HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-03-21; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 120; Village FaireHOUSING AND -2DEWELOPMENT COMMlSd-?N - AGENDA BILL&& 0 ‘,-
LB# 120 TITLE:
ITG 3/21/89 . RP 87-ll(A)/CDP 88-1(A) VILLAGE FEIIRE
IEPT. RED I DEPT. Hb. -
CITY Ad
CITY lwi*
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If Housing and Redevelopment Commission concurs, your action is
to ADOPT Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 130 RPPROVING RP 87-11(Q) Village Faire, Resolution No. 131 APPROVING
Negative Declaration and Resolution No. 132 APPROVING CDP 88-
l(A) Village Faire.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
This project was originally approved by the Housing and
?edevelopment Commission at your meeting of November 10, 1987.
2s. originally approved the project consisted of a 69,000 square
foot specialty retail shopping center. The site is located on
the entire block bounded by Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad Village
3rive (Elm Avenue), Washington Street and Grand CIvenue with the
exception of the existing doctor’s office, tackle shop and
Vieman’s Restaurant.
The applicant requested a 3600 square foot restaurant at the
northeast corner of Grand Avenue and Washington Street.
It their original hearing on October 21, 1987, the Design Review
3oard specifically limited any food service in the center, with
the exception of the existing Nieman’s Restaurant, to 2,000
square feet.
The Design Review Board at a public hearing on December 21, 1988,
?ecommended approval of the request for a 3600 square foot
-estaurant. Design Review Board concluded that the amended
xroject with the inclusion of adequate parking meets the criteria
for this site. However, an additional condition of approval was
included in Design Review Board Resolution No. 131 stipulating
“no direct table service to be allowed for outside seating”.
It a subsequent public hearing, the Design Review Board amended
its original action by recommendinq approval of a 3200 square
foot restaurant at the same location with 1000 square feet of out
side eatinq area.
-1SCAL IMPACT
'40 detailed economic analysis of the development has been
determined. However, staff has determined by inclusion of
appropriate finding, that the proposed project will contribute to
the economic revitalization of the Redevelopment Area.
#-, F ^
:
AGENDA BILL 120
-1
PAGE 2
EXHIBITS
l- Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 130, WPROVING RP 87-11(A) Village Faire.
2. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. m, APPROVING a Negative Declaration.
3. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No.=,
APPROVING CDP 88-1(A) Village Faire.
4. Design Review Board Supplemental Staff Report dated February
15, 1988, with Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 133 and
135.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
S
1C
11
12
12
14
If
1t
1';
U
l!
2(
2:
21
2:
2:
2!
2i
2'
2r
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 130
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ADD 3200 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITH 1000 SOUARE FOOT OUTDOOR EATING AREA IN A SPECIALTY RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GRAND AVENUE AND WASHINGTON STREET. APPLICANT: VILLAGE FAIRE CASE NO. : RP 87-11 (A)
WHEREAS, The Design Review Board did on the 2lst day of
December, 1988, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law to consider recommendation of approval for a Major
Redevelopment Permit; and
WHEREAS, pursuant of the Municipal Code, the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission did, on the 2lst day of March, 1989,
hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application
on property described as:
A protion of Map 1661 of Carlsbad Lands, Tract 96 APN
203-174-06, 07.
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering a
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be
heard, said Commission considered all factors relating -to RP 87-
ll(c\).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings of the Design Review Board contained
in Design Review Board Resolution No. 131 shall
constitute the findings of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
3. That RP 87-11(A) Village Faire, for the addition of a
3200 square foot restaurant with 1000 square feet of
outdoor eating area is approved subject to all of the
conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution
No. 1J3.
,
_ 7 I
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
s
1(
11
1:
1:
11
I!
li
1'
II
1'
21
2:
2,
2
2
2
2
2
2
-_
Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Car
PASSED, APPROVED-AND ADOPTED, at regular meeting of the
lsbad,
following California, held on the 21st day of March, 1989, by the
vote, to wit:
AYES : Commissioners Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and Larson
NOES : None
ABSENT : Commissioner Lewis
ABSTAIN: None
ANN J. KULCHIN, i&e-Chairperson
ATTEST :
daLaqR& ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City lerk
( SEAL )
////
I///
I///
////
Housing and Redevelopment Commission No. 130
-2-
. :
. I
! .
’ t ‘2
1
2
3
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 131
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A PRIOR
COMPLIANCE/NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
69,000 SQUARE FOOT SPECAILTY RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT (RP 87-11) TO ALLOW A 3200 SGUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITH 1000 SQUARE FOOT OUTDOOR EATING AREA- APPLICANT: VILLAGE FAIRE CASE NO. : RP 87-11 (A)
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 21st day of
December, 1988, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, examining the,,initial
study, analyzing the information ‘submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission considered all factors relating to the
Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitation are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing,
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby APPROVES the
Negative Declaration based on the following findings.
Findinss:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial
evidence that the project may have a significant impact on
the environment.
2. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located
so as to be significantly impacted by this project.
////
////
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regu lar meeting of
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of
California, held on the 21st day of March,
by the following vote, to wit:
the City of Carlsbad,
989,
AYES : Commissioners Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and Larson
NOES : None
ABSENT : Commissioner Lewis
ABSTAIN: Lewis
ATTEST :
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City\Clerk
( SEAL 1
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 131
-2-
.
t
.
,
“ 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
28
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 132
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR AN APPRVOED SPECIALTY RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER (RP 87-11) TO INCLUDE A 3200 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITH 1000 SQUARE FOOT OUTDOOR EATING AREA.
APPLICANT: VILLAGE FAIRE CASE NO.: RP/CDP 88-l(A)
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City
of Carlsbad and referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request a
provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code,
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission did, on the 21st day of
March, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said
application on property described as:
A portion of Map 1661 of Carlsbad Lands, Tract 96. APN 203-174-06, 07.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments5 if any, of all persons
desiring to be heard, said Housing and Redevelopment COmft?iSSiOn
considered all factors relating to RP/CDP 88-1(A)=
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
Bl
////
////
I///
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That the findings and conditions of the Design Review
contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 135 shall
constitute the findings and conditions of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
l
r
*
I
‘.’ L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting
Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Car
California, held on the 21st day of March, 1989, by the
vote, to wit:
AYES : Commissioners Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and Larson
NOES : None
ABSENT : Commissioner Lewis
ABSTA I N : None
of the
lsbad,
following
5 ANN J. KULCHIN, Vi:e-Chairperson
ATTEST :
ALETHA L.
( SEAL )
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 132
-2-
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
FEBRUARY 15, 1989
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RP 87-ll(A)/CDP 88-1(A) VILLAGE FAIRE - REQUEST TO
AMEND A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT
PERMIT TO PUT A 3,600 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT IN
THE VILLAGE FAIRE PROGRAM TO INCLUDE OUTSIDE
SEATING.
At the February 1, 1989, Design Review Board meeting the Board considered this amendment to the 3,600 square foot restaurant application in the Village Faire Project. This amendment deals with service to outdoor eating areas. Several options are proposed by the applicant. The options require a verification of the actual square footage of the project, as built, by the City staff. Design Review Board continued the item until staff would provide verification. The Building and Engineering Departments have analyzed the site in the field and with the plan checking consultant. Staff supports the square footage as submitted by the applicant. (See Attachments)
Redevelopment and Planning staff will also provide information on "common.area11 usage to Design Review Board at the meeting. These areas are generally considered amenities and are not parked. However, some recent projects have been conditioned regarding restaurant table service. Staff will show Design Review Board examples of this treatment of common areas.
ce7L t
CHRIS SALOMONE
CS:ec
VILLAGE FAIRE FWRKING
#AS PROVIDED
PROJECT APPROVED 69,900 SQ. FT. ACTUAL SIZE Variation
Or *
68.355 SQ. FT. (1,545)SQ. FT. 6.18 parking spaces that are not applied (1:250).
RESTAURANT APPROVED FOR Currently space is Variation or
3,600 Sq. Ft. 3.200 Sq. Ft. ( 4OO)Sq. Ft. 4 parking spaces that are not applied (1:lOO).
PREVIOUS PARKING NOT APPLIED TO PROJECT FROM DATA PROVIDED PREVIOUSLY: (324-321) 3 -----
TOTAL SPACES NOT APPLIED TO PROJECT AT THIS TIME: 13.18 PLUS 15% MIXED USE: 1.98
15.16 TOTAL SPACES, or (1:250) 3790 SQ.FT. available for out side eating.
.
' LeaPe Plan VS. HCC Takt+if .
Unit # Lease Plan
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 108A
1490 1415 141s 1440 1440 3905 2450 1000 1000
110 675 1lOA 1075 111 1750 112 2800 113 2000 114 535 115 1490 116 962
116A 1180
117 1172
118 870 119 970 120 870 121 970 122 870 123 2206 124 2206
201 * 3000 202 1816 203 1535 204 1080 205 655 206 1215 207 910 208 2000
210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 * 224
1450 1369 1450 1443 2240 2405 1450 1510 700 650 1481 1302 1681 1634 870 870 810 770 833 782 810 770 833 782 810 770 1861 1870 1861 1865
SqFt AS
VILLAGE FAIF:i
Measured Differance SqFt
1066 -424 1415 0 1415 0
1505 65 1445 5 3853 -52 2602 152 868 -132 981 -19
681 1074 1770 1000 700 3625 1434 801 1149 1164 870 975 870 970 870 2221 2221
2889 -111 1814 -2 1540 5 1056 -24 616 -39 1052 -163 946 36 2105 105
-81' -7 165 60 -50 -179 -47 0 -40 -51 -40 -51 -40
:
-f 20 -1800 -1300 3090 -56 -161 -31 -8. 0 5 0 0 0 15 15
Totals 69507 68355 -1152
1
2‘
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 133
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ADD A 3600 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT IN A SPECIALTY RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF GRAND AVENUE AND WASHINGTON STREET.
APPLICANT: VILLAGE FAIRE
CASE NO. : RP 87-11 (A)
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the
City of Carlsbad and referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal
Code, the Design Review Board did, on the 18th day of
January, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider
said application on property described as.
A portion of Map 1661 of Carlsbad Lands, Tract 96
APN 203-174-06, 07
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering
all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons .desiring
to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to RP
87-11 (A) Village Faire.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design
Review Board of the City of Car&bad as follows:
(A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
(B) That based on the evidence presented at the public
hearing, the Board recommends FIPPROVAL of RP 87-11 (61,
based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
FINDINGS
1) The proposed amendment to the project is consistent with
the goals and objectives of the Village Design Manual
for this area.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
1E
1E
17
., 1E
1s
2c
21
22
2:
24
25
2&
27
2E
2 1 ~~~m~~p~o~~dt~~eC~~~~tc~~s~~~ project corfpkies with the rogram re a lng to this
area of the City by providing tourist serving types of
uses.
3) The proposed amended to the project is consistent with
the parking regulations specified in the Carlsbad Zoning
Ordinance.
CONDITIONS:
1) The conditions adopted under Design Review Board
Resolution 106 with the exception of Condition No. 23,
shall constitute the conditions of Design Review Board
Resolution No. 133.
2) A 3,600 square foot restaurant is APPROVED with the
provision that no outdoor table service will be allowed.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held
on the 15th day of February,l989, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN:
SHARON SCHRAMM, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST :
CHRIS SALOMONE
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
////
////
DRB RESO. NO. 133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 135
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOCIRD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNI0, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR AN APPROVED SPECIALTY RETOIL
SHOPPING CENTER (RP 87-11) TO INCLUDE A 3600 SQUARE FOOT
RESTAURANT. APPLICANT: VILLAGE FAIRE
CFISE NO: RP/CDP 88-1 (A)
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the
City of Carlsbad and referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as
provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the
Design Review Board did, on the 18th day of January, 1989,
hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said
application on property described as:
A portion of Map 1661 of Carlsbad Lands, Tract 96.
APN 203-174-06,07.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all
persons to be heard, said Board considered al 1 factors
relating to RP/CDP 88-l (4).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public
hearing, the Design Review Board r,ecommends APPROVAL of
RP/CDP 88-l (41, based on the following findings and
conditions.
FINDINGS
1) The proposed amendment to the project is consistent
with the goals and policies established by the City’s
Local Coastal Plan for this area.
.
.
2) The proposed amendment to the project complies with the
segments of the Local Coastal Program relating to this
area of the City by providing tourist-serving types of
uses. CONDITIONS:
1
2
3
1) 4 The findings and conditions adopted under Housing and
Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 104 shall be
5 incorporated herein by reference.
6
7 Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held
8 on the 15th day of February, 1989, by the following vote, to
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SHARON SCHRAMM, CHAIRPERSON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
CHRIS SALOMONE
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
21 ////
22 //I/
23 //I/
24 ///I
25
26
27 DRB RESO. NO. 135
28
.
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
ITEM 3
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
FEBRUARY 1, 1989
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RP 87-ll(A)/CDP 88-1(A) VILLAGE FAIRE - REQUEST TO AMEND A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO PUT A 3,600 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT THE VILLAGE FAIRE PROJECT TO INCLUDE OUTSIDE
SERVICED SEATING.
IN
This item was heard at the December 21, 1988, Design Review Board meeting. Design Review Board recommendation to Housing and Redevelopment Commission was to approve the #application as submitted: a 3,600 square foot restaurant in the existing Village Faire Project at the northeast corner.
A specific condition of the project was the prohibition of service to the outdoor eating areas. At the applicant's request staff returned the item to the Design Review Board on January 18, 1989. The purpose of the second hearing was to address the outdoor eating area and the condition imposed of no table service. Design Review Board directed staff to transcribe the minutes of the December 21, 1988, meeting to clearly identify the discussion and actions of the Design Review Board. The board also asked that the *Woptionsll proposed by the applicant be clarified prior to the next meeting of February 1, 1989.
The applicants options for discussion are:
Solution No. 1: Remove the condition and allow outside table service without additional parking in the Redevelopment Area and especially the Village Faire project subject to review by the Redevelopment Director via business license application.
Staff Comment: This would require an amendment to the Local Coastal Plan and parking ordinance should Design Review Board direct staff to implement this option.
Solution No. 2: Allow the Village Faire to operate under the "Crazy Burrotl plan (data previously provided) that is, close an equal number of tables inside when a corresponding number of outside tables are in use.
Solution No. 3: Allow outside, wait-attended areas to be parked at the overall ratio of the center, i.e., 1:250 per square foot. Plans for the special areas are attached.
Staff Comment: Applicant has provided evidence in letter (attached) that due to reduced actual size of overall project, restaurant and excess undesignated spaces, there are approximately 15 spaces available to support additional uses. Staff will verify this data prior to meeting.
&!.L Iiz-&/,-e
CHRIS SALOMONE
CS:ec
Attachments: Letter from Steve W. Densham dated January 24, 1989 Exhibits A Village Faire site plan
+
POST OFFICE Box 1575
+
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
+
92008-0262
+
619-434-3522
4
January 24, 1989
Mr. Chris Salomone Director of Housing and Redevelopment
CITY OF CARLSBAD Suite B 2965 Roosevelt Street Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: RP 87-ll(A)/CDP 88-l Village Faire Exhibits: 1st and 2nd Floor Plans showina desired anticioated outside eatina areas.
Dear Chris:
In a sincere effort to clarify our position on our recent request for an amendment to our redevelopment permit to allow outside, wait-person attended service in certain areas, I would like to present several alternatives; any of which would mitigate the concerns of the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
It is necessary to change the policy on outside eating areas, as it relates to the entire redevelopment area and, more specifically, the Village Faire Project. In short, the wrong things have been done for all the right reasons. Concerns over parking and traffic congestion are concerns of us all. However, you can't improve the situation by just taking the easy way out and throwing more parking at the concerns. As we have discussed in the past, a sea of parking lots is not conducive to the Village atmosphere that we are all working toward.
I want to be clear in that I am talking about bona fide patio/courtyard environment, not areas that are expanded to the outside with sliding windows or doors. My experience in the Village with outdoor eating areas is that they are used 41% of the time based on weather and demand.
It has been stated outside areas that are self-service are acceptable and wait-attended areas are not, as they relate to parking. Self-service promotes a disposable lifestyle. A village atmosphere isn't supposed to be a paper cup you wad up and throw away after you've used it. The goal of Sub Area 5 as stated in the Village
Mr. Chris Salomone CITY OF CARLSBAD Page Two January 24, 1989
Design Manual is that it is "the major tourist commercial related center for the Redevelopment Project Area." It also specifically states in the land use,"bona-fide" restaurants. Outside, wait- attended eating areas are very important to the tourist segment as well as the denizens of Carlsbad and should be encouraged, not discouraged.
At the last Design Review Board meeting the concern about leased parking was expressed. The Village Design Manual states, "innovative methods of providing off-street parking through a combination of public and private efforts should be encouraged".
The lease is for 49 years; transportation habits will change... Forty-nine years ago no one could even conceive of jet travel1 As you know, many hours with staff were spent putting this viable solution together.
I would propose the following scenarios for discussion as solutions to the outside eating area question:
Solution No d I: Remove the condition and allow outside table service without additional parking in the Redevelopment Area and especially the Village Faire project subject to review by the Redevelopment Director via business license application.
Currently, the Housing and Redevelopment Advisory Committee is conducting a thorough review of the Redevelopment Plan and Village Design Manual with the goal being a total Master Plan for the area. Out of this will come well defined parameters for parking and traffic based on experiment, observation and experience, not hyperbole.
This solution is justified by the facts presented on the use of outside patio/courtyard areas and by the parking and traffic mitigations of the streetscape project, the increase in public parking (500 spaces projected in increased lots or a structure) and the formation of a parking district.
Solution No. _2: Allow the Village Faire to operate under the "Crazy Burro" plan (data previously provided) that is, close an equal number of tables inside when a corresponding number of outside tables are in use.
Mr. Chris Salomone Page Three
CITY OF CARLSBAD January 24, 1989
Solution No. 3: Allow outside, wait-attended areas to be parked at the overall ratio of the center, i.e., 1:250 per square foot. I have provided plot plans for the areas I would anticipate this occurring.
Currently the followins information as relates to the Village Faire parking is as provided:
Project Approved for Actual size Variation or
Restaurant approved for Currently space is Variation or
69,900 sq. ft.
68,355 sq. ft. ( 1,545) sq. ft. 6.18 parking spaces that are not applied (1:250).
3,600 sq. ft.
3,200 sq. ft.
( 400) sq. ft. 4 parking spac,es that are not applied (1:lOO).
Previous parking not applied to project from data provided previously: 3 (324-321) ----- -----
Total spaces not applied to project at this time: 13.18 Plus 15% mixed use: 1.98
15.16 total spaces, OR (1:250) 3790 sq. ft. available for outside eating.
In closing I would request I be given adequate time to discuss these solutions with the members of the Design Review Board at the meeting, and that an air of equanimity would prevail in this matter.
Best regards,
General Partner
SW:djm
Encl.
L
, SENT BY:FI : 12-28-88 12:37PM : 24069+ 4342467; # 2
w
MEMORANDUM
DATE: ’ MAY 20, 1987
TO! PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM; PCANNINO DEPARTMENT
SUB3ECTl SNFORMATION IT-EM - CUP-205(A) c) CRAZY BURRO 9 Request for approval of a ahanga of ube from patio area to restaurant stating area at-an existing restaurant on the
east side of El Camino Real between Alga Road and Dove
Lane in the C-1-0 tone,
The applicant Is requesting that occasional restaurant seating be allowed ori an open patio area j located at the west side of the Crazy Burro restaurant. A slight radegign of the inner courtyard
is proposed in addition to a vine-covered trellis, According to the applicmt, the courtyard would accommodate approximately four
tables,
In October, 1986, the applicant requested approval of a conditional use permit to allow dancing in the patlo area. The request was denied due to the Lack of additional parking for the
increased square footage. The applicant realjtts the parking
aoncsrn at the shopping centtr and has addressed this Issue in
his proposal. He dots not intend to expand the total dining area
square footage but to close oft an equal number of tables indoors
when the tables outdoors are being used. The applicant has
agreed to a number of conditions to ensure that no additional
trafric would be generated by the opening of the patlo area.
,, These fncludet
1) At any time that the patio area is open for use as an
eating area for thi general public, an equal amount of ssatlng area wIthin the interior of the restaurant shall
be closed ott. It is understood that the Clty may revoke its approval of the patio eating area it thlr
condition is not met. The intent of this condition is to ensure that no additional traftlo wfll be generated by the opening of the patia area*
2) The Crazy Burro may oocaslonally have private parties In the patio area during nonbusiness hours (eg, wedding reception, eta.). Any music for these activities that
is generated from the patio area must cease by 5100
P.M.
3) The Planning Department reserves the right to monitor
the use ot the patio area and may require review by the Planning Commission at resulting from this useI any tlme If an,y problems arise
SENT BY:A : 12-28-88 12:38PM : 24069+ 4342467; # 3
Start feels that this can be handled as an information item since
the applicant has agreed to these measures&
It ia staff’s opinion that the outdoor patio would be an
attractive addition to the restaurant as well as providfng p.atrons with a pleasant place for outdoor dinfng. The condftlons
agreed to by the applicant will ensure that the eating area will
not be expanded. It the applicant does not comply with the
measure5 that he agreed to, the Planning Director may bring the CUP forward to the Planning Commission under condition number
sight at the existing CUP, shown below. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request based on the proposed , conditions.
Condition
This conditional use permit is granted for a period of two years. Thfs conditional USC permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis to determine lf ail
conditions of this permit have been met and that the USC does not have a significant detrimental impact on surrounding
properties or the public health and welfare, It the Planning
Director determines that the use has such significant adverse
Impacts, the Planning Director shall recommend that the
Planning Commission, after providing the pcrmittet the
opportunity to be heard, add additional condltfons to mitlgatc the signifloant adverse impacts. this permit may be
revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found
that the USB has a signif icant detrimental attact on
surrounding land uses and the public’s health and wtl.falpt, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met. This permf t
may be extended for a reasonable period at time not to exceed
tow. years upon written application at the permittee made not
less than 90 days prior to the expiration date, In granting such extension, the Planning Commfssion shall find that no substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the
public’s health and welfare will rtsult beoause of the continuation of the permitted use. If a substantial adverse
affect on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and
welfare 1s found, the extension shall ho considered as an
original application for conditional use permit, There is no
limit to the number at extensions the Planning Commission may grant.
AMLtbn
4/17/87
-2-
SENT BY: Q _ : 12-28-88 12:4DPM ; . * . \ I I . . I .
_ 2406%
April 9, 1987
TO: bee Landerr, Aaaociatc Planner
FROM : Jim Waleh, Owner
SUBJBCT: Letter of Understanding for the eddltion of a patio nrea at the Crasy Burro reeteurent,
This letter sets forth the understanding of the Crazy Burro restaurant regarding hits proposed addition of seating are8 in the patio section of the reeteurent. Seating 8ree In the patio is administratively approved by the Plqnning Departraent subject to the following conditions:
1. At any time thnt the patio ares is open for use as en sating erea for the general public, an equal amount of seating area within the interior of the restaurant ehell be closed off. It is understood that the city my revoke its approve1 of the petio eating area if this condition is not met. The intent of this condition ia to ensure th8t no additional traffic will be generated by the opening
of the patio area.
2, The Crazy Eurro may occasionally have private
parties in the patio area during nonbueineee hours
bea wedding reception, etc.). Any music for these activities that is generated from the patio ares must ct~ee by 5:00 P.M.
3, The Planning Department reserves the right to monitor the use of the patio area and may require review by the Planning Comaaisefon at any time If any problems eriec resulting from this use.
to abide by the following conditions es
4342467; # 6
SErjT B~:H ; lc-io-o~> Li.+lrr! ; ‘L-?L-tC I # R /
the CRAZY BURRO
iI CAMINO fEAL * LA COSTA
CONTACT: JM WAL5l-t IT- -9-w
I I
4ffl?F? )” cm3 - Ai= c(;cpe
SENT BY: cl ; 12-28-88 12:3%PM ; 2406% 4342467; # 4
April 9, i90t
Mike Howee Dee Landero City of Carlebsd
7300 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbed, GA 92009
Dear Mike and Des:
Once a@n, thank you very much for your time and coneidoretlonr
My requcet for permission to utAliee our patio is bring eubmitted beceuse there is a need for en open air reetaurent, both ne an apprecirted option and hopefully to curb e dccl;ining buainerr trend in the La Costa area,
Since 1985 there has been egsresaive rerrtaurent development in all our neighboring cities, including Carlebad proper. The result has been a downtrend in groes sales from 8 - I5 percent. The reeaona tare obvious, the “restaurant rows” In Cardiff, Encinitse, San Marcos, Ocesnside, Oceeneide Harbor and downtown Carlsbad have not only made it difficult to lure people from, but rlao very difficult to keep the La Corm locale at home,
Our hope, ie thst it will be poeeible to trade off indoor space for outdoor apace making ue B little more attrective and competitive during those days when the weather $8 beeuti9ul. Reelietically the evening weather ie conaietently nice from July to October with close to twice as many warm, sunny days during
the whole year,
It is not our intention to expand our dining area square footage 10 on thorc “patio days” we would Imerely assign that waiter or welttrees to the outside end close up the.inaide section, Recognieing your concern as to whether or noti the section is cloeed, I can only tell you that I wouldn’t do anything to jeopardise this often euked for customer elective.
The aubtle trellis work would be used to eupport a eetiea of fully grown roe6 buehee with other assorted flowers to add atmoephere to the courtyerd end provide home relief from the mun. The l ddltlon of the entry well vould gusreatee the integrity of the patio by limItin ite ueeem
-- _ _ . . B-rwPllk m LI ,m-r\v.,, fi hehAm LImIA4n 44-34
SENT BY:Q
. ; 12-28-88 12: 39PM ; 4342467; # 5 . s * -;
With I “courtyard” of thir design w4 would be able to offer an affordable area for wedding receptions or ermi-private breakfort, lunch maetingm. Any of theme functione, would most likely’ be over by 5800 PM et the latest. This sun14 area would most esaurrdly make our Sunday Brunch more enjoyable for our pstronrr
To ensure that thr ure does not become objectionable and that no further traffic io generated, I have attached a letter agreeing to ritigatina conditionr aa w4 dicrcuasad at our meeting.
The Craar Burro, La Coata, is my eolc bumincea concern and a8 e eix year La Corta resident I can tell you that the people in this nree of Csr1eba.d would greatly appreciate the opportunity to dine outside on borne of thaee spectacular daycr. It ie my alncerrrt
wish that the Crazy Burro can provide this luxury for thum.
.A&. We -. I r..** -AC *, * T A f-fiCTA PA1 lPr\bhlIA 03fV-IR a A I O/A?R,1171
. MlNUtrs l
Meeting of: DESIGN REVIEW Board
(Regular Meeting)
Time of Meeting: 5:00 p.m.
Date of Meeting: February 1, 1989
Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Schramm called meeting to order at
5:OO p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present : Chairperson Schramm, Board Members,
McCoy, McFadden, Rombotis and Hall.
Absent: None.
Staff Present: Chris Salomone, Housing and
Redevelopment Director
Patricia fi. Cratty, Senior
Management Analyst
Ron Ball, FSssistant City
Attorney
Lance Schulte, City Planning
Bob Wojcik, City Engineering
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairperson
Schramm.
DESIGN REVIEW Board PROCEDURES:
Chairperson Schramm read Design Review Board
meeting Procedures as a transparency was used to
show them for the audience.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no requests to address the Board.
ITEM 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of December 21, 1988, approved with
Members Rombotis and McCoy abstaining on item 1
(RP 87-11(A) CDP 88-1(A) Village Faire).
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
ITEM 2. RP/CUP/CDP BE-6 KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN
DRIVE THROUGH
Item trailed to allow staff to display exhibits.
ITEM 3. RP 87-ll(A)CDP 88-1(A) VILLAGE FAIRE
Members Aombotis and McCoy excused themselves
from the platform to sit in audience due to
conflict with this project.
Chris Salomone, Housing and Redevelopment
Director, gave report explaining project and
giving chronology of events leading to request.
Staff stated that the project was returned to
discuss the 3,600 square restaurant proposal
ZHRAMM
:FADDEN
ZOY
)MBOTIS
iLL
.
Design Review Board February 1, 1989 Page 2
MlNUl:S
7
\
\ B A
MEMBERS 1
1.
which was approved at a prior meeting but
conditioned with regard to outdoor eating area.
Staff reported that the applicant asked that the
Board consider three options with a fourth which
staff must bring to Board’s attention. Staff
stated that the applicant was available to
discuss options. Options to be considered and
explained by staff were as follows:
Remove the condition that addresses
outdoor eating area table service and
allow it to be done with the approval of
the Redevelopment Director. Mr.
Salomone suggested that the ordinance
and L.oca.1 Coastal Plan in relation to
how restaurants and outdoor eating areas
are treated can be reviewed and perhaps
make some recommendations prior to the
occupancy of the restaurant. This could
be something that could be done as part
of the review of the master plan for the
Redevelopment Area.
Staff stated that if Board were to,recommend
this option tonight that the Local Coastal
P 1 an would need to be amended because it does
not conform. Amendment to the Parking
Ordinance and Local Coastal Plan could be
done over the future months.
2.
7 _ .
Option 2 was recommended in the original
outdoor eating package which was to use the
“Crazy Burro” approach in that the inside
eating area equivalent to the outside eating
area is closed off when used. This was done
with the Crazy Burro restaurant and is
reviewed annually. This gave the operator of
the Crazy Burro the option of using the
outdoor eating area.
Staff stated that this consideration is
proposed by the applicant and was not in the
original packet. To allow outside eating
area the same parking ratio as the inside
area, 1 to 250 and to allow the total excess
spaces to go toward any outdoor area as
designated on exhibit. Basis for this
rationa.1, is the original project was parked
at 1 to 250 which would allow an unlimited
amount of 2,000 square foot restaurant areas
which basically this is saying use the
additional parking spaces to allow 1 to 250
MINlJ1-k
Design Review Board February 1, 1989 Page 3
for additional eating areas. The applicant has
shown a new eating area on the southwest corner
of the project deck adjacent to the Twin Inns
building.
4. Staff stated that the fourth implied option
which is not spelled out in the applicants
letter is that it be parked 1 to 100 as per
code.
Staff stated that the applicant has provided a
new parking breakdown for Board consideration.
It states that the project as built has shrunk
from original approved project. Actual
construction is 1500 square feet smaller than
that which was approved and parked. Restaurant
would actually be 400 square feet smaller.
Total excess spaces totaled a little over
thirteen for the whole project. Adding 15%
reduction total would actually be 15 spaces for
overall project which are unobligated. Staff is
in the process of verifying this calculation and
would get this data from Senior Building
Inspector.
Member Hall had a question on project size.
Staff stated that project size was 69,900.
Member Hall felt project should be continued
until Board had actual figures.
Member McFadden stated that on Resolution #133 ,
#3 finding is actually a condition. Staff
stated that this had been corrected. Also
wanted to be sure that Board is not deleting
condition 23 and it remain in place, 2,000 limit
hold other than this restaurant. Member
McFadden also asked for a total review of the
parking situation. Concerned on how conditions
are to be implemented, for example; employee
parking was to be north of Grand and signage.
Thirty public parking places on east side of
Washington credited to project and would like to
see them usable and not park and ride facility
perhaps could have hour limit, three hour for
example.
Staff asked if there would be any value in
discussing this contingent. Member McFadden
objected to discussion without the numbers.
Assistant City Attorney, Ron Ball, commented
that the business license application in
solution number 1 is not a discretionary permit
that it waswministerial permit and conditions
cannot be placed on it. Stating that the
Redevelopment Permit could be conditioned not
MlNlJ1-k
l
Design Review Board February 1, 1989 Page 4
the business license. Also that parking in the
public parking area could be handled in the
three hour limit separate and apart from th.is
project.
Member McFadden also requested that staff bring
ip information on what it means when the term
“common usage” is used.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:
No one wished to speak. Public hearing closed.
Member McFadden suggested that the item be
continued to February 15th.
ITEM 2. RP/CUP/CDP 88-6 KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN
DRIVE-THROUGH
Chris Salomone presented staff report stating
this item was brought before the Board at their
previous meeting with a recommendation for
denial. Staff was able to give clear direction
to applicant for the drive up window at the
southeast corner of Madison and Elm avenue.
Staff continued stating that issues were access
to project off of Elm Avenue and Madison Avenue
and exit out onto Elm Avenue this caused on site
circulation problems. Other issue was parking,
however enough direction was given that
applicant was able to work with staff to resolve
issues. Staff is proposing and recommending
approval that Elm Avenue entrance be completely
blocked off and additional exit be created on
alley way which would allow better circulation.
Staff noted that the handicapped space has been
relocated on the northern edge where exit used
to be allowing the handicapped persons to exit
and enter on a pedestrian walkway and never
having to conflict with on site circulation.
The actual drive up window has been reduced to
comply with all ordinances and is parked at 1 to
200 square feet. FIdditional landscaping was
also created. Overall building reduced, solved
majority of pedestrian and -vehicle problems and
also able to increase landscaping. Staff has
recommended approval of project with these
changes.
Member McFadden stated staff report doesn’t
reflect plan. Staff explained difference and
matter resolved. Member McFadden also had
question regarding trash enclosure and driveway.
Ouestion on distance of wall from driveway.
Staff member Bob Wojcik stated that wall would
be removed or reduced to a height of 32 inches
to increase the site distance down the alley
way. So there would be a minimum of 24 feet
MINUl;S
Design Review Board February 1, 1989 Page 5
with a 3.2 inch high wall or remove wall
completely in which case there would be an
additional width on driveway. Or wall can be
eliminated and cars kept.
Member McCoy had question on condition 31
wording. Staff member Bob Wojcik stated that
the only triqgerlng mechanism was a building
permit to insure repair to the sidewalk. Member
McCoy felt it was something the City should take
care of. Mr. Wojcik stated that condition can
be changed to lmatch other requirements.
Applicant Jim Landry, representing Kentucky
Fried Chicken addressed Board. Stated they were
in the process of incorporating all the items as
Board suggested. Mr. Landry had concern
regarding the alley and wanted assurance that it
would always be open.
Staff member Wojcik answered query about alley
stating that it is currently being used by the
other businesses and residences both along
Madison and Jefferson Streets so there was
already established use of the alley. Any
vacation of any public property has to go to the
City Council and it would be engineering’s
recommendation that a vacation not be granted
because it is a vital circulation in the area.
Staff cannot guarantee that it would never be
closed off, recommendation would be to not
vacate alley.
Since no one else wished to speak public
testimony closed.
Member Schramm had questions in regarding to
mention that there would be a crosswalk so cars
going past would recognize handicapped space,
maybe a cross hatch, she did not see on the plan
would like to see that on the plan.
Condition 31 was referred to and suggestion made
to incorporate sidewalk repair with Elm Street
driveway improvement and incorporate with other
public improvements. When building permits are
issued, that is the time to fix sidewalk.
Assistant City Attorney Ron Ball also cited that
the City retain legal power to vacate or abandon
alley way by proper procedures.
Member McFadden moved to approve Resolutions 124
approving Negative Declaration and 136 and 137
with the following conditions:
MlNUTiS
Design Review Board February 1, 1989 Page 6
Approval to include 32 inch wall going north
from the trash enclosure to the beginning of the
24 foot driveway down the alley. Condition 31
be corrected to say that work will commence with
the issuance of building permit. Striping be
shown on the site plan.
DEPfiRTMENTflL
ITEM 4. PRELIMINflRV REVIEW - STRAUB OFFICE
BUILDING.
Staff inember Chris Salomone stated this was a
preliminary review of a proposed project.
Staff stated that two schemes of an office
building on Oak and State are provided. Staff
is asking for some guidance on the directlon
applicant is going to take in order save time in
process. Staff wanted to address some pbvious
conditions for this site.
Applicant Michael Straub, 542 Oak Street
addressed Board stating he would present both
SC hemes. First being a building approximately
9,500-10,000 square feet and the second being
14,000 square feet. Question applicant had was
concerning parking and intensity of development
City wanted to have in the area.
Member Rombotis stated scheme one parking under
bui ldinq - too close to corner and would like to
open up an entry feature and have it step back
from State.
Member Hall stated he has met with Mr. Straub
and discussed this project. Member Hall stated
he liked under the building type parking but had
concern with it being architecturally pleasing;
not be just straight walls, some sort of facade
hung to the walls and that it have roof lines,
for example a balcony.
Member McFadden asked staff about cottages north
of site. Wanted to know if anything was going
on there. Staff responded that there was no
known change going on there. Ps far as other
sites in vicinity, there may be some minor
changes.
Member Schramm stated she Ilked the idea of
underground parking.
Applicant spoke on parking plan issues and
maximum amount of parking. Member Rombotis
;CHRAMM
LCFADDEN
1CCOY
lOMBOTIS
IALL
.
L
. MlNUTiS
Design Review Board February 1, 1989 Page 7
stated he would rely on engineering
recommendation.
Member McFadden stated she had concern with 40%
compact.
Member McCoy stated concern with intensity ard
2nd story set back. iSt story on property line
is acceptable. Also that medical uses would not
be allowed at this parking ratio.
Chris Salomone stated that they do allow parking
to back onto an alley with 24’ back up
requirement which complies.
Since there was no further items for discussion
meeting adjourned at 5:58 p.m.
Respectfully SubmItted,
BIB1 LEAK
SECRETC\RV I I
Redevelopment
acting Minutes Clerk
2 - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING \ * * RP 87-11 (A) and CDP 88-l (A)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission will hold a public
hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M.,
on Tuesday, March 21, 1989, to consider an amendment to a Major Redevelopment Permit
and Coastal Development permit on property generally located at the northeast corner of
Carlsbad Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive in Subarea 5 of the VR Zone (Zone 1) and
more particularly described as:
A portion of Map No. 1661 of Carlsbad Lands, Tract 96. APN: 203-274-06
and 203-174-07.
This proposed development is located within the Coastal Zone and the Village Redevelopment
Area on the block bounded by Carlsbad Boulevard, Elm Avenue, Washington Street, and
Grand Avenue.
If you have any questions, please call the Redevelopment Office at 434-2811.
If you challenge the Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City
of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at or prior to the public hearing.
APPLICANT: Village Faire
PUBLISH: March 10, 1989 CARLSBAD HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION
0
n
-1
l
t
\
I ;
VILLAGE FjAwlE - RPBT-ll/bDP 88-l
NOTICEOFPUBLICHEARING RP 87-11 (A) AND CDP 88-1 (A) VII&AGE FAIRE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVBH that the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, will hold a public hearing on December 21, 1988, at 5:00 p.m in Council Chambers, 1200 Elm AVenUe, Carlsbad, California, to consider recommending approval Of an aIU8ndment t0 a Major R8d8V8lOpm8nt P8nUi.t and Coastal Development Permit on property generally located at the northeast corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive in Subarea 5 of the VR Zone (Zone 1) and particularly described as:
A portion of Map No. 1661 of Carlsbad Lands, Tract 96. APN 203-274-06 and 203-174-07.
This proposed development is located within the COaStal Zone and th8 Village Redevelopment area on the block bounded by Carlsbad Boulevard, Elm Avenue, Washington Street, and Grand Avenue.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. If you haV8 any questions, please call the R8d8VelOpment office at 434-2811.
If you Challenge the Redevelopment Permit in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to th8 City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: RP 87-11 (A)/CDP 88-1 (A) APPLICANT: VILLAGE FAIRE PUBLISH: DBCEKBER 9, 1988
CITY OF -BAD DESIGN. REVIEW BOARD
.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT OFFICE
2965 Roosevelt Street
Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(619) 434-2811
caiQ nf tlkulsba2l
FEBRUARY 27, 1989
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM : Housing and Redevelopment Director
RE: PUBLIC HECIRING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
RP 87-11 (FI)/CDP 88-1 VILLAGE FAIRE
for a public hearing before the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission. Please notice the item for the Commission
meeting of March 21, 1989 .
Thank you.
Housing and Redevelopment Director DATE
I,WY \DC ozm PW
$z
DCAO
l- s
z
hi
E z . IA
‘FI g 0 w
w 2
R 2
Glw
=,!I!‘-
x ” OL IO
6%
%I .
g’= 04
i= OC OW
g?
WC
G m
0, D
YE OCA
0%
WW m rz
;:
ww
;=E
‘2 Q-n
02 .
E$
.w
z:
Zrn “F Y
w
Lx
Y
w W
22
WD n
El .
-2 a= OQ
D%
E! l-l
“5
ZP mw “2
Nrn A VI W
$2
I-ID 7
;;s .
WW 40 UW
.2 .
02l
0 l-4
n
“=+ g
i??+D m Dmx W
v)
t
3: g
g: E
SP 6
2 <
ti
CODE c:
v)
h W s %
W W 00 2: !z : m bo 2 fr !2 .t: E z s: 0 % -4 \o w -( . . . I . . . . 1) . . . . . . . .
z w
E x m 01 c, 2: =: u c, s 5 fu 2 w
0 z 2 E 0 0 0 CI CEI u u CA L4 00 :: 4 - u N N
m 0 w CA c
El-
. . . . . . . . . . .i . . . .
;;: w m m - I- c z
a b4 W N W
0 E tz z s 2 bn iz 5: z 2 $ r;: 0 z 2 u
u,
I
Et z s N N Iv E z WI W 0 m E z 0 z bJ : 2: E 4 Iv 0 z f\ . . . . . . . . ‘1 . . . . . . .
f c,
%! KJ 2 4 a m W K z u z r; 0 2 00 K 2 04 tJ 0 q 4 ul 0 m .m z 00 crc rg z 0
0 UOF rmw
zgs
DS r-4
w2
09
WV)
5!q
ws ;9- 0’
WL
EE!
P -0 2 rm
01
2s V
ww Y Rf: =9
NC rn--iCt -0 om
Y 2
5%
ez i;x
% CU 4w
04 JB ow a bn4
WC
sz l m Q
sz W4 r-m
-d Y fi D 0
!iy ‘Z cn4 . . . CnW
ZII: UD
WI z I- E m .
2 z U +I
z
E
s
%
3 E E * D <
-- . EZ
m
m .
a *o \o \o rD \o * \o a rg rg 9 ro a rg 9 0 =: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =: 0 z z z 0 z z s: z z 0 0 0 0 0 z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z 0
53
om c, ma w
% l w
W2
f$
rz
%
P
ziz m
=i::
“5 u mc rw
rn m
a 9 rD ro rD a \o 9 \o rg rD rD ho a 9 a D1-4 z 0 0 0 z 0 0 0 0 5 z 0 0 0 z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z+ Dmx 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0
N .
)-, 0 F W
k! m N E z $: W z c z WI $ 4 ul 0 m 0 ifi 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . W
:: =: E E 4 0, W 2 2 =: f? E 2 W 0 0 0 m Do \o W E 5 0
z
.-.. 1 I /Gz
OW CA
NU2 UDW -4WZ -Pm UTW
;=xo
2 z w
nl D . E
G) “CAD >W
2s USW
u QI -m 032
v&
w war D\-C zov)
f3 3
;;‘DO
DE zww DW”
%4
L5
udx
ZFW 004 U-00 xx m ZI
W m Oh
oz m
r-m
g”
W
% :+ l-4
ZR
*0 P r-
or D
g
NX UC
Is
F”
gj
%
u u W% nw
5; -m
0 :z w-’ N
ES
“3 m
& do O\U 0 \ u- 00 00 00 I- 0,
i& % W4 mu
2 $Z 4
6 rc
=zY
z
p<
5: 5
pm
:2 Wll
3
zz UM m 0 DO
kU
DZ <l-l mm -I- W W
g;
US UP
F% om iTi m W 0 0
r 0 DC W
6
z U
s z m m . .
c? i2 .
rD rD rD
z
0
ii
:
m a,
N N N
Y Y z I CI
21 z z u ln I I I 0 4 z E
N
z I
z WI I
z
N N
;i: z I
z 5
N N N N
z z z E I I I I
$ 5 z z u u JB aa I I I I
E 0 F z z
? Ja I 0 .m z
-Cl UO
02 rm DW
F&z mm
52
5;
.I
“FZ
“22 mm
$2 N- W
w4w I- D
mi-l n
%2
ziz
%3
\DNW of-m OmD
:>F!
mm w v) 0 o- D z N z
GE sl N OD
24
z:
W I ti 0 I- I
E
I 0 I
5 W
, ‘-
v) N ii 0”
.
!G 0 v F E
:: ii
:
m ‘N K E H 4 =: z 5 E p 6 m u 9 u fr m W w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?
ic 9 0
E 0 s 00 c, s: K E $ s W
N’ 2 0 c-’ N ;1 0 u 0 0 W IJl 0 m N m F 0 0 ;I
D
2:
R
O,E
:
- m0 E m 9
z$j <I-
0 00
m
z
2 00
E
I COOE z
v) m
DE
33
:: ~~2 4
. 0 25 ‘:, i%sz
2 m 0 u)
W 2 z
. m-
E - u 4 rg E K
WI :: W 0 ::
5 2: K K 4
4 N W N W c1 m : $ W . . . . . . . . . . . . c . .
u
z Ii 0
2: N u N EJ N 2 2: z
0) 4
0 0 - a 0 a 0 N u N \o 9 0 m Ja 0
88 0
c: 2 om
*WZ
8
0s wo -x 0
$
wz ow zl DZ zu n-l c1z 4 l- PW
T .
5
z t-l
wz I-
O x WD ow X
u2
2s
eg
2: N
I-O-U I- DUZ
%T z
52 woo
z%z uow - zu .
kE I-OC 4ZO v)D FOX
gz: mu-
$2
2s:
5;:
OFF -wr
ZvWrn z
z:7 0 OD r
a? I--
c X m $$
03: n 4D
z u ‘1
wm
rG 0
z P l-
6 w
n
z z E z 0 m 0 a 0 0 Kl 0 E : =: z ifi 0 ti w w u 0 F 0 W w 2 0 c1 u 0 0
s: El W E z 00 m ln 43 . . . . .
2 0 a F E CI a K w . . . .
N E E
4
0 0 m u z
00 .n . .
c 0 0 0)
0 0 z
E h
ii W E W 0 00 u 0 . . . . .
wrng
0 I- DW WI-W 0 v x u
: z . z
LOD r-
0
wj; W --lr w
6: XU
:z -2
ur m-I vu b
-0%
OF
g;:
XF NW wr- \o f*x .
is X
F O 2 m u I-
w E 0 r D LA
\o f N 0 I
r: Fl
z m l- D
c
1
v l-
wz
zz
Iv
a
z? UW D
;p
.
n
Ll
g!p
I (!
$2 32 Z
% FD ww
$5
EW
z
-4 0 CI .
usn N OL ow w.
g
:
2
0 71
:: 0
:
%n <rn
zg
2x mm
00 OD 9-J -+m xm
$E cn3
2”;
04 FiiJJ 00 P r 0’ D c
s
z” 5
% n
;
:
a 1 i q 1 I
E ,
i
I
I
I
z$ Do0 m
2 om
K4 cz3 mm rZ
‘GJ
z .
g W
Ii
E u
4: ki
. E
w s n c z m w
E w I-I D u w m w D
E z
-JP
WZ FID 2;
2s m4 .
N VI -l -I .
x 0 l-4 D 0 w I
c; E
E c; u I
n
s W
6;
F u
W I
6W NK
2: -I
5
x
yz
-w
E W r- v,
!E u
2
;u” 0
iFi
-- .
07
ww
EE
=r$
Z” -r
o,!
?P
$3
u
g
-- OS2 “N 0% r-@ Ycv OS
WE
RS
O-l w
g”
2
gif f- c VI -4
b. i -< W OD On
tTuw n g--& I-%U kzrn ZF” . r#i Z=ZF c v, HP0 n z
x .
E
w w w 0 =: 0
s 0, s
N N N 0 0
‘;” ‘: z I
E E E fr I I I F W F -..I m a
N !z N N N N N N N N N
El z 0 z 0 El
0 ci W W W W z W z i3
<- _c
MARY-d: YOUNG SEVERINE E. WRIGHT JACK D. PHILLIPS
3320 OLEANDER STREET 2510 CHESTNUT AVENUE 3702 INGRAHAM ST.
VISTA, CA. 92083 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 SAN DIEGO, CA. 92109
ST. MICHAELS BY THE SEA HARRY B. & LAVINA M. VOLLMER HARRY V. & LAVINIA M. V EPISCOPAL CHURCH TRUST TRUST P. 0. BOX 127 3990 HIGHLAND DRIVE 3990 HIGHLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
CATHERYN F. CHRISTIANSEN CATHERYN F. CHRISTIANSEN JACK D. PHILLIPS
TRUST TRUST 9309 LA RIVERA DRIVE, S
P. 0. BOX 188 P. 0. BOX 188 SACRAMENTO, CA 95826
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
CHARLES R. EYMANN 4140 SKYLINE ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD HOTEL CATHERYN F. CHRISTIANSE
P. 0. BOX 8193 TRUST
RANCH0 SANTA FE, CA 92067 C/O ROBERT WALWICK P. 0. BOX 701 OCEANSIDE, CA. 92054
BICENTENNIAL CARLSBAD HISTORICAL SOCIETY C/O R.S.WALWICK P.O. 701
JAY FIKES C&TOSUNER-FIKES LEBRIZ 2421 BUENA VISTA CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
RALPH F. BURNETTE, SR &R. F. BURNETTE, JR. 3315 MC KINLEY ST. CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CATHERYN F. CHRISTIANSEN LESTER HOLT TRUST R.F.BURNETT, SR. & JR. P. 0. BOX 188 JOSEPH MC ANALLY 390 GRAND AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 C/O BULLYS RESTAURANT CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
1440 CAMINO DEL MAR DEL MAR, CA 92014
R. F. BURNETT, SR. & JR. CARLSBAD INN HOMEOWN ASSN. SECURITY TITLE INS. CO.
390 GRAND AVENUE C/O TIM STRIP P. 0. BOX 1590 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 WINNER'S CIRCLE CO. SAN DIEGO, CA. 92112
2110 S. HILL ST.
OCEANSIDE, CA. 92054
SECURITY TITLE INS.CO.TR. HAROLD & DOLORES JENSEN HAROLD & DOLORES JENSEN
P. 0. BOX 190 2424 CARLSBAD BLVD. 2424 CARLSBAD BLVD. SAN DIEGO, CA. 92112 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
JOHN & MARY GRANT TR.
7172 OBELISCO CIR. CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
DANIEL & COLLEEN SOT0 P. 0. BOX 353 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
C. L. THATCHER & R. H. SONNEMAN C/O KAMAR CONSTR.CO. 325 ELM STREET, D-l CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
JAMES E. 61 FRANKIE RUNZO MAURINE V. COX TERRY & PHYLLIS SHADER 355 ELM AVE. 363 ELM AVE. P. 0. BOX 541 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 CHINO VALLEY, AZ. 86323
: em
DAN&,*& VIOLET VIEHLE DONALD & LAEL DEWHURST R. & C. NORMANDIN
395 ELM AVE. 3425 SEACREST DRIVE P. 0. BOX 731
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 BONSALL, CA 92003
C. & J. WARD TRUST C. & S. GARNER C. & S. GARNER
945-D ORANGE GROVE BLVD 25775 TOLUCA DR. 25775 TOLUCA DR. PASADENA, CA. 91105 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 920
C. & S. GARNER F. & P. MALDONADO C. & S. GARNER
25775 TOLUCA DRIVE 4213 BEACH BLUFF RD. 25775 TOLUCA DR.
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92
F. & P. MALDONADO 4213 BEACH BLUFF RD. CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN HOMES G&G (P/F)A.C A. BROWN
2400 S. FREMONT AVE. 5157 SHORE DRIVE
ALHAMBRA, CA. 91803 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
DEL MAR PROPERTIES P. 0. BOX 5466
EL MONTE, CA. 91734
SOUTHLAND CORP, THE C/O LEGAL DEPT.
P. 0. BOX 719
DALLAS, TX 75221
CARLSBAD INN LTD.
P. 0. BOX 99 DEL MAR, CA. 92014
CARLSBAD INN LTD C/O GREENBERG & MAZER 5515 AVENIDA DEL TREN YORBA LINDA, CA 92686
CARLSBAD INN LTD C/O GREENBERG & MAZER 5515 AVENIDA DEL TREN
YORBA LINDA, CA. 92686
G. & C. BURNS
26516 ROCKHURST LANE
RANCH0 PALOS VERDES
CALIFORNIA 90274
G. & N. BOWERS TRUST R. NIELSEN TR JEFFREY S. MC CABE
3199 FALCON DR. M. & M. DALEY 267 LA VETA AVE.
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 SIERRA MORENA AVE. ENCINITAS, CA. 92024
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
R. NIELSEN TR W. & E. TREVASKIS F. YARBROUGH
M. & M. DALEY 2814 LA COSTA AVE. 3112 LINCOLN ST.
SIERRA MORENA AVE. CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
R. & B. RYBERG 3823 SKYLINE RD. CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
C. HALBERG & A.ELLIOTT P. 0. BOX 56127 RIVERSIDE, CA. 92517
D. & J. FEENSTRA 6531 AVE. DEL PARAISO CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
J. &I N. CHASE R. & S. HEYNE B. & J. DEEN
4990 VIA MARTA 15901 741 "E" STREET
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 SEPULVEDA, CA. 91343 BRAWLEY, CA 92227
E. & B. TRENT 2429 WINDWARD CIR. WESTLAKE VIL., CA 91361
D. 6 ,R: LUCIER 9563:4'BROADWAY
TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780
W. CHANDLER &
D. ZIMMERMAN TRUST 1175 GAVIOTA - APT 2 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 9265
ANGIE PETTIT 3660 S W OAK PARKWAY
TOPEKA, KA 66614
J. & L. BOONE
3955 SKYLINE RD.
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
THOMAS HODGES
RTE 3, BOX 390
ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025
E. & M. POORE TRUST 1441 SUSAN LANE
LA HABRA, CA. 90631
A. NORHADIAN 1055 KILDONAN DR. GLENDALE, CA. 91207
T. 61 M. BITONTI
536 N. MISSION ST.
SAN GABRIEL, CA 91775
R. & M JOHNS
6565 BIRCH DR. SANTA ROSA, CA. 95404
P. JOYCE 29839 CIRCLE R CREEK LANE ESCONDIDO, CA. 92026
J. & A. GERNANDT TRUST 1341 BROOKDALE AVE. LA HABRE, CA. 90631
G. & M. GUERNSEY TR. P. 0. BOX 105 MIDWAY, UT 84049
L. ENGLE TRUST J. & C. FELKER
1788 IVY ROAD
OCEANSIDE, CA. 92054
J. & T. MARRANCA A. GERACI P. 0. BOX 845
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
J. & N. CHASE 4990 VIA MARTA CARLSABAD, CA. 92008
DOLORES HORNE 342 S. KALMIA ST. ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025
G. OLIPHANT & V. MORIN
5151 ALZEDA DRIVE
LA MESA, CA. 92041
J. & M. MC CARTHY 1757 GALVESTON ST. SAN DIEGO, CA. 92110
E. MC MORRAN
1240 E. MISSOURI ST.
PHOENIX, AZ. 85014
W. CHANDLER & D. ZIMMERMAN TRUST 1175 GAVIOTA - APT 2
LA GUNA BEACH, CA 92651
N. BOWERS
BOWERS, BOWERS & STOSCH 3199 FALCON DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
J. & D. PHILP
2964 PUENTE ST.
FULLERTON, CA. 92631
T. & N. KNIPSTEIN
1557 PEDRIGAL DRIVE
ESCONDIDO, CA.
CALIFORNIA PROP. BROKER P. 0. BOX B CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
J. J. 61 J. REYNOLDS
4359 CALAVO DR. LA MESA, CA. 92041
T. & M. BITONTI
536 N. MISSION DR. SAN GABRIEL, CA. 91775
J. & M. GRANT TRUST
7173 OBELISCO CRICLE
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
D. & J. MAC DONALD 6546 CORTE VALDEZ CARLSBAD, CA. 92009
J. & M. GRANT TRUST
7173 OBELISCO CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
_-
OPHEL\ii G. GARCIA OPHELIA G. CARCIA L. & D. PACHECO
296O'S?l?ATE ST. 2960 STATE ST. 2100 CHESTNUT ST.
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
CAROL ANDERSON E M., M. & B. GLASER H. & C. CLARKE TRS. 4783 FLYING COULD WAY H:'& M. GLASER 824 CAMINITO DEL REPOSO
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 420 S. HORNE ST. CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
OCEANSIDE, CA. 92054
M. & I. HUMPHREYS TRS. E. MC CLEAN & T. WILLIAMS M. & I HUMPHREYS TRS. 140 ACACIA AVE. P. 0. BOX 206 140 ACACIA AVE. CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
R. & N. BOYER R. & N. BOYER 602 S. PACIFIC ST. 602 S. PACIFIC ST. OCEANSIDE, CA. 92054 OCEANSIDE, CA. 92054
R. & N. BOYER
602 S. PACIFIC ST.
OCEANSIDE, CA. 92054
CARLSBAD EQUITY PROPERTIES T. & M. BETZ & B. & Y. BALSAM C/O BRYN B. EVANS B. MC DANIEL TRS. E . . & D. GILBOA ET AL
2965 ROOSEVELT ST. 3240 DONNA DRIVE P. 0. BOX 4668 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 CARLSBAD. CA. 92008 ORANGE. CA. 92613
B. & Y. BALSAM E. & D. GILBOA ET AL P. 0. BOX 4668 ORANGE, CA. 92613
E. MC MORRAN
1240 E. MISSOURI ST. PHOENIX, AZ 85014
W. CHANDLER & D. ZIMMERMAN TRS. 1175 GAVIOTA - APT. 2
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
J. & M. MC CARTHY 1757 GALVESTON ST. SAN DIEGO, CA. 92110
J. & D. PHILP T. & N. KNIPSTEIN
2963 PUENTE ST.' 1557 PEDRIGAL DR.
FULLERTON, CA. 92631 ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025
BOWERS, BOWERS & STOSCHER J. & J. & J. REYNOLDS T. & M. BITONTI
N. BOWERS 4359 CALAVO DR. 536 N. MISSION DR. 3199 FALCON DR. LA MESA, CA. 92041 SAN GABRIEL, CA. 91775 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
CALIFORNIA PROPERTY BRKS. D. t J. MAC DONALD J. & M. GRANT TRS. P. 0. BOX B 6546 CORTE VALDEZ 7173 OBELISCO CIR. CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 CARLSBAD, CA. 92009 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
J. & M. GRANT TRS. OPHELIA GARCIA OPHELIA GARCIA 7173 OBELISCO CIRCLE 2960 STATE ST. 2960 STATE ST. CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
m -
B. BAL.hM, G. YAFFA, ET A c/o LARRITz B. BALSAM, G. YAFFA, ET L _ C/O LAKRITZ P. 0. BOX 4668 P. 0. BOX 4668 ORANGE, CA. 92613 ORANGE, CA. 92613
D. & A. ONGAIS C. & L. SATTERLY P. 0. BOX 1668 1349 MELROSE WAY CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 VISTA, CA. 92083
A. & R. BAUER TR D. ROSS
P. 0. BOX 8
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
MIA MITTELSTEDT T. & S. VIGNE
3268 HARDING ST. 2690 HIGHLAND DR.
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
J. CHESNER & L. HEFFNER CARLSBAD LUMBER CO. 1720 N. GOWER P. 0. BOX 277 LOS ANGELES, CA. 90028 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
B. & L. RYBURN G. & J. WILLIS 2019 ESTER0 ST. 539 ELM AVE. #201 OCEANSIDE, CA. 92054 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
B. BALSAM, G. YAFFA, ET
C/O LAKRITZ P. 0. BOX 4668 ORANGE, CA. 92613
A. & R. BAUER TR D. ROSS P. 0. BOX 8
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
J. GILBERT & L. WALKER
4350 HIGHLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
N. GUZELIMIAN & Z BALIA ANARID, ET AL P. 0. BOX 206 SOLANA BEACH, CA. 9207
J. PETERS 107 N. ACACIA SOLANA BERACH, CA. 92075