HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 94-02; Army & Navy Academy Master Plan; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (4)MEMORANDUM
October 4, 1995
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION
ASSOCIATE PLANNER - JEFF GIBSON
From: Associate Engineer - Land Use Review
Via: Principal Civil Engineer - Land Use Review
RP 94-02, CUP 94-02; ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY
PC RESO. NO. 3797, DRB RESO. NO. 233
REVISED ENGINEERING CONDiTIONS OF APPROVAL
The Phasing Plan, Exhibit "G" dated September 6, 1995, has been revised by the applicant.
The revision is from a numerical reference of phasing to an alphabetic reference. Therefore,
Condition No. 6 of Planning Commission No. 3797 and Condition No. 10 of Design Review
Board Resolution No. 233 should be revised to read as follows:
Engineering Conditions:
1. The future building development of the Army/Navy Academy may be
accomplished in the order shown on exhibit "G" labeled "Phasing Plan", dated
September 6, 1995. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all
public improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the construction of any
facilities within a given phase, the applicant shall install, or agree to install and
secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on
the site plan, which consist of, the following:
Public Improvement Phasing Proqram
Phase A - North side of Cypress Avenue
1. Half street improvements to Cypress Avenue from Carlsbad Boulevard to
Garfield Street.
2. Relocate utility pole 16 as needed.
Phase A - South side of Cvpress Avenue
1. Half street improvements to Cypress Avenue from the most easterly property
line to Garfield Street.
2. Half street improvements to Garfield Street from Cypress Avenue to the most
southerly property line.
3. Underground utility segment 15.
4. Relocate utility pole 13 as needed.
CUP 94-02; ARMY/NAVWCADEMY ^ PAGE: 2
PC RESO. NO. 3797; REVISED ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING COMMISSION/J. GIBSON MEMO; OCTOBER 4, 1995
Phase 1 - At Carlsbad Boulevard and Mountain View Drive
1. Half street improvements to the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard from the
northerly property line to Mountain View Drive.
2. Relocate utility pole 20 as needed.
3. Half street improvements to the north side of Mountain View Drive from
Carlsbad Boulevard to the most westerly property line (ie, to the Phase J
westerly boundary line.)
Phase B
1. Half street improvements to the east side of Ocean Street from Pacific Avenue
to Cypress Avenue.
2. Underground utility segments 9 through 11.
3. Relocate utility pole 10 as needed.
4. Half street improvements to the south side of Pacific Avenue from Ocean Street
to Garfield Street
5. Underground utility segments 7 & 8.
6. Relocate utility pole 5 as needed.
Phase C
1. Half street improvements to the west side of Ocean Street from Pacific Avenue
to Cypress Avenue.
Phase D
1. Half street improvement to the north side of Beech Avenue along the project
frontage.
2. Underground utility segments 22 & 23.
Phase E - Fronting Garfield Street
1. Half street improvements to Garfield Street from Cypress Avenue to the
southerly property line.
2. Underground utility segments 14 & 17.
CUP 94-02; ARMY/NA\^P\CADEMY ^ PAGE: 3
PC RESO. NO. 3797; REVISED ENGINEERING CONDITiONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING COMMISSION/J. GIBSON MEMO; OCTOBER 4, 1995
Phase E - Fronting Ocean Street
1. Half street improvements to Ocean Street along the project frontage.
2. Underground utility segments 12 & 13.
Phase F
1. Half Street improvements to the south side of Pacific Avenue from Garfield
Street to Mountain View Drive.
2. Underground utility segments 4, 6, 18, 19 & 20.
3. Relocate utility pole 1 as needed.
Phase G
1. Half street improvements to Mountain View Drive from Carlsbad Boulevard to
Pacific Avenue.
2. Underground utility segments 2, 3 & 21 and the utility line from pole 1 to pole
20.
Phase H
1. Underground utility segment 1.
2. Complete items 1 through 3 of Phase F if not already completed.
Phase J
1. Underground utility segment 24.
Concurrent with any development of the site, the phase 1 portion of the parking lot
shall be constructed along with items 1 through 3 of the Phase 1 - At Carisbad
Boulevard and Mountain View Drive improvements.
In accordance with the above Public Improvement Phasing Program, full
improvements shall include but not be limited to the following:
Concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Asphalt/Concrete or Concrete roadway pavement widening.
Installation of handicap ramps.
Storm Drain facility improvements.
Sewer facility improvements.
CUP 94-02; ARMY/NAv4|iCADEMY ^ PAGE: 4
PC RESO. NO. 3797; REVISED ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING COMMISSION/J. GIBSON MEMO; OCTOBER 4, 1995
• Water facility improvements.
• Installation of Street Light Standards.
• Installation of Fire Hydrants.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the
secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
If you have ajsttMiiiestf^^, please contact me at extension 4388.
_£rigmeep--4rdnd'1Ilse^evi^
September 6, 1995
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
RP 94-02/CDP 94-02/CUP 94-02 - ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN
To provide clarity conceming the future implementation of the project's Design
Guidelines (Exhibit "J"), the Planning Department is recommending that Design Review
Board Resolution No. 233, Condition No. 9, and Planning Commission Resolution No.
3797, Condition No. 4, both be amended to include the following language:
"The Design Guidelines, Exhibit "J" shall be amended to state that the
implementation and interpretation of the Design Guidelines shall also be subject
to the review and approval of the City's final decision-maker for all applicable
development".
(7 C^- <^ -fY^
MEMORANDUM
September 6, 1 995
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION
ASSOCIATE PLANNER - JEFF GIBSON
From: Associate Engineer - Land Use Review
Via: Principal Civil Engineer - Land Use Review
RP 94-02, CUP 94-02; ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY
PC RESO. NO. 3797, DRB RESO. NO. 233
REVISED ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
In accordance with input provided at the Planning Commission briefing of Tuesday, September
5 and Wednesday September 6, 1995, the Engineering Conditions of Approval for PC Reso.
No. 3797 and DRB Reso. No. 233 have been revised to read as follo\A/s:
EnQineerinq Conditions:
1. The future building development of the Army/Navy Academy shall be
accomplished in the order shown on exhibit "G" labeled "Phasing Plan", dated
September 6, 1995. If the applicant proposes to develop out of order, they
must obtain the approval of the City Engineer and Planning Director. However,
prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the construction of any
facilities within a given phase, at a minimum infrastructure/roadway frontage
improvements shall be required to be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and in accordance with the foilowing:
Public improvement Phasing Proqram
Phase 1
Full improvements to both sides of Cypress Avenue from Garfield Street to
Carlsbad Boulevard.
Full improvements to the north side of Mountain View Drive along the Phase 1
and 9 frontage.
Full improvements to Garfield Street along the Phase 1 and 5 frontage.
Full improvements to the west side of CaHsbad Boulevard along the Phase 1
frontage.
Phase 2
Full improvements to the south side of Pacific Avenue from Ocean Street to
Garfield Street.
Full improvements to the east side of Ocean Street from Pacific Avenue to
Cypress Avenue, and, along the Phase 5 frontage, south of Cypress Avenue.
^ CUP 94-02; ARMY/NAVY A^IDEMY W RAGE: 2
PC RESO. NO. 3797; REVISED ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING COMMISSION/J. GIBSON MEMO; SEPTEMBERS, 1995
Phase 3
Full improvements to the west side of Ocean Street from Pacific Avenue to the
south side of Cypress Avenue.
Phase 4
Full improvements to the north side of Beech Avenue along the Phase 4
frontage.
Phase 6
Full improvements to the south side of Pacific Avenue from Garfield Street to
Mountain View Drive and full improvements to the south side of Mountain View
Drive from Pacific Avenue to Carlsbad Boulevard.
Ail undergrounding of overhead utilities shall be completed in accordance with
the Improvement Phasing Program as indicated above.
The above Public Improvement Phasing Program shall take precedent over the
Army/Navy Master Plan - Phasing Plan.
In accordance with the above Improvement Phasing Program, full improvements
shail inciude but not be limited to the following:
• Concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk.
• Asphalt/Concrete or Concrete roadway pavement widening.
• Installation of handicap ramps.
• Storm Drain facility improvements.
• Sewer facility improvements.
• Water facility improvements.
• Installation of Street Light Standards.
• Installation of Fire Hydrants.
• Undergrounding of Utilities.
CUP 94-02; ARMY/NAVY AIB^EMY ^ W PAGE: 3
PC RESO. NO. 3797; REVISED ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING COMMISSION/J. GIBSON MEMO; SEPTEMBERS, 1995
If the City Engineer determines that the general health, safety and welfare of
the public is not being provided for with the construction of
roadway/infrastructure frontage improvements for a given phase under
development, then the City Engineer can require additional
roadway/infrastructure frontage improvements outside of that given phase.
If you have afHjf^^fluestionSf-jplease contact me at extension 4388.
MICHAELS. SHLx^e—
Associate- Enginoor—bariSUse Review
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
TELEPHONE
(619) 434-2808
DATE December 13, 1994
TO:
FROM:
Bobbie Hoder, Planning Dept.
Karen Kundtz, Clerk's Office
RE: Army & Navy Academy Master Plan - CUP 94-2/RP 94-2
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL/ HOUSING & RED. COMMISSION
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council
within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item
will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by
all parties.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
The appeal
Meeting of
above matter should be scheduled for the City Council
72 -J^-L^'
Signa Date
December 9. 1994
Cily Clerk
Cily of Carlsbad
1200 Carisbnd Village Drive
Carlsbad.CA 92008
Subject: Anny & Navy Acadeoiy Master Site Plan
TCA Job #: 93025
Re: Appeal of Project Denial
Dear Sir/Madam: ^
Wilh this IcUer. the Army & Navy Academy wishes to appeal the Planning Commission'^ decision to adopt resolution No.
3727 and the Design Rcview Board's Decision to adopt resolution Numbers 216 and 217 all ofwhich recommend denial
of our applications C.U.P. 94-02, R.P. 94-02 and C.D.P. 94-02 respectively. We request that these applications be
scheduled for public hearing before thc City Council at tlie earliest possible date.
We disagree vvith the staffs opinion concerning the closure of C>press Avenue. We feel that issues of parking can be
dealt with and lhat the elimination of Iraffic from Cjpress Avenue will benefit not only the Academy but also thc City.
Enclosed is a check for $490.00 as requested by Planner Jeff Gibson for tliis appeal. We thank you for your assistance in
processing this appeal.
Sinceicly,
Tjlioinas P. Co
Principal
TPCVna
Eiitlosure
3W MaM Suile m
Sma Ans. [slilBinis UUS
nm-.m.ssims
fax: JJUSJ.m
To: Jeff Gibson
From: Eric Munoz
Subject: Cult Hone
Date: 6/07/95 Time: 2:02p
The City Council never formally reviewed/adopted the Cultural Resources
Guidelines. While federal grant money was used in the preparation and the
document itself has been certified by State agencies including State Office
of Historic Preservation, it never became an adopted policy or ordinance of
the City. It did, however, become a "tool" for Planning staff in preparing
environmental review for projects. To that end it was reviewed by staff,
the HPC and a peer archeologist (Brian Smith); and then, if anything,
adopted as a Department level guideline document and was implemented as
such. The Council abolishment of the Historic Resource Inventory and
historic preservation in general also indirectly abolished the Cultural
Resource Guidelines (I think). In other words, I think Council doesn't want
anyone to be required to go to the HPC. On the other hand CEQA's intent and
integrity must remain and be ensured. Plus, lack of Commissioner expertise
has eroded the HPC's worth relative to the Guidelines. If your question has
not been answered, let me know. EM
Rolftrt C. & Barbara A. Ladv^
2642 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
December 29, 1994
Mrs. Roy Ede
2600 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
SUBJECT: ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY APPEAL
Dear Neighbor:
On January 10, 1995, the City Council will hear an appeal by ANA (see enclosed letter fi-om Thomas
Cox, AIA). I have, along with some of you, opposed the closure of Cypress Avenue. I urge you
to write a letter to the Council and also appear at the Council meeting on January 10, to oppose the
Cypress closure.
Enclosed, please find copies of the letters I have sent to the City. I will also speak against the project
on January 10, 1995, and hope that you can. If you have any questions, please call me.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Ladwig
RCL:lw.001
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Jeflf Gibson, City of Carlsbad
HOME (619)729-3327 • WORK (619)438-3182 • FAX (619)431-2205
Ro Art C. & Barbara A. Ladvdl
2642 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
December 29, 1994
Mayor Bud Lewis and Coimcil Members
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carisbad, Cahfomia 92008
SUBJECT: ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN (RP 94-02/CDP 94-02/CUP
94-02)
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
This letter provides additional information to my letter dated December 28, 1994, to you urging
denial of the Army/Navy Academy appeal of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board's
unanimous denial of the project.
I am against the closing of Cypress Street because yoiu" staff has stated that the closiu'e of Cypress
would required the widening and improvement of Ocean Street between Cypress and Beech. My
reasons are as follows:
The current right-of-way width of Ocean Street is 40 feet.
My existing setback to the front of our house, which was built in 1940's, is 15 feet along with
7 others.
Our bedroom and living room face Ocean Street.
The lots on the east side of Ocean Street are 50' x 70' or 3,500 square feet and are oriented
towards Ocean Street.
The lots on the west side fece away from Ocean Street with mostly garage doors adjacent to the
right-of-way and the living areas facing the ocean.
No curb, gutter or sidewalk exist on the east side of Ocean Street.
HOME (619)729-3327 4 WORK (619)438-3182 4 FAX (619)431-2205
Mayor Bud Lewis and Coui^^lembers
December 29, 1994
Page 2
On Febmary 5, 1980, the City Council adopted a City Engineers report dated January 21, 1980, as
city policy. This policy shows up in Agenda Bill #6145 and applies to Ocean Street and the
surrounding area. The policy identified 50 feet as a minimum ultimate right-of-way requirement for
this street. What is clear in the existing policy is **if a person chooses to secure a building pennit to
rebuild on a lot in this area, he/she would be required to develop in conformance with the 50 foot
criteria".
I agree with the existing policy for rebuilding. The problem is that none of us are rebuilding. If
Ocean Street is widened now, I would have pedestrians within 10 feet on my front bedroom window
and about 12 feet from my living room.
Ocean Street is not a normal subdivision street. It is unique and needs special design standards that
a previous council recognized. My lot is small (3,500 square feet). The houses on the west side face
away from Ocean Street, we on the east side face Ocean Street. If Cypress Street is closed and
Ocean Street is widened, I would be denied along with my neighbors a property right everyone else
m Carlsbad enjoys and that is a reasonable setback from a public right-of-way. I urge you to deny
this request to close Cypress.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Ladwig
RCL:lw.002
cc: Mr. Jeff Gibson, City of Carlsbad
HOME (619)729-3327 • WORK (619)438-3182 • FAX (619)431-2205
Rc^rt C. & Barbara A. Lad>l^
2642 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
December 28, 1994
Mayor Bud Lewis and Coimcil Members
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carisbad, Califomia 92008
SUBJECT: ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY MASTER STTE PLAN (RP 94-02/CDP 94-02/CUP
94-02)
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I reside at 2642 Ocean Street which is approximately one half block south of the Army/Navy
Academy between Cypress Avenue and Beech Street. I am opposed to the current Army/Navy
Academy's application to close Cypress Avenue, I am also opposed to any changes m the current
traflic patteras around the Army/Navy Academy that would require the widening and improvement
of Ocean Street between Beech and Cypress. This narrow street now handles vehicle and pedestrian
traflfic. Setbacks are narrow and an improvQd street would allow traflSc speeds to uicrease, and in my
opinion, reduce safety factors.
I spoke in opposition to this application at the Planning Commission on December 7, 1994, along
with about 7 other residents, one of whom represented 14 homeowners at the very northerly end of
Ocean Street. One resident, who lives on Pacific Street, spoke in favor of the project. Also, one
resident who lives at the corner of Cypress and Ocean spoke in favor of the project indicating that
he felt the residents that spoke before him overstated their concems for the project. I would like to
point out that I do not feel the residents overstated their position. Your staff is recommending that
if Cypress is closed that Ocean Street between Beech and Cypress be widened and improved to
accommodate the additional increase in traflBc. Widening of the road was not discussed at the
Planning Commission and I am sure many of the residents that spoke were not aware of the staff
recommendation to widen and improve Ocean Street which does reinforce my position that the
residents did not overstate then concems for the change in traflBc pattems in this area.
HOME (619)729-3327 • WORK (619)438-3182 • FAX (619)431-2205
Mayor Bud LeWiS and Couni^^embers
December 28, 1994
Page 2
One of the residents, Mr. Endre Algover, brought up an excellent point. He uidicated that a
significant area of the Academy's property are vacated streets and alleys. Enclosed, please fluid a
copy of the Assessor's Parcel Map that I have marked-up showing exactly what Mr. Algover pointed
out. The total project area of the academy is shown by the Assessor at 15.91 acres. I have calculated
the acreage of the vacated streets and alleys that the academy currently enjoys to be about 3.32 acres
or 21% of their site.
Their request for additional vacarion and closure of Cypress, I feel, is not in the best interest of the
citizens of Carlsbad. I do hope the academy can revise their plans and bring back something I can
support. The academy has been an excellent neighbor.
The applicant at the Planning Commission Hearing showed no indication to cooperate with the staffs
recommendation or the residents who spoke. The Planning Commission and Design Review Board
were kind enough to deny this applicant without prejudice which would allow them to redesign and
resubmit their project. I strongly recommend that the Council deny this application and ask that the
appUcant redesign his project so Cypress Street is not closed.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Ladwig
RCL:lw.001
Enclosure
Copy with enclosure:
Mr. Jeff Gibson, City of Carlsbad
Mr. Endre Algover
HOME (619)729-3327 • WORK (619)438-3182 • FAX (619)431-2205
Army/Navy Academy Property = "I^^^^HM
Vacated/Closed Streets & Alleys=
Project Area 15.91 Ac. 100%
/ Vacated Street/Alleys 3.32 Ac. 21%
OCEAN
HAP 2037 - CKANVIU^ PARK NO 2
HAP 1221 - HAYES LAND CO. AOO MAP NO 2
HAP 893 - OCEANSIDE ADO. TO CARLSBAO
Irma Algover
Endre /. Algover
2650 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, CaUfomia 92008
(619) 729-4012
Fax: (619)729-2302
December 6, 1994
City Of Carlsbad
Design Review Board
NIK HAND DELIVERY, 12/7/94
Re: Army and Navy Academy redevelopment, including closure of Cypress Avenue.
Dear Members of the Design Review Board:
My mother, Irma Algover, and I are very long-time residents of Ocean Street, living one-
half a block south of Cypress Avenue. I grew up here and now my wife and three children live
with my mother in the family home. We have only recently been made aware of the plans of our
neighbor, the Army and Navy Academy, to redevelop its property and, as part of that, to seek
closure of Cypress Avenue so tiie land can be used by the Academy. The Academy presented its
plans to us recently at an "information session" they held for this purpose on December 1, 1994.
While we have always valued the Academy as a good neighbor and look forward in concept to
their redevelopment, we strongly oppose closure of Cypress Avenue and wish to go on the record
with several points:
The Academy indicated at its information session that a study done in the Fall of last year
showed Cypress Avenue receives relatively light traffic, and that they wish to have the street
closed and made part of the Academy for two main reasons; 1) student safety, and 2) aesthetics.
It appears the Academy wishes to redevelop its current library, located on the south side of
Cypress, into a large structure which would serve as the main building for all Academy classes.
The first reason given for wanting the closure of Cypress, student safety, regards the Academy's
concem for the safety of their students currently walking across Cypress (although no injuries or
accidents have yet occurred involving Academy students). The second reason, aesthetics (as we
have paraphrased it here), regards the Academy's decision to organize its redeveloped campus into
"quadrants" specific to academics, administration, residences, and recreation, and their resultant
decision that their main classroom building must be located to the south of the current Cypress
Avenue and that the continued presence of Cypress would inappropriately segment their
redevelopment plan.
Our first point in opposition to the closure of Cypress is that, while the Academy is
concerned with the safety of its students, we are concemed with the safety of our children and
ourselves on Ocean Street.
1) Even having been broken up with stop signs. Ocean street remains too much of a
"runway" where cars frequently speed from one stop to the other, or simply mn them
entirely. We believe that the closure of Cypress would not only increase the traffic by the
degree once carried by Cypress, but the resulting long unbroken stretch of Ocean street
between Beech and Pacific streets would physically and psychologically promote excessive
speed.
2) With the closure of Cypress, all traffic accessing nearby Magee Park (at Beech and
Carlsbad Blvd.) for the frequent public or private functions hosted fiiere would necessarily
have to go by way of Beech Street, the next connector between Ocean Street and Carlsbad
Blvd. south of Cypress. This, too, would increase the traffic and the risk in the area. A
further result would be exacerbation of already-poor parking management in the area as
the people who would have parked on Cypress for Magee Park would now be displaced
to the already-crowded Beech, Garfield and Ocean Streets.
As the father of a teenager, a three-year-old and a one-year-old, and having grown up on Ocean
street, I am well aware of the dzingers the traffic poses already. We do not wish to see any
changes which would increase the traffic, or increase the likelihood that the traffic will drive
excessively fast, because of the increased danger to our and our neighbors' children, and ourselves
as well.
As regards what we have termed the aesthetic concems of the Academy, we do not believe
they outweigh the concems of safety. Although the Academy is pushing the safety of its students
as die main reason for the proposed street closure, it became clear as the question and answer part
of their presentation went on tiiat they are driven primarily by their architectural plans. While we,
the local residents, can only move if we find after the closure of Cypress that Ocean street is too
dangerous for our children, the Academy can redesign its plan so that the safety and integrity of
Ocean street is retained, and while allowing for the safety of its students:
1) The most obvious altemative is to relocate tiie proposed large classroom building
onto the Academy's main grounds (much of which is to apparentiy be redeveloped). The
plans and model shown us at the information session indicate portions of open space
remaining which would accommodate the proposed building easily, but even a smaller
space could accommodate the same square footage if the building were to be designed
accordingly (multiple stories, basement space, or modular constmction). This was
suggested at the information session of December 1, but in response the Academy
indicated tiiat did not comport with the open space aesthetics of their plan. Again, we do
not believe aesthetics can justify closure of a public street.
2) Another altemative would be to constmct some form of secure passage for the
Academy students from one side of Cypress to the other. The plans and model we saw
showed a planned overhead walkway for students going across Carlsbad Boulevard to and
from the football field. Why not an overhead or underground walkway across Cypress?
A furtiier point needs to be raised conceming the visceral odiousness of public govemment
bestowing a gift on a private business by simply yielding possession of a public holding to the
business. This has already clearly occurred before, to the Academy's benefit. Review of a lot
map of the area shows the following streets, which straddled the current Academy grounds, as
closed: 1) the connection of Garfield street between Pacific and Cypress, 2) Del Mar Avenue,
which connected to Carlsbad Blvd. to the east and shared its westem terminus with Cypress, 3)
another east-west connector (whose name is obscured on the map) between Ocean and Carlsbad
Blvd., which paralleled Del Mar and Cypress to the north, and 5) another north-south street
(whose name is also illegible) which paralleled Garfield, but followed the curve of Carlsbad Blvd.
between Cypress and Pacific (crossing Del Mar and the other closed street in the process). Four
streets is enough to give to a private business! We need not give any more. Carlsbad is not the
federal govemment and the Academy is not General Motors. The Academy needs no handout
from govemment to keep it afloat. Although the Academy indicated at their information session
tiiat there would be substantial costs to them in converting Cypress Avenue to their use (putting
utilities underground, relandscaping, etc.), it was clear none of that expense was in any manner
compensation to the dtiz^s of Carlsbad, or tiie local residents, for the loss of one of their public
thoroughfares.
If the City of Carlsbad does permit the closure of Cypress Avenue after all, then we urge
that the street be closed only to tiie degree necessary to accommodate the safety concems of the
Academy: Only tiie portion of Cypress between Garfield and Carlsbad Blvd. should be allowed
to be closed, and only to motorized vehicular traffic. Public foot traffic and bicycles must still
be allowed this traditional access between Ocean Street and Carlsbad Blvd. At the Academy's
information session the model of their proposed plans showed Cypress Avenue's pavement
remaining, but with pillars as barricades to auto traffic. Such would be at minimum what the
public is due. However, drawings presented at the information session as an updated rendering
of tiie Academy's plans showed the street having disappeared entirely, with grassy grounds akin
to the rest of the Academy in its place. Even if the public were legally allowed to cross that
grassy strip, it would not be evident to a reasonable person seekmg access from Ocean to Carlsbad
Blvd. and so would be inappropriate.
Furtiier, if Cypress is to be a fiftii offering of a public street to the Academy, then we urge
tiiey be made to pay for it in a matter tiiat compensates the citizens adequately and with an eye to
the future: 1) The Academy should pay outright for the purchase, or lease, of the street, at fair
market value and the funds used to mitigate the problems of traffic and parking exacerbated by
the closure of Cypress. 2) The Academy should provide access to the lagoon to the north which
does not require first gomg to tiie beach. Such access has historically been available but has been
more and more frequentiy hampered by the Academy and other local landowners. If the Academy
wants to deprive the local citizens of convenient and historic access between Ocean street and
Carlsbad Blvd., it should ensure for the future their convenient access to the lagoon which has
historically been a public resource in usage.
The Academy acknowledged at tiieir information session that they are currentiy promoting
the plan they feels is best for them. As has been detailed above, we submit it is time to have the
Academy take the local residents' concems more into account by denying them the closure of
Cypress Avenue. However, if Cypress is to be become but the fifth public thoroughfare ceded
to the Academy, then the Academy should only get as much as it absolutely needs for safety
concems, and it should pay adequate compensation for that part.
Sincerely,
P.S. A further tangential point which needs be mentioned regards notice of all these pending
plans. While we leamed of the Academy's information session through a mailing from tiiem, at
the information session I leamed from the Academy's architect, Tom Cox, that the session was
but the third such a meeting, that the Academy had sent notices of each to all landowners in a 300
foot radius, and that th^ rity nf rarkhad had a1.<tfi made notice nf the same in a 600 foot radius.
Neither we, nor many of tiie landowners who are our neighbors in the 2600 block of Ocean Street
received notice of the earlier Academy sessions, and no notice of these from the City. We
received nothing but the last mailing from the Academy and the City's notice of the December 7
Public Hearing. Mr. Cox said tiiat both the City and they use ownership roles from titie
companies to do their mailings, but the fact remains that we, and many other, local landowners
(some of tiiem like ourselves longtime residents) did not receive notice as we should have. (We
understand some to date have still not received any notice, although we do not know their
name(s).) Given what is at stake, this is a serious breach of required notice. Further mailings
should be double-checked to see that they are, indeed, going to all local landowners.
BEACH HOMEOWNEKS ASSOCIATI^
RUE DES CHATEAUX
CARLSBAD; CALIFORNIA 92008
5 December 1994
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Califomia
To Whom It May Concem:
I am writing this letter to oppose the closing of Cypress Avenue as proposed
by the Army and Navy Academy. The closing of Cypress Avenue would
cause the following problems:
1. Limit access and egress to all the residents in the neighborhood.
2. Create additional traffic on Moimtain View, Pacific Avenue, Ocean
Street and Beech Avenue.
3. Create safety problems on Ocean Street which is already a narrow
street and which can barely accomodate large vehicles.
4. Create additional parking problems by the elimination of Cypress
Street parking.
5. Create a dangerous precedent for future development if the City of
Carlsbad donates public property to private organizations.
I am strongly opposed to the closing of Cypress Street. As a taxpayer, I am
disappointed that the City of Carlsbad would even consider the gift of our
street. I am sure that the Army and Navy Academy can achieve their
redevelopment without this gift.
Robert S. Grimes
Carlsbad Resident
December 7, 1994
City Of Carlsbad
Design Review Board & Planning Commission
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92009-1576
RE: CASE FILE: RP 94-02/CDP 94-02/CUP 94-02
CASE NAME: ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 1994
ATTENTION COUNCIL MEMBERS,
The plan to close "CYPRESS AVE," for ANOTHER expansion of Academy facilities
would be a detriment to ALL homeowners on Pacific Ave., Mountain Home Ave., Garfield
St., and Ocean St.. This closure would leave the only access to the northern
outlying areas for all persons on the above named streets as "Beech Ave.". The
trafficcand parking on Ocean St. is already ridiculous at this point, especially
when the homeowners can't even park or get to their own property during peak
seasons. This street cMsure would also DETAIN all emergency services to all
propertities North of Cypress Ave. and the Academy.
Because of these two important but not conclusive issues, we as a homeowners
at 2680 Odean St., Carlsbad are "ADAMANTLY APPOSED" to the proposal the Army/Navy
Academy has submitted, and request the council DENY the proposal the Academy has
submitted at this time.
THANK YOU!
Edward W. Bixby, Trustee
Mary-Louise Bixby Trust
2680 Ocean St.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
61^729-5655
Vonda D. Bixby
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad CA 92009-1576
Dear Sirs:
RE: Proposal to close Cypress St. along the south side of the Army Navy
Military Academy
I am opposed to said closure for the following reasons:
1. The residents and beach goers to the north of the Academy would have to
travel 3 blocks south to Beech St in order to go north on Carlsbad Blvd.
2. The same route would be used by many residents to enter the area, because
the entrance at Mountain View is now dangerous due to the height of the
plantings in the recently installed median on Carlsbad Blvd. One cannot see the
traffic approaching over the railroad viaduct and this entrance is avoided by
many residents.
3. The block of Ocean St between Cypress and Beech Streets, which would
bear all this extra traffic, is probably the least suited of all Ocean St for that
purpose. It is narrow, with InsufTicient off-street parking. Many cars park so as
to hang out in the street, and two cars passing have to be very careful. In case
of access for emergency vehicles, it could be downright dangerous.
4. The already bad parking problem for beach goers who use the access at the
foot of Cypress and for McGee Park concert attendees will be exacerbated if the
parking spaces on Cypress are deleted.
I am supportive of building plans that will keep the Academy a viable part of
Carlsbad, but closure of one of our access streets does not seem to be good city
planning.
^incerely.
lanette Cushman
2469 Ocean St
9
J.T. 9{awtfiorne
P.O. Box 708
SanDego. Califomia 92112
(619) 674-7001 • Fax: (619) 674-7160
December 5, 1994
City of Carlsbad
Design Review Board and
Planning Cominission
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carisbad, CA 92009
RE:
Gentlemen:
CASE FILE: RP 94-02/CDP 94-02/CUP 94-02
CASE NAME: ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY
I am writing this letter as the owner of the property located
at 2681 Ocean Street in Carlsbad, and I am very much opposed to
the closing of Cypress Street. Please register my concems with your
Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
JTH:mlh
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govemor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COAAMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725
(619) 521-8036
City Of Carlsbad
Jeff Gibson
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA. 92009
RE: Closure of Cypress Avenue
November 8, 1994
Dear Mr. Gibson:
This letter comments on the proposed closure of Cypress Avenue in north
Carlsbad as proposed in the master site plan by the Army/Navy Academy that
will be going before the City's Planning Review Board and Planning
Commission. Section 30252 of the Coastal Act provides that new development
should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by (5) providing
adequate parking facilities. Section 30211 states that development shall not
interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through
use. In addition, the project site is located within the Beach Overlay Zone
portion of the City's Mello II local coastal program segment, where the
Commission has required adequate parking facilities be maintained to assure
that coastal visitors will be able to access shoreline recreational
opportunities. Pursuant to the above Coastal Act sections, the Commission has
historically found that new development must not adversely impact public
access/parking opportunities in nearshore areas.
It is our understanding that upon buildout of the master plan, the closure of
this public street could result in a net loss of up to 29 public parking
spaces near a coastal accessway that leads to the beach from Ocean Street.
Additionally, the street's closure and loss of public parking would also
increase the competition for the remaining public parking spaces in an area
where parking facilities are currently indequate. He agree that the proposed
closure can not be found consistent with the above Coastal Act and Mello II
LCP provisions and concur with City staff's proliminary recommendation that
this portion of the master plan be denied.
Sincerely,
Bill Ponder
Coastal Planner
9864A