HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-12; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 278; Army & Navy Academy Master Site Plan’ ,
HOUSING AND ,I 5 i. i i , c,, -TDEVELOPMENT COMMISS’“N - AGENDA BILL
A0#2?8 I TITLE:
MTG.12/12/95 ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN - DEPT.- RP 94-02/CDP 94-02
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Design Review Board is recommending that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
ADOPT Resolution No. ar? 3 APPROVING the Negative Declaration, RP 9402 and
CDP 94-02.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On December 7, 1994, the Design Review Board and Planning Commission conducted a joint
public hearing and both denied without prejudice the Army and Navy Academy’s proposal for
a master site plan, located along the east and west side of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Beech
Avenue, in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. At the public hearing the Design Review
Board and Planning Commission directed the applicant to redesign the project without the
closure of Cypress Avenue and to resolve project issues concerning student/pedestrian safety,
phasing of on-site parking, and building setbacks.
On January 17, 1995, the Army and Navy Academy appealed the December 7, 1994 decision
to the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission, where it was returned to Staff
for further review and analysis to consider a potential partial closure of Cypress Avenue. The
Army and Navy Academy redesigned the project and requested approval of the necessary land
use permits for the private school without the proposal to close Cypress Avenue. On October
4, 1995, the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit (CUP 94-02) for the
portion of the project outside of the Village Redevelopment Zone O/R), and the Design Review
Board recommended approval of the project to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
for the portion of the project in the VR Zone. The Planning Commission is the final decision-
maker for the Conditional Use Permit portion of the project, therefore, only the Redevelopment
Permit and the Coastal Development Permit are being referred to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission for review.
At the October 4, 1995 public hearing, one (1) citizen gave favorable public testimony for the
project and encouraged the City to work more closely with the Army and Navy Academy in the
future. No other public testimony was given. The Planning Commission and Design Review
Board raised no issues of concern with the master site plan and it was unanimously approved
by both the Commission and the Board.
The project consists of a master site plan for the redevelopment of the existing Army and Navy
Academy, and includes a Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and a
Conditional Use Permit. Theabove permits are necessitated by the multiple zoning districts over
the property, overlapping coastal jurisdictions, and unique physical and functional characteristics
of both the site and the proposed development. These permits would bring the private school
into compliance with the zoning and permit requirements of the R-3 and Village Redevelopment
Zones. Private schools are permitted in the R-3 Zone of the City with a Conditional Use Permit
or in the Village Redevelopment Zone with a Major Redevelopment Permit.
The master site plan would coordinate the provision and timing of the public and private
improvements to the campus and provide a comprehensive framework for the overall
architectural and land use design of the school.
The master site plan includes the following major components:
r
PA&E 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. c??8
1. The expansion of existing school facilities by approximately 87,500 square feet,
and the construction and renovation of buildings;
2. The addition of 110 onsite parking spaces for students, employees, and visitors;
3. A phasing improvement plan for the buildout of the master site plan;
4. A planned maximum enrollment of 356 students and 100 employees - (362
resident students and 48 daytime students); and
5. Site Plan and Architectural Design Guidelines.
The project complies with the policies and regulations of each of the applicable coastal
programs and zoning districts and there are no unresolved project issues.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have
a potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance (Tile 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Based on the
level of detail provided with the master site plan, including land use, development phasing,
public improvements, and the location of onsite parking areas and building envelopes, it was
determined that these modifications to the existing campus would not create significant
environmental impacts.
As a resutt of this environmental review it was determined that no significant impacts would
occur due to the disturbed nature of the site, compliance with permit and zoning requirements,
and the fact that the plan does not constitute the addition of major new land uses or a significant
increase in the potential capacity of the school. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was issued
by the Planning Director on June 16, 1995.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
EXHIBITS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. d 33
Location Map
Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 232, 233 and 234
Design Review Board and Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 6, 1995
with attachments
Planning Department Memorandum, dated October 4, 1995
Excerpts of Design Review Board and Planning Commission Minutes, dated September
6, 1995 and October 4, 1995.
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
RESOLUTION NO. 273
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE ARMY
AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE EAST
AND WEST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, NORTH
Of BEECH AVENUE, IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER
SITE PLAN
CASE NO: RP 94-02/CDP 94-02
WHEREAS, verified applications for a Redevelopment Permit and Coastal
Development Permit for certain property to wit:
Lot 46 and a Portion of Lot 47 of Granville Park According
to Map Thereof No. 1782, February 21,1924; Lots 58-73,75,
76,94-96, 98-101, 102-130, 131, 153-170, 177-198 Inclusive of
GranvilIe Park No. 2, According to Map Thereof No. 2037,
June 18, 1927; A Portion of Block 3 of Town Carlsbad,
According to Map Thereof No. 755, February 15, 1894; That
Portion of Block 1 and 2 of Oceanside Addition To Carlsbad,
According to Map Thereof No. 893, April 8, 1903; That
Portion of Lot 1, Block “A” of Hayes Land Company Addition
to Carlsbad, According to Map Thereof No. 1221, November
4, 1909; all Filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, and alI in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California.
has been flied with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on September 6, 1995, and
October 4,1995 hold a duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said
applications for a Redevelopment Permit (RP 94-02); and Coastal Development Permit
(CDP 94-02); and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on October 4,1995, after hearing
and considering all the evidence and testimony of all people desiring to be heard, adopt
Design Review Board Resolution No. 232 recommending approval of the Negative
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
Declaration and Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 233, and 234 recommending
approval of a Redevelopment Permit, and Coastal Development Permit; and
WHEREAS, on the 12th day of December , 1995, the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law to consider the Board’s recommendations and all evidence, testimony,
and argument of those persons present and desiring to be heard and approved the
Negative Declaration, Redevelopment Permit, and Coastal Development Permit; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was issued on June 16, 1995 and
submitted to the State Clearinghouse for a 30 day review period, and no comments were
received during that review period.
WHEREAS, the findings and conditions of the Design Review Board
Resolution Nos. 232, 233 and 234 approving the Negative Declaration, Redevelopment
Permit, and Coastal Development Permit constitute the findings and conditions of the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission; and .
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on the dbay
of December , 1995, approved a Negative Declaration in compliance with the City of
Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance and the California Environmental Quality
Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Negative Declaration is approved and that the findings and
conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 232, on file with the
City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the
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
Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
3. That the Redevelopment Permit, RP 94-02 is approved and that the
findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 233, on
file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and
conditions of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
4. That the Coastal Development Permit, CDP 94-02 is approved and
that the findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No.
234, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and
conditions of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
5. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission adopts and
incorporates Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 232,233, and 234 approving the Army
and Navy Academy Master Site Plan’s Negative Declaration, Redevelopment Permit (RP
94-02), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 94-02).
a) Independent Judgment: The Housing and Redevelopment
Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission’s independent judgment.
b) Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. Pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081.6(d), all the materials that constitute the administrative
record in this proceeding are in the custody of and can be found in the offices of the City
Clerk and the Director of Planning in the City of Carlsbad. The administrative record
includes, but is not limited to: the Negative Declaration and all public comments thereon
received during the public review period and responses thereto, and the proceedings of the
Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission thereon.”
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
6. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, ‘Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICm’
The time within which judicial review of this decision
must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure,
Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of
Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other
paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate
court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on
which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days
after the decision becomes final a request for the record of
the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an
amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation
of such record, the time within which such petition may be
filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day
following the date on which the record is either personally
delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if
he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk,
City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California 92008.”
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
1
.
,
.
:
I
4
c Y
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I?
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EJ?FECI’IVE DATE: This resolution shall be effective upon its adoption. ’
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 12 tb 1 -
_ day of December , 1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila, Hall.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
U-TEST:
:SEAL)
EXHIBIT 2
1 .
ARMY NAVY ACADEMY ARMY NAVY ACADEMY
MASTER SITE PLAN MASTER SITE PLAN
a a
City of Carlsbad City of Carlsbad
RP 94=02/CDP 94-OU RP 94=02/CDP 94-OU
CUP 94-02 CUP 94-02
c (d 0
ELII
Iii z! 2 E
% 5
AVE ’ BEECH
8
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 232
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE CONTINUE D USE AND FUTURE
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE ARMY AND NAVY
ACADEMY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST AND WEST
OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, BETWEEN MOUNTAIN
VIEW DRIVE AND BEECH AVENUE.
APPLICANT: ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY
MASTER SITE PLAN
CASE NO: RP-94-02KDP 94-02
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 6th day of September, 1995,
12 and the 4th of October, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
13 consider said request, and
14
15
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
16
17 considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all factors
ia relating to the Negative Declaration.
19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review 1
20 Board as follows:
21 4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
22
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design
23 Review Board hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative
24 Declaration according to Exhibit “ND”, dated June 16, 1995, and “PII”, dated
June $1995 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following I
25 findings:
26 Findings:
27 1. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
28 considered Negative Declaration RP 94-02/CDP 94-02, the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to recommending
approval of the project. Based on the EIA Part-II and comments thereon, the
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
2.
3.
Design Review Board finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have
a significant effect on the environment and thereby recommends approval of the
Negative Declaration.
The Design Review Board finds that the Negative Declaration RP 94-02KDP 94-02
reflects the independent judgement of the Design Review Board of the City of
Carlsbad.
The City’s MEIR found that air quality and circulation impacts are significant and
adverse; therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding
considerations. The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those
effects, no additional environmental document is required.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of October, 1995 by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Vice-Chairperson Welshons, Board Members Compas,
Marquez, Savary, and Vessey
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
KIM WEISHONS, Vice-Chairperson
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTESF
EVAN BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
DRB RESO NO. 232 -2-
. NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Cypress Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Conceptual Master Site Plan for the redevelopment of
the private school campus, including the relocation, upgrade
and replacement of existing facilities and the addition of on
site parking.
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 said 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 tile in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public
are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of
date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department
at (6 19) 438-l 161, extension 4455.
DATED:
CASE NO:
JUNE 16, 1995 hi4ae
MICHAEL J. HO ILLER
RP 94-02/CDP 94-02/CUP 94-02 Planning Director
CASE NAAME: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 16, 1995
JC:vd
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-l 576 l (619) 436-l 161
-.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. RP 94-02/CDP 94-02/CUP 94-02
DATE: June 5. 1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Armv & Navy Academy Master Site Plan
2. APPLICANT: Thomas Cox Architect
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3242 Halladav. Suite 204
Santa Ana. CA 92705
(7 14) 5574666
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Februarv 2. 1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Concentual Master Site Plan for the redevelonment of the urivate school
camnus. including the relocation. um?rade and renlacement of existing facilities and the addition of on site
pdilIfL
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Land Use and Planning - Transportation/Circulation - Public Services
- Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems
- Geological Problems
- Water
X Air Quality
-*Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics
- Hazards - Cultural Resources
_ Noise _ Recreation
& Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 3/20/95 /a
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
1 fmd that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect
1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of prior Compliance has been prepared.
El
cl
cl
Cl
cl
Planner Sig”naxlre
-3- ir \ I9?s Date
; . \lbQ- Planning Director Si#natur@ Date
JG:vd
Rev. 3/28/95 i?
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 checklist. This checklist 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 (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by
an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but fl potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document
have been incorporated into this document, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior
Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and
the effect wiI1 be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that
earlier EIR.
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.
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are
mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are
agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be
3 Rev. 3/28/95 lLs
. An EIR must be prqmred if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the
following ci.rcumstanees: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier
EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce
the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact
has not been made p ursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact
to less than significant, or, (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of
significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in
reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
4 Rev. 3/28/95
- .
ksues (and sqpolting hfcsm8liai sauce8):
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
c>
d)
d
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Signifiiant
Udgs Mitigation
Lmmprated
Le!sThan Significant No
Impact Impact
Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? (Source #(s): #l)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( 1
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( 1
Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? ( 1
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
of an established ‘community (including a low-
income or minority community)? ( 1
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( 1
x
x
x
x
x
x
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( 1 x
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( 1 x
5 Rev. 3/28/95 !&
Issues (and Suppcrting Infamaticm Sauces):
IlI. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? ( )
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( )
f) Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or fill? ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( )
h) Expansive soils? ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( )
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in abso@on rates, draQge patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Imp8ct
POtentiaUy
Significant
UllkSS
Mitigation
Lacorprated
LessTh8n
Significant No
Impact Impact
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
6 Rev. 3128195 /&?
c
*
Issues (and suppolting ItIf&- sounxs):
c>
4
d
!a
h)
i>
Discharge into surf& waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? ( )
Changes in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ( )
Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( )
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ( )
Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? ( )
Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
U&S3 Mitigation
Incmprated
LesThan
Significant NO
Impact Impact
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( #l ) x -
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( )
x
x
x
x
x
x
7 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and suppating hformatica samrs):
VI. TRANSPORTATION/ClRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a)
b)
d
4
e)
fl
g)
PotentiaIly
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Udgs Mitigation
Incorpcrated
LesThan Significant No
Impact Impact
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( #2 )
Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( #2 )
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( #2 )
-
-
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (See Site Plan)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? ( #2 )
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( )
Rail, waterborne or air traffic
impacts? (See Site Plan)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? ( )
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
8 Rev. 3128195 lB
IssLies (and suppcrting Infcsmrtiul sauces):
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? ( )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors? ( )
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( 1
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
c> Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State? ( )
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a>
b)
cl
d)
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
UIllesS
Mitigation
Incoqmated
LesThan
Significant No
Impact Impact
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? ( )
Possible interference with ah emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? ( 1
Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? ( )
’ -
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
a-
x
x
9 Rev. 3/28/95
Isslles (and suppmitlg Ixlfamatial saxu.s):
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( . )
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? ( )
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( 1
b) Police protection? ( )
c) Schools? ( 1
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ( 1
e> Other govemmental services? ( 1
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal resuh in a need for new systems or
supplies, or su&antial alterations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( )
b) Communications systems? ( )
10
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
UIlkS
Mitigation
incorporated
LessThan
Significant No
Impact Impact
x
x
A-
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Suppating Informatiao -1:
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( 1
f) Solid waste disposal? ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( )
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway? ( )
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (See Landscape Plan)
c) Create light or glare? ( )
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
W
c>
d)
d
Disturb paleontological resources? ( #3 )
Disturb archaeological resources? ( #3 )
Affect historical resources? ( #3 )
Have the potential to cause a phy%ical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( #3 )
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
w.ithin the potential impact area? ( #3 )
Potentially Significant
Impact
POtl?UtiZl.lly
Significant
UIkS
Mitigation
Inc4xpofated
LesTban
Significant No
Impact Impact
x
x
x
x
x
x
x -
x
x
x
x
x
I1 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and suppating rllfcrLuatial -1:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
UlkS
Mitigation
Lncorporated
L4?sThaIl
Significant No
Impact Impact
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for nejghborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( >- - - x
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) - x
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to 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 elimi.nate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a 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)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
x
x
12 Rev. 3128195
.
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
a)
b)
c>
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier ElR or negative
declaration. section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets:
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review
- (See Source Document No. 1).
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis - (See discussion under Air Quality and Mandatory Findings).
Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
13 Rev. 3/28/95
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAI, EVALUATION
Environmental Settinn ti Proiect Backmwmd:
The Army and Navy Academy is located on 15.89 acres and is an existing private junior and senior high school
for boys. The school currently has dormitories to accommodate 296 students, with facilities that include faculty housing, academic halls, a library, chapel, dinning hall, gym, infu-mary, athletic fields, pool, administrative offices,
25 on site parking spaces, and maintenance buildings. The campus is located in an area of mixed land use which
includes existing commercial and residential land uses, a city park, State Parks and Recreation facility, and major
highway and railroad transportation corridors. The campus contains a number of buildings and facilities surrounded
by ornamental planting and lawn, and a large grass athletic field. Much of the project area has been disturbed by
construction activities that have taken place since the first buildings on site were constructed in the 1920’s.
The project area is located within the Coastal Plain, has an average rainfall of approximately 13 inches, and
moderate temperatures. Geologically the site is located on Pleistocene marine and marine terrace deposits. The
land type is Terrace Escarpment, characterized by 4 to 10 inches of loamy or gravelly soil over soft marine
sandstone, shale, or gravelly sediments. Vegetation includes introduced eucalyptus trees, rubber trees, box shrubs
of various species, roses, and other decorative plants. Approximately 80 percent of the ground surface is covered
with non-native grass (Archaeological Survey Report, May 1995).
The project consists of a conceptual &aster site plan for the school that would guide the future renovation of the
campus facilities. The master site plan would not grant specific discretionary entitlement to construct any of the
facilities, but rather, provide a master plan framework for the review of future land use development permits. The
master site plan would coordinate the provision and timing of the public and private improvements to the campus
and provide a comprehensive framework for the overall architectural and land use design of the school. For the
actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown on the plan, the developer would apply for
an individual development permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City codes and policies,
conformance with the master site plan, including the proposed design guidelines, and impact on the environment.
Each future development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific
environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. For example, sufficient grading,
drainage, and building details, and geo~echnical analysis necessary to assess potential significant visual and geologic
impacts has not been provided as part of this conceptual plan. However, some technical analysis, such as a traffic
study and cultural resource report have been prepared as part of the master site plan, and can be utilized as a data
base for the environmental review of future development permits.
In addition to the technical analysis conducted as part of the master site plan, the City has certified a Final Master
Environmental Impact Report for an update of the 1994 General Plan. The certified Master EIR is on file in the
Planning Department. The Master EIR serves as the basis of environmental review and impact mitigation for
project’s that are consistent with the plan, including projects within the Village Redevelopment area.
The master site plan is a conceptual land use plan which covers redevelopment, relocation, and renovation of
existing land uses and facilities on an existing and highly disturbed infill site. The plan does not constitute the
addition of major new land uses or a significant increase in the capacity of the school, therefore, the following
“environmental evaluation categories” either result in “no impact” or are not applicable due to the nature of the
project and there is not a discussion or evaluation in the text of this Initial Study:
14 Rev. 3/28/95 ,,: .-/
1: LAND USE AND PLANNING:
4-d
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING:
a)-4
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE&
a)-d
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES:
al-d
Ix. HAZARDS:
X. NOISE:
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES :
a)4
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS:
al-g)
xv. RECREATION:
al-b)
XIII. AESTHETICS:
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The private school is consistent with the General Plan and the Village Redevelopment Plan. In addition, private
schools are permitted in residential areas within the City with the approval of a conditional use petit. The school
has been located on the site since 1937 and over the years the campus has been considered to be compatible with
the surrounding land uses.
15 Rev. 3/28/95 c-, 2 -+ Eild’
v. AIR QUALITY:
The continued operation of the school land use was considered in the updated 1994 General Plan, and will result
in gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in the emission of
carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols
are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant:
therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative
significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation
measures are recommended in the Fii Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection
improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the
implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative
modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site
design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project
or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-
attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project
is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification
of Final Master ElR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding
Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all land uses
covered by the General Plan’s Fii Master ElR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review
of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION:
The school would generate approximately 1400 average daily trips and a Traffic Study was prepared for the master
site plan by Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc., dated December 7, 1993. The study concluded that the
surrounding and existing circulation system in the area was adequate to handle the traffic generated by the school
at buildout of the site plan with no significant adverse impacts to road segments or intersections in the
neighborhood. As the development of the school occurs, the developer would be required to improve the site’s
street frontages along Pacific Avenue, Ocean Street, Cypress Avenue, Garfield Street, Beech Avenue, and Mountain
View Drive. Frontage improvements may include street widening, curb/gutter and sidewalks, and the
undergrounding of utilities. These street improvements would facilitate the movement of vehicles and pedestrians
through the area, and provide for continued and adequate access to the neighborhood. The project would not
impact the railroad to the east of the project site nor conflict with policies supporting alternate transportation. The
school has major street frontage along Carl&ad Boulevard for the provision of bus stops if required by NTCD.
XIII. AESTHETICS:
Buildout of the master site plan would result in the removal of approximately 30 trees, however, the conceptual
landscape plan indicates that up to 111 additional trees would be planted on the property, therefore, a significant
visual impact to the area from the removal of mature trees would not result.
16 Rev. 3/28/95
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
A Phase I Archeological Survey and Historical/Architectural Evaluation of the Army and Navy Academy was
prepared by Phillips Research Services, dated May, 1995. The report indicates that the proposed plans for the
future development of the campus would not result in significant impacts to cuhural resources and no further
evaluation or work was recommended by the consultant.
XVI. MANDATORY FINDING QF SIGNIFICANCE:
The continued operation of the school land use was considered and included in the updated 1994 General Plan.
The project wiI1 result in increased traffic volumes, and roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate the
City’s buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-
traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and
major intersections along Carl&ad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number
of intersections are projected to fail the City+ adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation
measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR: These include measures to ensure the provision of
circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as
trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in
regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections
at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Sign&ant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an
EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No.
94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all existing land uses covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including
this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
Source Documents: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department at 2075 Las Palmas Drive.
1) Carlsbad General Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report, dated September 1994.
2) Cypress Avenue Vacation Traffic Study, Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associcates, Inc., dated December 7,
1993.
3) Phase I Archeological Survey and Historical/Architectural Evaluation of the Army and Navy Academy,
Phillips Research Services, dated May, 1995.
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
17 Rev. 3/28/95
ATTACH MlTIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM f-IF APPLICABLE1
N/A
18 Rev. 3128195
ca
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WlTH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
N/A
Date Signature
19 Rev. 3/28/95 29
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. 233
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
CONTINUED USE AND FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT OF
THE ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE
OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN MOUNTAIN
VIEW DRIVE AND BEECH AVENUE.
CASE NAME: ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY
MASTER SITE PLAN
CASE NO: RP 94-02
WHEREAS, the Army and Navy Academy has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Major
Redevelopment Permit as provided by Chapter 2135 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design
Review Board did, on the 6th day of September, 1995, and on the 4th day of October, 1995,
hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on property described as:
Lot 46 and a Portion of Lot 47 of Granville Park According to
Map Thereof No. 1782, February 21,1924; Lots 58-73,75, 76,
94-96, 98-101, 102-130, 131, 153-170, 177-198 Inclusive of
Granville Park No. 2, According to Map Thereof No. 2037, June
l&1927; A Portion of Block 3 of Town Carlsbad, According to
Map Thereof No. 755, February 15,1894; That Portion of Block
1 and 2 of Oceanside Addition To Carlsbad, According to Map
Thereof No. 893, April 8,1903; That Portion of Lot 1, Block “A”
of Hayes Land Company Addition to Carlsbad, According to
Map Thereof No. 1221, November 4, 1909; all Filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, and all in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Design Review Board
considered all factors relating to RP 94-02.
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review
Board as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design
Review Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT/RP 94-02, based on the following findings and
subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. The Design Review Board finds that the project will have no significant impact on
the environment, and has recommended approval of the Negative Declaration for the
project.
2. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein for
Redevelopment Plan RP 94-02, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s
General Plan/Redevelopment Plan, based on the following:
a. Land Use - A private school is a permitted conditional use in the V-R Zone
with a Major Redevelopment Permit;
b. Circulation - The project would provide roadway and frontage improvements,
and there would be no operational deficiencies at intersections and roadways
serving the project,
C. Open Space and Conservation - Based on an archaeological survey and
historical inventory, the project would not significantly impact cultural
resources.
3. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be issued
for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available,
and building cannot occur witbin the project unless sewer service remains available,
and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities
Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
4. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as conditions
of approval.
5. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part
of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
DRB RESO NO. 233 -2- 31
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
-
6. The project is consistent with the intent of the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment
Plan and the development standards and design criteria required by the Village
Design Manual and Village Redevelopment LCP. The school land use is compatible
with surrounding commercial and residential land uses, and a private school is
allowed in the Village Redevelopment Zone with a Redevelopment Permit. A portion
of the proposed project is located within Sub-area 5 of the plan. Permitted land uses
in Sub-area 5 include visitor serving commercial uses and uses allowed in the R-3
Zone, which includes private schools with a Redevelopment Permit. In the Village
Area Redevelopment Plan the Army and Navy Academy site is not designated for
commercial usage, therefore, the LCP requirement for properties with commercial
land use designations such that “the entire ground floor of all projects shall be
devoted to visitor commercial uses” is not applicable to this project.
7. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the
Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the
exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the
project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to
the impact caused by the project.
Planning Conditions:
1. The Design Review Board does hereby recommend approval of the Major
Redevelopment Permit for the RP 94-02 project entitled “Army and Navy Academy
Master Site Plan”. (Exhibits “A - “J” on file in the Planning Department and
incorporated by this reference, dated September 6, 1995)subject to the conditions
herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make or require the Developer
to make all corrections and modifications to the approved documents, as necessary
to make them internally consistent and conform to Housing and Redevelopment
Commission final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as
shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different
from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right
to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance
of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and
prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages
for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in
interest by the City’s approval of this Resolution.
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the
Site Plan as approved by the final decision making body. The Site Plan shall reflect
DRB RESO NO. 233 -3- c A+-, L cs
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
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
the conditions of approval by the City. The Site Plan copy shall be submitted to the
City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or improvement
plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, which ever occurs first,
Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of
the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying
all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued
a Major Redevelopment Permit by Resolution No. 233 on the real property owned
by the developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description,
location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval
as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of
Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an
amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing
of good cause by the developer or successor in interest.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
the District 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 shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are
required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any
amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
Approval of RP 94-02 is granted subject to: 1) Approval of the Negative Declaration,
Resolution No. 233; 2) Approval of CDP 94-02; and 3) Planning Commission
approval of CUP 94-02. RP 94-02 is subject to all conditions contained in Design
Review Board Resolution No. 234 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 3797.
Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, for
development shown within the V-R Zone on the master site plan, the developer shall
obtain an individual permit and/or an amendment to this permit RP 9402. All
development shall be consistent with the adopted master site plan, the Design
Guidelines (Exhibit “J”), and the conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit “I”). The
Design Guidelipes, Exhibit “J” shall he amended to state that the implementation
and interpretation of the Design Guidelines shall also be subject to the review and
approval of the City’s final decision-maker for ail applicable development.
Eneineerine Conditions:
10. The future building development of the Army/Navy Academy may be accomplished
in the order shown on exhibit “G” labeled “Phasing Plan,” dated September 6,1995.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall
be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Englneer. Prior to issuance of any
grading or building permits for the construction of any facilities within a given
phase, the applicant shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate
security as provided by law, improvements shown on the site plan, which consist of,
DRB RESO NO. 233 -4- . . c -I:-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the following:
Public Improvement Phasing ProPram
Phase A - North side of Cvnress Avenue
1. Half street improvements to Cypress Avenue from Carlsbad Boulevard to
Garfield Street.
2. Relocate utility pole 16 as needed.
Phase A - South side of Cvnress Avenue
1. Half street improvements to Cypress Avenue from the most easterly property
line to Garfield Street.
2. Half street improvements to Garfield Street from Cypress Avenue to the most
southerly property line.
3. Underground utility segment 15.
4. Relocate utility pole 13 as needed.
Phase 1 - At Carlsbad Boulevard and Mountain View Drive
1. Half street improvement to the west side of Carisbad Boulevard from the
northerly property line to Mountain View Drive.
2. Relocate utility pole 20 as needed.
3. Half street improvement to the north side of Mountain View Drive from
Carisbad Boulevard to the most westerly property line (i.e., to the Phase J
westerly boundary line).
Phase B
1. Half street improvements to the east side of Ocean Street from Pacific Avenue
to Cypress Avenue.
2. Underground utility segments 9 through 11.
3. Relocate utility pole 10 as needed.
4. Half street improvements to the south side of Pacific Avenue from Ocean
Street to Garfield Street.
5. Underground utility segments 7 and 8.
DRB RESO NO. 233 -5- 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
II
6. Relocate utility pole 5 as needed.
Phase C
1. Half street improvements to the west side of Ocean Street from Pacific
Avenue to Cypress Avenue.
Phase D
1. Half street improvement to the north side of Beech Avenue along the project
frontage.
2. Underground utility segments 22 and 23.
Phase E - Fronting Garfield Street
1. Half street improvements to Garfield Street from Cypress Avenue to the
southerly property line.
2. Underground utility segments 14 and 17.
Phase E - Frontiw Ocean Street
14
15
16
17
1. Half street improvements to Ocean Street along the project frontage.
2. Underground utility segments 12 and 13.
Phase F
18
19
20
21
1. Half street improvements to the south side of Pacific Avenue from Garfield
Street to Mountain View Drive.
2. and 20. Underground utility segments 4,6,18,19
3. Relocate utility pole 1 as needed.
Phase G
23
24
25
26
1. Half street improvements to Mountain View Drive from Carlsbad Boulevard 1
to Pacific Avenue.
2. Underground utility segments 2,3 and 21 an the utility line from pole 1 to
pole 20.
Phase H
28 1. Underground utility segment 1.
DRB RESO NO. 233 -6- r i- se
.
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
2. Complete items 1 through 3 of Phase F if not already completed.
Phase 1
1. Underground utility segment 24.
Concurrent with any development of the site, the phase 1 portion of the parking lot
shall be constructed along with items 1 through 3 of the Phase 1 - At Carisbad
Boulevard and Mountain View Drive improvements.
In accordance with the above Public Improvement Phasing Program, full
improvements shall include but not be limited to the following:
. Concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk. w Asphalt/Concrete or Concrete roadway pavement widening. . Installation of handicap ramps. . Storm Drain facility improvements. . Sewer facility improvements. . Water facility improvements. . Installation of Street Light Standards. . Installation of Fire Hydrants.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the
secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
Fire Conditions:
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall evaluate building
plans for conformance with applicable fire and life safety requirements of the state
and local Fire Codes.
Provide additional public fire hydrants at intervals of 300 feet along public streets
and private driveways. Hydrants should be located at street intersections when
possible, but should be positioned no closer than 100 feet from terminus of a street
or driveway.
Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts
location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydrants.
The plan should include offsite fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways and
traffic circulation for Fire Department approval.
An all-weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles shall
be provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the Fire
Chief, the access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other
reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety, require that construction operations
DRB RESO NO. 233 -7- .: D
.
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
16.
17.
18.
19.
cease until the condition is corrected.
All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational before
combustible building materials are located on the construction site.
Prior to final inspection, all security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be
equipped with a “Knox”, key-operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall
contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for specifications and approvals prior to
installation.
Prior to building occupancy, private roads and driveways which serve as required
access for emergency service vehicles shall be posted as fire lanes in accordance with
the requirements of Section 17.04.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
All buildings having an aggregate floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet must be
protected by automatic fire sprinkler systems. Plans and specifications must be
approved by the fire department, and a permit obtained prior to installation.
Water Conditions:
20. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can
be met.
21. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San
Diego County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of
application for meter install&on.
22. Sequentially, the Developers Engineer shall do the following:
A. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection
requirements. Also obtain GPM demand for domestic and irrigational needs
from appropriate parties.
B. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning
Department for processing and approval.
C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement
plans, a meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review,
comment and approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (ie -
GPM-EDU).
23. This project is approved upon the expressed condition that buiIding permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the
development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available
at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map.
DRB RESO NO. 233 -8- -’ f e . ,
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
_-
Code Reminders:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not
limited to the following code requirements.
24. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of
the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of
building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provide herein.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of October, 1995 by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Vice-Chairperson Welshons, Board Members Compas,
Marquez, Savary, and Vessey
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
KIM WELSHONS, Vice-Chairperson
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
EVAN BE&R
Housing and Redevelopment Director
DRB RESO NO. 233 -9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~ DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 234
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONTXNUED
USE AND FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE ARMY
AND NAVY ACADEMY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN MOUNTAIN VIEW
DRIVE AND BEECH AVENUE.
CASE NAME: ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY
MASTER SITE PLAN
CASE NO: CDP 94-02
WHEREAS, the Army and Navy Academy has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as provided by Chapter 21.81 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design
Review Board did, on the 6th day of September, 1995, and 4th day of October, 1995, hold
a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on property described as:
Lot 46 and a Portion of Lot 47 of Granville Park According to
Map Thereof No. 1782, February 21,1924; Lots 58.73,75, 76,
94-96, 98-101, 102-130, 131, 153-170, 177-198 Inclusive of
Granville Park No. 2, According to Map Thereof No. 2037, June
18,1927; A Portion of Block 3 of Town Carlsbad, According td
Map Thereof No. 755, February 15,1894; That Portion of Block
1 and 2 of Oceanside Addition To Carlsbad, According to Map
Thereof No. 893, April 8,1903; That Portion of Lot 1, Block “A” of Hayes Land Company Addition to Carlsbad, According to
Map Thereof No. 1221, November 4, 1909; all Filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, and all in
the City of Carisbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Design Review Board
considered alI factors relating to CDP 94-02.
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review
Board as folIows:
4
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design
Review Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF COA!STAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMlT/CDP 94-02, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Design Review Board finds that the project will have no significant impact on
the environment, and has recommended approval of the Negative Declaration for the
Project*
The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein for CDP 94.
02, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan/Redevelopment
Plan, based on the following:
a. Land Use - A private school is a permitted conditional use in the V-R Zone
with a Major Redevelopment Permit;
b. Circulation - The project would provide roadway and frontage improvements,
and there would be no operational deficiencies at intersections and roadways
serving the project,
C. Open Space and Conservation- Based on an archaeological survey and
historical inventory, the project would not significantly impact cultural
resources.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be issued
for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available,
and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available,
and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities
Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service
for this project.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as conditions
of approval.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part
of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
DRB RESO NO. 234 -2- 4Q
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
6. The project is consistent with the intent of the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment
Plan and the development standards and design criteria required by the Village
Design Manual and Village Redevelopment LCP. The school land use is compatible
with surrounding commercial and residential land uses, and a private school is
allowed in the Village Redevelopment Zone with a Redevelopment Permit. A portion
of the proposed project is located within Sub-area 5 of the plan. Permitted land uses
in Sub-area 5 include visitor serving commercial uses and uses allowed in the R-3
Zone, which includes private schools with a Redevelopment Permit. In the Village
Area Redevelopment Plan the Army and Navy Academy site is m designated for
commercial usage, therefore, the LCP requirement for property with commercial
land use designations such that “the entire ground floor of all projects shall be
devoted to visitor commercial uses” is not applicable to this project.
7. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the
Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the
exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the
project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to
the impact caused by the project.
Planning Conditions:
1.
2.
The Design Review Board does hereby recommend approval of the Coastal
Development Permit for the CDP 94-02 project entitled “Army and Navy Academy
Master Site Plan”. (Exhibits “A - “J” on file in the Planning Department and
incorporated by this reference, dated September 6, 1995) subject to the conditions
herein set forth. Staff is author&d and directed to make or require the Developer
to make all corrections and modifications to the approved Documents, as necessary
to make them internally consistent and conform to Housing and Redevelopment
Commission final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as
shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different
from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, which ever occurs first,
Developer sha.lI submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of
the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying
all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued
a Coastal Development Permit by Resolution No. 234 on the real property owned
by the developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description,
location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval
as welI as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of
Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an
amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing
of good cause by the developer or successor in interest.
3. Approval of CDP 94-02 is granted subject to: 1) Approval of the Negative
Declaration, Resolution No. 232; 2) Approval of the RP 94-02; and 3) Planning
Commission approval of CUP 94-02. CDP 94-02 is subject to all conditions
DRB RESO NO. 234 -3- 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4.
contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 233 and Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3797.
Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, for
development shown within the V-R Zone on the master site plan, the developer shall
obtain an individual permit and/or an amendment to this permit CDP 94-02. All
development shall be consistent with the adopted master site plan, the Design
Guidelines (Exhibit “J”), and the conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit “I”). The
Design Guidelines, Exhibit “J” shall be amended to state that the implementation
and interpretation of the Design Guidelines shall also be subject to the review and
approval of the City’s final decision-maker for all applicable development.”
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of October, 1995 by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Vice-Chairperson Welshons, Board Members Compas,
Marquez, Savary, and Vessey
NOES: None
ABSENT None
ABSTAIN: None
-Chairperson
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
EVAN BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
DRB RESO NO. 234 -4-
EXHIBIT 4
~cw-mw A REPORT TO TEE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
TEE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 2 0
P.C. AGENDA OF: September 6, 1995
Application resubmittal May 26, 1995
date:
Project Planner: Jeff Gibson
Project Engineer: Mike Shirey
SUBJECI: RI’ 94-02KDP 94-02KXJP 94-02 - ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER
SITE PLAN - Request for approval of a Negative Declaration, Major
Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Conditional Use
Permit for a conceptual master site plan to redevelop and expand the existing
facilities of the Army and Navy Academy located along the east and west side
of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Beech Avenue, in Local Facilities
Management Plan Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION b
Design Review Board
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 232,233, and
234 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration, RP 94-02 and CDP 94-02,
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
PlanninP Commission
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3796 and
3797 APPROVING the Negative Declaration and CUP 94-02, based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The project consists of a master site plan for the redevelopment of the existing Army and
Navy Academy, and includes a Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit,
and a Conditional Use Permit. The above permits are necessitated by the multiple zoning
districts over the property, overlapping coastal jurisdictions, and unique physical and
functional characteristics of both the site and the proposed development. These permits
would bring the private school into compliance with the zoning and permit requirements of
the R-3 and Village Redevelopment Zones. Private schools are permitted in the R-3 Zone
RP 94-02CDP 94-02,fCUP ,+L ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY
MASTER SITE PLAN
SEF’TEMBER 6,1995
of the City with a Conditional Use Permit or in the Village Redevelopment Zone with a
Major Redevelopment Permit. The project complies with the policies and regulations of
each of the applicable coastal programs and zoning districts and there are no unresolved
project issues.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On December 7, 1994, the Design Review Board and Planning Commission conducted a
joint public hearing and both denied without prejudice the Army and Navy Academy’s
proposal for a master site plan based on the proposal to close Cypress Avenue between
Carlsbad Boulevard and Ocean Street. On January 17,1995, the Army and Navy Academy
appealed the decision to the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission,
where it was returned to Staff for further review and analysis to consider a potential partial
closure of Cypress Avenue. The Army and Navy Academy is now requesting approval of
the necessary land use permits for the private school without the proposal to close Cypress
Avenue.
The project consists of a Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and
Conditional Use Permit to allow the continued use and future relocation, reconstruction,o
renovation, and expansion of existing facilities at the Army and Navy Academy. The school
site is 15.8 acres in size and is located on the east and west side of Carlsbad Boulevard,
north of Beech Avenue, in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. The Army and Navy
Academy is a private junior and senior high school for boys. The school currently has
dormitories and facilities to accommodate 296 resident students and 50 day students, with
facilities that include faculty housing, academic halls, a library, chapel, dining hall, gym,
infirmary, athletic fields, pool, administrative offices, 25 onsite parking spaces, and
maintenance and storage buildings.
The school is partially located in two Coastal Zone Segments (Village Area Redevelopment
Plan and Mello II), and has the following General Plan, Local Coastal Program (LCP) and
Redevelopment Plan designations and zoning districts:
1. General Plan De&nations - Village (V), Residential High (RH), Residential
Medium High (RMH), and Open Space (OS):
2. Local Coastal Programs
A. Mello II - School/Public Use;
B. Village Area Redevelopment Plan - Open Space;
3. Zonine Districts - Village Redevelopment, R-3 Multiple-Family Residential,
Open Space, and Beach Area Overlay Zone.
RP 94-OZCDP 94-OXUP 94-h - ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SlTE PLAN
SEPTEMBER 6,1995
The school is within several different zoning designations, therefore, a Major
Redevelopment and Coastal Development Permit are required for the portion of the
campus located in the Village Redevelopment Zone and a Conditional Use Permit is
required for the portion of the site located in the R-3 and Beach Area Overlay Zone.
Because of the split zoning designations the project must be reviewed by the Design Review
Board, Housing and Redevelopment Commission, and the Planning Commission.
The surrounding neighborhood includes the following land uses:
1. North - Single and Multiple-Family Dwelling Units;
2. & - AT&SF Railroad Tracks;
3. South - Magee Park, Ebb-Tide Inn, and Single and Multiple-Family Dwelling
Units;
4. West - Sand Beaches and the Pacific Ocean.
The Army and Navy Academy was in existence at this location before Carlsbad incorporated
into a City and before there were Coastal, R-3, and Redevelopment Zones, therefore, the’
private school does not have the necessary land use permits that are currently required by
the City for a private school. When the Mello II LCP land use plan was approved for this
area, the property was designated as a private school land use, and until recently the
General Plan designated the site for a school. Subsequently, when the Village
Redevelopment Plan and LCP was approved for the area, a portion of the property was
designated for open space land use. The current Zoning Ordinance and Village Design
Manual both provide land use regulations for the property. The ordinances allow a private
school in the R-3 Zone with a Conditional Use Permit and in the Village Redevelopment
Zone with a Redevelopment Permit. Before the Army and Navy Academy begins physical
renovation of the school the City is requiring that a Conditional Use Permit and
Redevelopment Permit be approved to bring the private school land use into permit
conformance with the R-3 Zone and the Village Redevelopment Zone. The permits would
also establish land use, development phasing, public improvements, and the location of
onsite parking areas and building envelopes. Because the future renovation of the school
involves multiple structures and facilities spread over a large area, the master site plan
would guide the future renovation of the campus to ensure compatibility within the site and
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Because the applicant did not provide detailed building elevations and floor plans, nor drainage and grading information with the application, the permits would not grant specific
discretionary entitlement to construct any of the proposed facilities, but rather, provide a
master plan framework for the review of future development. For the actual physical
construction and renovation of each new facility and building location shown on the plan
the applicant would apply for individual permits and/or an amendment to the applicable
RP 94-02/CDP 94-02ICUP 94-02 - ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN
SEPTEMBER 6,1995
Redevelopment/Coastal Development/ Conditional Use Permit. At that time, the Design
Review Board or Planning Commission would determine compliance with LCP/City
Redevelopment Agency codes and policies, and determine conformance with the master site
plan, including the proposed Architectural Design Guidelines. The master site plan would
coordinate the provision and timing of the public and private improvements to the campus
and provide a comprehensive framework for the overall architectural and land use design
of the school.
The master site plan includes the following major components:
1. The expansion of existing school facilities by approximately 87,500 square feet,
and the construction and renovation of buildings;
2. The addition of 110 onsite parking spaces for students, employees, and
visitors;
3.
4.
A phasing improvement plan for the buildout of the master site plan;
A planned maximum enrollment of 350 students and 100 employees - (302’
resident students and 48 daytime students); and
5. Site Plan and Architectural Design Guidelines.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PERMITS
Because of the split zoning designations on the property, the project’s discretionary review is within the purview of both the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. The
Design Review Board maintains authority over all Redevelopment Permits and Coastal
Development Permits within the Village Redevelopment Zone (V-R). For Major
Redevelopment Permits the Design Review Board functions as an advisory body to the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The Planning Commission has final approval
authority for the Conditional Use Permit, which applies to the portion of the school located
in the R-3 Zone and the Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ).
Due to these unusual circumstances, the public hearing on September 6, 1995 has been
consolidated into one joint public hearing with the Design Review Board and the Planning
Commission. The Design Review Board will make a recommendation to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission on the Major Redevelopment Permit and the Coastal
Development Permit. The Planning Commission will act on the Conditional Use Permit and
be the final decision-maker unless appealed to the City Council.
For the portion of the school in the Mello II LCP Segment, the applicant will have to obtain
a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission, and the Conditional Use
Permit has been so conditioned. For the portion of the school in the Village Area
RP 94-OZ/CDP 94-02CUP 94-02 - ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY
MASTER SlTE PLAN
SEIT’EMBER 6,1995 PAGE 5
Redevelopment LCP Segment the Coastal Development Permit, if approved by the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission, is subject to appeal to the Coastal Commission.
The project is subject to the following land use plans, policies, programs, and zoning
regulations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
General Plan;
Mello II and Village Redevelopment Local Coastal Programs;
Conditional Use Ordinance (Chapter 21.42 of the Zoning Ordinance);
Village Area Redevelopment Plan/Village Design Manual/V-R Zoning
Ordinance;
5.
6.
R3/BAO Zoning Ordinances;
Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance). b
Iv, ANALYSIS
Staff recommendation of approval for this project is based upon the following analysis of
the project’s consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The
following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these regulations utilizing tables
and text depicting and describing consistency with applicable policies, ordinances, and
standards.
k General Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs’of the General Plan. The
table below indicates how the project complies with the Land Use, Circulation, and Open
Space elements of the General Plan which are particularly relevant to this project.
GENERAL PLAN
COMPLIANCE
in residential and redevelop
ment zones.
RP 94-02KDP 9402,CUP 94-02 - ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SlTE PLAN SEPTEMBER 6,1995
A.4 A City with properly
maintained, smooth
functioning and safe
traffic control systems.
2. There would be no oper-
ational deficiencies at
intersections and on
roadways serving the
project. The Cypress
A.1 A city in which its exist- 1. The exterior of Fegan
ing and continuing heri- Hall, formerly the Red
tage is protected, pre- Apple IM - an historic
served, recognized and structure of local signifi-
Open Space enhanced. cance will remain, with
C.3 Provide landmark iden- only interior remodeling. Yes
tifications of designated
cultural resources. 2. Based on an archaeologi-
C.7 Incorporate the Cultural cal survey and historical
Resource Guidelines in inventory, the project
the environmental re- would not significantly
view of development impact cultural resources.
applications.
B. Mello II and village Redevelopment Local Coastal Programs
1. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program
The portion of the project west of Garfield and Ocean Streets, and north of
Mountain View Drive is located in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal
Program (LCP). The property is designated “School/Public Use” on the coastal land
use plan. The master site plan would not grant specific discretionary entitlement to
construct any of the facilities shown on the plan, but rather, provide a master plan
framework for the review of future development permits. For the actual physical
construction and renovation of each new facility within this LCP segment, the
developer would apply for an individual development permit that would be evaluated
RP 94-02/CDP 9602KUP 94-02 - ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY
MASTER SITE PLAN
SEPTEMBER 6,1995
for compliance with the relevant Mello II policies, including geotechnical analysis,
erosion control, and bluff stability.
On the master site plan a potential building envelope and a stringline setback in the
area seaward of Ocean Street is proposed, as shown on Exhibit “A”. Vertical public
access to the beach is currently provided by the existing public access stairways
located 50 feet south of the project, along Ocean Street. The project site west of
Ocean Street has been used historically as a private, fenced area by the school and
provides no direct views of the ocean or public access to the beach. As shown on
Exhibit “A”, the existing recreation hall would be replaced with a new facility that
does not exceed the height of Ocean Street, and therefore, opens up a large ocean
view corridor along Ocean Street.
As the various facilities are renovated and replaced, the streets fronting the property
would be widened and improved with curbs and sidewalks. This would enhance the
public parking in the area and provide safer pedestrian access to the beach. The
addition of 110 onsite parking spaces would reduce the school’s reliance on offsite
public street parking to satisfy the parking demand created by the school’s students,
guests, and employees. b
2. Village Redevelopment Local Coastal Program
The Village Design Manual is the zoning document and implements the LCP for the
redevelopment area. The manual specifies uses and development standards for each
of the seven sub-areas. A portion of the proposed project is located within Sub-area
5 of the manual. Permitted land uses in Sub-area 5 include visitor serving
commercial uses along with uses allowed in the R-3 Zone, which includes private
schools with a Redevelopment Permit. In the Village Area Redevelopment Plan the
Army and Navy Academy site is designated open space, and is @ designated for
commercial usage. Therefore, the LCP requirement that “the entire ground floor of
all projects shall be devoted to visitor commercial uses” for property designated for
commercial use (such as the Lutheran Home) is not applicable to the Army and Navy
Academy. With a Major Redevelopment Permit/Coastal Development Permit to
allow the school as a conditional use, the school will come into compliance with all.
LCP requirements.
C. Conditional Uses (Chapter 21.42 of the Zoning Ordinance)
In the V-R and R-3/BAO Zones, the proposed school is allowed as a conditional use.
Conditional uses in any zone are generally allowed if the use is necessary or desirable for
the development of the community, compatible with surrounding uses, and consistent with
the General Plan/LCP/Redevelopment Plan. Additionally, the site and street system must
be adequate to accommodate the use and the project design must be integrated into the
neighborhood.
RP 94-02KDP 94-02rcUP 94-02 - ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY
MASTER SITE PLAN SEPTEMBER 6.199S
General Plan Consistencv and Comnatibility
The Army and Navy Academy is considered necessary and desirable to satisfy the
educational needs of students in the community, and the use is consistent with residential
land uses designated for the area by the General Plan/LCP/Redevelopment Plan. The fact
that the school has occupied the site for 58 years is evidence of its compatibility with the
neighborhood, and although some of the existing facilities would be replaced, remodeled,
and in some cases expanded, it’s potential student capacity and operation would not
substantially increase. Zoning district standards such as setbacks, building height, lot
coverage, and story limitations would ensure that the scale and location of future
development is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. In addition to
the zoning standards for the property, the proposed Design Guidelines and conceptual
landscape plan would ensure a level of quality and compatibility for all buildings and
physical improvements within the campus. The Design Guidelines (Exhibit “J”) include
criteria for architectural style and materials related to such items as building massing and
form, architectural elements and features, walls and fences, walkways, signage, and
landscaping.
Traffic Issue Kvnress Avenue/Carlsbad Boulevard Intersection)
During the last public hearing for this project the City Council and several citizens expressed
concern about the Cypress Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard intersection. The Engineering
Department has since investigated and analyzed the operation and safety of the intersection
using traffic counts, traffic collision statistics, comer sight distance determination, and a
geometric alignment/operation investigation. Based on the investigation the Engineering
Department concludes that the intersection operates within safe and acceptable parameters
for the following reasons:
1. The reauired comer sight distance for this type of intersection is 330 feet.
Both field observation and improvement plan review indicate that the existing
intersection’s sight distance exceeds the standard and is approximately 500 feet to the north and 450 feet to the south.
2. A field evaluation of the intersection’s sight distance was conducted in March,
1995. At that time it was determined that the landscaping in the center
median did not reduce or negatively impair the intersection’s sight distance.
The Community Services Department trims the median vegetation on a
scheduled routine to ensure adequate sight distance.
3. Staff researched the reported traffic collisions at the intersection from January
1,199l through June 1,1995. Within this time period, there has been one (1)
reported traffic collision in September 1992.
RP 94-OXDP 9402CUP 94-02 - ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN SEPTEMBER 6.1995 PAGE 9
4. Additionally, the Beech Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard intersection, which
is the next intersection south, is scheduled for a traffic signal as part of the
construction program for the Washington Street Commuter Rail Station. The
installation of this traffic signal should enhance the already acceptable
operation of the Cypress Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard intersection by
creating additional gaps in the flow of traffic.
D. & E. V-R Zoning Ordinance/Village Design Manual, and R-3/BAO Zoning Ordinance
The project complies with all standards and design criteria specified by the applicable
ordinances as follows:
COMPLIANCE WITH V-R ZONE AND R3IBAO ZONE STANDARDS
STANDARD I REQUIRED PROPOSED
Lot Coverage I V-R Zone < 80%;
R3/BAOZ < 60% I 13-50%
49%
Front Yard Setback V-R Zone - N/A R-3/BAOZ - 20
lo-20
20
Street Side Yard Setback I
V-R Zone - N/A
R-3/BAOZ - 10’ I NM
10’
Side Yard Setback
1 I
R-3/BAOZ - 10 10-12’
Rear Yard Setback I Rf3/BAOZ - 20
I
40-70
Mello II - Stringline Setback Stringline provided
V-R Zone - 35’
Building Height R3/BAOZ - 24’ (Flat roof)
30’ (Pitched roof)
To be determined with future
building plans
Parking (Chapter 21.44 of
the Zoning Ordinance)
1 space/l0 students - (350)
‘& 1 space/employee - (100)
= 135 narkinp spaces
136 Parking
Growth Management
The proposed project is located in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and consists of the
redevelopment of an existing private school. The school is a commercial nonprofit
organization, and the student dorms and faculty housing are not considered dwelling units;
therefore, growth management standards based upon population and density are not
applicable. The impacts created by the development on public facilities and compliance with
the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows:
RP 94-OXDP 9602KUP 94-02 - ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN SEPTEMBER 6,1995 PAGE 10
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLLW
STANDARD I IMPACTS
City Administration
Library
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
17.13 EDU
Not Applicable
Drainage I Drainage Basin A
Circulation I 1,400 ADT
Fire I Fire Station 1
Open Space I 6+ acres
Schools I Not Applicable
Water 3,768.6 GPD
COMPLIANCE
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Yes
Not Applicable
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not Applicable
Yes
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could
have a potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Based
on the level of detail provided with the master site plan, including land use, development
phasing, public improvements, and the location of onsite parking areas and building
envelopes, it was determined that these modifications to the existing campus would not
create significant environmental impacts. However, sufficient grading, drainage, building
details, and geotechnical analysis necessary to assess potential significant visual and geologic
impacts has not been provided as part of this plan, therefore, each future development
permit for the physical construction of the facilities and buildings would undergo further
environmental review to determine specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level.
As part of this environmental review a Phase I Archeological Survey and
Historical/Architectural Evaluation of the Army and Navy Academy was prepared by Phillips
Research Services, dated May, 1995. The report indicated that the proposed plans for the
future development of the campus would not result in significant impacts to cultural
resources and no further evaluation or work was recommended by the consultant.
With regard to air quality and circulation impacts, the City’s MEIR found that they are
significant and adverse and the Council adopted a statement of overriding consideration.
RP 94-OZCDP 94-02JCUP 94-02 - ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY
MASTER SITE PLAN
SEPTEMBER 6,1995
The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those effect, no additional
environmental document is required.
As a result of this environmental review it was determined that no significant impacts would
occur due to the disturbed nature of the site, compliance with permit and zoning
requirements, and the fact that the plan does not constitute the addition of major new land
uses or a significant increase in the potential capacity of the school. Therefore, a Negative
Declaration was issued by the Planning Director on June 16, 1995. The Negative
Declaration was also sent to the State Clearinghouse for State Public Agency Review and
no letters of comment were received.
A’ITACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Design Review Board Resolution No. 232
Design Review Board Resolution No. 233
Design Review Board Resolution No. 234
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3796
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3797
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Form
Exhibits “A” - “J”, dated September 6, 1995.
JGxd July 27.1995
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
* CASE NO: RP 94-02/CDP 9402/CUP 94-02
CASE NAME: Armv h Navv Academv Master Site Plan
APPLICANT: Armv & Navv Academy
REQUEST AND LOCATION: East and West side of Carlsbad Boulevard, North of Beech Avenue.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 46 and a Portion of Lot 47 of Granville Park Accordine to Man Thereof No.
1782, February 21. 1924: Lots 58-73. 75. 76. 94-96, 98-101, 102-130. 131. 153-170. 177-198 Inclusive of
Granville Park No. 2. According to Map Thereof No. 2037, Tune 18. 1927: A Portion of Block 3 of Town
Carlsbad. According to Man Thereof No. 755, Februarv 15. 1894: That Portion of Block 1 and 2 of Oceanside
Addition To Carlsbad. According: to hiap Thereof No. 893. A~rii 8, 1903: That Portion of Iot 1, Block “A”
of Haves Land Comoanv Addition to Carlsbad, According to Mao Thereof No. 1221, November 4, 1909: all
Filed in the Ofke of the Countv Recorder of San Dieeo County. and ail in the Citv of Carlsbad. Countv of
San Dieeo. State of California
APN:203-041-02: 203-043-06: 203-010-16: 203-142-06;203-141-03.23:203-051-03:203-052-01,02:203-053-01
Acres: 15.8 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation Villaee m/Residential High and Medium High (RH AND RMHVODen Space COS)
Density Allowed N/A Density Proposed N/A
Existing Zone V-R/R-3/BAOZ/OS Proposed Zone N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site V-R/R-3/BAOZ/OS Amw & Naw Academv
North R-310s Single-Familv Residences
South V-R/R-3 Park/Multi-Fan& Residences
Et T-C Railroad Corridor
West OS Pacific Ocean/Beaches
PUBLIC FACILJTIES
School District Carlsbad \Vater District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 17.13
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued June 16. 1995
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated N/A
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: RP 94-02/CDP 9442/CUP 94-02 Armv and Navy Academy Master Site Plan
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE:1 GENERAL PLAN: V/RH/RMH/OS (r
ZONING: V-m-3
DEVELOPERS NAME: Army & Navy Academy
ADDRESS: PO Box 3000, Carlsbad. CA 92008
PHONE NO.: (619) 729-2385 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.:
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. PI’., DU): 214.041
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A. City Admrrnstrative Facilihes: Demand m Square Footage = N/A l
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
JG:vd
Library: Demand in Square Footage = -!!?L!L
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) N/A
Park: Demand in Acreage = -ML
Drainage: Demand in CFS = f‘ N/A
Identify Drainage Basin = A
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 1.400
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 1
Open Space: l Acreage Provided - 6+
Schools: N/A
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demand in EDUs - 17.13
Identify Sub Basin - N/A
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD - 3.768.6
The project is N/A units N/A the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
GKLCSCRE ST.\TE!.lENT
;?a’_ cxN7 s ;fr’Evgc7 :c :‘sck=sLat OF CEarAlN CwNEas*IP ‘mE=ESTf CH ALL APD~.CA?~C~S ,qr,cr ,.+LL =a;, ;:
- i;ac ChAaY AC?Crd CN ThE PART CF n4g cm d CCLNClL CR AtdY APPCIrnE9 0c*ao ::Mh4ls~,C?i ;a ==\,ur=_:
= oise ?fdv)
--e ‘eltowlng InformatIon must be disclosed:
Aoolicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
+GM-f d l4aaPi A-?
G/o l3FL.f~EO c)l5lULY . FRl5SlO~~~ P.6. 00x 3600
cpltl.3~. CA Wd6A b
) . . Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property In*dc:ved
MC/ + kX+y -M‘I -
h HOI-(’ Peoer c-e anot4
if any person identltied pursurnt to (1) of (2) above iS a corporation ‘or partnership. list the naras 3: 2 addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of thr shtros in the corporation or owning any parrrxe 2
interest in the pannorrhip.
if any person idonWl@d punumt to (1) or (2) abova is a non-proflt organitation or a trust, list the car--es ar: addresses ot any pofson swving as otficor or director of the non-profit orgmtation or as trustee or zer?! =:x4
of the trust.
-6 g) JoublrF: e. celEA&I
l7-wOHh4 t4J. 5EfTol-t &‘r ALAI-\ U’chlkJ
L>VeowAbl 3. QapL?4Al4 1) J-ES It- euewL+/s
3) Pc6D ed\-JboTHAti A) Chfl4CEEN -r+sdiL
4) PICIL IL. NyPE&f%gP
hnP* A* C/d. /aeppf rlHAqY +caocr-2+
p.0. e=x 5coo
FRMooo13 a/90 -r&St=-@, - qtao~ A
C~sc!csure Statemeti
3,pr
Page2
2 rave ‘you Pad rc: 9 :Pan 5250 wofln of tzusmess VansacTed dm7 any TernEer cf c,pf s:aff ;zz-lI
Cs~mm~ss~ons. Ccnmr.ees an0 Councd ,~tnin the past thelvo months?
?GS - NO x J *jes. peas0 malcate person(s)
JVW~ ‘4 04hn4a u: ‘Any lnaw3uu. fwm. ~004mwr~nt0. l01m ~ofwdro. u4ocmon. socml clu0. fratmu or~mrroon. :or:otu,0n ~31~t~ “.~f ~4~ww )yna8cu*. tm ma 4ny ofh4f counry. c.9 Llra so~nry. c.T) munmcuy. 61oPe or otnw wmcu ~aawa~on ar my XPW ;s:-: :’
:am01n4110n rctmg 44 4 art’
,NOf’=,. ARacn aQditlonal pages as necessary.) 4@$ /g&!&y 3-I-94
Signature of Ownb&ah
Ay(zwY A w-f
-r@OHP5 ?- &lx Ft,fip-Q-+
Pm of typo namr of ownor Prrnt or rypa name of apPkant
EXHIBIT 5
MEMORANDUM
October 4, 1995
&fw 0 1
TO: DESIGti REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: RP 94-02lCDP 94-02lCUP 94-02 - ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER
SITE PLAN - Request for approval of a Negative Declaration, Major
Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Conditional Use
Permit for a conceptual master site plan to redevelop and expand the existing
facilities of the Army and Navy Academy located along the east and west side
of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Beech Avenue, in Local Facilities
Management Plan Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
Desire Review Board
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 232,233, and
234 RECOMMENDING APPROVAI, of the Negative Declaration, RP 94-02 and CDP 94-02,
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
Planning Commission
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3796 and
3797 APPROVING the Negative Declaration and CUP 94-02, based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On September 6,1995 the Planning Commission and Design Review Board, at a joint public
hearing on the Army and Navy Academy Master Site Plan, continued the project to October
4, 1995 so that the developer and staff could resolve project details concerning phasing of
private and public improvements. Staff has met with the consultant representing the Army
and Navy Academy, and both parties have come to an agreement on this matter. As a
result of the meeting there is a revised project Phasing Plan which replaces Exhibit “G” (See. attachment Exhibit “G”). Included with the change in the project’s phasing is an amendment
to Condition No. 6 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3797 and Condition No. 10 of
Design Review Board Resolution No. 233.
In addition, the appropriate Design Review Board and Planning Commission Resolutions
have been amended to include the changes requested in the Planning Department Errata
Sheet, dated September 6,1995, that was distributed at the last public hearing on September
.: .-. , 1 \ - .‘.‘1 .I.. i-b a _ L”‘.~~~m-...
RP 94-OXDP 94-WCUP 94-02 - ARMY &ID NAVY ACADEMY .
MASTERSITEPLAN
OCI’OBER 4,199S -:
6, 1995. Staff is still recommending approval of the project and the revised resolutions are
attached to this memorandum.
The project’s phasing plan has been amended to reflect Engineering Department
requirements for public improvements along the various public streets that front the school.
These improvements include street widening, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and the
undergrounding of utility lines. The revised phasing plan would still include, as part of
Phase 1, a permanently improved parking lot north of Mountain View Drive that must be
constructed concurrent with any future development of the school. Except for the parking
lot north of Mountain View Drive, the remaining development can be constructed out of
the numerical phase sequence as long as the necessary public facility improvements are
constructed per the appropriate phase. The timing of the necessary public improvements
are triggered by the project’s construction phasing. For example, the developer would be
permitted to build Phase 8 after the completion of Phase 1, if the public improvements for
Phase 8 are also constructed.
1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 232
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 233
3. Design Review Board Resolution No. 234
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3796
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3797
6. Staff Report, with attachments, dated September 6,199s (previously distributed)
7. Revised Exhibit “G”, dated September 6, 1995
59
MEMORANDUM
October 4, 1995
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION
ASSOCIATE PLANNER - JEFF GIBSON
From: Associate Engineer - Land Use Review
Via: Principal Civil
/z
Engineer - Land Use Review
RP 94-02, CUP 94-02; AR P Y/NAVY ACADEMY
PC RESO. NO. 3797, DRB RESO. NO. 233
REVISED ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Phasing Plan, Exhibit “G” dated September 6, 1995, has been revised by the applicant.
The revision is from a numerical reference of phasing to an alphabetic reference. Therefore,
Condition No. 6 of Planning Commission No. 3797 and Condition No. 10 of Design Review
Board Resolution No. 233 should be revised to read as follows:
Enrrineerim Conditions:
1. The future building development of the Army/Navy Academy may be
accomplished in the order shown on exhibit “G” labeled “Phasing Plan”, dated m
September 6. 1995. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all
public improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the construction of any
facilities within a given phase, the applicant shall install, or agree to install and
secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on
the site plan, which consist of, the following:
Public Improvement Phasing Proaram
Phase A - North side of Cvoress Avenue
1. Half street improvements to Cypress Avenue from Carlsbad Boulevard to
Garfield Street.
2. Relocate utility pole 16 as needed.
Phase A - South side of Cvpress Avenue
1. Half street improvements to Cypress Avenue from the most easterly property
line to Garfield Street.
2. Half street improvements to Garfield Street from Cypress Avenue to the most
southerly property line.
3. Underground utility segment 15.
4. Relocate utility pole 13 as needed.
CUP 94-02; ARMY/NAv , ACADEMY PAGE: 2
PC RESO. NO. 3797; REVISED ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING COMMISSION/J. GIBSON MEMO; OCTOBER 4, 1995
Phase 1 - At C&bad Boulevard and Mountain View Drive
1. Half street improvements to the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard from the
northerly property line to Mountain View Drive.
2. Relocate utility pole 20 as needed.
3. Half street improvements to the north side of Mountain View Drive from
Carlsbad Boulevard to the most westerly property line he, to the Phase J
westerly boundary line.)
Phase 6
1. Half street improvements to the east side of Ocean Street from Pacific Avenue
to Cypress Avenue.
2. Underground utility segments 9 through 11.
3. Relocate utility pole 10 as needed. l
4. Half street improvements to the south side of Pacific Avenue from Ocean Street
to Garfield Street
5. Underground utility segments 7 & 8.
6. Relocate utility pole 5 as needed.
Phase C
1. Half street improvements to the west side of Ocean Street from Pacific Avenue
to Cypress Avenue.
Phase D
1. Half street improvement to the north side of Beech Avenue along the project
frontage. I
2. Underground utility segments 22 81 23.
Phase E - Frontina Garfield Street
1. Half street improvements to Garfield Street from Cypress Avenue to the
southerly property line.
2. Underground utility segments 14 81 17.
,-
CUP 94-02; ARMY/Nh d ACADEMY PAGE: 3
PC RESO. NO. 3797; REVISED ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING COMMISSION/J. GIBSON MEMO; OCTOBER 4, 1996
Phase E - Frontina Ocean Street
1. Half street improvements to Ocean Street along the project frontage.
2. Underground utility segments 12 & 13.
Phase F
1. Half Street improvements to the south side of Pacific Avenue from Garfield
Street to Mountain View Drive.
2. Underground utility segments 4, 6, 18, 19 & 20.
3. Relocate utility pole 1 as needed.
Phase G
1. Half street improvements to Mountain View Drive from Carlsbad Boulevard to
Pacific Avenue.
l
2. Underground utility segments 2, 3 & 21 and the utility line from pole 1 to pole
20.
Phase H
1. Underground utility segment 1.
2. Complete items 1 through 3 of Phase F if not already completed.
Phase J
1. Underground utility segment 24.
l Concurrent with any development of the site, the phase 1 portion of the parking lot
shall be constructed along with items 1 through 3 of the Phase 1 - At Carlsbad
Boulevard and Mountain View Drive improvements.
* In accordance with the above Public Improvement Phasing Program, full
improvements shall include but not be limited to the following:
l Concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk.
l Asphalt/Concrete or Concrete roadway pavement widening.
l Installation of handicap ramps.
l Storm Drain facility improvements.
l Sewer facility improvements.
CUP 94-02; ARMYINk CADEMY PAGE: 4
PC RESO. NO. 3797; REVISED ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING COMMISSION/J. GIBSON MEMO; OCTOBER 4, 1995
l Water facility improvements.
l Installation of Street Light Standards.
l Installation of Fire Hydrants.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the
secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
please contact me at extension 4388.
eview
EXHIBIT 6
PUBLIC HEARING:
2. RP 94-02KDP Q4-02/CUP 94-02 - ARMY AND NAW ACADEMY MASTER SITE PIAN - Request for
approval of a Negative Declaration, Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and
Conditional Use Permit for a conceptual master site plan to redevelop and expand the existing
facilities of the Army and Navy Academy located along the east and west side of Carlsbad Boulevard,
north of Beech Avenue, in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1,
Chairperson Welshons advised the applicant that they have the right to be heard before a full Commission.
She inquired if they would like to be continued or heard tonight. Mr. Thomas Cox, representing the Army-
Navy Academy, stated that he would like to continue the hearing tonight.
Chairperson Welshons advised the applicant that the Planning Commission’s decision tonight is final unless
appealed to the City Council within ten calendar days. The Design Review Board’s action is forwarded to the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
9-
PLANNING & DESIGN RMEW (Joint) September 3,199s PAGE 14
Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is
requesting a major redevelopment permit, conditional use permit, and coastal development permit for a
master site plan for the future redevelopment and expansion of the Army-Navy Academy. He showed slides
of the area and stated that the Academy has been located on this 15 acre site since 1937. The proposed
project features the expansion and renovation of the existing facility, public improvements to street frontages,
the addition of 110 off-street parking spaces, a maximum enrollment of 350 students and 100 employees, and
enhanced views of the Pacific Ocean along Ocean Street. He reviewed the approvals which are needed for
the benefit of those in attendance. Mr. Gibson stated that Fagen Hell is an historical building of local
significance and construction would only modify the interior of that building. The exterior of the building will
remain as is. The existing recreation hall, located between Ocean Street and the beach, would be rebuilt,
preserving the view corridor along Ocean Street, The existing chapel will remain intact; however, a new
home would be constructed for the Academy President, replacing the current home located on the campus.
New dormitories would be built as well as a parking lot for visitors, employees and students. The tennis
courts will be relocated. There are also two areas reserved for additional student facilities but since the
project will be phased, it is not known yet exactly what will be located in those areas. Permits being
requested tonight will bring the school into compliance with zoning requirements and the master site plan
provides a sound planning framework for future redevelopment of the property. As future redevelopment
occurs, it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Design Review Board and must be found to
be in compliance with all standards and ordinances. The proposed project is in conformance with all land
use policies and development standards of the City. There are no outstanding or unresolved issues. Staff
recommends approval with the changes included in the two staff memos dated September 6, 1995.
Chairperson Welshons requested staff to review the errata sheets also being presented. Mr. Gibson stated
that there is a single page staff memo dated September 6,1995 which amends Condition #9 (DRB Resolution
No. 233) and Condition %4 (PC Resolution No. 3797). The second staff memo from Associate Enginier
Michael Shirey is also dated September 6,1995 and is three pages long. This staff memo makes changes
to various conditions regarding the phasing of the project.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if full improvements along Carlsbad Boulevard from Mountain View to the
bridge will be accomplished in each phase. Mr. Wojcik replied yes.
Chairperson Welshons invited the applicant to speak.
Tom Cox, 3242 Halliday Street, Santa Ana, representing the Army-Navy Academy, addressed the Board and
Commission and stated that he had no comments regarding the findings and staff report except for minor
clarifications. Although he has spoken to Mr. Wojcik regarding the phasing issue, he wants to make sure he
understands it clearly. Hi concerns are as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The revised engineering condition states that road improvements must be installed prior to the
issuance of grading or building permits. He thinks this may need to be discussed because the
Academy’s plans were to provide only a minimum infrastructure until the project is completely phased
in.
The phasing plan that the Academy submitted to staff is different than the one which staff has laid out.
He thinks it may have been unintentional but Phase 1 shows that the Academy must provide full street
improvements to the frontage of the Ebb Tide Hotel, as well as along a side street.
Also, full improvements are being required to the north side of Mountain View along the Phase 1
and 9 frontage. The Academy only plans to put in a parking lot. In Phase 1 a temporary parking lot
would be created and they would like to provide only haff of the street improvements at that time.
The engineering condition calls for full improvements, whiih would be difficult to do financially. In
Phase 9, the permanent parking lot would be completed.
In Phase 2, the engineering condition calls for full improvements south of Cypress Avenue but the
MINUTES / I n3
l t-
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) September 6, 1995 PAGE 15
Academy doesn’t plan to do any development in that area.
(5) In Phase 6, the engineering condition calls for full improvements to the south side of Mountain View Drive from Pacific Avenue to Carlsbad Boulevard. The Academy would like to make those
improvements as development occurs.
Mr. Cox thinks the above may only require some clarification so that everyone has a full understanding.
Chairperson Welshons requested a staff response to Mr. Cox’s phasing comments. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil
Engineer, replied that staff is willing to make some minor changes. When the conditions were written, staff
used the applicant’s phasing plan and assumed that all construction would take place during that phase.
However, as Mr. Cox has explained the phasing tonight, he understands that development will not occur in
each phase. The City only requires street improvements where development will take place.
Mr. Gibson commented that the applicant had previously proposed additional parking in Phase 5. Staff
advised them that it needed to be put in before that. Staff feels that all improvements to the parking lot
should be done during Phase 1.
Chairperson Welshons inquired about the improvements to Mountain View. Mr. Wojcik replied that
improvements need to be made from Pacific Avenue to Carlsbad Boulevard, at a minimum.
RECESS
The Planning Commission and Design Review Board recessed at 8:26 p.m. and reconvened at 8:27 p.m
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, commented that this project is changing before our eyes. He thinks
staff needs to review the phasing. This is all a big surprise. The parking lot is a major change. Unfortunately
for the applicant, the first date available for a continuance is October 4, 1995.
Chairperson Welshons polled the Commissioners and Members regarding a possible continuance.
Commissioner Monroy thinks the issue needs to be reviewed because we are looking at traffic-related
changes which could cause problems.
Member Marquez is concerned about the safety issues. Street improvements are very important. Member
Vessey agrees.
Commissioners Erwin, Savary, and Compas could all accept a continuance.
Chairman Welshons also supports the staff suggestion for a continuance. She would like to see a cleaner
project. l
Commissioner Monroy inquired if it would be possible to incorporate beach access from the north side of the
parking lot. Mr. Gibson replied that staff does not recommend a trail easement from the parking lot, When
trails were discussed by the City Council some time back, they were in favor of Alternate No. 2 which allows
the trail to cross the railroad tracks at grade and traverse through Lot #3 to the beach, rather than access the
beach from the bluff.
Plannina Commission:
ACTION:
VOTE:
Motion by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to continue this item to a special
joint meeting of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission at 5:00 p.m. on
October 4, 1995.
6-O
PLANNING (L DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) September 6, 1995
AYES: Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen, Savary, Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
PAGE 16
Desian Review Board:
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Member Marquez, and duly seconded, to continue this item to a joint
meeting of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission at 5:00 p.m. on
October 4, 1995.
4-o
Marquez, Savary, Vessey, Welshons
None
None
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD:
1. NP 94-OXDP 94-02/CUP 94-02 - ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN - Request
for approval of a Negative Declaration, Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit,
and Conditional Use Permit for a conceptual master site plan to redevelop and expand the existing
facilities of the Army and Navy Academy located along the east and west side of Carlsbad
Boulevard, north of Beech Avenue, in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, advised the Commission that the applicant is not in attendance
tonight but they have requested the Planning Commission to go forward without them. They have agreed
to all conditions proposed by staff.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if the applicant is aware that only six Planning Commissioners would be in
attendance tonight. Mr. Wayne replied no.
Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that on September 6,
1995, the Planning Commission and Design Review Board, at a joint public hearing on the Army and Navy
Academy Master Site Plan, continued the project to tonight so that the developer and staff could resolve
project details concerning phasing of private and public improvements. Staff has met with the consultant
representing the Army and Navy Academy, and both parties have come to an agreement on this matter.
As a result of the meeting, there is a revised project phasing plan which replaces Exhibit “G.” Included with
the change in the project’s phasing is an amendment to Condition #6 of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 3797 and Condition #lO of Design Review Board Resolution No. 233. Staff recommends approval.
PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW (Joint) October 4,1995 PAGE 3
Commissioner Erwin stated that at the last meeting the Commission had requested a condition be included
that the City would have final approval on the design guidelines. He inquired if that condition had been
incorporated. Mr. Gibson replied yes.
Chairperson Welshons opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
John Moffett, 2645 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is
representing the Committee to Elect Moffett for City Council. He lives across the street from the Academy
and wants the Planning Commission and Design Review Board to know that the Army and Navy Academy
is very important to this community. It is a beautiful campus but it needs renovation because the buildings
are old. He would like to see the City do something to help the Academy enhance their facility and
convince them to be more tourist friendly. The Academy has an excellent program. They are a real asset
to the City but he gets the impression that there is only a mutual tolerance between the Academy and the
City.
Chairperson Welshons advised Mr. Moffett that the Planning Commission’s decision tonight is final.
However, if the Design Review Board recommends approval of this project tonight it will move on to the
Housing & Redevelopment Commission for their consideration. Mr. Moffett would have another
opportunity to make his wishes known as it moves forward.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Planning Commission or Design Review Board on
this topic, Chairperson Welshons declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion
among Commissioners and Members. b
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if the Academy has agreed to all the phasing which they had not agreed to
on Monday. Mr. Gibson replied yes.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if the only items to be approved are the Design Guidelines dated July 6,
1995 and the staff memo dated October 4,1995. Mr. Gibson replied yes.
Planning Commission:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution Nos. 3796 and 3797 approving the Negative Declaration and CUP 94-02,
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including
revisions/corrections contained in staff memo dated October 4, 1995.
VOTE: 6-O
AYES: Compas, Erwin, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Design Review Board:
ACTION: Motion by Member Compas, and duly seconded, to adopt Design Review Board
Resolution Nos. 232, 233 and 234 recommending approval of the Negative Declaration,
RP 94-02 and CDP 94-02, based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein, including revisions/corrections contained in staff memo dated
October 4,1995.
VOTE: 5-O
AYES: Compas, Marquez, Savary, Vessey, Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
MINUTES b 9
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Country of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
Blade-Citizen
a newspaper of general circulation, printed and
published daily in the City of Oceanside and
qualified for the City of Oceanside, City of Carlsbad
and City of Solana Beach and the North Country
Judicial district with substantial circulation in
Bonsall, Fallbrook, Leucadia, Encinitas, Cardiff,
Vista, Del Mar, La Costa, Olivenhain, Ranch0
Santa Fe, City of San Diego, County of San Diego,
and which newspaper has been adjudged a
newspaper of general circulation by the Superior
Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the date of June 30, 1989, case
number 171349; that the notice, of which the
annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller
than nonpareil), has been published in each regular
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
December 1, 1995
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Oceanside, California, this .-day
AC Dec. 1995
BLADE-CITIZEN
Legal Advertising
1722 South Coast Highway
Oceanside, CA 92054
P.O. Box 90
Oceanside, CA 92049
341 South Cedros
Solana Beach, CA 92075
6191433-7333
This space is for the Country Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearing ____--------___-----------
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RP94-2/CDP94-2-ARMYGNAW ACADEMYMASTERSITEPLAN
NOllCE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevebpment Commisskm d the cr d Cadsbad I hdd a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Cadsbad Village Drive, Cadsbad, CaUfomh, at 630 p.m., on Twsday, December 12,1995, to consider a reqwst for approval for a Negative Declaration, and an application for a Major Redevelopment permit and Coastal Mm
Permitforaconceptual~sitep~toredevelopandexpsndtheexistingfac~dtheArmy
and Navy Academy, on property generaUy located alang the east and W sides d Carlsbad MFkgie~$~y d Beech Avenue, in Local Facilities Management plan Zone 1, and nwre particularly
Lon46anda~dLw47dGr~~,~~~toMapThered~.1782,~
February 21, 1924; Lots 5873, 75,76,94-96,98-101, 102-130, 131, 153-170, 177-198
induslve d Granville Park No. 2, according to Map Thereof No. 2037, filed June 18,192% E
porticn d Block 3 d Town Cads&, according to Map Thereof No. 755, fled February 15
1894;ThatportiondB~lsnd2doreansidelMditionToC~sbad,eccordingto~~
lhereofNo.893,fiM~8,1903;ThatporbdLot1 Bbck”A’dHayesLandCcqarq
AdditionToCarlsbad,anor~toMapThereof~.l.l,~November4,1909;aUfiledir theOfficedtheSanDiegoColntyRecMder,andaUintheCitydCarlsbad,CountydSar D&p, State of California.
If you have any qwstbns regarding this matter, please ccntactJeffGiinthebnningDepartmenfat(619)
43&1161, extensk~4455.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Major
Redevelopment permit and/or Coastal Development Me permitincou&youmaybelimitedtoraisingonlytbse kwesraisedbyyouorsomeoneelseatthepublic hearing described in this notice, or in written
comsp&mdeUveredto$RCldCarlshadCii
clerk’sofflceatorpliorto,thepu$lichealing.
AFlWANT Army & Navy Academy
CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
lxgal44952Dewnber1,1995
ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY RP kWB&XP24-OZ
*
_ . __ . ..- . ._
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RP 94=2/CDP 94-2 - ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN
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, December 12, 1995, to consider a request for approval for a Negative Declaration, and an application for a Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit for a conceptual master site plan to redevelop and expand the existing facilities of the Army and Navy Academy, on property generally located along the east and west sides of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Beech Avenue, in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1, and more particularly described as:
Lot 46 and a portion of Lot 47 of Granville Park, according to Map Thereof No. 1782, filed February 21, 1924; Lots 58-73, 75, 76, 94-96, 98-101, 102-130, 131, 153-170, 177-198 inclusive of Granville Park No. 2, according to Map Thereof No. 2037, filed June 18, 1927; A portion of Block 3 of Town Carlsbad, according to Map Thereof No. 755, filed February 15, 1894; That portion of Blocks 1 and 2 of Oceanside Addition To Carlsbad, according to Map Thereof No. 893, filed April 8, 1903; That portion of Lot 1 Block ItA" of Hayes Land Company Addition to Carlsbad, according to Map Thereof No. 1221, filed November 4, 1909; all filed in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder, and all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, extension 4455.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Major Redevelopment Permit and/or Coastal Development 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: Army & Navy Academy PUBLISH: December 1, 1995
CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SITE I)
4
I I I I I I I I I
;
’ BEECH I I 1
AVE
ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY
RP 94=02/CDP 94002/
CUP 94-02
Title And Chicago
PO BOX 77026
PASADENA CA 9 1117
NORTH S D COUNTY +RANSm
rvANs* PUBLIC AGENCY
CITY OF CAR FDISTRI ;* pyMx
MCMAHAN FURNITURE CO R R & A P Robinson
PO BOX 7000 2531 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 920 18 CARLSBAD CA 92008
John B & Darlene K Yonce
2501 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CALIFORNIA STATE ASS
/
RBJ ENTERPRISES
325 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY OF
PO BOX 3000
CARLSBAD CA 92018
LEE-SHANE-LANE LTD
12160 ABRAMS RD #503LB3
DALLAS TX 75243
Jacqueline Bucher
2365 RUE DES CHATEAUX
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Family Peykoff
41 GOLETA POINT DR
CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625
Robert B & Franklena E Holland
PO BOX 1391
ORANGE CA 92668
Ralph D & Marilyn W Copley Jr.
2335 RUE DES CHATEAUX
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Family Gavin
12432 EVENINGSIDE DR
SANTA ANA CA 92705
Estate Carroll
342 STARLIGHT CREST DR
LA CANADA CA 9 10 11
Naomi R Wilden
11727 PENDLETON RD
YUCAIPA CA 92399
Mendrella
2252 PAVILLION DR
SANTA ANA CA 92705
G Edward & Beverly E Fitzgerald
1220 S GRAND AVE
PASADENA CA 9 1105
Robert S & Carol L Grimes
2330 RUE DES CHATEAUX
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Carl F & Dorene Roepke
1850 BROOKVALE RD
HILLSBOROUGH CA 94010
Jack Family Samuelson
5140 JARVIS AVE
LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE CA
Alexander & Denise Hoefer
2360 RUE DES CHATEAUX CARLSBAD CA 92008
John E Ford
15 TIBURON BAY DR
CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625
Ronald & Mariellen E Day
10429 REXFORD CT
CYPRESS CA 90630
Katherine R Palmateer
2497 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Alice M Masbir
2490 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
John L & Wanda J Forbes Jr.
2485 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Lauren W Kingman
PO BOX 382
WARNER SPRINGS CA 92086
Family Trust Ryan
2468 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Stephen Turley
3 1070 MESA CREST RD
VALLEY CENTER CA 92082
William G Sumner
2390 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSN
RUE DES CHATEAUX
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Charles J & Charles J Pyle
PO BOX 1065
RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92067
Albert E & Lucille B Stein Jr.
PO BOX 306
RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92067
HELENBART CO
6520 E EXETER BLVD
SCO’ITSDALE AZ 85251
Joseph B & Jean F Platt
452 W 1lTH ST
CLAREMONT CA 91711
David M & Jennine R Capelouto
PO BOX 1698
CARLSBAD CA 92018
Robert J Hanna
2465 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Luis S & Mary B Parente
8559 EDISON AVE
CHINO CA 91710
Thomas D & Nancy M Elliott
PO BOX 157
RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92067
BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSN
7720 EL CAMINO REAL #2A
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Paul J & Linda Bra&man
PO BOX 2045
VISTA CA 92085
Rosemarie Smith
2479 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Audrey J Kolb
2480 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Lawrence & Margaret Monzon
3322 BUDLEIGH DR
HACIENDA HEIGHTS CA 91745
Yvonne Motte Johnson
2478 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Angelo & Kathleen A Nixon
2438 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Family Lawrenson
47 THE COLONNADE
LONG BEACH CA 90803
Donald P Hoefer
224 NORMANDY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Robert G & Barbara J Henthorn
2382 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Kay Fang PO BOX 48 1
DEL MAR CA 92014
Thelma L Vogel
1955 N KENMORE AVE
LOS ANGELES CA 90027
Donna J Jackson
260 NORMANDY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Ethel L Irving
219 NORMANDY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
John P & Cynthia J Myers
5379 CAROLYN VISTA LN
BONITA CA 91902
Donald E & Jeane G Jackson
260 NORMANDY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Bernice E Downey
413 HUTCHISON ST
VISTA CA 92084
Family Washburn
5601 SYCAMORE AVE
RIALTO CA 92377
Melvin J Schiff
825 MARYHURST DR
CLAREMONT CA 91711
Melvin M Riddle
222 PACIFIC AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Evelyn W MO
270 PACIFIC AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
mdeljko & Ljubica Artukovic
2550 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Nedeljko & Ljubica Artukovic
2550 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Michael J Murphy
PO BOX 2206
CARLSBAD CA 92018
Catheryn F Christiansen
PO BOX 188
CARLSBAD CA 92018
Richard L & Nancy A Easland
3916 MARKRIDGE RD
LA CRESCENTA CA 91214
Wallace G & Linda J Mullins
2190 CHESTNUT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
George J Caracciolo
202 PACIFIC AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Jimmy W & Angelica D Anderson
3075 BLENKARNE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Family Ede
2600 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Ma Peacock
2763 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Dorin K 8z Billie Martin
3425 ANN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Carl J Venstrom
2663 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Ruben C & Mar 3570 DON/brana
CAYAD CA 92008 d’
Family Per1
215 N PALM DR
BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210
;eo8 4’
H & H BUILDING FUND
1062 E ANDREWS DR
LONG BEACH CA 90807
Jack H & Betty J Blackburn
202 RAINBOW LN
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
Ralph Straesser
2730 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
James M & Linda L Matthews
2700 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
CALIFORNIA STATE ASS
Ivy M Sousa
2647 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Calvin R Perkett
2627 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Family Kornberg
10880 WILSHIRE BLVD #1900
LOS ANGELES CA 90024
Edward S Attix
2739 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Arthur A & Alice J Brown
5157 SHORE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
E Brian Smith
327 1 WESTWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Jack H & Betty J Blackburn
2690 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Paul J Weber
580 BEECH AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Henry Trejo
PO BOX 281
CARLSBAD CA 92018
HILL FAMILY 1990
PO BOX 1935
CARLSBAD CA 92018
Ruben C & Mary C Cantabrana
3570 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MISTLETOE ENTERPRISE INC
2615 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
R R & A P Robinson
2531 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Barbara G Ballerini
1753 SUNSET DR
VISTA CA 92083
;y ANSIT
Hyung T & Young H Yang
2915 CACATUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
Donald R & Cheryl A Swanson
24 BLUFF VW
IRVINE CA 92715
Frank G & Ana J Aguina Huston Bette Co
2646 STATE ST PO BOX 690
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92018
Richard Leroy Jones . 12185 ROYAL LYTHAM ROW
SAN DIEGO CA 92128
Family Bradbury 18808 BRAVATA CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92128
RICHARDSON BROS CONTRA
PO BOX 1211
CARLSBAD CA 920 18
Herrmann J & Hiltrud I Glockler
10395 MELISSA CT
CUPERTINO CA 950 14
W Dean & Marian E Miller PO BOX 672
POWAY CA 92074
WILLOW PROPERTIES
4200 KEARNY MESA RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92111
Ira Meiberger
2607 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Family Mullen
5841 GRAND AVE
RIVERSIDE CA 92504
Family Mullen
2110 ARROYO DR RIVERSIDE CA 92506
Don & Diane Saea
2623 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
Douglas G & Marilyn J Burchfield
4930 NELSON AVE CLOVIS CA 9361.1
Edwin & Joyanrevocable Illsley
2633 OCEAN ST #l CARLSBAD CA 92008
Eleanor Desiano
141 YALE DR
RANCH0 MIRAGE CA 92270
Patrick Bart Bownes
2649 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
Charles G & Janyce P Morse
425 MADELINE DR
PASADENA CA 91105
Nancy F Johnson
1800 AVENUE OF THE STARS
LOS ANGELES CA 90067
Family Hawthorne
PO BOX 708
SAN DIEGO CA 92112
De1 Sol Puesta
PO BOX 4086
CARLSBAD CA 92018
Alvin Successor Benedict
8357 TURTLE CREEK CIR
LAS VEGAS NV 89113
William C & Mary J Mann
2701 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Harris Family Wailes
2729 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Gordon A & Joel G Klett
PO BOX 4086
CARLSBAD CA 92018
William C & Mary J Mann
7319 BOLERO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Lori Emslie
2683 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
J Richard Kunkel
PO BOX 26048
OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73126
Family Ede
2600 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Norman C & Dorothy M Schakel
1150 BEVERLY WAY
ESCONDIDO CA 92026
Patrick D & Laduska Biller
PO BOX 2303
VISTA CA 92085
Mary L Family Trust Bixby
2141 E VINE AVE
WEST COVINA CA 91791
Alonzo M Street
2669 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Bliss
2643 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Scott J Bartel
2689 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
David S & Ana M Richards
2687 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Charles S Mooney
POBOX315
LEXINGTON KY 40584
m;EMy
Ladwig
2642 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Donald P Hoefer Jr.
2668 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Marie Sidun
2688 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
William K & Catherine A Fullmer
2838 DENTRO DE LOMAS RD
VISTA CA 92084
Joyce R Toy 2501 E COMMONWEALTH AVE
FULLERTON CA 92631
Harris Family Wailes
2729 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Carol A McLaughlin
11901 SIERRA WAY #26
KERNVILLE CA 93238
Edward & Joanne Klosterman
1565 HILLCREST AVE
GLENDALE CA 9 1202
Mary S Mooney
2679 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Edwin & Joyanrevocable Illsley
2633 OCEAN ST #1
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Irma Algover
2650 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Irving J & Doris A Gordon
2678 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Jack D Phillips
3702 INGRAHAM ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92109
Richard Gronquist
265 1 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
John B McGrath
2685 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ST MICHAEhHE-SEA EPI
;ECA 92018
ST MICHAELS-BY-THE-SEA EPI BELL FAMILY PARTNERS
PO BOX 127 PO BOX 151
CARLSBAD CA 92018 ANAHEIM CA 928 15
Mary A Welch 351 BEECH AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Anthony F Tomaro
367 BEECH AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Vladislava M Mundy
2733 WASHINGTON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Severine E Wright
25 10 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008
Harry B & Lavina M Vollmer
3990 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Jack D Phillips
3702 INGRAHAM ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92109
Reva C & Stella M Hooper
3320 OLEANDER AVE
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
International Christiansen
PO BOX 188 CARLSBAD CA 92018
Jack D Phillips
9309 LA RIVIERA DR #A
SACRAMENTO CA 95826
Robert H Caan
8038 VALLE VISTA DR
RANCH0 CUCAMONGA CA 91
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD HOT
110 W C ST #1901
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CARLSBAD HISTORICAL SOCI
PO BOX 252
CARLSBAD CA 92018
Ralph F & Lana M Burnette Jr.
3315 MCKINLEY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WHC-FOUR INVESTORS LP 300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Donald K & Lael J Dewhurst
3425 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Anna L Bauer
PO BOX 63700
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94163
George & Alice Coss
234 25TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90402
Richard Bauer
PO BOX 63700
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94163
THOMAS COX ARCHITECT 3242 HALLADAY STE 204 SANTA ANA CA 92705
Family Satterly
1349 MELROSE WAY
VISTA CA 92083
NCTD 311 TREMONT ST OCEANSIDE CA 92054
. .
FACILITIES FOR CITY CLERK
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLANNING
5201 RUFFIN RD STE “B”
SAN DIEGO CA 92 123
CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE
1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NO HILL ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
330 GOLDENSHORE #50
LONG BEACH CA 90802
i : 9 ... f~ ,.
.&. .
:. 3 u * 7 .-%.
i 4 .:.l ,..I
NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad will hold a joint public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village
Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 5:oO p.m. on Wednesday, September 6,1995, to consider request for
approval of a Negative Declaration, Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and
Conditional Use Permit for a conceptual master site plan to redevelop and expand the existing
facilities of the Army and Navy Academy generally located along the east and west side of Carlsbad
Boulevard, north of Beech Avenue, in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1 and more
particularly described as:
Lot 46 and a Portion of Lot 47 of Granville Park According to Map Thereof No.
1782, February 21, 1924; Lots 58-73, 75, 76, 94-96, 98-101, 102-130, 131, 153-170,
177-198 Inclusive of Granville Park No. 2, According to Map Thereof No. 2037, June
18, 1927; A Portion of Block 3 of Town Carlsbad, According to Map Thereof No.
755, February 15, 1894; That Portion of Block 1 and 2 of Oceanside Addition To
Carlsbad, According to Map Thereof No. 893, April 8, 1903; That Portion of Lot 1,
Block “A” of Hayes Land Company Addition to Carlsbad, According to Map Thereof
No. 1221, November 4, 1909; all Filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, and all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California.
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 August 31,1995. If you have any questions,
please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4455.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development
Permit, and/or Conditional Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you
or someone else raised at the joint public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the joint public hearing.
CASE FILE: RP 94-02/CDP 94-02/w -
CASE NAME: ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN
PUBLISH: AUGUST 25,1995
CITY OF CARLSBAD
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AND PLANNING COMMISSION
JGYd
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROH: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached arc the materials necessary for you to notice
RP 94-02/CDP 94-02 - ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN
for a public hearing before the va Housing & Redevelopment Commission.
Please notice the item for the council meetlng of
.
Thank you.
Assistant City Man--
October 31, 1995
Date
.-
‘IDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL
fiRMY AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN -
RP 94-02/CDP 94-02
The Design Review Board is recommending that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
ADOPT Resolution No. APPROVING the Negative Declaration, RP 94-02 and
CDP 94-02.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On December 7, 1994, the Design Review Board and Planning Commission conducted a joint
public hearing and both denied without prejudice the Army and Navy Academy’s proposal for
a master site plan, located along the east and west side of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Beech
Avenue, in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. At the public hearing the Design Review
Board and Planning Commission directed the applicant to redesign the project without the
closure of Cypress Avenue and to resolve project issues concerning student/pedestrian safety,
phasing of on-site parking, and building setbacks.
On January 17, 1995, the Army and Navy Academy appealed the December 7, 1994 decision
to the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission, where it was returned to Staff
for further review and analysis to consider a potential partial closure of Cypress Avenue. The
Army and Navy Academy redesigned the project and requested approval of the necessary land
use permits for the private school without the proposal to close Cypress Avenue. On October
4, 1995, the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit (CUP 94-02) for the
portion of the project outside of the Village Redevelopment Zone (VR), and the Design Review
Board recommended approval of the project to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
for the portion of the project in the VR Zone. The Planning Commission is the final decision-
maker for the Conditional Use Permit portion of the project, therefore, only the Redevelopment
Permit and the Coastal Development Permit are being referred to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission for review.
At the October 4, 1995 public hearing, one (1) citizen gave favorable public testimony for the
project and encouraged the City to work more closely with the Army and Navy Academy in the
future. No other public testimony was given. The Planning Commission and Design Review
Board raised no issues of concern with the master site plan and it was unanimously approved
by both the Commission and the Board.
The project consists of a master site plan for the redevelopment of the existing Army and Navy
Academy, and includes a Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and a
Conditional Use Permit. The-above permits are necessitated by the multiple zoning districts over
the property, overlapping coastal jurisdictions, and unique physical and functional characteristics
of both the site and the proposed development. These permits would bring the private school
into compliance with the zoning and permit requirements of the R-3 and Village Redevelopment
Zones. Private schools are permitted in the R-3 Zone of the City with a Conditional Use Permit
or in the Village Redevelopment Zone with a Major Redevelopment Permit.
The master site plan would coordinate the provision and timing of the public and private
improvements to the campus and provide a comprehensive framework for the overall
architectural and land use design of the school.
I The master site plan includes the following major components:
.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO.
1. The expansion of existing school facilities by approximately 87,560 square feet,
and the construction and renovation of buildings;
2. The addition of 110 onsite parking spaces for students, employees, and visitors;
3. A phasing improvement plan for the buildout of the master site plan;
4. A planned maximum enrollment of 350 students and 100 employees - (302
resident students and 48 daytime students); and
5. Site Plan and Architectural Design Guidelines.
The project complies with the policies and regulations of each of the applicable coastal
programs and zoning districts and there are no unresolved project issues.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have
a potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance (Tile 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Based on the
level of detail provided with the master site plan, including land use, development phasing,
public improvements, and the location of onsite parking areas and building envelopes, it was
determined that these modifications to the existing campus would not create significant
environmental impacts.
As a result of this environmental review it was determined that no significant impacts would
occur due to the disturbed nature of the site, compliance with permit and zoning requirements,
and the fact that the plan does not constitute the addition of major new land uses or a significant
increase in the potential capacity of the school. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was issued
by the Planning Director on June 16, 1995.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
EXHIBITS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No.
Location Map
Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 232, 233 and 234
Design Review Board and Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 6, 1995
with attachments
Planning Department Memorandum, dated October 4, 1995
Excerpts of Design Review Board and Planning Commission Minutes, dated September
6, 1995 and October 4, 1995.
.
\ 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
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE ARMY
AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE EAST
AND WEST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, NORTH
Of BEECH AVENUE, IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER
SITE PLAN
CASE NO: RP 94-OZ/CDP 94-02
WHEREAS, verified applications for a Redevelopment Permit and Coastal
Development Permit for certain property to wit:
Lot 46 and a Portion of Lot 47 of Granville Park According
to Map Thereof No. 1782, February 21, 1924; Lots 58-73, 75,
76, 94-96, 98-101, 102-130, 131, 153-170, 177-198 Inclusive of
Granville Park No. 2, According to Map Thereof No. 2037,
June 18, 1927; A Portion of Block 3 of Town Carlsbad,
According to Map Thereof No. 755, February 15, 1894; That
Portion of Block 1 and 2 of Oceanside Addition To Carlsbad,
According to Map Thereof No. 893, April 8, 1903; That
Portion of Lot 1, Block “A” of Hayes Land Company Addition
to Carlsbad, According to Map Thereof No. 1221, November
4, 1909; all Filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, and all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on September 6, 1995, and
October 4, 1995 hold a duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said
applications for a Redevelopment Permit (RP 94-02); and Coastal Development Permit
(CDP 94-02); and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on October 4,1995, after hearing
and considering all the evidence and testimony of all people desiring to be heard, adopt
Design Review Board Resolution No. 232 recommending approval of the Negative
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
Declaration and Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 233, and 234 recommending
approval of a Redevelopment Permit, and Coastal Development Permit; and
WHEREAS, on the day of , 1995, the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law to consider the Board’s recommendations and all evidence, testimony,
and argument of those persons present and desiring to be heard and approved the
Negative Declaration, Redevelopment Permit, and Coastal Development Permit; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was issued on June 16, 1995 and
submitted to the State Clearinghouse for a 30 day review period, and no comments were
received during that review period.
WHEREAS, the findings and conditions of the Design Review Board
Resolution Nos. 232, 233 and 234 approving the Negative Declaration, Redevelopment
Permit, and Coastal Development Permit constitute the findings and conditions of the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on the - day
of , 1995, approved a Negative Declaration in compliance with the City of
Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance and the California Environmental Quality
Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Negative Declaration is approved and that the findings and
conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 232, on file with the
City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the
2
.
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
Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
3. That the Redevelopment Permit, RP 94-02 is approved and that the
findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 233, on
file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and
conditions of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
4. That the Coastal Development Permit, CDP 94-02 is approved and
that the findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No.
234, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and
conditions of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
5. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission adopts and
incorporates Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 232,233, and 234 approving the Army
and Navy Academy Master Site Plan’s Negative Declaration, Redevelopment Permit (RP
94-02), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 94-02).
a> Independent Judgment: The Housing and Redevelopment
Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission’s independent judgment.
b) Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. Pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081.6(d), all the materials that constitute the administrative
record in this proceeding are in the custody of and can be found in the offices of the City
Clerk and the Director of Planning in the City of Carlsbad. The administrative record
includes, but is not limited to: the Negative Declaration and all public comments thereon
received during the public review period and responses thereto, and the proceedings of the
Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission thereon.”
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
6. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT’
The time within which judicial review of this decision
must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure,
Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of
Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other
paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate
court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on
which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days
after the decision becomes final a request for the record of
the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an
amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation
of such record, the time within which such petition may be
filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day
following the date on which the record is either personally
delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if
he has one. A written request for the preparation of the
record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk,
City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California 92008.”
. . . .
k
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
EFFECTIVE DATE: pis resolution shall be effective upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the -
- day of , 1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
ww
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
7