HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-02-04; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 199; Gametowne - Retail ProjectI
- .e , .i.’
s . Housing and RedevelL,,+nt Commission- AGENDA- SILL f ,(:. ‘ ?,.’ 0 a l&vti
9B # iti?
UlTG. Z/4/92
IEPT. PLN
TITLE. APPROVAL OF A MAJOR RE.D-PbiENT P- TO
33iWikOP A RETAlL PROJECl’ AT 2933 ROOSEVELT SllUWl’
WlTHlN SUBAREA 1 OF TEE VILJLAGE REDEVELLIPMENT ZONE
Rl'91-8-GmOWNE
3ECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission direct the City Attorney to prepare
documents APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and
APPROVING RP 91-8 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
ITEM EXPLANATION
RP 91-8, Gametowne, is a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit to allow the
demolition of the existing structures at 2933 Roosevelt Street and the construction of a
two story building with 3,000 square feet of retail space. The Gametowne retail use
currently occupies the site and will occupy the new structure with another tenant. The
proposed building complies with all applicable development standards and features an
architectural style that maintains the existing village scale and style as described by the
Design Manual and Village Area Redevelopment Plan. All required parking is provided
on-site. The project design features a variety of pitched roofs and window detailing, an
outdoor garden deck area and a pedestrian corridor throughout. This proposal will
significantly enhance this part of the City’s central business district.
The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board and unanimously recommended
for approval on December 18, 1991 as presented.
FISCAL IMPACT
No detailed economic impact of this project has been determined. However its
construction and subsequent operation will provide revenues through development fees,
tax increment, business licenses and sales taxes.
EXHIBITS
1. Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 176 & 177.
2. Location Map
3. Exhibits dated December 18,1991 (Exhibits A-E on file in Clerk's Office)
4. Design Review Board Minutes, dated December 18, 1991
1
2
2
4
5
e
7
E
s
1C
13
12
1:
14
1:
lf
l’i
1E
1s
2c
23
22
2:
24
22
26
2:
2t
DESIGN REXEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 176
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEMOLISH THE
EXISTING RETAIL USE AND CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY RETAIL BUILDING OF 3,000 SQUARE FEET AT 2933 ROOSEVELT STREET WITHIN SUB-AREA 1
OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT ZONE. APPLICANT: MARK DAVIS
CASE NO:’ RP 91-8
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 18th day of December, 1991, 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 Design Review Board considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board as
follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board
hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
“ND”, dated November 7, 1991, and “PII”, dated October 28, 1991 attached hereto
and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinns:
1.
2.
3.
. . .
. . .
. . .
The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may
have a significant impact on the environment.
The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project.
There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly
impacted by this project.
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of December, 1991 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Noble, Board Members: Gonzales, Rowlett, Erwin & Savary.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
;& F&&j-&>
KATHY GWHAM
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RFSO NO. 176 -2-
-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 2933 Roosevelt Street
AF’N: 203-292-l 1
PROJECT DEXXIPTI ON: Demolition of an existing single story retail use and
construction of a two-story retail building of 3,000 square feet
within Subarea 1 of the Village Redevelopment Zone,
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of hd
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Pknni.ng Department.
l
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments fkom the,
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
21 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Brie Munoz in the Planning Department at 438-l 161, extension 4441.
DATED: NOVEMBER 7, 1991
CASE NO: RP 91-8
APPLXANT: GAMETOWNE
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 7,199l
2075 Las Palmas Drive l Carlsbad, California 920094859 - (819) 438-l 161
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACI- ASSEI!WENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. RP 91-08
DATE: OCTOBER 28. 1991 BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: a
APPLICANT: MARK DAVIS
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2445 JUAN STREET
SAN DIEGO. CA 92110
(619) 291-4367
DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: JULY 31. 1991
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Demolition of an existing one-storv retail use and construction of
a two-storv building with 3.000 souare feet of retail use at 2933
Roosevelt Street. The nroiect site is a flat infill lot surrounded by
existin develo me 1 Area (Subarea 1) and the Central Business District.
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a c&he&list. This checklist
8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
l A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, “NO” will be checked
to indicate this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the
project may cause a &mificanf effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative
Declaration. however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed
insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings ‘YES-sig” and ‘YES-insig”
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under 1 UATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
PHYSICAL ENvrRoNMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECXLY OR tNDIRECTLY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
9.
10.
11.
Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards?
Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
Use substantial amounts of fixI or energy?
Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object?
.
YES
big)
A
YES NO a (insig)
x
x
x
x
.
x
x
x
x
X
x
X
-2-
-. .
c
-
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES
(SW
12.
13.
14.
1s.
16.
Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HuMANENvlRoNMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, f%e, emergency or other public sexvices?
YES
(insig)
YES
(insig)
NO
x
x
x ;
x
x
NO
x
x
-3-
.
- 2
HUMANENVIRONMENT L
WILLTHEPROPOSALDIRECTLYORINDUlECIZY:
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
2s.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems?
Increase existing noise levels?
Produce new light or glare?
Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
Meet existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
Generate substantial additional traffic?
Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking?
Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Increase traLfic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans?
Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view?
Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
YES big) YES
(insig)
A
NO s
x
x
x
.-
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
4
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES
33.
34.
3s.
36.
(sit0
Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory.
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively con-
siderable” means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
YES
(insig) NO
x
x
x
X
*. .P
-ALUATION
c
1.2.3.
4.
5.6.
7.8.
9.10.
11.
Since the project site is a flat infill location, with no unique physical features, there will
be a minimum amount of grading involved. Therefore, there will be no unstable earth conditions created, no appreciable changes to topography and no development of any on
site or off site erosion problems.
Due to the project’s location, there will be no direct impacts to any Coastal or Marine
Resources.
The proposed project is an expansion of a currently existing, permitted retail use that will
not cause adverse effects on air quality or cause changes to air movement, odor, moisture
or temperature.
Due to the project’s location there will be no changes to the natural flows of marine,
fresh or flood waters. In addition, the quantity or quality of surface water, groundwater
or public water supplies will not be affected. The project is located within Local
Facilities Management Zone 1 and is under the jurisdiction of the Carlsbad Municipal
Water District. Depending on Citywide water availability, there will be water supply facilities and resources to serve this project in compliance with the Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 1. ;
The proposed project will not create the need for a substantial increase in the use c F any
natural resources. There will be a short term impact on fuel and energy during the
construction phase of the project, however, the use itself (retail) will not create the need
for substantial amounts of fuel or energy to be used.
The site consists of a flat, infill lot with an existing retail use surrounded by existing
development and is not listed on the City adopted inventory of cultural resources. There
are no archeological, historical or cultural resources located anywhere on the project site;
so there will be no impacts to cultural resources.
ENVIRONMENT BIOLOGICAL :
12. The project will not affect the diversity of plant species on the site or in the area. The
project area is an infill area. There are no sensitive or endangered plant species on the
site and there will be no impact to any plant species or diversity within the area.
13.
14.
The project will not represent a barrier to the nom-4 replenishme!nt of existing plant
species since an infill location is involved and no biological habitats exist. The project
will also introduce new species of plants to the project area in the form of landscaping.
The project site does not contain any acreage currently in use for agriculture and the site does not have any land designated as significantly important for agriculture purposes by state or local standards.
-6-
15.16. The diversity of animal species of the quality of animal habitats in the area is not an
issue because this is an infill lot within an area that is currently developed. There are
no significant animal species on the site. The project will not introduce any new species of animals into the area. Since this is an intill lot, the project will not represent a barrier
to the migration of animals.
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT:
17.
18.19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
The project will not alter the present or planned land use of the area. The current
zoning designation is VR, Village Redevelopment, and the current General Plan
Designation is Central Business District, so retail use is allowed on the project site. The
project will be consistent with the land use designations of the site.
The project is within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and can comply with all of the
performance standards of that zone, so there will be no impacts to the quality or
availability of public utilities or public services. Existing sewer systems will be able to
service this project. This project will not create a need for new solid waste or hazardous
waste control systems.
The proposed retail use expansion will not create a significant increase in existing noise’
levels. Since a non-residential project is involved, the City’s Noise Policy does not apply.
The proposed project will not produce any new light or glare. The project will be
conditioned to ensure that any parking area lighting from this use is not reflected to
adjacent properties.
The proposed use does not represent any significant risk of explosion or the release of
hazardous materials or substances. The proposed retail use is consistent and compatible with adjacent, existing development in the area.
The project is a non-residential project and does not alter the area’s density.
The proposed project will not adversely impact existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing since it is an expansion of an existing retail use.
The project will not generate substantial additional tr&ic. The 3,000 square feet of retail use will generate approximately 120 ADT; which is not considered significant.
The proposed project does not affect any existing parking facilities. The use will require the need for a parking lot in order to provide the required parking, however, there will be no large demand for new parking. The required parking of 10 spaces will be provided on-site to seme the 3,000 square feet of retail use.
-7-
._ . 27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Since this project is located on an existing infill lot, there will be no impacts to existing transportation systems, and there will be no alteration of the present patterns of
circulation or the movement of goods or people. The project’s location on Roosevelt
Street between Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive is desirable for this use because it is centrally located within downtown Carlsbad and is close to mass transit systems.
Due to the nature of the project and the project’s location, there will be no impacts to
waterborne, rail or air traffic.
The proposed project will not increase traffk hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians. The project, being located on an infill lot, will not impact any of these
modes of transpotiation.
The retail use will not impact in any way emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans since the project it is proposed for an existing lot within an existing
downtown business area.
No scenic vistas will be obstructed by the proposed project since it is an intX lot. The proposed architecture of the structure is consistent with the desired village like
architecture as described in the Village Design Manual featuring a variety of pitched roofs
and detailing. ;
The proposed project will not affect the quality or quantity of any existing recreational
opportunities since the project site is an infill lot within a currently developed area.
.
-a-
- .
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
Bl
Cl
D)
E/G)
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs, c> alternate scale of development,
d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alternate sites -for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
Phasing the proposed development is not necessary given the scale of the proposed use.
There is no benefit to phasing the construction of the proposed retail building.
Alternate site designs were assessed during the project review, however, the proposed
site design maximizes the site’s area for the proposed use. The proposed site design also
allows for the greatest degree of architectural flexibility and compatibility with
developments adjacent to the project site while complying with all development
standards.
The proposed scale of development allows compliance with all applicable development
standards while providing for a site design that allows for function as well as land use
compatibility with adjacent properties. ;
Alternate uses for the site would be retail/non-residential uses in conformance with the General Plan Designation of Central Business District.
Development at a future time or the no project alternative would leave the site with its
existing one-story retail use. The owner wishes to upgrade and expand this retail use
at this time.
-9-
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) .
On the basis of this initial evaluation: A
-x I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a signiticant effect on the environment, because the environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required.
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
- t find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
10. 29. ?I
Date
. /‘; -fk - /
Date
C @/Lc; M-+
Signatyxk d /’
/*pL ) .,
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE~
-lO-
. .
1
2
3
4
5’
6
7
81
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 177
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEMOLISH
THE EXISTING RETAIL USE AND CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY
RETAIL BUILDING OF 3,000 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ROOSEVELT
BETWEEN CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND GRAND AVENUE
AT 2933 ROOSEVELT STREET.
CASE NAME: GAMETOWNE
CASE NO: RP 91-8
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 December, 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing
to consider said application on property described as:
Lots 21 and 22, Block 34 of Town Carlsbad, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, according to Map No. 535 as
recorded on May 2, 1888.
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 91-8.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board of the
City of Carlsbad as follows:
(A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
(B) That based on the evidence presented at public hearing, the Board Recommends APPROVAL of RP 91-8, based on the following findings and
subject to the following conditions:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
1c
11
1%
12
14
15
1E
17
1E
19
2c
21
22
2:
24
25
26
27
28
Findings:
1. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment
Plan and Village Design Manual because the project provides a specialty retail use
while enhancing the architectural aesthetics of the area as encouraged for the
Village Center special treatment area within Sub-area 1 of the Carlsbad Redevelopment Area and all applicable development standards and design criteria
are being incorporated into the project.
2. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the various elements of the
General Plan because the project is consistent and compatible with the Central
Business District land use designation for the area.
3. The project meets all the applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance including
the provision of adequate parking and landscaping and no variances are required for
the project.
4. The proposed project will contribute to the economic revitalization of the
Redevelopment Area by substantially redeveloping and enhancing the project site.
5. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as
conditions of approval.
6. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
7. This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative
Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on November 7, 1991 and
recommended for approval by the Design Review Board on December 18, 1991. In
approving this Negative, Declaration the Design Review Board has considered the
initial study, the staff analysis, all required mitigation measures and any written
comments received regarding the significant effects this project could have on the
environment.
8. The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure
continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
. . .
DRB RESO NO 177 -2-
1
2
2
4
F c
E
‘i
t
s
1(
13
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
9. This project is consistent with the Civs Growth Management Ordinance as it has
been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
. . .
. . .
Approval is granted for RP 91-8, as shown on Exhibits “A” - “E”, dated
December 18, 1991, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise
noted in these conditions.
The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of
the site plan as approved by the Design Review Board. The site plan shall reflect
the conditions of approval by the City. The plan copy shall be submitted to the City
Engineer prior to building, grading or improvement plan submittal, whichever
occurs first.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the City Engineer
determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such
sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy.
This project is also approved under the express condition that the applicant pay the
public facilities fee adopted by the’ City Council on July 28, 1987 and as amended
from time to time, and any development fees established by the City Council
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance
adopted to implement a growth management system or facilities and improvement
plan and to fulfil1 the applicant’s agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated July
19, 1991, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this
reference. If the fees are not paid this application will not be consistent with the
General Plan and approval for this project will *be void.
Water shall be provided to this project pursuant to the Water Service agreement between the City of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, dated
May 25, 1983.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation required by the
Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan approved by the City Council on
September 1, 1987, incorporated herein and on file in the Planning Department and
any future amendments to the Plan made prior to the issuance of building permits.
DRB RESO NO 177 -3-
- .
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
S
1c
11
12
1:
14
1t
1e
1’;
l(
1s
2c
21
2;
21
24
21
2c
2”i
2E
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
. . .
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the
payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by la4 on
this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in
Government Code Section 65913.5. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be ‘invalid unless the City Council determines that the
project without the condition complies with all requirements of law,
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within two years from the date of project approval.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates
pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Planning Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the
project to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated
and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the
satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Building.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
In such instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and
the Planning Director.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shah be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of grading
or building permits, whichever occurs first.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in’ a healthy and thriving condition, free
from weeds, trash, and debris.
All landscape plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Manual and
submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning
Department.
The applicant shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
DRB RESO NO 177 4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
s
1C
13
12
12
14
If
1C
1:
II
1s
2(
23
2:
2:
24
2:
2t
25
2f
1
i
t
3
a
1
1
!
5
L
5
5
?
3
3
1
L
2
5
L
5
5
r
3
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Prior to final occupancy, a letter from a California licensed landscape architect shall
be submitted to the Planning Director certifying that all landscaping has been
installed as shown on the approved landscape plans.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in
conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and Village Redevelopment signage regulations and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to
installation of such signs.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of
identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color.
As part of the plans submitted for building permit plan check, the applicant shall
include a reduced version of the approving resolution/resolutions on a 24” x 36"
blueline drawing.
‘$is development has provided 10 parking spaces. Any use or uses which requires
more than 10 parking spaces to be provided (per section 21.44 (Parking) of the
Zoning Ordinance shall be prohibited.
No restaurant, food service, medical/dentaMG.rop~ctic/psycho therapy uses shall
be allowed with this project.
The enclosed garage space containing two spaces shall be used for employee parking
only. Any conversion of this space to a use other than employee parking is
specifically prohibited.
Conditions:
24. Unless a standard variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is
authorized by virtue of approval of this Redevelopment Permit.
25. The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements
of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project.
26. The developer shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.&E., Pacific
Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
27. Prior to or con currently with issuing a building permit, the applicant shall obtain
a right-of-way permit for the work of removing the driveway approach and
replacing with curb, gutter, and sidewalk matching the existing streetscape design
as shown on the site plan Prior to occupancy the work in the public right-of-way
sball be completed to the satisf&ion of the City Engineer.
DEW RESO NO 177 -5
1
2
3
4
5
6
‘i
f
s
1c
11
12
12
14
1:
l[
1:
U
1$
2c
21
2:
21
24
2!
2(
25
21
,
i
I
1
i
I
3
3
)
1
> ,
5
L
5
5
7
3
3
1
L
> d
5
L
i
i
I
3
32.
33.
34.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
-
Fire Conditions:
28. Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be submitted
to and approved by the Fire Department.
29. Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts location of required, proposed and existing hydrants.
30. All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurtenances shall be operational prior
to combustible building materials being located on the project site.
31. Plans and/or specifications for fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, extinguishing
systems, automatic sprinklers, and other systems pertinent to the project shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to construction.
Ca&bad Mu&i& Water District:
The entire potable and non-potable water system/systems for subject project shall
be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity and pressure for domestic,
landscaping and fire flow demands are met.
The developer3 engineer shall schedule a meeting with the District Engineer and the
City Fire Marshal and review the preliminary water system layout prior to
preparation of the water system improvement plans.
The developer will be responsible for all fees and deposits plus the major facility charge which will be collected at time of issuance of building permit.
DRB RESO NO 177 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
18
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of December, 1991, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Noble, Board Members
NOES: None.
#: Gonzales, Rowlett, Erwin, & Savary.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RESO NO 177 -7-
GRAND AVE
City d tuf&d L
L
GAMETOWNE RP 91-8
4 SITE
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR
c .
-1 I-
APPLICATION COMPLETE DATE:
AUGUST 29. 1991
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 18, 1991
TO: DESIGN REVtEW BOARD
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT/REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJEcr: RP 91-B - GAMETOWNE - A Major Redevelopment Permit to allow the
demolition of an existing retail use and the construction of a two story retail
building of 3,000 square feet within Sub-area 1 of the Village Redevelopment
Zone at 2933 Roosevelt Street. The project site has a general plan designation of Central Business District (CBD) and is within Local Facilities
Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 176
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director.
and ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution 177 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of RP 91-8'
based on the findings and subject to the conditions therein.
II. PROJECI’ D EXRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The proposed project involves the demolition of the existing Gametowne retail use at 2933
Roosevelt Street and the construction of a two story 3,000 .square foot retail building
designed for two retail tenants (one of them being Garnetowne). The site is surrounded
by existing development within the City’s Central Business District.
The proposed building complies with all applicable development standards and features an
architectural style that maintains the existing village scale and style as described by the
Design Manual and Village Area Redevelopment Plan. As shown on Exhibits “c” and “D”,
dated December 18, 1991, the proposed building has a variety of pitched roofs, textured
stucco and plant-on wall and window detailing. As shown on the floor plan (Exhibit “B”,
dated December 18, 1991), the project provides pedestrian orientation with a central
corridor that connects the parking area in the rear with the Roosevelt Street frontage. In
addition, an open roof garden is provided on the upper level. Since the project is for a
retail use, no food serving use of any kind will be allowed since appropriate parking
requirements cannot be met. The retail use of 3,000 square feet requires 10 spaces; which are provided on-site. As shown on Exhibit “E”, dated December 18, 1991, the project also
proposes landscaping on the roof garden as well as around the parking lot perimeter.
GAMETOWNE
DECEMBER 18,1991
PAGE 2
ANALYSIS
Plating Issues
1. Is the proposed project consistent with the Village Redevelopment Plan, the Village
Design Manual and the Zoning Ordinance?
2. Is the project consistent with the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone l?
DISCUSSION
Village Redevelopment Plan/Village Design Manual
The Village Redevelopment Plan and Design Manual allow the proposed retail use. The
project site is located within Sub-area 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area which is
intended to function as the major fkncial, specialty and commercial center for the
downtown area. .tn addition, the project site is with one of two special treatment areas
located in Sub-area 1 known as the Village Centre Special Treatment Area which is
intended to act as the focal point with these objectives by providing a specialty retail use
with village-like architecture and a scale of development designed for pedestrian
orientation. The proposed redevelopment of this site will contribute signiikantly to
Carlsbad’s Central Business District.
Zoning Ordinance
The proposed project complies with all applicable development standards of the Zoning
Ordinance. As shown on Exhibits “C’ and “D”, dated December 18,1991, the highest peak
of the proposed project is 27 feet; the maximum height allowed is 35 feet measured to the
peak. The project proposes a lot coverage of approximately 76% which is below the 80%
lot coverage allowed by the Village Design Manual. The proposed 3,000 square feet of
retail use requires 10 parking spaces (using the retail ratio of 1:3OO). As shown on the site
plan (Exhibit “A”, dated December 18, 1991), ten (10) spaces are provided onsite. Two
of the required spaces are located within an enclosed garage. These spaces will be used
for employee parking and conditions will be placed on the project to (1) ensure their use
by employees only, and (2) prevent any future conversion which would eliminate these
required spaces.
Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan .
The project is located in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant.
All public utilities and sewices will be available to serve the project. The impacts on public
facilities created by the proposed project and compliance with adopted perfotmance
standards are summarized below:
GAMETOWNE
DECEMBER 18,199l
PAGE 3
ENvIRo-ALREVIEW
The proposed project involves a use that is permitted and compatible with existing,
adjacent development. In addition, the project site is currently developed but is proposed
to be substantially upgraded and redeveloped. Therefore, the Planning Director has
detetmined that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment and has
issued a Negative Declaration on November 7, 1991.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 176
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 177
3. Location Map
4. Background Data Sheet
:: Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form Disclosure Form
7. Exhibits “A” - “E”, dated December 18, 1991
ENM:d:lh
Nowmber 18,1991
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET ‘-
CASE NO.: RP 91-8
CASE NAME: Gametowne
APPLICANT: Mark Davis
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Demolition of an existing single storv retail use and
construction of a two story retail building of 3.000 souare feet at 2933 Roosevelt Street
within Sub-Area 1 of the Village Redevelooment Zone
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 21 and 22. Block 34 of Town Carlsbad. in the Citv of Carlsbad,
County of San Dieao. according to MaD No. 535 as recorded on May 2. 1888.
APN: 203-292-11 Acres .16 Proposed No. of Lots/Units N/A
(Assessors Parcel Number)
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation Central Business District
Density Allowed N/A Density Proposed N/A
Existing Zone VR Proposed Zone VR
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
zoning Land Use
Site VR Retail
North VII Retail
South VR Housinn & Redevelonment Office
East VR Citv Parkinn Lot
West VR Retail
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 2 EDU’s
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Julv 19, 1991
u
x Negative Declaration, issued November 7. 1991
- Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other, ENM:kfIl
CITY OF CAIUSBAD
GROWTH MANAGJ!IMENT PROGRAM 1 Jt
LOCAL FACILIXES IMPACI’S ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO.: RP 91-8 - Gametowne
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE:1 GENERAL PLAN: CB& ZONING: Village Redevelopment
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Clark Knann
ADDRESS: 2508 Conmess Street
PHONE NO.: 291-6422 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 203-292-l 1
QUANTITY OF WWD USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): -16 acres/3.000 so. ft.
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: ;
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage =
Library: Demand in Square Footage =
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =
Open Space: Acreage Provided -
Schools: I
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demand in EDUs -
Identify Sub Basin -
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD -
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
120
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
N/A
ENM:klll
DISCLOSL'RE STATEMENT
I a;:t- ;A%T’r’5 jrr-Evs\- ZF : ScL=%RE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP !hTEiiESTS ON ALL APOclC~T’C~S fi*,~+, N,LL zE2; = - SCZC C,%ARY ACT Cm% SN ‘-E OART OF ‘HE C,V d I CI^LNtC:L. CR ANY APPCINTEC) SOAR0 CCMMISSIC+, 2~ =ZMMTE~
Please Prinrl
The foliowIng Information must be disclosed:
*l Applicant
L,st the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
L
\2. Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property Invoiveu.
Clark and She-D. Husband 6 Wife 2508 Conqress Street San Diego, CA 92110
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is 8 CorpOfatiOn or partnership, list the names ax
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partner%;
Interest in the partnership.
4. If any person id@MW punuMt to (1) or (2) above is a non-proilt orgmizrtion or l trust, list the names and
addresses of any person sewing 8s officer or director of the non-profit orgurizrtlon or as trustee or beneficlaq
of the trust.
FRMam3 %/90
2075 L88 Palmu Orivo . Carlsbad. California 92009-4659 l (619) 438-l 161
DiscloSurO Statwnmt
Cdep;
Page 2
5 Have you rrad rrcre than S250 worth of business transacted wth any member of City staff z:z-,:
Csmmls.s;ons, Czmmlt!ees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No - If yes, please indicate person(s)
I ~sc~Iv*~. synacate. tnts and my ornor county. cry an0 county. cly mun~cwlty. astrlct of othw poln~car subavmron or any 3cnw ;raLp :r
:ommnst~on acting as l wt.’
1
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
r-u?~ titi? Print or type name of owner
k&8&h
Pnnt of type name of applicant
FRMoool3 8/90
RW BY:XEROX TELECOPIER 7010 : l- 6-92 a:59arl :
-
7202037+ :# 2
SENT BY:’ - - -
QND REDEVELOPMENT ; l- 6-92 9:52CiM ; 7202037+ CCITT G3:# 2
MINUTES
DmaNREvmwwMD(RaguhM~ hwmber l,, 1981
ThedMmdhy: koopm
PlacedMeHhg: CRyCowmWChmbem
Chahman Nobk odkd the Mwtlng lo order at &Or p.m.
PWWflt: Chrirman Nob!., ErwIn, Gonzalwo, Rowktt. 8uvuy
Staff Pruant: Kathy GmIwn, Hourlng and Redovelopmmni Dlmctor Dabblr Fountain, knlor Management
Anrlyrt. Karen Saw, Mwwgomont Analyst Cllnl Phlllipe, Smlor Managwnmnt
hw Bob Wdkk, Prlndpal Enginur Eric Munoz, AMOMO Plannor
w oc nILQuNcI was lrd by Chalrmul Noblo,
Thm wu no pubik comment.
Thr Mlnuta8 of thh, Mwtlng hold Nowmbrr go, 1991, wore approved u submitted.
WWCHLMIWQ:
1, PPrnI QAMBoWN&
Dabbk Fount&, Senior Managwnont Analyst, rovkwad the
rmnmrt.
Erk Munoz, Auookts Planner, mode l prewnt8tlon and gaw a brief ovelviawofthe~.
Mombor EnwIn referred to Condition No. 23, of Rsrolutlon No, 177, page ~llno14. Mr,Etwinrquaatedthatthoword%nly’kukMton4d, ~...lwo spacea rhdl be wed for empioyw parking onIy, Any . . .
~~InqulndrrtohowrhoppnrwauldgQhmdould ihorotalluaa. Horkoinqulrrdnrrtw~urr~Mk~tothr
gurgr.
ErkMunozr@@Ondedby~thrtthmwouldkr~mWnk tothosllopphQarwMdulatMyaddltloflalspawoouM~~ oonvortedtoastoragoarw
h4embus4wyfeqtmmtduwkdknonthepurpweofthrr~ garden and tha eddtMal ~quuo Motagr Indkatod.
NObI@ Erwin
DOtlAW Rowimt
-d a.
. .
.cROx TELECOPIER 7010 : l- 6-92 9: 0EQ.l ; 7202037+ ;# 3 - ,v: b;- AND REDEVELOPMENT ; I- 6-92 9:53cw: - 7202037+ cc
Mr. Munoz achhd tha bard that all squaw foot8~0 would be wed fcr book elgning, chw playing, oto. He at@ted that rrting in thr outdoor cadyard area wu+d not k pomMod.
Mornbar Qorudae aakad if there wu any handlarppod perkIng,
Rob Wojkk, Prinolpal Enginaor, indicated to the Board the aru whorr
hndkapped parking wu dulgnrkd.
Chahman Noblr openmd the public hrarlng,
Clark Knapp, co-ownw, 2500 Cof+s Street, San Okgo, urged the
Zoard to apprcv@ thk rquut.
Mr, Knapp ruponckd to Momkr RMs lnqulry regarding the rublettlng of lots, by atMIng thhrt thl8 option had not boon consldorod.
Chairmw Noblo rtdrd thrt this rodovolopmont would be an Imprownont to the WI and that the derlgn mat all rwqulnmonta and gu~linu.
ThO Board adopted Owign Rovlw Board Ra8olutlon No. 176, approving the Nagatlw DacJurtlon lowed by the Plrnnlng DIrector, md adopted Doeign Rovlw Board FUolution No, lTI, with amended Condttion No, 23, noommandlng approval of RP 91-9 bawd on mo flndm and rubjoct to Uw oondltions thoroln.
Kathy Q&am, Howlng and Radevelopment Dlroctor, nmindod the Board of the Januwy 97, t 992, workshop from 4:OO p,m, to 9:oO p.m., wltfv the Hwrlng md Rodovolopmont Adviaoty Commtttw.
ADJounNMRm
By proper motion, the Mwtlng of Dewmbor l&1991, wa8 adjourned at
5: 1 I p.m.
fu.PucMly wemltw,
au. wlwHraMHAM Howlng md Ruhvobpmont DiruMr
NOblO
Erwin
OOfU8lU
Noble
Erwin Qonulu
Rowlett
TT G3;# 3
Carlsbad Journal
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
W.C.C.N. Inc. P.O. Box 230878, Encinitas, CA 92023-0878 (619) 753-6543
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNN OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and r)ot a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal, a newspaper of general circulation,
published weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper
is published for the dissemination of loca1 news and intelbgence of a genera1 character, and which
newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the
said City of Oceanside, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next
NOTICE OF
PUBLJCZpHkARING
Lots 31 and 33. Block 34 of Town Carlsbad, in tbe City of Carlabad. County of San Diego, sccording to
preceding the date of publication of the
Map No. 535 as recorded on May 2. 188B.
notice hereinafter referred to; and that the
notice of which the annexed is a printed
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN (bat If you have any questions regwd- the Iiouslng and Redevelopment ing tbis matter. please call Eric copy, has been published in each regular
Commission of the City of Carlabad Munoz in tbe Planning Department will hold a public hearing at the at 439-1161, ext. 4441. and entire issue of said newspaper and not
City Council Chambers. 1300 Carls- If you chalknge the Major Reda
bad Village Drive, Carlabad, Cali- velopment Permit in coutt,you may in any supplement thereof on the follow-
fornia, at 6:W P.M.. on Tuesday, be limited to raising only those
Februmy4,1993,toconriderasap lasues raised by you or U)OIM~C ing dates, to-wit:
plieatlan for a Major Redeveldp- ClBC at the public hearing de-
ment Permit to allow tbe demoli- scribed in this notice, or In written
tionolanuistiingre~iluseandthe correspondence delivered to tbe
construction of a two story retail City of Carlabad City Clerk’s Oftke
building of3,999 quare feet within at or prtor to tbe publlf bearing. January 23 1992
Subarea 1 of the VilIage Rede Applicant: Mark Davis vel0pment Zone on property gener- ClTY OF CARLSBAD ally located at 2933 Roosevelt HOUSING AND 19-
Street and more particularly de- REDEVELOPMENT wibed M: COblMISSION 19-
Y
CitI d Cuithl
GAMETOWNE I r4P 91-Z)
19-
19-
I certify under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California on the 23rd
day of January 1992
I LJ L Clerk of the Printer
” 66m .l”“l,“nt n Iem
: -
-.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RP 91-8
GAMETOWNE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City
of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, February 4, 1992, to consider an application for a Major Redevelopment Permit to allow the demolition of an existing retail use and the construction of a two story retail building of 3,000 square feet within Subarea 1 of the Village Redevelopment Zone on property generally located at 2933 Roosevelt Street and more particularly described as:
Lots 21 and 22, Block 34 of Town Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, according to Map No. 535 as recorded on May 2, 1888.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at 438-1161, ext. 4441.
If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues raised by you or someone else 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: Mark Davis
PUBLISH: January 23, 1992 CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
GRAND AVVE
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR
GAMETOWNE I RP 91-8
,
B Balsam & J Gilboa o/o 0 Lakritz * Donald &Lael Dewhurst L & 5 Pacheco #* 3425 Seacrest Dr. - 2100 Chestnut St.
::' Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 ! 820 W Fletcher Ave -1 Orange, Ca. 92665 Pd "
C & L Satterly 1349 Melrose Ray Vista, Ca. 92038
C. Anderson 4783 r'lying Cloud Xay Carlsbad, Ca, 92008
Donald & Lael Dewhurst 3425 Seacrest Dr. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
G & J Willis 539 Elm Ave 201 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Sidney & +ances Smith PO Box 364 Carlsbad, Ca. 92018
H & M Glaser PO Box 2776 La Jolla, Ca. 92038
Mr& Mrs R. Normandin _ PO Box 731 Bonsall, Ca. 92003
NpoG;;;lsmAan, G&A Balian
Solana Beach, Ca. 92075
H & C Clarke 824 Caminito De1 Reposo Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
J Peters 224 Birmingham Dr. 1B Cardiff, Ca.92007
r>lorence, M & C. :Jard 945-D S Orange Grove Bl. Pasadena,Ca. 91105
M & I Humphreys 140 Acacia Ave. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
E Anderson
3644 Campus Dr, Oceanside, Ca. 92056
-\irnarack Investments "3Yelland Properties 23282 Mill Creek Rd. Laguna Hills, Ca. 92653
T ./Jilliams 2921 Roosevelt St. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
H MurphyTrust 400 N La Costa Ave. Carlsbad, Ca. 92009
M. 6% E. Ahronee 560 Grand Ave. Carlsbad, ta. 92008
C C!C S Knapp 2508 Congress St. San Diego, Calif. 92110
D. McDonald 2016 Sheridan Rd. Encinitas, Ca. 92024
Packard Dev. Corp. 725 Grand Ave. Carlsbad, Cal 92008
R & N Boyer 602 s Pacific St. Oceanside, Ca. 92054
J & M Grant 7173 Obelisco Cir.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92009
Israwi Bros. c/o Salim Zsrawi 425 N Arden Blvd. XJ§B Angeles, Ca. 90004
U Kaskla & F ;Ilood 403 N Oakhurst Dr. 203 Beverly Hills, Ca 90210
Home Savings & Loan c/O Marsha White 4900 Rivergrade Rd. Irwindale, Ca. 91706 550
0. Garcia 1438 Lemon St. Oceanside, Ca. 92054
Carlsbad Eq. Prop. o/o B Evans
2965 Roosevelt st. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
9 .
G68aEt”tFe St Carlsbad, Ca.'92008
V Vermil ea 645 Grand Ave. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 3,e,"D%% Dr.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92808
- M Carpenter ‘:p 0 Parker 'p PO Box 535 ,-- 3215 Maezel In. J Oceanside
92018 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 1901 3ederal Saving@ Newport Blvd. 1 ' t * Carlsbad, Ca. , Costa Mesa, Ca. 92627 s
G McComas 1265 Cynthia Lane Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
E Robinson 2022 Ester0 St. Pacific r'irst Bank
Oceanside, Ca. 92054 Pacific Lst Center c/o Bill Brice P-0 Box 91029 Seattle, ?/a 98111
L Per1 Security Pacific Bank J Montalbano
215 N Palm Dr. (L?') Sheryl Bullock 2503 Via Rancheros Beverly Hills, Ca. $ . c/o San Dieguito Natl r'allbrook, Ca. 92008 90210 PO Box 926 Encinitas, Ca. 92007
ITT Cont'nental Bakery Pacific Southwest Realty Sims Trust 01-31-91 PO Box 731 10580 c/o Corporate Tax H20-12 2820 'Jilson St. Rye, New York Pa Box 2097 Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Terminal, Los Angeles .
Calif. 90051
R & R ?Aadama 5719 Camellia Ave. S. ?Jorales I & M Mann0
Temple City, Ca. 91780 305 Date Xve. 3067 Roosevelt St. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Carlsbad, Ca. 9008
.
I
.
,
i, a.
I/
j_
Ii
I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad will hold
a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive (formerly Elm
Avenue), Carlsbad, California, at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 18,1991, to consider
recommending approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit to allow the demolition of an
existing retail use and the construction of a two story retail building of 3,000 square feet
within Subarea 1 of the Village Redevelopment Zone on property generally located at
2933 Roosevelt Street and more particularly described as:
Lots 21 and 22, Block 34 of Town Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, according to Map No. 535 as recorded on May 2, 1888.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after December 11, 1991. If
you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at 438-l 161,
ext. 4441.
If you challenge the Major 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 the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public
hearing.
CASE FILE: RP 91-8
APPLICANT: GAMETOWNE
PUBLISH: DECEMBER 5, 1991
CITY OF CARLSBAD
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
. . . . FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
RP 91-8 - GAMETOWNE
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of
Thank you.
,
Assistant City Man*-
Jan. 6, 1992
Date