HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 97-01; STARBUCKS COFFEE; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (9)City of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
Febmary 19,1998
DAVE WODEHOUSE
WITCH CREEK WINERY
2906 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
RE: STORAGE AREA
Dear Dave:
As we discussed, I contacted the Carlsbad Police Department to discuss the storage area
to the south of your building (between your building and the new Starbucks) and the
requirement to screen the trash dumpster. I shared with the Police Department that I had
recommended that color (green) slats be placed in the chain link fence to screen the trash
dumpster. I also shared with them your concem about their prior comments related to
security and reduced visibility as a result of installation of the slats within the fence.
As you and I have discussed previously, the subject storage area is not aesthetically
appealing. The property on which you are located is in a key visual corridor. Therefore, it
is very important that some attempt be made to provide some visual relief from the
unsightly storage area. The Police Department agreed with me that the colored slats
placed in the chain link fence (or some other type of solid screening) would assist in the
effort to provide visual relief by screening the items stored within the subject area from
the general public. Although they indicated that the slats would reduce visibility, the
Police Department felt that the amount and size of the items currently stored within the
area are already obstmcting visibility. Therefore, they supported the Redevelopment
Agency's requirement to install the slats within the chain link fence. You may wish to
consider altemate security systems, such as reinforcement of your roll-up delivery door, if
this remains a concem for you.
A copy of this letter will be forwarded to the property owner to the south, Jeff Rasak, in
order to inform him that we wish to continue with the efforts to immediately install the
colored slats into the chain link fence. It is my understanding that the slats and their
installation are being financed by the property owner to the south and/or Starbucks.
The Redevelopment Agency would also like to encourage you to take advantage of the
Agency Facade Improvement and Signage Assistance Program to remove the existing
signs on the building which do not conform to the existing sign standards. The subject
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037
Wodehouse
Febmary 19, 1998
Page 2
program can provide you with a grant of fiinds to assist in the removal ofthe non-
conforming signs and the design, constmction and installation ofnew creative signage.
The program can also provide assistance for other exterior improvements that you might
wish to make to the building. If you would like to pursue assistance under the subject
program, please give me a call at (760) 434-2815.
Sincerely,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Housing and Redevelopment Director
c: Jeff Rasak
Febmary 2, 1998
TO: POLICE CHIEF
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
FENCING BETWEEN STARBUCKS AND WINERY ON CARLSBAD BOULEVARD
In the conditions of approval for the Starbucks project located at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard, the
property owner was required to screen a trash dumpster to be located within the fenced area
between the Starbucks building and the Witchcreek Winery building located to the north. No
portion of the trash bin may be visible to the public. In an effort to screen the trash bin from the
public, the two property owners agreed to install "slats" within the chain link fence which would
hide the items stored (including the trash dumpster) within this area from the public.
When the property owner began the work to install the "slats", they were approached by
members of the Police Department indicating that they should not install the "slats". The police
officers indicated that the "slats" represent a security problem for the police department. The
property owner contacted me for a solution to the conflict in requirements. For information
purposes, I instmcted the property owner to go ahead and install the "slats" within the chain link
fence to meet the condition ofthe City Council. However, I also told them that I would contact
the Police Department in an effort to develop an altemate solution to the visibility issue.
Assistance of the Police Department is requested to identify an altemate solution to the
"screening" and "visibility" issues related to the area described within this memorandum. If you
have any questions regarding this matter or need to discuss it fiirther, please contact my office at
X2935.
Thank You
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN pe^ B0(5 U^lG (<:^^l-ZH-r)
Police HAV6 NO PRoeceM
perO^lNG. ^CRTO UDltC H6LP
-the t>+or^^c a\r^^^
prdUcfY\.
City of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
July 23, 1997
JEFFREY RASAK
3252 HOLIDAY COURT
LA JOLLA, CA. 92037
RE: CONVERSION OF OFFICE TO COFFEE HOUSE (STARBUCKS) - RP/CDP 97-01
Dear Jeff:
Congratulations on the approval of your redevelopment permit (RP/CDP 97-01) which will allow you to
convert your property at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard from a medical office to a coffee house! Enclosed
please find a copy of the agenda bill and related resolutions approving your project. Please read the
conditions of approval carefully. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit and/or Certificate of Occupancy,
you will be required to satisfy various conditions set forth within the approving resolutions. Also, you
will be required to comply with all conditions of approval in order to retain the subject permits.
The next step of the process involves approval of all appropriate Building Permits for the interior and
exterior improvements to the building. Please submit required plans to the City of Carlsbad for
processing as soon as possible.
If you have any comments and/or questions regarding this correspondence or your project, please contact
my office at 434-2935.
Sincerely,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Senior Management Analyst
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ^
JUL 8'97 15=45 FR DEL MPR PARTNERSHIP 619 792 1470 TO 17607202037 P.02/03
/v<in C. liayUr, DoridJ. Yfiitklur, f-'aunde'-
DEL /WIR PARTNERSHIP
July 8, 1997
Housing and Redevelopment Commission
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carisbad, Califomia 9200S
Re: Permit #RP/CDP 97-01
Proposed Starbucks Coffee Project
Dear Commission Members:
In response to the issues raised in conneaion with the proposed Starbucks Coffee store in
downtown Carlsbad, I submit for your consideration thc following based on my direct experience
as representative of the Property Owner and Landlord of Starbucks in downtown Del Mar:
(1) Parking: Starbucks Coffee has shared a small parking lot consisting of eight (8) paiking
spaces and one (1) handicapped parking space in downtown Del Mar with a bagd store. Union
Bank and a Sower stand. Although the availabiiity of parking is extremely limited throughout the
downtown area, this small lot has proved to be more than adequate to serve Starbuck's customers
as well as those of the other uses. The parking lot has accommodated a quick turnover of
customers from Starbucks and the bagel store in the moming hours and drivers can quickly
observe whether there are parking spaces available in the lot. In the mornings when Starbucks
and the bagd store have been the busiest, parking exists on-street and the parking demand from
other businesses in the area is the lowest. Most of Starbucks' customers throughout the day seem
to arrive by foot or park elsewhere. Undoubtedly, most are quite familiar with the paiking
situation downtown Del Mar and are regular customers of Starbucks who live, work or visit the
area on a regular basis. I understand that the proposed Starbucks location in downtown Carisbad
is comparable in terms of parking availabiUty and I believe that you will similarly find that
Starbuck's parking needs will be adequately accommodated.
JUL 8'97 15:45 FR DEL MfiR PARTNERSHIP 619 792 1470 TO 17607202037 P.03/03
Housing and Redevdopment Commission
City of Carload
July 9, 1997
Page-2-
(2) Traffic: Starbucks impact on traffic is minimal; most of thdr customers are drawn from local
traffic already in the area. Starbucks is not a large generator of traffic to downtown Dd Mar; it
feeds off of traffic already in'the area from the retail shops, offices, restaurants, etc. I am not
personally aware of any traffic problems in downtown due to traffic generated by Starbucks.
(3) Store Operations: We are extremdy pleased with Starbucks' design, operation and
maintenance of its store in Dd Mar, it is well-stocked, wdl-staffed, well-maintained and well-
recdved by local residents. Seating areas are kept clean and trash is picked up on a regular basis.
I have no doubt that Starbucks will operate its store in Carlsbad in the same manner and will enjoy
a similar reception frora local residents upon your approval of its permit.
I appreciate your consideration of my comments in support of Starbucks Coffee Company. If
there are fiirtfjer details that I may provide or questions that I may answ^, please don't hesitate to
contact me.
Yours truly,
DEL MAR P.
TOTAL PAGE.003 **
Jul-08-97 13:57 Law orTices G192208788 P.02
Law Offices of David C. Anderson
A Prolesiional Corporation
404 Camino del Rio South, Suite 605
San Diego, CA 92108
Fax (619) 220-8788
(619) 220-8688
July 8, 1997
Housing & Redevelopment Commission
City ofCarlsbad
1200 Carlsbad ViUage Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92(K)8
RE: PROPOSED STARBUCKS COFFEE STORE
Dear Commission Members:
In response to the issues raised in connection with the proposed Starbucks Coffee store in
downtown Carlsbad, I submit for your consideration the following based on my direct
experi^ice as a property owner and Landlord of Start>ucks in downtown Coronado.
1. Parking: The Starbucks store in Coronado occupies a building with a parking
lot of five parking spaces. We have never experienced any complaints or
problems regarding paiking due to Starbucks and the lot combined with street
parking appears to be more than adequate to serve Starbucks' customers.
Starbucks' peak hours of operation are in the moming before many businesses
are open and at a lime when on-strect parking is readily available. Throughout
the remainder of the day, customers arrive by foot, bus or park their cars
elsewhere in thc area. 1 would expect that a Starbucks storc in downto\\Ti
Carlsbad would result in a similar situation and I doubt that any new parking
problems would result solely due to Starbucks.
2. Traffic: We have not experienced aoy traffic problems due to the Starbucks
store in downtown Coronado. There is no double parking as most customers
prefer to linger and enjoy their coffee. While downtown Coronado
experiences traffic congestion, it has been my experience that Starbucks does
not create new traffic on its own, but seems to draw its customers from the
stores, restaurants, otfices, galleries and movie theater that dominate the area.
National Network of Estate Planning Attorneys
Jul-08-97 13:57 Law Ofifices 6192208788 P. 03
3. Store Design: Starbucks operates a pleasant and inviting store offering high
quality products and friendly ser\ice. We are extremely pleased with all
aspects of their store design and operation. Seating areas and adjacent
sidewalks are well maintained and kept clean by the store personnel. I am
sure that Starbucks will operate its proposed store in Carlsbad in a similar
manner
I appreciate the opportunity to offer my comments in support of Starbucks Coffee
Company, Please contact me if you need additional infomiation or have any questions,
Ver>' truly yours.
l---7t^c^77 y-^,y<y^
y DayicfC. Anderson
DCA: df
NatkmaJ Nirtwurk of Estaic Plannscg Attomeys
Date: 8 July 1997
To: Sr. Management Analyst Debbie Fountain
From: Principal Building Inspector
Re: Starbucks RP and CDP 97-01
As I read the exhibits attached to your staff report for this project, there is an
inconsistency with respect to the disabled access parking. Exhibit 3 states that there
will be a van accessible parking space; Exhibit 8 shows a conventional disabled
access space. The distinction between the two is a matter of providing a wider
loading zone in the van accessible space than in the conventional space. Van
accessible spaces require an eight foot wide loading zone. See attached graphic
directly from the State Disabled Access Regulations. With the additional space
requirements ofthe accessible space, it does not appear that there will be adequate
room for the remaining four spaces.
However, since the project is a tenant improvement to an existing building, the State
regulations for new structures are not strictly applicable in their entirety. There is a
general hardship exclusion, which I will discuss in the following paragraph, for
projects that have a total valuation of less than about $85,000. Projects above that
threshold must fully comply with the regulations for new buildings.
For projects less than $85,000 in total valuation, the State regulations require that an
additional amount of at least 20% ofthe project valuation be spent upgrading
existing access features for that building. The State reg's also prescribe a priority list
for this expenditure as follows:
1. An accessible entrance,
2. An accessible route to the altered area,
3. At least one accessible restroom for each sex,
4. Accessible telephones (if provided),
5. Accessible Drinking Fountains (if provided) and,
6. When possible, additional accessible elements such as parking, storage and
alarms.
Hypothetically, they may not have to modify the parking space underthis priority list.
For instance, ifthe project valuation is $80,000, their access upgrade obligation is an
Page 1
additional $16,000. They cannot count the items they are going to modify as part of
this 20% such as the entrance and path of travel they plan to do anyway. They can
not count the cost of those two items against the 20% expenditure requirement. But
they could spend the obligation prior to getting down to the van accessible parking
space requirement.
They could easily spend $12,000-14,000 building another accessible restroom for
public use inside the store. Providing an accessible public phone and drinking
fountain could cost as much as $2,000-$4,000. These features, if they cost this
much, would be their entire obligation. Of course they may then provide a parking
space that is accessible, but not necessarily van accessible.
This may seem like a work-around, but its not. It would comply literally with the State
regulations for existing buildings, and more importantly, with the intent ofthe reg's.
That intent is to provide the greatest access for the greatest number ofthe disabled
in the order ofthe priority list established by the disabled community during the
adoption Code process. It makes sense that while not everyone needs a van
accessible parking space, all ofthe disabled community could use a restroom,
telephone, or drinking fountain if they are accessible. Having an accessible parking
space, even one with a five foot loading zone, along with all of those features would
make for a highly accessible existing building.
This entire discussion is of course dictated by the valuation ofthe improvements to
the building. The project valuation should be determined in sum, not broken into
small projects to evade their responsibility. If the project valuation exceeds $85,000,
the building must fully comply with the reg's for new buildings.
PATRICK KELLEY
Principal Building Inspector
attachment
Page 2
May 30, 1997
TO: CAROL CRUISE
FROM: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
TAPES AND OTHER INFORMATION FROM 5/29/97 DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD MEETING
Enclosed please find the tapes and various other related documents from the special
Design Review Board meeting held on Thursday, May 29, 1997 in the City Coimcil
Chambers. I put approximate times of the begirming and ending of the meeting.
Unfortimately, I forgot to check the clock at the time we opened and closed. We did start
the meeting late because the applicant did not arrive until approximately 6:15pm and then
we had to discuss the issues related to the project in regard to the fact that Peggy Savary
could not attend the meeting and Sarah Marquez could not vote. So, I believe we began at
approximately 6:25pm. The ending time was between 8:45pm and 8:50pm. I did not
check the tapes very closely so I do not know if Kim may have mentioned the time or not.
So, you may need to use the approximate times shown. I checked the first tape and it
appears that everything worked property. I hope the rest of the tapes are OK as well.
I tried to take some notes as the speakers were presenting and have provided you with a
copy of my notes to help in transcribing the tapes. Let me know if you have any
questions.
Thanks,