; and, 4) protect the unique mix of residential development and aesthetic quality of the area. The project is designed on a split-level pad that steps down from Ocean Street towards the north. The units closest to Ocean Street (Ocean Street flats) are designed with two stacked-flat units per building which would be constructed over a subterranean parking garage. The lower level of stacked flats (Lagoon flats) are also two-story structures. All of the buildings have a height of 30 feet or less as required by the BAOZ for buildings with a minimum roof pitch of 3:12. The project is compatible with both the multi-family condominium development located to the west of the site and the mix of single-family residential and multi-family development located south of the site. The Ocean Street flats have the overall appearance of seven individual two-story single-family residences with separations between the buildings. The separation between structures allows for public views of the lagoon from Ocean Street whereas currently views are obstructed by the existing apartments. The Lagoon flats are located within eleven buildings which are generally configured as two attached units. The project is designed in a richly-detailed craftsman architectural style. The overall project is compatible in scale, mass, and form with the surrounding neighborhood and the development proposal will result in a substantial visual improvement over the existing 50-unit apartment complex. The project is designed with a subterranean parking garage that provides 70 resident parking spaces (2 per unit) and five visitor parking spaces. Four tandem spaces are also provided, but are not counted towards meeting the parking requirements. The project has a requirement for twelve visitor parking spaces and the remaining seven surface-level visitor parking spaces are provided along the north end of the project. All public facilities including curb, gutter and sidewalk exist along the property frontage. However, the developer is conditioned to reconstruct, replace and/or repair the frontage improvements on the Ocean Street frontage as required. The project is required to comply with all applicable regulations and development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) including the BAOZ (CMC Chapter 21.82), R-3 zone (CMC Chapter 21.16), Planned Development Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.45), and City Council Policy 66. The project complies with all of the applicable requirements of Table C and E of the Planned Development Ordinance and City Council Policy 66 as shown on Attachments 13 through 15 of the staff report. The tables have been modified to include the development standards of the BAOZ and R-3 zone in instances where these standards are more restrictive. C. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone, and California Government Code section 65590 The Ocean Street Residences project is consistent with the Mello II Segment of the LCP which contains land use policies for development and conservation of coastal land and water areas within its boundaries. The policies of the Mello II Segment emphasize topics such as preservation of agriculture and scenic resources, protection of environmentally sensitive CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 - OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES AND SDP 06-10 - ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES March 5,2008 PageS resources, provision of shoreline access, and prevention of geologic instability and erosion. The site is located approximately 120 feet from the Buena Vista Lagoon and is not within the Coastal Commission jurisdictional appeal area since it is located over 100 feet from any wetland, stream or estuary area. The site is an existing, developed site and does not contain any sensitive plant or animal species. The project includes demolition of the existing 50-unit apartment complex and construction of a new 35-unit residential air-space condominium project. The net density of 11.74 du/ac is consistent with the property's LCP Land Use designation of RMH (Medium-High Density Residential, 8-15 du/ac) and Zoning of R-3 (Multiple-family Residential). The site is located adjacent to an open space lot which is located between the site and the lagoon near the northwest corner, and an open space lot and residential lot are located between the site and the lagoon on the northeast corner. Because the site does not border the lagoon, the project is not subject to LCP Policy 3-2 Buena Vista Lagoon. The site also does not front on the Pacific Ocean and therefore is not subject to the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.204). The project is consistent with the following Coastal Act policies: A) there are no agricultural uses on the site; B) the property will be re-developed so that views of the Buena Vista Lagoon are visible between the buildings; C) there are no environmentally sensitive resources.on site and the project site is located over 100 feet from the Buena Vista Lagoon; D) the project will not interfere with the public's right to physical access to the sea in that the property is not located adjacent to the shore and an existing public access point to the beach is located approximately 150 feet west of the site; E) the site is geologically stable for the proposed development; and F) the project has been designed to reduce the amount of off-site runoff and has been conditioned to comply with erosion and storm water control measures. The development is subject to the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203). The Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone identifies five areas of protection: 1) steep slopes and vegetation; 2) drainage, erosion, sedimentation, habitat; 3) landslides and slope instability; 4) seismic hazards; and, 5) floodplain development. The project's compliance with these areas of concern is discussed below: 1. Natural slopes greater than 25% gradient and possessing endangered species and/or coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communities are protected in the coastal zone. The site is currently developed and no natural steep slopes, endangered species, or habitats are located on the site. Mitigation measures are included to reduce the edge effects of development on the adjacent open space areas bordering the Buena Vista Lagoon. 2. Special erosion control measures must be included as conditions of approval. These "special" measures are standard measures required by the City's Grading Ordinance and are included as conditions of approval. As designed and conditioned, the project will adhere to the City's Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants, and soil CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 - OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES AND SDP 06-10 - ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES March 5,2008 Page 9 erosion. All graded areas must also be landscaped for erosion control prior to October 1st of each year. 3. The Geotechnical Investigation - Ocean Street Condominiums (GEOCON, Inc., dated September 3, 2004) indicates that the site contains undocumented fill and alluvial soils that will require removal and re-compaction according to the recommendations in the report. The report indicates development of the property appears to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in the report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. 4. The Geotechnical Investigation - Ocean Street Condominiums (GEOCON, Inc., dated September 3, 2004) states that there is no evidence of active or potentially active faults on or in the vicinity of the site. The report found that seismic related hazards including Liquefaction, Tsunami, Dynamic Settlement, Surface Fault Rupture and Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture were considered during the evaluation of the site and are considered negligible and/or can be mitigated as recommended in the Geotechnical Investigation. 5. No part of the site is within the 100 year floodplain. The project is located within the Coastal Zone and is subject to California Government Code Section 65590 which requires that replacement dwelling units must be provided if the existing residences are occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income (as defined by Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code). Evidence has been provided showing that none of the existing units are occupied by persons or families with low or moderate income levels and therefore, no low-income tenants will be displaced. D. Subdivision Ordinance The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and has concluded that the residential air-space condominium subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. All major subdivision design criteria have been complied with and the project is conditioned to install infrastructure improvements concurrent with development. The developer will be required to offer various dedications (e.g., drainage, public utility and access easements) and will be responsible for a number of public and private improvements, including but not limited to reconstruction, replacement and repair of frontage improvements on Ocean Street including a new pavement overlay; installation and maintenance of a new sewer lift station and force main at the northwest corner of the site; installation of an 8" sewer main, cleanouts and access structures to serve the private sewer system and force main; reconstruction and removal of the existing 10" (asbestos cement pipe) A.C.P. water main along the frontage of the project; and repair and reconstruction of the existing deteriorated storm drain system along the east side of the project. The project has been designed in accordance with Best Management Practices for water quality protection in accordance with the City's sewer and drainage standards and the project is conditioned to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Requirements. Low Impact Design (LID) features are included so that rooftops and paved areas I CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 - OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES AND SDP 06-10 - ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES March 5,2008 Page 10 (impervious surfaces) within the project will be filtered on site through either stormfilters or infiltration pits and grassy bioswales prior to release back into the natural drainage course. The buildings are oriented in an east to west alignment which will allow for passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities to the extent possible. The proposed structure setbacks and building separations will allow for adequate air circulation and the residences are oriented to take advantage of prevailing breezes. There is no minimum lot size, width, or depth requirement for the air-space condominium units. The project is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan and Title 21. E/G. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance The City's Inclusionary Housing regulations require that a minimum of 15% of all approved units in any residential project be made affordable to lower income households. The inclusionary housing requirement for the Ocean Street. Residences is six (6) units if provided on- site and seven (7) units if provided off-site. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance states that whenever reasonably feasible, new inclusionary units should be built on the residential development site. However, the Ordinance allows the City Council to approve an alternative to construction of new units when it can be demonstrated by the developer that the alternative supports specific housing policies and goals, and that these goals would be better served by allowing some or all of the inclusionary units associated with one project to be produced and operated at an alternative site(s). Approval of an alternative to construction of new units shall be based on findings that new construction would be infeasible or present unreasonable hardship in light of such factors as project size, site constraints, market competition, price and product type disparity, developer capability, and financial subsidies available. Per the Ordinance, alternatives may include, but are not limited to, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable units, conversion of existing market- rate units to affordable units, construction of special needs housing projects or programs (shelters, transitional housing, etc.), and the construction of second dwelling units. The developer of the Ocean Street Residences project is proposing to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement by providing an alternative to the construction of new units. The developer is requesting approval of an alternative housing project which would result in the conversion of seven market-rate units to affordable units within an existing 10-unit apartment project located at 3366 Roosevelt Street. Each of the units are 460 square foot, 1-bedroom units. Seven of the ten units would be deed restricted as affordable to lower-income households and the three remaining units would be rented at market-rate. However, the developer is requesting to reserve the right to designate the additional three units as affordable units at a later date in the event that future development projects could utilize them to meet their Inclusionary Housing requirement in the Northwest Quadrant. The developer is proposing a number of interior and exterior renovations which will improve the appearance and condition of the property. The interior improvements for each unit include new carpets in the living room and bedroom; ceramic tiles in the kitchen and bathroom; ceiling fan in 2U> CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 - OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES AND SDP 06-10 - ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES March 5,2008 Page 11 the bedroom; new bathroom mirror and toilet; new window coverings; and new paint throughout the interior. The exterior appearance of the property is outdated and the building has been poorly maintained over the years. The proposed exterior improvements include rehabilitating the facades to incorporate a Spanish-themed architectural style with arches, decorative tile, and a new parapet along the roofline. New accent elements include a wood trellis above the balcony and wood outriggers, posts, and trim pieces. New paint and trim accent colors will complete the exterior building improvements. Site improvements will include new wood perimeter fencing; a complete redesign of the landscaping including low accent walls at the project entrance; a new trash enclosure; implementation of a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to address measures to avoid contact with or filter pollutants from storm water; and re-paving the parking lot and driveway areas. These exterior building and site improvements will significantly enhance the aesthetic quality of the property and will result in an overall improvement to the visual character of the neighborhood. As stated in the developer's letter, there are circumstances that warrant the developer's proposal for approval of an off-site alternative to the construction of new affordable units. Significant feasibility issues affect development of inclusionary units on-site, including economic infeasibility; small project size which affects the subsidy that each market-rate unit would be required to carry; price and product type disparity; and lack of funding sources to subsidize on- site inclusionary units. The proposal for an off-site affordable housing project offers a more financially feasible alternative for the developer to satisfy the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements. As required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the off-site alternative is located within the same quadrant (northwest) as the Ocean Street Residences project. The Roosevelt Street Residences project is located slightly over one mile south of the Ocean Street Residences project and the developer believes that the site has locational advantages which include closer proximity to public transportation, jobs, schools, libraries, shopping, schools, and parks. The off-site proposal also advances the City's General Plan Housing Element goal to preserve and rehabilitate the City's existing housing stock for the purpose of providing units affordable to low-income households, and to contribute seven rehabilitated units toward the City's quantified objective to provide 25 rehabilitated units for occupancy by low-income households. The Affordable Housing Policy Staff Team reviewed the proposal submitted by the developer, and supports the proposal. Housing and Redevelopment staff has inspected the existing units and confirmation was provided by a qualified consultant verifying that the apartments have a minimum remaining "economic life" of 55 years, which is the appropriate period of time to satisfy the inclusionary requirement. Conditions for the Ocean Street Residences include the requirement that, prior to approval of a Final Map, the developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to deed-restrict seven dwelling units in the Roosevelt Street Residences project as affordable to lower-income households at 70% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for a period of 55 years. In the event that the Roosevelt Street project is not approved, the developer will be required to identify another off-site alternative. The conditions of approval allow the developer to participate in another off-site alternative subject to the discretion of the City Council. 2"7 CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 - OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES AND SDP 06-10 - ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES March 5,2008 Page 12 F. Growth Management The Ocean Street Residences project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the Northwest Quadrant of the City. Because the project results in a reduction of existing units on the site (from 50 to 35), the impacts on public facilities will be about 30% less than the existing impacts. The new project impacts (based on 35 units), are summarized in Table 2 below. TABLE 2: GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD City Administration Library Waste Water Treatment Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools Elem. = 3.14, Middle = 1.39, HS = 1.72 Sewer Collection System Water IMPACTS 121.68 sf 64.90 sf 35EDU 0.24 ac Basin A 280 ADT Stations No. 1 & 3 n/a CUSD 35EDU 7,700 GPD COMPLIANCE Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* * No Increased Impact. Fifteen (15) dwelling units will be added into the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (50 units - 34.27 units - 0.73 units = 15 units). The project is 0.73 dwelling units above the Growth Management Dwelling Unit allowance of 34.27 dwelling units for the subject property. However the existing 50-unit apartment project is 15.73 units above the Growth Management Dwelling Unit allowance. The 50-unit apartment complex existed at the time that the build-out projections were developed for the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP). Therefore, in order to continue to comply with the build- out projections, 15 dwelling units will be added back into the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. V.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment for the Ocean Street Residences project to determine if the project could have any potentially significant impact on the environment. The environmental impact assessment identified potentially significant impacts to nesting birds, cultural resources, and paleontological resources, and identified the potential for hazardous materials (asbestos) to be released into the environment. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the project or have been placed as conditions of approval for the project such that all potentially significant impacts have now been mitigated to below a level of significance. Consequently, a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was published in the newspaper and sent to the State Clearinghouse for public agency review. CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 - OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES AND SDP 06-10 - ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES March 5,2008 Page 13 A comment letter from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), dated December 14, 2007 and a letter from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), dated December 21, 2007, were received during the 30-day public review and comment period from November 26, 2007 to December 26, 2007. Staff responses to these letters clarifies that the areas of concern raised in the letters has already been addressed in the MND and MMRP. Mitigation Measure # 2 requires that a Native American representative shall be retained to monitor the initial project grading and Mitigation Measure # 4 requires appropriate disposal of asbestos, trash and debris. No revisions were made to the MMRP. The two comment letters and responses are included as attachments to Resolution No. 6393 recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 1). The Planning Director has determined that the Roosevelt Street Residences project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15301 — Existing Facilities of the State CEQA Guidelines. In making this determination, the Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6393 (Mit. Neg. Dec.) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6394 (CT) 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6395 (CP) 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6396 (CDP) 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6397 (SDP) 6. Location Map - Ocean Street Residences 7. Location Map - Roosevelt Street Residences 8. Disclosure Statement 9. Background Data Sheet - Ocean Street Residences 10. Aerial Photo - Ocean Street Residences 11. Background Data Sheet - Roosevelt Street Residences 12. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form - Ocean Street Residences 13. Table C - Planned Development.Ordinance Compliance Table 14. Table E - Planned Development Ordinance Compliance Table 15. City Council Policy 66 - Compliance Table 16. Request for Off-Site Combined Inclusionary Housing, 2303 Investors, LP, dated August 28, 2007 17. Reduced Exhibits - Ocean Street Residences 18. Reduced Exhibits - Roosevelt Street Residences 19. Exhibits "A" - "PP" - Ocean Street Residences, dated March 5, 2008 20. Exhibits "A" - "K" - Roosevelt Street Residences dated March 5, 2008 SITE MAP NOT TO SCALE Ocean Street Residences CT 05-12 / CP 05-11 / CDP 05-28 S/7E MAP NOT TO SCALE Roosevelt Street Residences SDP 06-10 City of Carlsbad Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and an other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Corp/Part 2303 Investors, L.P.. a California limited partnership Title Title Address Address 1020 Prospect Street. Suite 314 La Jolla. CA 92037 OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv- owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Corp/Part 2303 Investors, L.P.. a California limited partnership Title Title Address Address 1020 Prospect Street, Suite 314 La Jolla, CA 92037 1635 Faraday Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as a trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust Non Profit/Trust Title Address Title Address 4. Have you had more than $20 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s): NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 2303 Investors L.P., a California limited partnership By: 2303 Investors GP, LLC, a California limited liability company, Its General Partner Print or type name of owner Signature of applicant/date 2303 Investors LP.,-a California limited partnership By: 2303 Investors GP, LLC a California limited liability company, Its General Partner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 2303 Investors L.P., a California limited partnership By:2303 Investors GP, LLC, a California limited liability company, Its General Partner By ..» I Wwterheart Investments. LLC 20% manager City of Carlsbad Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and an other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Timothy W. Clark Corp/Part 2303 Investors, L.P.. a California limited partnership Title Manager Address 1020 Prospect Street. Suite 314 La Jolla. CA 92037 Title Address 1020 Prospect Street. Suite 314 La Jolla. CA 92037 OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly- owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Timothy W. Clark Corp/Part Roosevelt Group, IP., a Delaware limited partnership Title Manager Address 1020 Prospect Street. Suite 314 La Jolla. CA 92037 Title Address 1020 Prospect Street. Suite 314 La Jolla. CA 92037 1635 Faraday Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as a trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust. Title Address Non Profit/Trust. Title Address Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? I I Yes [Xj No If yes, please indicate person(s):. NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct-tatlie_best of my knowledge. Signature of owner/date ^""" Roosevelt Group, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership By: Roosevelt Apartment Services, LLC a Delaware limited liability company, Its General Partner Print or type name of owner Signature of applicant/date s 2303 Investors L.P., a California limited partnership By: 2303 Investors GP, LLC a California limited liability company, Its General Partner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 CASE NAME: OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES APPLICANT: 2303 Investors. LP REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to demolish an existing 50-unit apartment building and to subdivide a 3.05 acre site and construct 35 residential air-space condominium units on one HOA lot on property generally located at 2303 Ocean Street on the north side of Ocean Street and west of Mountain View Drive within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of Lot "A" of Granville Park Unit No. 2 according to Map thereof No. 2037 and that portion of Laguna Drive of Granville Park adjacent thereto (vacated by Resolution No. 918 of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad. California, recorded July 19, 1963 as Document No. 126793, Records of San Diego County California) according to Map thereof No. 1782 - all in the City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego. State of California and filed in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. APN: 203-010-12 & 15 Acres: 3.05 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 35 air-space condos/1 lot GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Existing Land Use Designation: Residential Medium-High Density (RMH) Proposed Land Use Designation: N/A Density Allowed: 8-15 du/ac G/C 11.5 du/ac Density Proposed: 11.74du/ac Existing Zone: R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Proposed Zone: N/A Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Zoning General Plan Current Land Use Site R-3 RMH 50-unit apartment North O-S OS Open Space/SFR South R-3 RMH SFR/MFR East R-3 RMH Tennis Court West R-3 RMH Condominiums LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Coastal Zone: ^ Yes Q No Local Coastal Program Segment: Mello II LCP Within Appeal Jurisdiction: | | Yes CX] No Coastal Development Permit: [X] Yes | | No Local Coastal Program Amendment: I I Yes [X] No Existing LCP Land Use Designation: RMH Proposed LCP Land Use Designation: N/A _ Revised 01/06 Existing LCP Zone: R-3 Proposed LCP Zone: N/A PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 35 EDU ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT I I Categorical Exemption, 1X1 Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued March 5, 2008 I I Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated, D Other, Revised 01/06 600 Foot Radius City of Carlsbad Ocean Street Residences CT 05-12/CP 05-11 CDP 05-28 A Feet Map created by the City of Carlsbad GIS. Portions of the DERIVED PRODUCT contain geographic information copyrighted by SanGIS. Ail Rights Reserved BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: SDP 06-10 CASE NAME: ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES APPLICANT: Roosevelt Group. LP REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for approval of a Site Development Plan to convert seven market-rate units to affordable units within an existing 10-unit apartment building an alternative to the construction of new inclusionarv housing units on property located at 3366 Roosevelt Street on the east side of Roosevelt Street between Walnut Avenue and Chestnut Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The northerly one-half of Lot 5 and all of Lots 6 and 7. Block 42 of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. May 2. 1888. APN: 204-092-24 Acres: 0.2 acres Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 10 existing units GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Existing Land Use Designation: Residential Medium-High Density/Office (RMH/O) Proposed Land Use Designation: N/A Density Allowed: 8-15 du/ac GMP 11.5 du/ac Density Proposed: N/A-exist. 10-unit apartment Existing Zone: Residential Professional (R-P) Proposed Zone: N/A Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Zoning General Plan Current Land Use Site R-P RMH/O 10-unit apartment North R-P RMH/O Apartments South R-P RMH/O Apartments East R-3 RMH SFR West R-P RMH/O SFR LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Coastal Zone: Q Yes £<] No Local Coastal Program Segment: N/A Within Appeal Jurisdiction: I I Yes 1X1 No Coastal Development Permit: [~~1 Yes 1X1 No Local Coastal Program Amendment: | | Yes £3 No Existing LCP Land Use Designation: N/A Proposed LCP Land Use Designation: N/A Existing LCP Zone: N/A Proposed LCP Zone: N/A Revised 01/06 PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 10EDU ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1X1 Categorical Exemption, Categorically Exempt Class 1, Section 15301-Existing Facilities I | Negative Declaration, issued__ I [ Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated D Other, Revised 01/06 CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES - CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: i GENERAL PLAN: RMH ZONING: R-3 DEVELOPER'S NAME: 2303 Investors. LP ADDRESS: 1020 Prospect Street. Ste 314 La Jolla. CA 92037 ; ' PHONE NO.: 858-456-0014 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 203-010-12 & 15 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 3.05 acres/35 du's ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: A. B. C. D. E. City Administrative Facilities: Library: Demand in Square Footage = 121.68 sf Demand in Square Footage = 64.90 sf F. G. H. I. J. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 35 EDU Park: Demand in Acreage = 0.24 ac Drainage: Demand in CFS = 127 CFS Identify Drainage Basin = Basin A (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADT = 280 APT (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = Stations No. 1 & 3 K. L. Open Space: Acreage Provided = Schools: Elem = 3.14; Middle = 1.39; HS = 1.72 Sewer: Demands in EDU Identify Sub Basin = (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD - N/A Carlsbad Unified 35 EDU 1G 7,700 GPD The project is 0.24 units over the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. However, the site contains a 50-unit apartment complex which will be demolished. A total of 15 du's will be added back into the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.060) TABLE C: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Standard Requirement Compliance Comment Density Per the underlying General Plan designation. When two or more General Plan Land Use designations exist within a planned development, the density may not be transferred from one general plan designation to another without a general plan amendment. A density of 8-15 units per acre is allowed under the RMH General plan Land Use designation. The project includes 35 units with a net density of 11.74du/ac. N/A Arterial Setbacks All dwelling units and accessory structures adjacent to any arterial road shown on the Circulation Element of the General Plan shall maintain the following minimum setbacks from the right-of-way: N/A Prime Arterial Major Arterial Secondary Arterial Carlsbad Boulevard 50 Feet 40 Feet 30 Feet 20 Feet An average of 50% of the required setback area that is located closest to the arterial shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. Project perimeter walls shall not be located in the landscaped buffer. The landscaped buffer shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage. This arterial landscape setback shall be commonly owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. Building Setbacks All setbacks shall be measured from the property line, from the back of sidewalk or from the edge of the project driveway, whichever is closest to the structure. Setbacks required: Front: 15 Feet Average (PD Ordinance) Side: 10 Feet (R-3 Zone) Rear: 20 Feet (R-3 Zone) All setbacks are measured from the property lines, from the public right-of- way, or from the edge of the project driveway. Setbacks provided: Front: 22 Feet Side: 11 Feet Rear: 20 Feet No projections extend into the setbacks more than 2 feet. Permitted Intrusions into Setbacks Projecting architectural features, which do not increase the useable living area of a dwelling unit, (including, but not limited to, cornices, eaves, belt courses, sills, buttresses and fireplaces) may intrude up to 2 feet into required building setbacks. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.060) TABLE C: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS CONTINUED Visitor Parking On Private/Public Streets Driveways 1. 10 units or less: 1 space for each 2 units or fraction thereof. 2. 11 units or more: 5 spaces for the first 10 units, plus 1 space for each 4 units above 10. 3. Housing for senior citizens: 1 space for each 5 units. 4. In cases where a fractional parking space is required, the required number of spaces shall be rounded to the nearest highest whole number. Visitor parking may be provided: (1) along both sides of a minimum 34-foot wide private/public street; or (2) in perpendicular bays. When visitor parking is provided on-street, not less than 24 lineal feet per space, exclusive of driveway entrances and aprons, shall be provided for each parking space, except where parallel parking spaces are located immediately adjacent to driveway aprons, then 20 lineal feet may be provided. Visitor parking must be provided in parking bays 12 visitor spaces are required. 12 total visitor spaces are provided; 5 spaces within the underground parking garage, and 7 exterior on-grade spaces N/A N/A Visitor parking spaces are provided within perpendicular bays. Private Streets Minimum 34 feet wide (curb-to-curb) with parkways (minimum 5.5' wide) and sidewalks (minimum 5' wide) on both sides of the street. N/A Public Streets Minimum 34 feet wide (curb-to-curb) with parkways (minimum 7' wide) and sidewalks (minimum 5' wide) on both sides of the street. Ocean Street is a fully improved public street. Parkways with Street Trees Minimum 5.5 feet wide parkways are required along both sides of private streets. For small-lot, single-family and two-family projects, a minimum of one street tree (24- inch box) per lot is required to be planted in the parkway along all streets. For multi-family projects, street trees shall be spaced no further apart than 30 feet on center within the parkway. Tree species should be selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk damage and minimize water consumption. Street trees are shown as part of the conceptual landscape plans and will be located within the r.o.w. behind the existing sidewalk on Ocean Street. Driveway (Project)1. Minimum 24 feet wide with no parking permitted in travel way. 2. Additional width may be required for maneuvering area in front of garages, carports or uncovered parking spaces or to provide transition to a driveway approach. 3. No more than 20 single-family/two-family dwelling units shall be located along a single-entry driveway. 4. Parkways/sidewalks may be required. 5. Driveways in motor courts shall be constructed of concrete. 6. All driveways/motor courts shall be accented with enhanced pavement treatment. The private driveway serving the project is 24 feet wide. The driveway as shown as part of the conceptual landscape plans includes enhanced paving. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.060) TABLE C: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS CONTINUED Dwelling Unit Setback from Open Parking All dwelling units shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet from open parking areas. All units are setback 13 feet or greater from open parking areas. Screening of Parking Areas All open parking areas shall be screened from adjacent residences and public rights-of-way by either a view- obscuring wall or landscaping. All open parking areas include landscape screening. Community Recreational Space All projects of more than 10 dwelling units shall provide 200 square feet of centralized, community recreational space per unit. Projects with 25 or fewer units shall provide passive or active recreation facilities. Projects with more than 25 units shall provide both passive and active recreational facilities with a minimum of 75 percent of the area allocated for active facilities. Projects of more than 50 units shall provide recreation facilities for a variety of age groups. Examples of recreation facilities include, but are not limited to, the following: Active: Swimming pool with cabana, children's playground equipment, spa, tennis court, racquetball court, volleyball court, basketball court, recreation rooms or buildings, horseshoe pits, pitch and putt, grassy play areas a minimum of 100 feet by 100 feet and any other facility deemed by the planning director to satisfy the intent of providing active recreational facilities. Passive: Benches, barbecues, community gardens or grassy play areas with a slope of less than 5%. 1. Credit for indoor recreation facilities shall not exceed 25% of the required centralized community recreation area. 2. Required recreation areas shall not be located in any required front yard and may not include any driveways, parking areas, walkways, storage areas, or any slopes of 5% or greater. 3. For single-family or two-family projects of 50 units or more, at least 25 percent of the common recreation space must be provided as pocket parks. Pocket park lots must have a minimum width of 50 feet and be located at strategic locations such as street intersections (especially "T-intersections") and where open space vistas may be achieved. Note: These community recreational space requirements shall not apply to housing for senior citizens (refer to Chapter 21.84 of this code for common area requirements for housing for senior citizens). 7,000 square feet of community recreational space is required for the project with 5,250 square-feet allocated for active facilities. The project is providing a total of 7,132 square feet of community recreation area. 5,875 square feet of that total is provided as active facilities. Active facilities include a pool/spa area and clubhouse. Passive facilities include a fire-pit area, barbeque area and overlook seating areas. Credit for the 1,827 sf indoor recreation area does not exceed 25 of the required community recreation area (1,750 sf max) Recreation area is centrally located near the northern end of the site and does not include any driveways, parking areas, walkways, storage areas, or any slopes of 5% or greater. N/A PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.060) TABLE C: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS CONTINUED Recreation Area Parking 1 space for each 15 residential lots or fraction thereof for lots located more than 1,000 feet from a centralized community recreation center lot. Note: Housing for senior citizens is not required to be provided with recreation area parking. Lighting adequate for pedestrian and vehicular safety shall be provided. N/A. All units are within 1,000 feet of the recreation area. Lighting The project is conditioned to submit a lighting plan prior to issuance of a building permit. All units as shown as part of the tentative map include separate utility systems. Utilities Separate utility systems shall be provided for each unit. Recreational Vehicle Storage 1. Required for projects with 25 or more units. 2. 20 square feet per unit exclusive of area required for driveways and approaches. 3. Developments located within master plans or residential specific plans may have this requirement met by the common RV storage area provided by the master plan or residential specific plan. 4. The storage of recreational vehicles shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and on any public or private streets or any other area visible to the public. A provision containing this restriction shall be included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the project. All RV storage areas shall be landscaped to screen vehicles to the maximum extent feasible. Note: Housing for senior citizens is not required to be provided with recreational vehicle storage. If no RV storage is provided for housing for senior citizens, the CC&Rs for the project shall clearly specify that RV storage is not available. Project is required to provide 700 square feet of recreational vehicle storage. 1,012 square feet of recreational vehicle storage area is provided within the underground parking garage. The provided area is for the storage of personal recreational vehicles including, but not limited to, kayaks, surfboards, motorcycles, etc. Storage Space 480 cubic feet of separate storage space per unit. If all storage for each unit is located in one area, the space may be reduced to 392 cubic feet. This space shall be separately enclosed for each unit and be conveniently accessible to the outdoors. The space may be designed as an enlargement of the required covered parking structure provided it does not extend into the area of the required parking stall. This requirement is in addition to closets and other indoor storage areas. Storage areas of at least 400 cubic feet are provided for each unit either within the underground parking garage or at ground level for the lagoon level units. Antennas Each project shall have a master antenna and/or a cable television hookup. Antennas are permitted subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.53 of this code and any applicable federal regulations. Time Warner Cablevision will provide cable service to the project. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.080) TABLE E: MULTIPLE-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Standard Requirement Compliance Comment Livable Neighborhood Policy Must comply with City Council Policy 66, Principles for the Development of Livable Neighborhoods. Project complies. See attached City Council Policy 66 Compliance Table. Maximum Lot Coverage 60% on a project basis.47% coverage. Maximum Building Height Per the Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ) the maximum building height is 30 feet and two stories provided that a minimum 3:12 roof pitch is provided. 30 feet or less building height. Roof pitch is greater than 3:12. Minimum Building Setbacks Private or public street(1) Driveway (Project) 1. To front porch: 11 feet. 2. To residential structure: 15 foot average.(2) 3. To street side yard: 10 feet. 4. To side entry garage: 10 feet. 5. To direct entry garage: 20 feet. 1. Residence: 8 feet, fully landscaped. 1. Garage: 5 feet. 2. Garages facing directly onto a driveway'shall be equipped with an automatic garage door opener. All units are setback 22 feet or greater from Ocean Street. All units are setback 8 feet or greater from the private driveways. Architectural Design Elements 1. There shall be at least 3 separate building planes on all building elevations. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include but not be limited to building walls, windows and roofs. 2. Building facades shall incorporate a minimum of four of the following types of design elements: a. Covered front porches (may count toward meeting recreation space requirements); b. A variety of roof planes; c. Windows and doors recessed a minimum of 2 inches; d. Paned windows and doors; e. Exposed roof rafter tails; f. Window and door lintels; g. Dormers; h. Accent and varied shape windows; i. Exterior wood elements; j. Raised stucco trim around windows and doors; k. Accent materials such as brick, stone, shingles, wood or siding; and 1. Knee braces. All building elevations include 3 or more building planes. Building facades as shown as part of the architecture elevations include four or more design elements that include: covered front porches, variety of roof planes, recessed windows and doors, paned windows, exposed rafter tails and beam ends, window and door lintels, accent and varied shaped windows, exterior wood elements, accent materials (siding, stone and shingles), and knee braces. Minimum Building Separation 20 feet average with a minimum of 10 feet between structures. No structures (i.e., stairs, stairwells, balconies, etc.) are permitted to encroach into this setback. N/A. All structures are considered attached. Resident Parking 1. One 12 feet x 20 feet car garage and 1 covered or uncovered space per unit (BAOZ) 2. Studio units - 1.5 spaces; 1 covered per unit. 3. Housing for senior citizens: 1.5 covered spaces per unit, plus 1 covered space for an onsite manager's unit (when provided). 70 parking spaces are required for resident parking. 70 spaces are included within the underground parking garage for resident parking. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.080) TABLE E: MULTIPLE-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CONTINUED Visitor Parking 1. 10 units or less: 1 space for each 2 dwelling units or fraction thereof. 2. 11 units or more: 5 spaces for the first 10 units, plus 1 space for each 4 dwelling units above 10. 3. Housing for senior citizens: 1 space for each 5 dwelling units. 4. Visitor parking spaces must be located no more than 150 ft. as measured in a logical walking path from the entrance of the unit it could be considered to serve. 5. Visitor parking must be provided in parking bays. 12 visitor spaces are required. 12 total visitor spaces are provided; 5 spaces within the underground parking garage, and 7 exterior on-grade spaces Compact Parking For projects of more than 25 units, up to 25 percent of visitor parking may be provided as compact spaces (8 feet by 15 feet). No overhang is permitted into any required setback area or over sidewalks less than 6 feet wide. Up to 55% percent of visitor parking may be provided as compact spaces in the BAOZ. 3 compact visitor spaces are provided (25%). Recreational Space Private Common 1. Projects of 1-10 dwelling units: 15 ft. x 15 ft. patio or 120 square feet of balcony area. 2. Projects of more than 10 dwelling units: 10 ft. x 10 ft. patio or 6 ft. x 10 ft. balcony. 1. Projects of more than 10 dwelling units: See General Standards, Table C. All units are provided with either a 10 ft. xlO ft. patio or a 6 ft. xlO ft. balcony. The project is providing 7,132 square feet of community recreation area that includes a pool/spa area, clubhouse, fire- pit, barbeque area, and overlook seating areas. (1) Setbacks are applicable to streets that include parkways and sidewalks along both sides. For existing streets without parkways, the front setback shall be as follows: Front porch -16 feet, residence - 20 foot minimum, side-entry garage -10 feet, direct entry garage - 20 feet. (2) The average front yard setback is determined by adding together all of the unit front yard setbacks (the setback for each unit should be measured from that element of each building, excluding projections, that is located closest to the front property line) and dividing that total by the total number of project units. CITY COUNCIL POLICY 66 - LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS Principle Compliance Comments Building Facades. Front Entries. Porches Facades create interest and character and should be varied and articulated to provide visual interest to pedestrians. Clearly identifiable front doors and porches enhance the street scene and create opportunities for greater social interaction within the neighborhood. Building entries and windows should face the street. Front porches, bay windows, courtyards and balconies are encouraged. Front porches and balconies have been provided to comply with this standard. Homes should be designed to feature the residence as the prominent part of the structure in relation to the street. A variety of garage configurations should be used to improve the street scene. This may include tandem garages, side-loaded garages, front- loaded garages, alley-loaded garages and recessed garages. The project is designed with an underground parking garage. Street Design An interconnected, modified (grid) street pattern should be incorporated into project designs when there are no topographic or environmental constraints. Interconnected streets provide pedestrians and automobiles many alternative routes to follow, disperse traffic and reduce the volume of cars on any one street in the neighborhood. Streets should be designed to provide both vehicular and pedestrian connectivity by minimizing the use of cul- de-sacs. The street network should also be designed to create a safer, more comfortable pedestrian and bicycling environment. Local residential streets should have travel and parking lanes, be sufficiently narrow to slow traffic, provide adequate access for emergency and service vehicles and emergency evacuation routes for residents and include parkways with trees to form a pleasing canopy over the street. Local residential streets are the public open space in which children often play and around which neighborhoods interact. Within this context, vehicular movement should be additionally influenced through the use of City-accepted designs for traffic calming measures. The project fronts on existing Ocean Street which will provide both vehicular and pedestrian connectivity. Internal project circulation is via a private driveway system. Parkways Street trees should be planted in the parkways along all streets. Tree species should be selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk damage and minimize water consumption. Street trees are shown on the conceptual landscape plans along the existing Ocean Street frontage. Pedestrian Walkways Pedestrian walkways should be located along or visible from all streets. Walkways (sidewalks or trails) should provide clear, comfortable and direct access to neighborhood schools, parks/plazas and transit stops. Primary pedestrian routes should be bordered by residential fronts, parks or plazas. Where street connections are not feasible (at the end of cul-de-sacs), pedestrian paths should also be provided. The project is providing multiple sidewalk connections to the existing sidewalk improvements along the Ocean Street frontage. Centralized Community Recreation Areas Park or plazas, which serve as neighborhood meeting places and as recreational activity centers should be incorporated into all planned unit developments. As frequently as possible, these parks/plazas should be designed for both active and passive uses for residents of all ages and should be centrally located within the project. Parks and plazas should be not be sited on residual parcels, used as buffers from surrounding developments or to separate buildings from streets. The project is providing 7,132 square feet of community recreation area that includes a pool/spa area, clubhouse, fire-pit, barbeque area, and overlook seating areas. 61 k Henthorn & Associate. 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad,'California 92008 (760)438-4090 .'< Fax (760) 438-0981'. August 28, 2007 Ms, Deborah K. Fountain Housing and Redevelopment Director . ' '.' City of Carlsbad . . . . . ;.....• 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 Subject: Ocean Street Residences* CTo5-i2/CP qs-ii/HDP 05- 07/CDP 05-28 & Roosevelt Street Residferices Proposal for Meeting IiiclusionaryHousing^^requirement via Off-site CombinedI Affordable^HousingProject Pear Ms. Fountain: •> ..'•-' -. • •• :.,:.-/: •',.;".' •-•--'• ' . :. •• ••',.• This letter serves as a formal^request;by 2303 Investors LP;.the property 6wh6r and applicant of the Ocean Street Residences property, to satisfy their, affordable housing obligations by providing an off-site^^cqmbined affordable housing projectv ldca.ted at 3366 Roosevelt Street; .The^ite Was puTchasediniop^ folioyydngyour conditional support of it as an offsite solution to meeting the affordable housing; obligations associated with the Ocean Street Residences project.'. : This request complies with City Ordinances,and Ciiy Council'policies previously adopted by the City Council as expiairied below: , , • The- City's Inclusionary ^Housing- Ordinance (CMC Chapter' ,21.85) " establishes certain requirements under which residentiEil developers must provide housing that is affordable to Blower-income households as a ' condition of project approval and permit issuance. The. ordinance provides that "circumstances may arise in whicti the-public interesj; would be served by allowing some or all of the inclusionary units associated with one project site to be produced at an alternative site or sites." . City Council Policy 57. establishes procedures for the City to use in determining if a proposed development meets the, criteria to satisfy Inclusionary Housing Ordinance obligations^ an alternative site or sites. The options that are available to a developer to satisfy his inclusionary housing obligations are: i) construct affordable units on-site, 2) participate in an off-site combined inclusionary project within the northwest quadrant in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and City Council Policy 57 dated August 8, 1995, or 3) enter into an agreement with the City to provide un an approved combined affordable housing project In the case of the Ocean Street Residences application, there are particular circumstances that warrant this project's proposal to for an offsite alternative. Pursuant to the provisions of CMC section 21.85, significant feasibility issues affect'.the development of inclusionary units on-site. The upgrading and conversion of an existing off-site project to provide seven affordable units versus providing six affordable units on-site will result in future residents having convenient access to transportation, employment and shopping. It will also support the Community's efforts to revitalize the immediate area south of . Carlsbad Village Drive by. significantly enhancing the exterior appearance of the existing site. We understand that a staff Project Review Committee will evaluate this request to determine its compliance with the criteria defined in City Council Policy 57 and that staff will then take the Committee's recommendation to the Housing Commission and the City Council. Our analysis of the Ocean Street Residences compliance with criteria set forth in City Council Policy 57 is attached to this letter for your use and reference. Please call if you need additional information or if we may be of any other "assistance. We look forward to receiving your response to this request. Very truly yours, Jack E. Hentnorn Enclosure cc: Barbara Kennedy, City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Tim Clark, 2303 Investors, L.P. OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES OFF-SITE AND COMBINED INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROJECT ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -- BACKGROUND The following background information is provided to assist you in your assessment. 1. Owner/Applicant Information: Owner: Applicant: Applicant's Representative: 2303 Investors, LP. 2303 Investors L.P. Jack Henthorn &.Associates 1020 Prospect Street 1020 Prospect Street Attn: Mr. Jack Henthorn Suite 314 Suite 314 5365 Avenida Encinas La Jolla, CA 92037 La Jolla, CA 92037 Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-438-4090 2. Off-site/Combined Project Name: Ocean Street Residences/Roosevelt Street Residences. 3. Description of Project with Inclusionary Housing Obligation: Ocean Street Residences is proposed 35 unit luxury condominium development that will replace a deteriorating 50 unit apartment complex located at 2303 Ocean Street. Roosevelt Street Residences is proposed as an offsite combined affordable housing project that will consist of 7 income restricted units and 3 market rate units. The seven restricted units include the combined requirements associated with the total number of units proposed on the two sites. The building will be enhanced from its existing condition through exterior and interior renovations as shown in the site development plan accompanying the Ocean Street Residences. 4. On-site Affordable Housing Description: If the affordable housing requirement must be met on-site, the Ocean Street Residences on-site inclusionary housing project would consist of 6 attached for-sale condominium units. The units would be offered in a maximum sales range that is affordable to households earning incomes of 80% of the Area Median Income. To achieve a sales price of approximately $175,000, the units would require a net subsidy of approximately $4,984,284.00 ($830,714.00) per affordable unit) based on construction costs alone. This number would be significantly higher if projected sales prices were used. See attached financial analysis for details. 5. Proposed Off-site Project Description: The Roosevelt Street Residences is an existing apartment project containing 10 one bedroom market rate rental units. The project is outdated and showing the effects of deferred maintenance to the point of detracting from the attractiveness of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant purchased the project in 2006 after evaluating several properties in the Carlsbad Village Area. The Roosevelt site was purchased after it was reviewed and found to be conditionally acceptable to meet the affordable housing requirement of the Ocean Street Residences. The project was approved and permitted by the City and complied with the General Plan and Zoning regulations in effect at the time of construction (most likely the old County based R-3 zoning regulations). The site does not meet current zoning regulations (Residential-Professional R-P) in terms of parking and set backs. However, the upgrades proposed could be accomplished in the as-built condition via the building permit process alone since no increases in square footage or unit count is proposed. The owner/applicant is required to process a site development plan solely for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the inclusionary housing program. The owner/applicant is proposing to make a significant investment in upgrades (landscaping, exterior and interior rehabilitation) to the property as outlined below and will commit 7 of the 10 existing units to occupancy by low income residents through a Housing Agreement with the City. The owner/applicant is requesting approval of the site development plan as submitted in exchange for the contribution of subsidy funding in the amount of nearly $1.7 million dollars that is necessary to produce the required 7 income-restricted inclusionary housing units. The owner/applicant proposes to invest approximately $200,000 into exterior and interior renovation. The existing outdated exterior will be upgraded to a Spanish-theme architectural style that will result in added articulation to roof lines and street site building facade areas. The exterior treatment will result in an overall improvement to the character of the immediate neighborhood. The owner/applicant proposes to restrict (through formal agreement with the City) occupancy of seven of the units to persons and families earning less than 70% of the area wide median income, while three of units would be made available at market rental rates. The owner developer will be subsidizing the project by nearly $1.7 million to insure the on going viability of the project at the restricted rental levels. 6. Description of On-site Project Constraints: Site-specific constraints exist at the Ocean Street site that diminishes the feasibility of producing the full inclusionary obligation with on-site affordable housing. These constraints include the following: • Lack of convenient access to service infrastructure to meet needs of low income residents, including but not limited to shopping, employment, transportation, medical and social services. • Exorbitant levels of subsidy required to produce units priced at required income levels OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES OFF-SITE AND COMBINED INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROJECT ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -- WORKSHEET 1. Feasibility of the On-site Proposal a. Are there significant feasibility issues due to factors such as project size, site constraints, amount and availability of required subsidy, and competition from multiple projects that make an on-site option impractical? • Given the small size of the project and the restricted sale prices associated with affordable units, making the project profitable and economically feasible with on-site affordable units will not be possible with the cost of production exceeding the sales price by over $650,000 per unit.. • The construction of the 6 affordable units on-site will result in the project's market-rate units being required to subsidize the affordable units by $171,871 per market-rate unit, exclusive of lost profit. • The developer cannot afford to build the affordable housing product on-site due to the fact that production costs alone will add over $170,000 of cost to each market unit. b. Will an affordable housing product be difficult to integrate into the proposed market development because of significant price and product type disparity? • The affordable housing units may be difficult to integrate with the market-rate units because of the price disparity; the market rate units are proposed to sell in the over 1 million dollar market while the price of the restricted units would be limited to $175,000. c. Does the on-site development entity have the capacity to deliver the proposed affordable housing on-site? • Affordable housing developers have advised the applicant that it is unlikely that this size of project will generate interest from any funding sources that would be required to reduce the impact on project cost to an acceptable level. 2. Relative Advantages/Disadvantages of the Off-site Proposal. a. Does the off-site option offer greater feasibility and cost effectiveness than the on-site alternative, particularly regarding potential local public assistance? • The owner/applicant is not requesting local public financial or other assistance beyond the approval of requested entitlements for the Roosevelt Street Residences site. b. Does the off-site proposal have location advantages over the on-site alternative, such as proximity to jobs, schools, transportation, services, less impact on other existing developments, etc.? • The Roosevelt Street Residences site is located within close vicinity of public transportation, jobs (in the nearby businesses and shopping centers), schools, library, shopping, parks, as well as, other amenities and services due to its location in the Carlsbad Village area and near major circulation routes. • Roosevelt Street Residences is located in an area of existing higher density -residential development (other apartment projects). c. Does the off-site option offer a development entity with the capacity to deliver the proposed project? • The owner/applicant of the Roosevelt Street Residences site owns and manages other income properties, both in the City of Carlsbad and elsewhere and has a highly skilled development and management team. The owner/applicant's Carlsbad properties have received awards for architectural and management merit. d. Does the off-site option satisfy multiple developer obligations that would be difficult to satisfy with multiple projects? • The owner/applicant is retaining 3 of the existing units as market rate rentals and is considering the possibility of making them available to assist other small project applicants in meeting their affordable housing obligation. 3. Advancing Housing Goals and Strategy a. Does the off-site proposal advance and/or support City housing goals and policies expressed in the Housing Element, CHAS and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance? General Plan Housing Element and CHAS Goals: • The Roosevelt Street Residences project is targeted to preserve and rehabilitate the City's existing housing stock for the purpose of providing units affordable to low-income households. (Housing Element Housing Plan Goal 1.) • The Roosevelt Street Residences Project will contribute 7 rehabilitated-units toward the City's quantified Objective to provide 25 rehabilitated units for occupancy by Low Income persons and families. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Policies: • The Roosevelt Street Residences project implements the City's inclusionary Housing Ordinance by meeting the affordable obligations associated with the Ocean Street Residences in accordance with section 21.85.070. Growth Management Zone, Ord. No. NS-257 Guidelines: • The Roosevelt Street Residences is already well coordinated with surrounding properties by direct access to a major Circulation Element Roadway, Carlsbad Village Drive, as well as having established circulation and pedestrian access to public facilities. OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES CITY COUNCIL POLICY 57 ANALYSIS OFF-SITE COMBINED PROJECT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS PROJECT PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE The Ocean Street Residences (2303 Ocean Street) projected development cost is based on the following criteria: Site Acquisition $ 6,800,000 Entitlement/Engineering/Arch/Defect Insurance $. 3,500,000 Demolition, Site Preparation and construction of: • $ 24,000,000 35 Residential Condominium units (77,348 square feet) 75 Space Parking Garage (36,756 square feet) Club House (1827 square feet) Swimming Pool Deck/Landscape areas Public Agency Fees Total Project Cost Per Unit Cost $ ' $ $ 900,000 35,200,000 1,005,714 ON-SITE SUBSIDY ANALYSIS Affordable Sales Price (80%AMI) . $ 175,000 Per Unit Subsidy (Cost basis) $ 830,714 Total Subsidy (Cost Basis 6 units) $ 4,984,284 OFF-SITE RENTAL PROPOSAL (3366 Roosevelt Street) Site Acquisition Improvement cost Total Cost $ $ $ 2,150,000 200,000 2,350,000 Annual Income Analysis 7 units at $800/Month (Restricted) 3 units a 950/Month (Market) Vacancy 5% Expenses Annual Net Income Monthly Net Income $ $ $ $ $ 101,400 (5,070) (42,000) 54,330 4,527 Debt service/Financial Analysis Total Project Cost Supportable Debt (75% of Total cost @ 7.5% ) Off- site Subsidy (Cash Contribution) Per Unit Subsidy $ $ $ $ 2,300,000 (644,000) 1,656,000 165,600 igi J iJ i It !5 ti LJ .5 1(/> II 51 5 i t ^^^^ . , - - '* I: "•• • '•>;•>• - ";. . ,; .;;'; . \ >\ V \ 'NT I o ^s^'sm o •gc 5£g it5i.ii, l^tfi§i ill D-Q §3?e**3 I o •o 03 CO I UJ 2 O 1S f UJ Q CO UJ £ UJ UJ h LU O 0 CO c 03OOO COo CO CM ,<0 C^lm <ocs — i UJ| lIsiilHB Q O f;na!OJOWn I 1Qin LLcn COsCN"CO + o sl.9 CO 800CM" QQ •— .. as =Si fl COLU ^ ™ S I •R 2 -gUJ OL -J 'o "S 'S t o 1jd Ii c 'toIE! ! 2 o). LU Z LU .1 i § I'CO Z Z Z S *S *S +3 ^^^^ :o rgi o> o> P .o .o ^ , S£0) «O *~ | | £3 . J6l I f r-CMCO TflOCD N.COO>' o •5| ! ^ li3 Q. 2§ . JO S<!3.-S »3; a. a c 0)o a>oo:I COg | o LU|_ lrOQ:I—LUcoo. iiiiiiiiliiliiiiii S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 33 £ o;o UJ ill llli CO oI o il |? XI 3•> e a 3 s S S S " S M„• 5 i i 1.1 s 1 § S S 3?sac Kls|^ kBIl S.l* a a^s i s^ oLUo:o < 1! CO £ i O S1 Q*2-. ii QLU 8CLSa. UJ I CO msifts i o II 0) O fl) 0.0 o -E fi«o l!in ftiQ.Q «CL- O '(/) '>b fc '! 111 0) COo o>oo; ^2o!< o c5 b SSS 5S8 I 0) COU COoo: Si3 uj3 ni L. T7 o •~ ts. |,.wo i* 3 1 11 III!CLQ .1 .<2 Qo>n fi ri >-' N'n' il0) (OO 0)oo;il ,S=JL o ?i so a. &i, "•2 is!o$ ***255 III a if i| [III hi ii Is I"I in in o If •So.<D O IIDLQ co'in Q if OO Q_I-Q-QOOO I 0 " -4— • f_\ -2 We 5 0) (flO 0OOf (O < gj o r\ o o g ! s2 o: • 1 5 Q I ^ii o o. O CLQ cg 'a> Q O) I-SSJOO <» R S RS>: SD lii 0o 0oo: CNJ CD r C 0ra ~o 8 OCN sa ? 8= g *«*? II i f f II *§ i«-3-3!Sfris 9 ?.t ? - «i 1=>4usjS^l^lpSia.S.HJiil 1 sS* S^lllillilillilllljlll 5 III ii f i |l 1i i I,Is I HI s 11 »I siif Ii lli 1 j? ** Us 1 si *D as (is isd 0 I © ""> .c ?=; O 153"5 = <O o £ 810 8 C O CN •8 c 5ji 53 2 S"iN-I-CT.S2.3og O 'M 6 Ot-o V/1 nr t<UuO^C Oro -n 8' ol Ili= 8 !l! f a 3 *I IS b!i „ *•t » oa as !ii Iliiilll 3•Himi hi * 55 I I '- 5 S V •s 5 '- •- || - 1 "1 si I I R!55 /! ; ^..SA311V | S; iSI03 =*•• Is*t i) Q. §*3 250.0 28•aTS2* n c »n"CO LU O O 03JDtLU o Q "CD0) co 2 LU 0) OOcc. CD LU I H LU CO h LLJ LU CO 0 0 So Om HZ« <.05:pX u.-titl111 UJ CO LU O .LU CO IS ^ Qin sr 4 a —§ ±"u-.2 ra to" . T3 S l~- 1 1 S O !£.§« .. J2 ^2 'c II, .. ?! § I c c » o o ~** khi ^2 ^3 jz *2 ui .s; .s; :='CJ ^n OOOOWX X3„ (J ^,r^jr<i2uj£o — I— 1 ' CN CO ^ If) CO N-* GO *- E t,<llO O. S?sa §.-§ 1XQ £ W <n„ 0) 1 =i^O (/>O 0}CC.CL A311V OO —I 5^-1 3 00. ihil(DO 2Jss CO 0-g o'toO 0) CM < I 313(1 SSSI3 *=sas; as saw ! Jas ! S5S Jjaa »|si'B s| ,„, ,fei_ rn _ ^ - <_up / -. * i,3 flH 1 j , U_ £ \f \ l__ ^ O Si 51 -b """^0 « -: _.«• u J il-s 8'8 Q^s \07 8-s p I III o fi•u " J in "o u o <J10 ~D0 'S0 <u Opsi CM III |z2 Pfl §ll|l?il fills I P & ii| rlf II §l!it ?j|ll|ll^li<| y«; -; QV£Illi^Js hOC/rN f). {) U5> -750 'm0 uC^t^ u a w LU <N PNJ 10 3S83J--S93 1 cg um T30 '350 u O 1 £ siS " • s3 i S 5' ; IS ,< i ,5 QzLU UUJ UJ Z ON Z Z C OUJ NI Xo | IIsas 5e ± § ml I tPl5 SizS 8 iilg Z£ R W EXHIBIT 5 Page 6AWtt^^^^^^P wUWW^^^^W^ *QF Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the Item. Seeing none, he closed public testimony. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6400 approving Coastal Development Permit CDP 07-12 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION Commissioner Montgomery urged the two property owners to work together to resolve the issue regarding the water meter placement. Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Rick if the driveways are legal, proper width driveways. Mr. Rick stated that they are. There is not a minimum driveway width for a single family home on the private property portion. Commissioner Baker asked if the fire trucks can reach the end of the panhandle lot without any problems. Mr. Garcia stated he did not receive any comments or concerns from Fire Department regarding this project. Commissioner Baker stated she feels that the applicant had the right to develop the full lot. Commissioner Dominguez stated that Staff presented the recommendations adequately, Mr. Sears can proceed with the building of his home, and the property owners need to proceed with the issue of the water meter placement as a civil issue. VOTE: 6-0-1 AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Boddy, Commissioner Cardosa, Commissioner Dominguez, and Commissioner Montgomery NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Douglas ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Whitton closed the public hearing on Item 2 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 3. CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 - OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES AND SDP 06-10 - ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES - Request for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to demolish an existing 50-unit apartment complex and to subdivide the 3.05 acre site and construct 35 residential air-space condominium units on one HOA lot; and a request for a recommendation of approval for a Site Development Plan to convert seven (7) market-rate units to affordable units within an existing 10-unit apartment building as an alternative to the construction of new Inclusionary Housing units. The Ocean Street Residences project is located at 2303 Ocean Street on the north side of Ocean Street and west of Mountain View Drive within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and the Roosevelt Street Residences project is located at 3366 Roosevelt Street on the east side of Roosevelt Street between Walnut Avenue and Chestnut Avenue, within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Mr. Neu introduced Item 3 and stated Associate Planner Barbara Kennedy would make the staff presentation assisted by Associate Engineer Clyde Wickham. Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 2008 ^f / v\ *."'•' Page 7 Chairperson Whitton opened the public hearing on Item 3. Ms. Kennedy gave a detailed presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Whitton stated the Planning Commission had received 2 letters regarding the project. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Cardosa asked if the occupants of the Roosevelt Street apartments would be able to live in the residences during the remodel. Ms. Kennedy stated they would not be able to live there due to the extensive amount of remodel. Commissioner Baker inquired about the number of units being reduced from 50 units to 35 units and if the existing use would be considered a non-conforming use. Ms. Kennedy stated it is currently over the allowed density. The proposed project is right at the Growth Control Point and the 15 units would be put back into the Excess Dwelling Unit bank. Commissioner Baker asked if the developer could have been allowed to put 50 units at the Ocean Street site. Ms. Kennedy stated the developer never proposed that so the subject was never discussed. Commissioner Baker asked if the 15 units need to be put back into the Excess Dwelling Unit bank even though the project meets the Growth Control Point. Ms. Kennedy stated that was correct because those units were included in the City's build-out projections. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Jack Henthorn, Jack Henthorn and Associates, 5927 Balfour Court, gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Dominguez asked Mr. Henthorn if there had been any discussion with the Housing and Redevelopment Department regarding the displacement of the current residents in both the existing Ocean Street apartments and Roosevelt Street apartments. Mr. Henthorn stated that once all the project approvals are in place, they would do as much as they could through attrition. He further stated no written plan is currently in place however the owner has discussed the situation with the each of the residents. Commissioner Montgomery asked if there would be any color variation with the front of the units on Roosevelt Street. Mr. Henthorn stated there would be an accent color along the archway. Commissioner Montgomery inquired about the 50 year certification that this building is of the nature that it will last and exist, and how that certification can be made if the building needs significant upgrades including any seismic upgrades. Mr. Henthorn stated that he employed a firm that provided documentation to the Housing and Redevelopment Department that there was a remaining economic life in the structure that was sufficient to satisfy their obligations under the affordable housing agreement which is 55 years. He further stated that he does not anticipate major upgrades to the structure. Commissioner Montgomery asked if Housing and Redevelopment Director Debbie Fountain could respond to the question. Chairperson Whitton inquired as to what items would be included in the remodel. Mr. Henthorn stated any items that have deteriorated to the point of becoming a safety issue would be replaced which includes any plumbing, electrical, and any substandard items as well as cabinets and countertops. Chairperson Whitton further asked specifically about any items that are part of the infrastructure. Mr. Henthorn stated that they have already started to do that because the maintenance on the units had been deferred for such a long time. Planning Commission Minutes March 5,2008 Page 8 Commissioner Boddy asked if the owner acquired the Roosevelt Street property primarily for the reason for meeting the inclusionary housing requirement for the Ocean Street Residences project. Mr. Henthorn stated that was correct. Commissioner Dominguez inquired as to the underlying zoning and the allowed density on the Roosevelt Street property. Mr. Henthorn stated he was not sure but thought it was R-3 with an RH density. Ms. Kennedy clarified the underlying zoning is R-P with an RMH General Plan designation. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, Chairperson Whitton asked Ms. Fountain to respond to the issue of the lifetime of the property on Roosevelt. Ms. Fountain stated a professional assessment has to indicate a building lifetime of at least 55 years. This project did receive a professional assessment and along with the proposed upgrades to the building, the Housing and Redevelopment Department felt this project would easily meet the requirement for the 55 years. The other assurance is the maintenance clause within the agreements for affordable housing which states there will be ongoing maintenance of the site for the term of the agreement. Commissioner Montgomery commented that the City might want to take a look at receiving other assessments, such as electrical assessments, on similar projects to further protect the City. Ms. Fountain stated that they could take that into consideration. Commissioner Dominguez asked Ms. Fountain about the displacement of the current residents of the Roosevelt Street apartments and if there is any plans to assist those residents. Ms. Fountain stated there is not a written requirement about relocation from existing units. Staff typically has a discussion with the developer to express concern over of the displacement of the current residents and for the developer to give as much notice as possible to the residents and provide any assistance they can provide in relocation. With the Roosevelt Street apartments, as units become vacant the units are remaining vacant. With the Ocean Street apartments, Staff reviewed it differently because it is in the coastal zone and there is a requirement that if a developer is removing housing affordable to low income persons, the developer needs to determine how those units can be replaced. Staff reviewed the rents that were being charged and those rents did not fall into the low income category however there may be some that fall into the moderate income level. Because there is not an ordinance requiring relocation, Staff could not require the developer to assist with relocation. The City could only stress from a courtesy standpoint that the developer should try to do the best they could in relocating the residents to reasonable accommodations. Commissioner Dominguez further asked if the current residents will have preference in re-establishing themselves in their previous residential area. Ms. Fountain stated that with the Roosevelt Street Residences, if someone income qualifies for a unit, the City's preference would be to have those people to have an opportunity to return to those units first. Staff could talk with the developer about making that a requirement; however Staff does not currently know if any of the current occupants income qualify to return to the unit. Commissioner Dominguez inquired about any surveys that have been done on the types of people that will be displaced by the remodel for both projects. Ms. Fountain stated that she did not have any survey information on the typical income group of the Ocean Street apartments or typical type of family. On the Roosevelt Street project, because the units are small, the families occupying them tend to be smaller; however, a specific survey has not been completed on those units. When this project was first being reviewed, the occupants tended to be older residents or young families without any children. Commissioner Baker asked if there is a citywide waiting list for affordable housing or if it is project specific. Ms. Fountain stated there are two lists. The City maintains an interest list for affordable housing in Carlsbad either as rentals or for sale. As information becomes available from a developer, that information is given to the developer. At the point the developer has a contact point for leasing those affordable units, the City then turns that information over and the City no longer maintains an interest for that specific project. The interest list and waiting list is then maintained by the developer. The City does Planning Commission Minutes March 5,2008 Page 9 typically, from a marketing standpoint, ask the developer to first market to those people who live and work in Carlsbad. The City cannot limit the units to only those people who live and work in Carlsbad but it can be stressed that the developer do that first, and specifically if there is an interest group such as current residents if they can income qualify and then open it up to those who live and work in Carlsbad that can income qualify. Almost of the affordable housing projects in the City currently have a one to two year waiting list. Mr. Henthorn stated that in regards to a plan to assist the current residents of both projects, the owner has completed his negotiations with the tenants at both locations, and he currently has agreements in place with the current residents of the Ocean Street apartments to provide $1500 as a move-out incentive. The tenants are free to occupy the units up to the point of construction. The same incentive program is in place for the Roosevelt Street project. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions. Seeing none, he opened public testimony on the item. John Myers, 213 Normandy Lane, Carlsbad, stated he had a question regarding the finish grade and existing grade on Unit 7. He does like the project and feels it is an upgrade for the neighborhood, but he is concerned with the height of the proposed buildings. He stated that he recently completed a remodel in which he had to change roofing materials so that his structure would meet the building height that is required with a property in the Coastal Overlay Zone. He stated that he was not aware that with a discretionary permit if a grading plan is required, it allows the building height to be measured from the proposed grade not from the existing grade. He stated that he was never made aware of that situation until the past week. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Wayne Broody, 2303 Ocean Street, stated that some of his concerns have been addressed however he is concerned about the notice of where to live, the proposed elevations and current grade of the project, and the notification of the hearing. He stated that the posting for the permit application was posted at the site months ago, but the notice for the meeting tonight was only posted that morning. Danny Tamento, 2116 Broadway, Oceanside, a member of the Board for the Buena Vista Audubon, asked that the applicant be considerate with lighting, landscaping, drainage, and setbacks in regards to the sensitive areas surrounding the project. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any questions of the speaker. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to address the issues raised by the speakers. Mr. Henthorn stated that the grades of the project have not changed since the initial neighborhood meeting about a year ago. The grades on the west end of the project are about three feet above Ocean Street. The reason for that is so that the project meets minimum grade requirements for the underground parking which will create almost twice as much parking as there is currently and that would help alleviate some of the existing parking problems which exist in the area. The other part is that the applicant's wishes to sewer the units back out to Ocean Street which would eliminate the need for a sewer pump. The wall heights have been kept down purposely and vary from about two feet to as much as four feet along the frontage of the project. They have been actively working with the adjacent property owners regarding the drainage easement issue to obtain their cooperation in getting a public easement because currently there is a public storm drain that traverses both properties without the benefit of a public easement. Mr. Henthorn stated that all the parties involved are supportive of resolving the issue that is beneficial to everyone involved. The easement would go along an existing open space lot. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the issue raised in one of the letters regarding the hydrology used to determine the size and amount of discharge had been resolved. Mr. Henthorn deferred the question to Planning Commission Minutes March 5,2008 Page 10 Mr. Wickham. Mr. Wickham stated the total was incorrectly stated at 127 cubic feet and should state an estimated 12.7 cubic feet of runoff per second. Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Henthorn if he had received the letter from Mr. Gavin and Mr. Carroll. Mr. Henthorn stated he had. Commissioner Baker asked if he is mindful of the suggestions contained in the letter and are working with them in regards to a resolution. Mr. Henthorn stated the first part of the letter contains issues that have been discussed during the hearing. Mr. Henthorn further stated that everyone is in agreement with having the easement go directly to the City. Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Wickham to address the issues of BMPs for stormwater which were brought up in the letter. Mr. Wickham stated that the applicant is trying to promote infiltration with this project so that there might not be any runoff because it will filter through the site, and the runoff amount could be less than existing. Commissioner Baker inquired if the runoff currently crosses the Chateau property. Mr. Wickham stated that was correct. Commissioner Baker asked if it is the intention of the City and Mr. Henthorn to make this project better than what currently exists. Mr. Wickham stated that is the intention and Staff welcomes the opportunity to the work with the owners from both the developing property and the adjacent property to resolve the issue. Commissioner Dominguez asked if there will be less non-pervious surfaces than what currently exists. Mr. Wickham stated he believed that was correct. Commissioner Montgomery inquired about building height and direct sewering. Mr. Henthorn stated that they want to sewer as many units to Ocean Street as possible. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the finished grade of the Ocean Street flats was being increased for drainage to Ocean Street. Mr. Henthorn stated it was due to drainage, sewer, and access issues. Commissioner Montgomery asked if those issues would still exist if the finished grade of those units was lowered 3 feet. Mr. Henthorn stated their primary concern was to insure enough fall to accommodate the gravity sewer onsite as well as to take care of the drainage and access issues. Commissioner Montgomery inquired if the intent of raising the finished grade was to increase the lagoon and ocean views from those units. Mr. Henthorn stated that was not the intent of the design. The project was designed so that it works from a civil engineering standpoint. Commissioner Montgomery further asked if there are issues with accessing the lower garage if the grade is lowered. Mr. Henthorn stated that was correct because the gradient of the driveway would change. Commissioner Montgomery stated his concern regarding projects that have artificial grades. Mr. Henthorn stated that any development along that street would have a finished grade above the street level if it were to be sewered back. He further stated that the project is well within the 30 feet height limit. Because the site is so complex, the project was designed so that it works from a civil engineering standpoint. The project has interior landscaping as part of the site BMPs and because of that, those plants need a certain amount of soil coverage. Mr. Henthorn further commented that there are a number of items that dictate the grade of the site and it is not a view issue. The units are setback 20 feet which is further than the existing units, and the entrance was reconfigured so as to remove the view blockage. Commissioner Montgomery asked to hear from the Engineering Consultant regarding the potential impacts if the Ocean Street units were lowered three feet. Rod Bradley, a Civil Engineer from BHA, gave details as to why the project was designed as it is as well as the finished grade for the project. He feels the project enhances the views from what currently exists, and there is an engineering constraint on establishing the first floor finished elevation. Chairperson Whitton asked if there would be issues regarding fire apparatus and trash trucks if the elevation were changed. Mr. Bradley stated there would clearly be issues with fire trucks because there would already be issues with cars trying to access the parking garage. Commissioner Dominguez asked Mr. Bradley to explain the circular entrance to the project. Mr. Bradley stated it is like a typical driveway entrance with a 2% grade that curves around to a 5% grade which then goes to a 12% to enter the parking garage with a vertical curve at an even steeper grade. Mr. Bradley explained that the entry is relatively flat and is also setback to allow for cars to stack up and there are sight distance issues for cars exiting back onto Ocean Street. Commissioner Dominguez asked what the sewer depth is on Ocean Street. Mr. Bradley stated it is approximately 8 feet deep. Commissioner \n Planning Commission Minutes March 5,2008 Page 11 Dominguez asked if the gravity sewer feed was an issue. Mr. Bradley stated for the Ocean Street flats it is not the controlling aspect but the project was designed so that as many units as possible were sewered so that a pump did not have to be used. Commissioner Dominguez inquired if the grading plan had been approved yet. Mr. Wickham stated no. He further commented that the 12% for the driveway grade is an ideal design. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the fixed grade is due to access to the garage for the lower units. Mr. Bradley stated that was correct and there is a natural topography of the site that goes down. Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Bradley to explain how raising the units three feet above Ocean Street helps with the grade decline to the lower parking. Mr. Bradley stated it is all set by the elevation of the garage itself and then there needs to be a vertical clearance. Commissioner Baker inquired if the garage could be deeper. Mr. Bradley commented that access to the garage would then be compromised. Chairperson Whitton inquired as to the height of the garage. Mr. Bradley stated it is 10 feet. Cliff Chang, Prospect Point Development, 156 Chapin Lane, Burlingame, clarified a few issues. He stated there is a soil zone on top of the garage to accommodate the landscaping on the site which helps to preserve the appearance of single family homes. Three feet of soil above the garage is the bare minimum needed to in order to grow trees. This project's landscaping includes a mixture of trees, bushes and palm trees, which is the reason for the four feet. The ten feet for the garage is the minimum needed for clearance for lights, sanitary sewer system to come down and back out to the street, electrical conduits and ADA handicap access. The Fire Department wanted to minimize the slope access for safety purposes. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any questions. Mr. Henthorn stated that given the testimony given, there are roughly 4 or 5 issues that dictate the establishment of the grade, not driven by the view potential of the product. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the four feet of soil could surround the building to allow the units to be lower. Mr. Henthorn stated that if the building is lowered people would not be able to access it. Commissioner Dominguez asked if there could be architectural adjustments made in order to handle that issue. Mr. Chang stated there are entrances all around the units as well as ADA requirements that make it very abnormal. Commissioner Dominguez stated his concern that the project is designed to obtain the best view potential for the units, and if the height is measured from street level, the project does not comply with the standard. Mr. Henthorn took exception to the comment that the building does not comply with the standard and deferred the question to Staff as to how the City's building height ordinance is applied. Chairperson Whitton asked for further clarification regarding the soil on top of the garage. Mr. Chang stated the three feet of soil was to provide for landscaping and irrigation lines so the buildings are not sitting right on top of concrete or directly next to hardscape and it helps preserve the look of single family homes. Chairperson Whitton commented that the soil could be removed, the buildings could be placed directly on top of the garage which would lower the building height 3 feet, and planter boxes could be placed along the buildings. Mr. Chang stated the entrances would all be at a different height. He further commented that a very downtown, urban look would be created if the soil were to be removed. Chairperson Whitton closed public testimony on the item and staff to respond to some of the issues. Ms. Kennedy stated that the building height and the grade of the project are calculated from the newly created grade because the discretionary action requires a grading permit. Because this project has a discretionary action, it basically can establish a new grade with the grading permit, and the new grade is where the building height is measured from. Staff supports the project design as it was proposed. Ms. Kennedy further stated the public notices were sent out at least 10 days prior to the hearing which go to property owners within 600 feet of the property as well as occupants within 300 feet of the property. A Planning Commission Minutes March 5,2008 Page 12 notice of the tentative hearing date was sent to the applicant in February, and towards the end of February, she also reminded the applicant to post the public hearing sign. Ms. Kennedy stated in regards to the habitat issues, the project is over 120 feet from the lagoon. A biological study was completed for the project to make sure there are no sensitive habitat onsite. There are mitigation measures in place to reduce the edge effects, such as light spillage and use of non-invasive plant materials along the perimeter of the property. Commissioner Montgomery asked if public hearing notices are sent to the occupants who constitute the property of the applicant. Ms. Kennedy stated the current occupants of the property should have received the notice. The applicant is responsible for preparing the noticing labels which the City uses for mailing the notices. Commissioner Dominguez asked about the proposed building height and the standard for the Beach Overlay Zone. Ms. Kennedy restated that the measurement of height is consistent throughout the City. The Beach Overlay Zone limits the height of structures to 30 feet which is more restrictive than what the underlying zone allows which is 35 feet. With the earlier speaker, Mr. Myers, he did a remodel of the existing structure and did not have a grading permit so the building height was measured from the existing grade. For this project, there is a discretionary permit with a grading permit which allows the building height to be measured from the newly established grade. During review of the project and from working with the applicant it is determined if the grades are appropriate, if the project blends in with the neighborhood, and any adverse impacts are minimized as much as possible. Given this project's site constraints, drainage concerns and issues with access, Staff felt it was appropriate to raise the grades. Mr. Henthorn stated that in talking with Mr. Bradley, it has been determined that the corner unit on Building 7 may be able to have 2 feet taken from it which would make it a step down access and lower the unit by 2 feet; however that is undesirable and the landscaping would not be as lush at that corner unit. Commissioner Montgomery stated he did not want to apply a height restriction on one particular unit and he would not want to lose any landscaping. Chairperson Whitton asked his fellow Commissioners for their feelings regarding lowering the one unit in the project. Commissioner Cardosa stated he did not feel the Commission could redesign the project from the dais. He commented that he understands all of the access issues but feels there are major tradeoffs with this project, such as enhanced landscaping, the spatial distance between the buildings and the amount of underground parking, and stated he likes the project as it is presented. Commissioner Boddy concurred with Commissioner Cardosa. Commissioner Dominguez stated the Commission is the sole approver of the project. He concurred with Commissioner Montgomery in that modifying one part of a building would not make a difference. He further stated it is good project and it is well-designed but is concerned over the building height and the Commission is going to set precedence with this project. Commissioner Baker stated her concern regarding the measurement of the building height and feels it should be measured from street level but she understands why it cannot be done that way. She feels that with the testimony given, tradeoffs need to be made. With the enhanced landscaping and the reduced amount of runoff out weigh the issue regarding the three feet. Commissioner Montgomery stated that the project has an excellent design and it is very appealing. He stated that he wanted to be sure the citizens of Carlsbad were protected with the height requirement because the City does not have a view ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 2008 Page 13 MOTION ACTION:Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6393 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6394, 6395, and 6396 approving a Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-12), Residential air-space Condominium Permit (CP 05-11), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 05-28), and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6397 recommending approval of Site Development Plan (SDP 06- 10), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION Commissioner Baker stated that overall this is an interesting project particularly when it is not financially feasible to include the inclusionary housing on the property to go off site which then rehabilitates two run down properties of the City to the benefit of the citizens of Carlsbad. Chairperson Whitton commented that this is a beautiful project that a great deal of thought went into, not only with Staff but with the Commissioners as well. He also commended the applicant for rehabilitating a building in the Barrio. VOTE: 5-1-1 AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Boddy, Commissioner Cardosa, and Commissioner Montgomery NOES: Commissioner Dominguez ABSENT: Commissioner Douglas ABSTAIN: None COMMISSION COMMENTS None. PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS None. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of March 5, 2008, was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. DON NEU Planning Director Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk 120 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 CC.P.) This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times- Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: April 11th, 2008 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at SAN MARCOS California This 11th, day of April, 2008 Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising Proof of Publication of NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will holda public hearing at the Council Chambers,"12UU uarlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at6:00 p.m. on Tuesday. April 22 2008, to consider ap-proval of a Site Development Plan to convert seven[7) market-rate units to affordable units within an ex-isting 10-unit apartment building as an alternative tothe construction of new Inclusionary Housing units onproperty generally located at 3366 Roosevelt Streeton fhe east side of Roosevelt Street between WalnutAvenue and Chestnut Avenue, withjn Local FacilitiesManagement Zone 1, and more particularly described as: .... Iv one-half of Lot 5 and all of Lots 6 and 7,Block 42 of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, Countj-' — <->.-.- '-< /~-IK~,.ii., o.v.nnfln^I »„ Ma! The northerly nsuau, III me wuy ui v^auoupu, wuuinjState of California, according to Map, filed in the Office of the County Re- iego County, May 2, 1 888 DIOCK <t£ OT uansuau, III me wuy ui v^auoof San Diego. State of California, acco thereof No. 535, filed in thecorder of San Diego County, Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal arecordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copiesof the agenda bill will be available on and after April18, 2008. If you have any questions, please call Bar-bara Kennedy in the Planning Department at (760)602-4626. X y If you challenge the Site Development Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you orsomeone else raised at the public hearing describedin this notice or in written correspondence delivered tothe City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at 0' prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: SDP 06-10 CASE NAME: ROOSEVELT STREET RESIDENCES PUBLISH: APRIL 11, 2008 NCT 21 40787 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY COUNCIL Utilisez le gabarit 5160® ALEX KOMONCHUK 3305 TYLER ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 i apiue www.avery.com1-800-GO-AVERY ALVARADO FAMILY TRUST UNITR 3327 TYLER ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 LUPE HERRERA TRUST 371 REDWOOD AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ADAM CARRUTH 3395TYLERST CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOAQUIN DEVELASCO 466 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 BERUKOFF TRUST 2460 BLAKE ST LAHABRACA 90631 GEORGE & LEROY TRUST 790 VALE VIEW DR VISTA CA 92081 CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE LLC UNIT 800 2 PARK PLZ IRVINE CA 92614 DAVID MCCHESNEY 825 CAPE BRETON VISTA CA 92084 RUBEN GASTELUM 1975 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 JAVIER URETA 3280 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOIN HANDS 3528 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RUFUS VERHALEN 512 SAN LUIS REYDR OCEANSIDECA 92054 RUFUS VERHALEN 3255 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARGARITO BETANCOURT 4799 ELM TREE DR OCEANSIDECA 92056 HEMINGWAY TRUST PO BOX1523 CARLSBAD CA 92018 JOSE VALADEZ 3234 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 WILLIAM SCHNEIDER PO BOX 891 CARLSBAD CA 92018 JOEL URETA 3280 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 FRANCES MORENO 1611 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 GASTELUM TRUST 640 WALNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 TERHUNE TRUST UNIT 1312 645 FRONT ST SAN DIEGO CA 92101 RAMON KHALONA 3267 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 SUZANNE NGUYEN 3369 MIDDLEBROOK WY SAN RAMON CA 94582 ERIK & APRIL WAHLRAS 3231 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 M GUADALUPE MUNOZ 3250 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARTINEZ TRUST 3274 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RUTH GALINDO 3230 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 GOMEZ TRUST 4765 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP SD PO BOX 85728 SAN DIEGO CA 92186 ®09ts ©AU3AV AHiAV-O9-008-l ®09LS -..,.....,...»• Utilisez le gabarit 5160® i a setncige rapme www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® ROBERT MONTANEZ 3240 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 KATHLEEN M PALMER 3905 DAISY PL OCEANSIDECA 92056 KATHERINE BALING 511 WALNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROBERT CARREON 3309 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 LUPE CASTRO 878 GRANADA DR OCEANSIDECA 92056 RAYMOND ANGEL 3329 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 KANJI MIYAO 3220 LOCUST AVE LONG BEACH CA 90807 MAUGA TRUST 3347 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 BUCK TRUST 460 SIERRA BONITA AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90036 NICHOLAS & RALPH BERNAL 1956 CIRCLE PARKLIN ENCINITAS CA 92024 STEVEN MURPHY 3369 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 FLORES TRUST 2010 KARREN LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 JAMES TRUST 3931 GARFIELDST CARLSBAD CA 92008 JONATHAN BOCHINSKI 3386 TYLER ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARTIN ROSS UNIT 208 580 LOS VALLECITOS BLVD SAN MARCOS CA 92069 OFELIA ESCOBEDO 1611 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 SUSAN SMITH 3320 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 DOLORES JAUREGUI PO BOX 281 CARLSBAD CA 92018 PENDLETON TRUST 1312 NEPTUNE AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 KELLEY TRUST 3208 VIA RIBERA ESCONDIDOCA 92029 HENRY MONTANEZ 3391 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 PACHECO TRUST 3357 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 VIRGINIA MARTINEZ 3367 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARIA APODACA TRUST 13596 TRADITION ST SAN DIEGO CA 92128 THERESA CHILDS TRUST 3331 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 ALFONSO SENTENO TRUST 3323 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 PETERSON TRUST 3315 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 LARRY KINSER TRUST 2192SCOASTHWY OCEANSIDECA 92054 ROOSEVELT GROUP LP UNIT 314 1020 PROSPECT ST LAJOLLACA 92037 CLICK WALLACE 3378 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 ®09is AH3AV-OD-008-1 ®091S 31V1dl/\l3.L. ®A«aAV 5ullLHJ-J Utilisez le gabarit 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® SANDWELL TRUST 3390 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 CONSUELO GOMEZ 3306 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 FRANCES JAUREGUI 525 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 CONSUELO TREJO PO BOX 281 CARLSBAD CA 92018 GARCIA TRUST 31391 REGINAGLN VALLEY CENTER CA 92082 MAGDALENA GUERRA 3445 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 JACK WEST TRUST 790 VALE VIEW DR VISTA CA 92081 MAX RABII TRUST UNIT 7 2210 MONTGOMERY AVE CARDIFF BY THE SEA CA 92007 ROOSEVELT PLAZA LP 735 FOX RIDGE DR PROVIDENCE UT 84332 GOLDMAN TRUST UNIT 500 4350 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92122 GOLDMAN TRUST UNITD 2653 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 DANIEL & KAREN GREENWALD 1814 ROOSEVELT AVE NATIONAL CITY CA 91950 JOSEPH FEULING 755 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 DEWHURST TRUST 154 LANCER AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 ASBILL FAMILY TRUST 3530 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 SALVADOR MORENO 3468 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 ANTHONY BONA 2389 OUTLOOK CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 LEHOA NGUYEN 3422 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 ADAM GONZALES 4887 FOXCREEK TRL RENONV 89509 ISABEL CANALES TRUST 3447 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 FERGUSON TRUST 4260 SUNNYHILL DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 PATRICIA RODRIGUEZ 661 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 NIKOLAOS SOUGIAS TRUST PO BOX 232047 ENCINITASCA 92023 RODOLFO SOTELO 154CREGARST OCEANSIDECA 92054 STEPHEN SHEA 3443 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 BOBBITT TRUST 3730 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 BRYAN BATTEN 3461 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 TANGUMA TRUST 3495 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 HEZ TRUST OSEVELT ST CA 92008 SANCHEZ TRUST 3482 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 ®<ms ©AU3AV AM3AV-OD-008-1 31\ndW31 <g/JaAV asp 6ui)uud aaij aBpnius pue uier Utilisez le gabarit 5160® ROCHA TRUST 4209 CIELO AVE OCEANSIDECA 92056 rapiae www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY DAVID MCGEE TRUST 6499 FAIRWATER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 AVERY® 5160* ROMALDA MATA 3450 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 CONSUELO TREJO 3442 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 ALEX REZA 25024 HIGHSPRING AVE NEWHALLCA 91321 ROSEMARY HERNANDEZ 1213 FREEMAN ST OCEANSIDECA 92054 GUERRERO CRUZ 635 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 DONALD TRUEBLOOD PO BOX 274 DUCORCA 93218 JACK HENTHORN ASSOCIATES PO BOX 237 CARLSBAD CA 92018 ®09ts ®AU3AV AN3AV-OD-008-1 ®091S 31VldV\l3.L ®AiaAV a*nfilinilll j nai • ^Cn_..._ easy reel Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® i A AFeed Paper See Instruction Sheet j for Easy Peel Feature^ CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92011 SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST STE 250 255 PICO AVE SAN MARCOS CA 92069 AVERY®5160® ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST 101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST 701 ENCINITAS BLVD ENCINITAS CA 92024 LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DIST TIM JOCHEN 1960 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CITY OF VISTA 600 EUCALYPTUS AVE VISTA CA 92084 VALLECITOS WATER DIST 201 VALLECITOS DE ORO SAN MARCOS CA 92069 I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92123 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STE 100 9174 SKY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 SD COUNTY PLANNING STEB 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST 10124 OLD GROVE RD SAN DIEGO CA 92131 SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 ATTN TEDANASIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 SCOTT MALLOY - BIASD STE 110 9201 SPECTRUM CENTER BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1407 CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 5934 PRIESTLEY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CITY OF CARLSBAD RECREATION CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER 13/20/2008 Etiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160®Sens de charqement Consultez la feuille www.avery.com Roosevelt Street Roosevelt Street ResidencesResidencesSDP 06SDP 06--1010 Location MapLocation MapM A DISO N STCHESTNUT AVTY LER S TRO O S E VELT STWALNUT AVROO SE VELT ST ALLE Y M A DISO N ST ALLEY ROOSEVELT STCHESTNUT AVM ADISON STTYLER STWALNUT AVROO SEVELT ST ALLEY MADISO N ST ALLEY 010050FeetSDP 06-10Roosevelt Street Residences Roosevelt Street Residences is classified as an Roosevelt Street Residences is classified as an offoff--site alternative for affordable housing.site alternative for affordable housing.The proposal would satisfy the Inclusionary The proposal would satisfy the Inclusionary Housing requirement for the Ocean Street Housing requirement for the Ocean Street Residences project.Residences project.Feasibility issues affect the ability to develop Feasibility issues affect the ability to develop affordable units within the Ocean Street affordable units within the Ocean Street Residences Project.Residences Project.Roosevelt Street ResidencesRoosevelt Street Residences Roosevelt Street Roosevelt Street ––Street ViewStreet View Roosevelt Street ResidencesRoosevelt Street Residences7 units will be rent7 units will be rent--restricted as affordable restricted as affordable to lowerto lower--income householdsincome households3 units will be rented at market3 units will be rented at market--raterateSupports General Plan Goals to Supports General Plan Goals to rehabilitate existing units for occupancy by rehabilitate existing units for occupancy by lowlow--income households income households CEQACEQAThe Roosevelt Street Residences is The Roosevelt Street Residences is Categorically Exempt, Section 15301 Categorically Exempt, Section 15301 (Existing Structures)(Existing Structures) RecommendationRecommendationApproveApproveRoosevelt Street Residences Roosevelt Street Residences SDP 06SDP 06--1010 Roosevelt Street ResidencesRoosevelt Street Residences2303 Investors, LP2303 Investors, LPSDP 06SDP 06--1010 Combined Inclusionary Combined Inclusionary Housing ProjectHousing ProjectOcean Street Residences Ocean Street Residences (CT 05(CT 05--12/CP 0512/CP 05--11/CDP 0511/CDP 05--28)28)PC Approval March 5, 2008PC Approval March 5, 20083366 Roosevelt Street3366 Roosevelt StreetExisting 10Existing 10--unit unit Apartment BuildingApartment Building460 SF 460 SF ––1 Bedroom 1 Bedroom and 1 Bathand 1 BathRoosevelt Street ResidencesRoosevelt Street ResidencesRenovate Interior of UnitsRenovate Interior of UnitsExterior Upgrade of Building Exterior Upgrade of Building and Propertyand PropertyRoosevelt Street ResidencesRoosevelt Street ResidencesOcean Street Ocean Street ResidencesResidencesRoosevelt Street Roosevelt Street ResidencesResidences Roosevelt Street ResidencesRoosevelt Street ResidencesInterior RenovationsInterior RenovationsNew Carpet in Living Room and BedroomNew Carpet in Living Room and BedroomCeramic Tiles in the Kitchen and BathroomCeramic Tiles in the Kitchen and BathroomCeiling Fan in the BedroomCeiling Fan in the BedroomNew Bathroom Mirror and ToiletNew Bathroom Mirror and ToiletNew Window CoveringsNew Window CoveringsNew PaintNew Paint Roosevelt Street ResidencesRoosevelt Street ResidencesExterior Site UpgradesExterior Site UpgradesLandscaping/Landscaping/HardscapingHardscapingFencingFencingExterior Building UpgradesExterior Building UpgradesSpanish Architectural StyleSpanish Architectural StyleArchesArchesDecorative TileDecorative TileWood TrellisWood TrellisNew Parapet WallNew Parapet WallWood DetailingWood DetailingNew PaintNew Paint Property ManagementProperty ManagementResident Manager Resident Manager Tenant screening as per market rate unitsTenant screening as per market rate unitsCreditCreditBackgroundBackgroundPrior residence Prior residence City Affordable AgreementCity Affordable AgreementAnnual reportAnnual reportSubject to auditSubject to auditAnnual recertification of tenant eligibilityAnnual recertification of tenant eligibilityAnnual onAnnual on--site inspectionsite inspectionSite access to confirm complianceSite access to confirm compliance Roosevelt Street ResidencesRoosevelt Street Residences2303 Investors, LP2303 Investors, LP Ocean Street ResidencesOcean Street ResidencesOcean Street View Ocean Street View ––Main EntryMain Entry Ocean Street ResidencesOcean Street ResidencesOcean Street View Ocean Street View ––East EndEast EndOcean Street View Ocean Street View ––West EndWest End Ocean Street ResidencesOcean Street ResidencesLagoon ViewLagoon View