HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-08; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 291; Appeal of Design Review Board Decision4B# 2%
VITG. 7/8/97
IEPT. Hsn & Red
TITLE: DEPT. HD. &&
APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO DENY @ CITYATTY. ’
RP 97-01 AND CDP 97-01 CITY MGR. k
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution Nos. a 8 ? and 288’ GRANTING
THE APPEAL AND APPROVING RP 97-01 and CDP 97-01.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Backqround:
On January 14, 1997, Jeff Rasak, property owner, submitted an Administrative Redevelopment Permit
Application to convert an existing medical office to a coffee house on property located at 2924 Carlsbad
Boulevard. The subject property is located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard, between Carlsbad
Village Drive and Grand Avenue, and immediately west of (adjacent to) the Village Faire Shopping Center.
The application was approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director on April 3, 1997. The
Director’s decision was subsequently appealed to the Design Review Board for a variety of reasons which
included trash collection, parking, land use and traffic. The Design Review Board considered the appeal(s)
at their meeting on April 28, 1997. The Design Review Board granted the appeal and denied the
administrative redevelopment permit on the basis that the Board did not believe that the appropriate
permit was processed for the proposed project. The Board instructed the applicant, Mr. Rasak, to submit
the appropriate applications for the Minor Redevelopment and Coastal Development Permits.
As instructed by the Board, Mr. Rasak submitted the required applications for the minor redevelopment
and coastal development permits. The permits were processed by staff and then presented to the Design
Review Board on May 29, 1997 for consideration following a public hearing. Staff recommended approval
of the proposed project based on a determination that the project was consistent with all applicable land
use policies, development standards and design guidelines for the Village Redevelopment Area. The
Design Review Board held a public hearing on May 29, 1997. After hearing and considering all public
testimony on the subject permits, the Board voted 2-l (Welshons, No) to approve the permit. The motion,
therefore, failed. Upon reconsideration, the Board voted 3-O to deny the permit at the request of the
applicant. Further discussion regarding the Board’s action is provided below. The applicant is now
appealing the Design Review Board’s decision to deny to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
Further discussion of the reasons for the appeal are provided below.
Design Review Board Action:
As stated above, the Design Review Board held a public hearing on May 29, 1997 to consider the request
from Mr. Rasak for approval of a minor redevelopment permit and a minor coastal development permit for
a project which would result in the conversion of an existing building from a medical (chiropractor) office to
a new coffee house. The proposed tenant for the coffee house is Starbucks. The proposed improvements
to the project site include demolition of approximately 400 square feet of the existing building to create a
corner entrance and open patio area at the front entrance. The renovated building will provide for new
glass storefronts, enhanced roof details and colorful (green) fabric awnings. The site includes a total of 5
parking spaces (including 1 handicap space) for the subject use, which meets the parking requirements
for a coffee house in the Village Redevelopment Area.
Page 2
On May 2gth, there were only three Board members present who could vote on the subject application -
Kim Welshons, Bill Compas and Larry Scheer. Due to an illness in the family, Peggy Savary was unable to
attend the hearing. Sarah Marquez was unable to participate due to a conflict of interest; she and her
family own property across the street from the subject project. The ordinance (Chapter 2.26.010)
establishing the Design Review Board requires an affirmative vote of three (3) members of the Board for
any action on a project.
After hearing and considering all of the public testimony, the Board began to discuss the conditions for
approval of the project. Each condition to be added or modified was discussed and then a vote was taken
to determine the support from each of the voting Board members. Towards the end of discussion on the
approving conditions, Member Welshons inquired as to whether or not a condition could be placed on the
project to require an annual review of the project to assess the parking requirement and whether or not it
is adequate for the “Starbucks” Coffee House. Assistant City Attorney, Rich Rudolf, explained that an
annual review could be required, but might be illusionary if the Board thought it preserved power to
increase the required parking. He advised at least to Redevelopment Permit aspects of the project a
higher parking standard could not be subsequently applied to the Starbucks Coffee House only. The
Board could make a recommendation to change the parking requirement for all coffee houses, but could
not make a change to be applied to Starbucks only. The subject application is required to comply with all
applicable standards in effect at the time the permit is requested and approved. Based on this
understanding, Board Member Welshons voted to deny the permit. Members Compas and Scheer voted
to approve the project. Unfortunately, this 2-l vote resulted in an “inaction” by the Board. Therefore, they
agreed to continue the project until Member Savary could be present to cast her vote. This action would
have resulted in either a 2 to 2 split vote or a 3 to 1 vote to approve the project. The split vote would result
again in an “inaction” by the Board. The 3 to 1 vote would have approved the application. However, a
decision by the Board to approve a project is subject to appeal to the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission.
The applicant has been operating under the assumption that the Design Review Board’s action to approve
the project wouid have resulted in an appeal to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. Therefore,
to save some time, the applicant (Mr. Rasak) requested that the Board take action to deny his permits so
that he would be able to appeal the decision and obtain a more expeditious decision by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission. Although Members Compas and Scheer did not wish to deny the project,
they agreed at the request of the applicant. The permits were denied on the grounds that the project did
not provide adequate parking and therefore it is not consistent or compatible with the surrounding land
uses or the Village environment desired for the Village Redevelopment Area.
Reasons for Appeal:
The Design Review Board action to deny the project was appealed by Jeff Rasak, who is a resident of
Carlsbad and owner of the property at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard. Mr. Rasak is appealing the Design
Review Board decision for the following reasons:
1. The proposed use (Coffee House) is a permitted use per the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
2. The proposed use is consistent with all applicable standards (including the on-site parking requirement), land use policies and design guidelines.
3. A blighting influence will be eliminated from the Village. The existing building is not attractive and provides for a non-conforming land use (medical office). The renovated building will be very attractive and provide for a permitted, desirable land use (Starbucks Coffee House).
I ,I AB#
Page 3
The appellant is requesting that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission find that the Design Review
Board erred in its decision and grant his appeal, subsequently approving the project as proposed and with
the conditions recommended by staff and those proposed by the Design Review Board (but not formally
approved).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommended approval of the subject project based on a determination that the project is consistent
with the Village Land Use Plan and all applicable development standards for existing buildings and,
therefore, is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Plan. Staff continues to support its recommendation for approval of the subject project.
The 2 to 1 vote from the Design Review Board indicates that a majority of the members eligible to vote on
May 2gth were also supportive of the recommendation to approve the project.
Staff has identified the following options for action by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission:
1. If the Commission finds that the proposed project is not consistent with the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual and Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan or that the use is not compatible with the
surrounding land uses, then the Commission should deny the appeal and uphold the Design Review
Board’s action to deny the subject permits. This action requires the Commission to instruct the City
Attorney to prepare the appropriate documents to deny the appeal.
2. If the Commission finds that the proposed project is, in fact, consistent with the Village Master Plan
and Design Manual and Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, as well as all applicable development
standards, land use policies and design guidelines, the Commission should find that the Design
Review Board erred in their decision and grant the appeal, and approve the subject minor
redevelopment and minor coastal development permits. This action requires approval of the attached
Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolutions, which include the appropriate findings and
conditions for approval of the subject permits.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed project will result in additional sales tax and property tax revenue for the City of Carlsbad
and Redevelopment Agency. At this time, no estimate has been provided regarding projected increases in
these revenues.
EXHIBITS:
1. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution Nos.283 granting the appeal and 288
and approving RP 97-01 and CDP 97-01.
2. Design Review Board Decision Appeal from Jeff Rasak.
3. Design Review Board Resolution No. G?&& I denying RP 97-01 and CDP 97-01.
4. Design Review Board Staff Report, dated May 29, 1997.
5. Draft minutes of Design Review Board Meeting of May 29, 1997.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 was referred to the Design Review Board, and subsequently referred to the Housing and
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 ,
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 287
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
GRANTING THE APPEAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DECISION AND APPROVING A MINOR REDEVELOPMENT
PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING
MEDICAL OFFICE TO A NEW COFFEE HOUSE (STARBUCKS)
AND TO ALLOW EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS
TO THE EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 2924 CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD, ON THE EAST SIDE BETWEEN CARLSBAD
VILLAGE DRIVE AND GRAND AVENUE.
CASE NO: RP 97-01
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and
Redevelopment Commission upon appeal; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Redevelopment
Permit , as provided by Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design
Review Board did, on the 29th day of May, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to
consider said application on property described as:
That portion of tract 96 of Carlsbad Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No.
1661, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County March
I,1915 described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the SouthWesterly line of said tract 96, which is also
the NorthEasterly boundary line of Lincoln Street, a distance of 75.00 feet,
South 34 degrees 33’00” East from the most Westerly corner of tract 96,
thence continuing South 34 degrees 33’00” East along said SouthWesterly
line of tract 96, a distance of 75.00 feet to a point, thence North 55 degrees
27’00” East, at right angles to said SouthWesterly line of said tract 96, a
distance of 70.00 feet to a point, thence north 34 degrees 33’00” West,
parallel with SouthWesterly line of said tract 96, a distance of 75.00 feet to a
point, thence south 55 degrees 27’00” West, a distance of 70.00 feet to the
point of beginning.
.
. . .
. .
HRC Resolution/RP/CDP97-0 1 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Excepting therefrom that portion thereof granted to the State of California
for Highway purposes, recorded June 11,1934, in book 294, page 370, and
July 6,1934, in book 306, page 217 of official records.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing held on the 29’” day of May, 1997, upon
hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
desiring to be heard and considering all factors relating to RP 97-01, the Design Review
Board did deny RP 97-01, due to the project’s incompatibility with the surrounding land
uses and the Village atmosphere; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the Design Review Board decision on RP
97-01 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any,
of all persons desiring to be heard during the public hearing held on the appeal from the
applicant, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission has considered all factors
relating to RP 97-01 and the applicant’s appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence at the public hearing, the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission hereby grants the appeal of the applicant and
APPROVES RP 97-01, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
Findings:
1. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
a. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission has, by inclusion of an
appropriate condition to this project, ensured that the project will not be
approved unless the District Engineer finds that sewer service is available
to serve the project. In addition, the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission has added a condition that a note shall be placed on the
HRC Resolution/RP97-0 1 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
. .
. . . .
project that building permits may 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 Housing and Redevelopment Commission 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.
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required
as conditions of approval.
C. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an
appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that
contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public
facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General
Plan.
d. Assurances have been given that adequate sewer for the project will be
provided by the City of Carlsbad.
The Design Review Board erred and the proposed project is compatible with the
surrounding land uses and future land uses since surrounding properties are
designated for visitor-serving commercial uses within the Village Redevelopment
Plan and for “village” uses within the General Plan.
The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or
new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure
continued availability of public facilities.
This project is categorically exempt from environmental review per CEQA , Class 1,
Section 15301.
This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has
been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
The project is consistent with the development standards for existing buildings and
the land use designations set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
The project has been designed to be compatible with the Village environment
desired for the Village Redevelopment Area through the provision of new storefront
windows, colorful fabric awnings and new exterior architectural features.
HRC Resolution/RP97-0 1 3
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
Conditions:
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The Housing and Redevelopment Commission does hereby grant the applicant’s
appeal and armrove RP 97-01 for the Minor Redevelopment Permit project entitled
“Conversion of Medical Office to new Coffee House (Starbucks)“. (Exhibits A & B on
file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department and incorporated by this
reference, dated April 28, 1997) 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 Redevelopment Permit Documents, as necessary to make
them internally consistent and conform to the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any
proposed development different from this approval shall require an amendment to
this approval.
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
the conditions of approval by the City. The plan copy shall be submitted to the
Planning Director and approved prior to building, grading, or improvement plan
submittal, whichever occurs first.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan
check, a reduced, legible version of the approving resolutions on a 24” X 36” blueline
drawing. Said blueline drawings shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal
Development Permit and signed approved site plan.
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.
The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July
28, 1987 (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any
development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth
management system or Facilities and Improvement Plan and to fulfil1 the Developer’s
agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated May 13, 1986, a copy of which is on
file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference. The applicant is also
required to pay any user fees which may be required for the purposes of providing
sewer and water facilities for the property. If the fees are not paid, this application
will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
This project will 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.
. . . .
. . . .
HRC Resolution/RP97-01 4.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 ,
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the
payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on
this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in
Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid
this approval shall be invalid unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
subsequently determines that the project without the condition complies with all
requirements of law.
8. Approval of RP 97-01 is granted subject to the approval of CDP 97-01.
9. The applicant shall make the necessary arrangements with the local trash
collection company to ensure that all business-related trash is collected and
removed from the site in an effective and efficient manner. The applicant must
collect and remove the trash in the following manner:
The applicant shall enter into a written agreement with an adjacent
property or business owner, or property/business owner within 600 feet of
the subject site, to share use of a 3 cubic yard trash/refuse bin for
trash/refuse collection and removal purposes. The location of the
trash/refuse bin shall be approved by the Housing and Redevelopment
Director. The enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials as the
building it relates to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director. No portion of the trash bin shall be visible to the public.
10. The applicant shall provide for areas for recycling which are adequate in
capacity, number and distribution to serve the subject project. The recycling
areas may be located on the site of the subject project or on the site of an
adjacent property, or property within 600 feet, as part of the private agreement
described above. All recycling areas or the bins and containers must provide
protection against severe environmental conditions which might render the
collected materials unmarketable.
11. No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire
Chief. In such instance, a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire
Chief and Housing and Redevelopment Director.
12. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on the building so as to
be plainly visible from the street; color identification and/or addresses shall
contrast to their background color.
13. The applicant, or his agent, shall apply for, pay the applicable fee, and
obtain a separate sign permit for the subject property in accordance with
the requirements of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. No signs
have been approved for the subject building or site as part of this Minor
Redevelopment Permit.
HRC ResolutionlRP97-0 1 5
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
14. The applicant, or his agent, shall ensure that the on-site parking will be
made available for customers only; no employees of the related business
shall park on the subject site, with the exception that a handicapped
employee may use the parking space on the site which is specifically
designated for that use. The applicant shall use its best efforts to enter into
a written agreement with a private property or business owner within 600
feet of the subject property to provide employee parking for the subject
business establishment. Any subsequent written agreement shall be
subject to approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
15. The permit has been approved with the understanding that there will be no
physical limitations to the use of all of the required parking spaces on the
subject site. If any city-approved site improvements are made by an
adjacent property owner which in effect eliminate, or otherwise limit, the
existing access to the subject parking spaces or the site itself, as shown
on the approved plans, the Housing and Redevelopment Director shall
review the project and make a determination as to whether or not the
project should be reconsidered by the Design Review Board and/or
Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The Design Review Board
and/or Housing and Redevelopment Commission, following a public
hearing on the matter, may require additional action by the applicant to
correct any identified access issues in order for this permit to remain in
effect.
16. The applicant shall install bike racks on private property to accommodate a
minimum of five (5) customers and/or employees who may arrive at the site
by bicycle. The utilization of the bike racks shall be reviewed on a regular
basis by the Housing and Redevelopment Director. If it is determined that
the number of bicycle racks is not sufficient to accommodate the demand
from employees and customers of the coffee house, the applicant shall be
required by the Housing and Redevelopment Director to install additional
bicycle racks on the site to the satisfaction of the Director.
17. The applicant shall prepare and operate with an outdoor seating plan to be
approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director which ensures a
clear area of at least five (5) feet in area around the building entry to allow
for adequate pedestrian ingress and egress from the subject building at all
times.
18. The applicant shall make the necessary arrangements with the appropriate
product delivery companies to ensure that all business-related deliveries
are made to the subject site in a manner which does not impede traffic on
Carlsbad Boulevard and/or block parking on the site. The applicant may
select one of the following options for deliveries to the subject site:
a) The applicant shall be required to ensure that all deliveries are
made from vehicles parked on the subject site during non-operation
HRC ResolutionlRP97-01 6
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
hours, either prior to opening or after closing of the facility.
Deliveries shall not be made from vehicles parked on Carlsbad
Boulevard, in front of the subject property, which are impeding
bicycle or vehicle traffic; or
b) The applicant shall enter into a written agreement with an adjacent
property or business owner, or property/business owner, within an
acceptable distance from the subject site, to allow deliveries to the
subject site from any off-site location, which does not impede
bicycle, vehicle or pedestrian traffic in the area. The agreement shall
be subject to approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
Deliveries shall be made to the subject site in a manner which does
not block customer or employee parking on the sponsor property
during hours of regular business operation.
19. The applicant is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact fee
(linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The applicant is
further aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential projects may
be required to pay a linkage fee, in order to be found consistent with the Housing
Element of the General Plan. If a linkage fee is established by City Council
ordinance and/or resolution and this project becomes subject to a linkage fee
pursuant to said ordinance and/or resolution, then the applicant for this project, or
his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall pay the linkage fee. The linkage fee shall
be paid at the time of issuance of building permits. If linkage fees are required for
this project, and they are not paid, this project will not be consistent with the General
Plan and approval for this project will become null and void.
20. Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is
authorized by virtue of approval of this site plan.
21. The applicant shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements, if
any and applicable, of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services
to the project.
22. This redevelopment permit imposes the requirement for the applicant to pay all
current fees and deposits required prior to building permit issuance.
23. The applicant will be responsible for all water related fees and deposits plus the
major facility charge which will be collected at time of issuance of building permit,
The Developer shall pay a San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge which
will be collected at issuance of application for meter installations, if applicable.
24. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be
issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the
development determines that adequate water and sewer is available at the time of
application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to be available
until time of occupancy.
HRC Resolution/RP97-01 7
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
25. 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 Applicant/Developer or a successor
in interest by the City’s approval of this Resolution.
26. This redevelopment permit shall be subject to review by the Housing and
Redevelopment Director on a yearly basis to determine if all conditions of this permit
have been met. After providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, this permit
may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the conditions
imposed herein have not been met.
27. Prior to the issuance of the building permits, the applicant shall record a deed
restriction on the deed to this property, subject to the satisfaction of the Housing and
Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest
that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Minor Redevelopment Permit by Resolution
No. 287 on the real property owned by the declarant. Said deed 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 deed restriction. Said deed restriction(s) may be modified or
terminated only with the approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Director,
Design Review Board or Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of
Carlsbad whichever as final decision authority for this project.
Standard Code Reminders:
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance, including but not limited to
the following code requirements:
1. This approval shall become null and void if building permits for the exterior and
interior improvements are not issued for this project within 18 months from the
date of project approval.
2. 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 provided herein.
3. This project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access
requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
. . . .
HRC Resolution/RP97-0 1 8
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. All roof appurtenances shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view
and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as
provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors
of Housing and Redevelopment and Building.
5. The applicant, or his agent, shall apply for, pay the applicable fee, and obtain
approval from the Housing and Redevelopment Director for a separate
Administrative Redevelopment Permit specifically to be issued for any tables
and chairs to be located within the public right-of-way (on the public
sidewalk), prior to placing any tables and chairs within the public right-of-way.
6. The total number of tables and chairs to be located on private property, but
outside the building, shall be equal to or less than the total number of tables
and chairs to be located inside the subject building. The plans submitted for
the required building permit shall indicate the total number of tables and
chairs to be located both inside and outside the subject building. As part of
this approval, the total number of seats for the subject coffee house, to be
located inside or outside, shall not exceed thirty five (35) seats total.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 8th
day of Julv , 1997, by the following vote, to wit: 1
AYES: Finnila, Nygaard, Kulchin, Hall
NOES: Lewis
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Housing and Redevelopment Commission
SecreGry
HRC Resolution/RP97-0 1
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
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 288
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
GRANTING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING A MINOR
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICE TO A
NEW COFFEE HOUSE (STARBUCKS) AND TO ALLOW
EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 2924 CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD, ON THE EAST SIDE, BETWEEN CARLSBAD
VILLAGE DRIVE AND GRAND AVENUE.
CASE NO: CDP 97-01
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and
referred to the Design Review Board, and subsequently referred to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission upon appeal; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Minor 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 29th day of May, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to
consider said application on property described as:
That portion of tract 96 of Carlsbad Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No.
1661, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County March
1,1915, described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the SouthWesterly line of said tract 96, which is also
the NorthEasterly boundary line of Lincoln Street, a distance of 75.00 feet,
South 34 degrees 33’00” East from the most Westerly corner of tract 96,
thence continuing South 34 degrees 33’00” East along said Southwesterly
line of tract 96, a distance of 75.00 feet to a point, thence North 55 degrees
27’00” East, at right angles to said SouthWesterly line of said tract 96, a
distance of 70.00 feet to a point, thence north 34 degrees 33’00” West,
parallel with Southwesterly line of said tract 96, a distance of 75.00 feet to a
point, thence south 55 degrees 27’00” West, a distance of 70.00 feet to the
point of beginning.
. . .
.
HRC Resolution/RP/CDP97-0 1 I
28
Excepting therefrom that portion thereof granted to the State of California
for Highway purposes, recorded June 11,1934, in book 294, page 370, and
July 6, 1934, in book 306, page 217 of official records.
~ WHEREAS, at said public hearing on the 29’” of May, 1997, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard and
considering all factors relating to CDP 97-01, the Design Review Board did deny CDP
97-01, due to the project’s incompatibility with the surrounding land uses and the Village
atmosphere; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the Design Review Board decision on CDP
97-01 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any,
of all persons desiring to be heard during the public hearing held on the appeal from the
applicant, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission has considered all factors
relating to CDP 97-01 and the applicant’s appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence at the public hearing, the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission hereby grants the appeal of the applicant and
APPROVES CDP 97-01, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
Findinas:
1. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
a. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission has, by inclusion of an
appropriate condition to this project, ensured that the project will not be
approved unless the District Engineer finds that sewer service is available to
serve the project. In addition, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
has added a condition that a note shall be placed on the project that building
permits may not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer
determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within
HRC Resolution/CDP97-0 I 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission 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.
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as
conditions of approval.
c. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and
payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be
available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
d. Assurances have been given that adequate sewer for the project will be
provided by the City of Carlsbad.
The Design Review Board erred and the proposed project is compatible with the
surrounding land uses and future land uses since surrounding properties are
designated for visitor-serving commercial uses within the Village Redevelopment
Plan and for “village” uses within the General Plan.
The proposed project is located within the City of Carlsbad’s Village Segment of the
California Coastal Zone and it has been determined by the City of Carlsbad that no
coastal resources or implementing policies will be adversely impacted by approval of
the subject project.
The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or
new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure
continued availability of public facilities.
This project is categorically exempt from environmental review per CEQA, Class 1,
Section 15301.
This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has
been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
The project is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan which together represent the Local Coastal
Program for the Village Segment of the Coastal Zone within the City of Carlsbad.
CONDITIONS:
1. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission does hereby grant the applicant’s
appeal and APPROVE CDP 97-01, for the project entitled “Conversion of
HRC Resolution/CDP97-01 3
6
7
Medical Office to new Coffee House (Starbucks)“, (Exhibits A & B, incorporated
herein by reference, dated April 28, 1997) 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 Minor Coastal Development Permit
documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and conform to the
final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on
the approved exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval
shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. Approval of CDP 97-01 is subject to approval of RP 97-01. COP 97-01 is subject
to all conditions contained in Housing and Redevelopment Commission
Resolution No. 287 dated Julv 8, 1997 for RP 97-01, conversion of medical
office to coffee house (Starbucks).
8 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 8th day of
Julv c 1997, the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Finnila, Nygaard, Kulchin, Hall
NOES: Lewis
I
22
23
24
25
26
II HRC Resolution/RP/CDP97-01 4
27
28
-&tcI@\TZ Lity of Carlsbad --- ---._ .
qqh7 _
_APPEAL FORM_
I We) appeal the following decision of the Design Review t3oard to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission:
---- Denial of RPKQI-97-01 - ConveB.ion of Medical Ofice to Coffee House.
Date of Decision you are appealing: May 29,1997
Subject of Appeal:
BE SPECIFIC. Examples: If a project has multiple elements, (such as a Negative
Declaration, Sign Permit, Variance, etc.) please list them all. If you only want to appeal
a part of the whole action, please state so below.
On May 29, 1997 , the D_esiqn Review Board considered mv reauest for a minor
redevelopment/ coastal deveiooment Permit to convert an existino medical office to a
coffee house at 2924 Carlsbad EIoulevard, ‘The Board had onlv three members who
could vote Board Member Savarv was not bresent due to an illness in the familv and --4
Board Member Marauez had a conflict of interest. The vote was 2 to 1 to approve the
project. with Members Co:mpas and Scheer voting yes. Member Welshons voted no
because the Board did not have the author&v to change the parking requirement for the
project at a later date if it was determined that the proiect was causing a parkjng
problem. The 2-1 vote requias continuance to a date when member Savarv could be
present. Althounh I am confident that mv proiect application would have ultimately been
waved with a 3 to 1 vote, the loss in timjno creates a financial hardshiu for me.
Therefore, I requested that the Board denv the proiect to allow me to dire& appeal to --.-
the Housincr and Redevelopment Commiss.on for consideration and a final decision. I
--__- .-__ .--.---_- -..----- -_-__._ --- --
2965 Rooseveit St , S:e, R l Car;slsad, CA 92008-2389 * (619) CM-281CV281 1 l FAX (619) 720-2%%?
w .a c _
/ .a )
I
fe!t this was the best approaghJecause I have alreadv been ooerating under the --- .-.-. -..-
asswmHion that the decision of. the Board-lo approve the proiect would have been
appealed to the Commission at a fater date. The Board’s decision to denv at mv
request will save me some time. The Board denied the project on the qroands that if
was not consistent with the Village atmosbhere. Since mv project is, in fact, consistent
with all appficabfe standards, including rx&inq. and desiqn guidelines for the Villaqe
&ea, this is not an appropri.ate decision. ! am requestinq that the Housina and
Redevelopment Commission take up this matter as soon as Possible and qrant the --
appea! and approve mv p;oject on the basis that it is consistent with the land use -
pgli~ie~, development standarc& for existina buildings, and the apRlicable desian
CJJidehS for the Villaqe Area. This is a VW qood proiect for the Viliaae Area. It will
_brinrr in a desirable_use (coffee house) and substantially unqrade an extremelv bliahted
buildinn in a kev scedc corridor (Carlsbad E30u!evardIl
rj - t;-l- s7 ---
.&g3?2&y c”: %7Ls-/-< --
Address: Street Name& Number: 7 3 G-a /t3n /‘i/o, mpY -- / . ..-
City: &+K-C S-BfiLl State: C& . --_ -- Zip Code:W~~OO 7
Phcne No.:--
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
A EXHIBIT 3
I DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 256
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DENYING A MINOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING
MEDICAL OFFICE TO A NEW COFFEE HOUSE (STARBUCKS)
AND TO ALLOW EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS
TO THE EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 2924 CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD, ON THE EAST SIDE BETWEEN CARLSBAD
VILLAGE DRIVE AND GRAND AVENUE.
CASE NAME: NEW COFFEE HOUSE (STARBUCKS)
CASE NO: RPlCDP 97-01
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and
referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes requests for a Redevelopment
Permit and Coastal Development Permit, as provided by Chapters 21.35 and 21.81,
respectively, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design
Review Board did, on the 29th day of May, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to
consider said application on property described as:
That portion of tract 96 of Carlsbad Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No.
1661, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County March
1,1915, described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the SouthWesterly line of said tract 96, which is also
the NorthEasterly boundary line of Lincoln Street, a distance of 75 feet,
South 34 degrees 33’00” east from the most Westerly corner of tract 96,
thence continuing South 34 degrees 33’00” east along said southwesterly
line of tract 96, a distance of 75.00 feet to a point, thence North 55 degrees
27’00” east, at right angles to said Southwesterly line of said tract 96, a
distance of 70.00 feet to a point, thence north 34 degrees 33’00” west,
parallel with Southwesterly line of said tract 96, a distance of 75.00 feet to a
point, thence south 55 degrees 27’00” west, a distance of 70.00 feet to the
point of beginning.
Excepting therefrom that portion thereof granted to the State of California
for Highway purposes, recorded June 11,1934, in book 294, page 370, and
July 6,1934, in book 306, page 217 of official records.
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
DRB Resolution No. 256
RP 97-Ol/CDP 97-01
WHEREAS, at said public hearing held on the 29’” day of May, 1997, upon
hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to RP 97-01.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence at the public hearing, the Design Review Board
DENIES RP 97-01 and CDP 97-01, based on the following findings;
Findings:
1. The proposed project (coffee house) is not compatible with the surrounding land
uses and future land uses in the area and is therefore not consistent with the Local
Coastal Plan and Redevelopment Plan for the Village Redevelopment Area.
2. The proposed project and use is not consistent with the Village atmosphere desired
for the Village Redevelopment Area, per the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 29th day of May, 1997, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Welshons, Compas, Scheer
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Savaty
ABSTAIN: Marquez
KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson
Design Review Board
EVAN E. BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
2
.’ . @
EXHIBIT 4
City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Application Complete:
April 28,1997
Environmental Review:
Categorically Exempt
Staff Debbie Fountain
‘&an Hunter
Mike Shirey
ITEM NO. 1
DATE: May 29, 1997
SUBJECT: RP/CDP 97-01 - CONVERSION OF MEDICAL OFFICE TO COFFEE
HOUSE (STARBUCKS): Request for a Minor Redevelopment Permit and
Coastal Development Permit to allow the conversion of an existing
medical office building to a coffee house on property located at 2924
Carlsbad Boulevard, between Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue,
in Land Use District I of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area and
Village Segment of the Local Coastal Zone.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolutions No. 255 and
256 APPROVING RP and CDP 97-01 based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On January 14, 1997, Jeff Rasak, property owner, submitted an application to convert
an existing medical office building at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard into a coffee house. Mr.
Rasak has an agreement with Starbucks Coffee to lease the building upon approval of
the appropriate permits and completion of the exterior facade improvements. The
proposed exterior improvements to the existing building include demolition of
approximately 400 square feet of the existing building to allow for a corner pedestrian
entrance to the site. The final size of the building upon completion of the approved
renovations will be reduced from approximately 1400 square feet to a 1000 square feet
total. The renovated building will provide for new glass storefronts, enhanced roof
details and colorful (green) fabric awnings, and five parking spaces (which include one
handicap space).
RP/CDP 97-O 1
May 29, 1997
1
zz
-
The property owner/applicant has made a very special effort to design the exterior
improvements to the building in a manner which is both visually appealing and also is
much more safe for pedestrians entering and exiting the building. The demolition of the
front portion of the existing building will allow for a corner entrance which was required
by staff in order to ensure the safety of pedestrians moving to and from the building
from the public sidewalk and the adjacent parking lot. This reduces the leasable space
available to the property owner/applicant. However, staff felt that this was extremely
important due to the expected vehicular and pedestrian movements related to the
proposed land use. The corner entrance also allows for a much more interesting
building in terms of design.
On April 3, 1997, the Housing and Redevelopment Director approved the administrative
redevelopment/coastal development permit for the subject project based on findings
that the project met applicable development standards and that the land use is
permitted per the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The Director’s decision to
approve the administrative redevelopment permit was appealed by several interested
parties. After accepting public testimony on the appeal of the Director decision, the
Design Review Board determined that an administrative redevelopment permit was not
appropriate for the proposed project. The Board determined that the applicant should
have been required to obtain a minor redevelopment/coastal development permit,
which must be approved by the Design Review Board and is appealable to the City
Council, acting as the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The project is now being returned to the Design Review Board for consideration under
the requirements for a minor redevelopment and minor coastal development permit,
III. VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL, LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
After reviewing the subject application and requiring the applicant to make various
changes in terms of building design and the related parking plan, Redevelopment Staff
has determined that the subject project is, in fact, consistent with the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual and. the Redevelopment Plan because it is consistent with all
applicable development standards for an existing building. It is important to note that
the standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual for new
construction projects, such as open space and setbacks, do not apply to the renovation
of, or change in use for, an existing building. The applicable development standards
applied to the subject project will be discussed in further detail below.
The site is located within the Village Segment of the Local Coastal Zone, but it is
located outside the appealable area of the Coastal Zone. Therefore, to approve the
subject permit, the Design Review Board must determine that the project is consistent
RP/CDP 97-O 1
May 29, 1997
2
I . . ,
with the Village Local Coastal Program. The Village Master Plan and Design Manual,
together with the Village Redevelopment Area Plan, serve as the Local Coastal
Program for the Village Segment of the Local Coastal Zone. Consequently, a
determination that the proposed project is consistent with the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual and Village Redevelopment Area Plan ensures that the project is also
consistent with the Local Coastal Program.
Further details on how the project is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual and the Redevelopment Plan will be provided later within this report.
IV. CONSISTENCY WIITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION, GOALS
AND OBJECTIVES
Every project must be consistent with the Vision, Goals and Objectives for the Village
Redevelopment Area. The following discussion focuses on the manner in which the
proposed project is consistent with the various components of the Village “Vision
Statement” and the established Goals and Objectives for the area. The proposed
project satisfies several components of the “Vision Statement” for the Village
Redevelopment Area of Carlsbad.
Distinct Visual ldentitv
First, the project assists in the effort to create a village which has a distinct visual
identity that makes it unique and a memorable place with identifiable landmarks
because the proposed improvements to an existing blighted building result in a much
more visually appealing and interesting building which is consistent with the desired
Village character.
Hiqh Qualitv Private DeveloDment
The design of the renovated building results in a high quality private development which
is the second vision statement for the Village Area. The proposed improvements will
eliminate a blighting influence which has existed within the Village for a number of
years. The new building will be more visually interesting and attractive in an area which
is critical to the “first impressions” set by visitors and tourists.
Wide Ranqe of Land Uses
The Village Vision includes the need to accommodate a wide range of land uses and to
serve as a specialty retail center for the entire City of Carlsbad. While there are other
coffee houses within the Village, staff believes that each of them are different and meet
varying needs among the local residents and visitors to the area; some provide for
RPKDP 97-O 1
May 29, 1997
3
, 4. .
meeting locations and others provide entertainment as well as a cup of coffee. The
trend is certainly toward an increasing demand for this type of use. The Village Area
has become a very popular area for coffee houses and restaurants, and has a strong
reputation for quality services and a variety of food and beverage choices.
Welcomina Attitude to New Businesses
The Vision for the Village Redevelopment Area also includes a statement that the
“Village demons&a tes a welcoming attitude and a spirit of cooperation to new
businesses and developers who are interested in becoming a part of the downtown”. It
is understandably difficult for the Village business community to accept new and
competitive businesses, especially when a new business represents a chain or
corporate-owned business. However, it is important to note that the premise behind the
“Village Vision” is that the continued success of the Village is dependent upon the
provision of a variety of services and products through varying types of business
owners and developers, including chains, corporate-owned business, and “mom and
pop operators”. Ultimately, it is not the purpose of Village redevelopment to judge the
appropriateness of private business decisions based on market factors.
The proposed project also addresses various objectives within all five (5) goals outlined
within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual as follows:
Goal 1: Establish Catisbad Villaqe as a Qualitv Shoopinq. Workinq and Livinq
Environment. The proposed improvements will renovate an old, blighted building within
a key visual corridor in a manner which substantially improves its visual appeal. This is
critical to the effort to create a quality shopping, working and living environment in the
Village.
Goal 2: Improve the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Villaqe Area. The
project has been designed to minimize the pedestrian/vehicular conflicts between the
parking lot and the entrance to the building by requiring the applicant to demolish a
portion of the building to allow for a corner entrance, which in turn allows for
pedestrians to safely enter the site from the public sidewalk or the adjacent parking lot
without opening the door directly into the flow of the pedestrian/vehicle traffic. The
project meets its on-site parking requirement and will provide for a handicap parking
space immediately adjacent to the building. The project is pedestrian-oriented with
significant “walk in” traffic anticipated by the proposed tenant.
Goal 3: Stimulate Prooerfv Improvements and New Development in the Villaqe.
The Master Plan and Design Manual was developed in an effort to stimulate new
development and/or improvements to existing buildings in the Village. The intent is that
new development or rehabilitation of existing facilities will then stimulate other property
RPKDP 97-O 1 4
May 29, 1997
improvements and additional new development. The proposed project will assist in the
continued effort to improve the Village Redevelopment Area. As a project that
stimulates people activity as a gathering place, the project has potential value as a
catalyst for other development activity.
Goal 4: Improve the Phvsical ApDearance of the Villaqe Area. As stated
previously, the proposed project will be constructed in a manner which will substantially
improve its physical appearance which will have a very positive impact in the Village
Area and the highly visual corridor of Carlsbad Boulevard. The project promotes the
objective of creating a sense of design unity and character while also encouraging
design diversity within the area of the Village in which the project is to be located.
Goal 5: Provide siqnaqe which is supportive of commercial vitalitv and a unique
Villaqe Imaqe. The proposed application has not been evaluated in terms of a signage
proposal. The property owner is requiring that the tenant submit a separate sign permit
to the City for approval. Through the separate permit, staff will ensure that the signage
for this project is appropriately designed and scaled. The signage to be provided must
ultimately be compatible with the architecture of the structure and its unique location
and be consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE DESIGNATION
The site of the proposed project is located within Land Use District I of the Village
Redevelopment Area. Coffee Houses and Tea Rooms are specifically listed as a
permitted land use within Land Use District 1.
The goal of Land Use District 1 is to provide for retail shopping continuity, local serving
commercial shops, stores and restaurants as well as facilities and services for travelers
in the coastal zone. The proposed project is consistent with this goal because it
provides coffee products to both tourists as well as local residents and visitors. It will
provide for an attractive location for persons in the area to gather and purchase coffee
and coffee-related products. Customers will be allowed to relax at the site with a cup of
coffee or simply pick up a cup of coffee and proceed on their way.
It is important to note that for all properties located in the Coastal Zone, the primary
permitted land uses for all ground floor space are visitor-serving commercial. Visitor
serving commercial uses include but are not limited to: hotels, motels, restaurants,
recreational or tourist information facilities, souvenir, gift or novelty shops and/or
services which will aid in the comfort/enjoyment of a tourist or regional guest’s visit to
the area. All other uses, including medical offices and much less intense uses, are
permitted on a provisional or accessory use basis only and require approval of a
redevelopment permit to represent a “conforming” land use. Although the subject
RPKDP 97-O I
May 29, 1997
5
2.6
building was previously used for a medical office, this use is not appropriate for the
subject site because a medical office breaks up the retail continuity for the area and is
not consistent with the other retail uses in the immediate area.
VI. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The Village Master Plan and Design Manual provides for two types of standards that
every project is reviewed against for processing purposes. The first type is known as
“Universal Standards”. Every project within the Village Redevelopment Area must
comply with these Universal Standards. The second type is known as “Individual
Standards”. These standards are specific to the Land Use District in which the project is
located and primarily apply to new construction projects. However, as appropriate,
the individual development standards related to building height and parking will also be
applied to existing buildings.
“Universal Standards” address 1) the issues of General Plan Consistency,
Residential Density, lnclusionary Housing; and 2) special instructions regarding the
application of individual standards related to parking, building coverage, building height
and setbacks. The following information is provided to indicate how the proposed
project meets the ‘Universal Standards”.
General Plan: The General Plan includes the following goals for the Village: 1)
a City which preserves, enhances and maintains the Village as a place for living,
working, shopping, recreation, civic and cultural functions while retaining #he village
atmosphere and pedestrian scale; and 2) a City which creates a distinct identity for the
Village by encouraging activities that traditionally locate in a pedestrian-oriented
downtown area. The General Plan objective is to implement the Village Area
Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive Village Master Plan and Design
Manual.
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as
outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a service (coffee house) which
has a demonstrated, successful market within the Village. The proposed exterior and
interior improvements assist in the effort to retain the village atmosphere and pedestrian
scale of the building design. Also, since the project is located in close proximity to
residential neighborhoods, hotels/motels, timeshare units and a soon-to-be newly
constructed senior retirement home, the location of the proposed project actually
reinforces the pedestrian- orientation desired for the downtown area. Residents and
visitors can easily walk to the site and enjoy a cup of coffee in the heart of the Village.
One of the implementing policies and action programs noted within the General Plan for
the Village relates to an effort to seek ways of strengthening existing establishments
RPKDP 97-O I 6
May 29, 1997
through facade and streetscape improvements, upgraded public and private
landscaping and aesthetically-upgraded signage. The proposed project is consistent
with this policy and/or action program. It will substantially improve the physical
appearance of the building. The signage to be provided on the building will ultimately
comply with all of the new regulations for the Village Redevelopment Area.
Residential Densitv and lnclusionarv Housing Resuirements: There is no
residential proposed within this project. Therefore, the universal standards related to
residential density and the inclusionary housing requirements are noJ applicable to this
project.
The “Individual Standards” set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual for
Land Use District 1 were also reviewed and applied to the subject project as
appropriate. The following discussion of the standards applied to the subject project is
provided for information purposes.
Because the applicant/property owner is changing the use of the Parking:
subject building to a conforming land use which has a more intense parking
requirement under the Village Master Plan and Design Manual (effective September,
1996) the requested permit triggers the requirement to provide off street parking for the
project per the standards set forth within the new Village Master Plan and Design
Manual. The parking requirement for a coffee house is 1 space for each 200 square
feet of gross floor space of the building. The proposed project results in a reduction of
the existing building from approximately 1400 square feet to a newly renovated building
of 1000 square feet in size. The parking requirement, therefore, is five (5) spaces total
for the project as proposed. The project will provide for four (4) regular parking spaces
and one (1) handicap parking space, for a total of five (5) on-site parking spaces. The
project meets the parking requirement set forth within the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual, which became effective in September, 1996.
Buildinq Heisht: Any changes to the roof or roofline of the existing building must
comply with the height restrictions identified for Land Use District 1. The roof itself, as
proposed, is sixteen (16) feet in height.‘With the added front tower feature, the height of
the building rises to twenty-two and one-half (22%) feet. The added tower feature at the
rear of the building rises to approximately eighteen and one-half (18%) feet. The
maximum building height for Land Use District 1 and the subject project is thirty-five
(35) feet. The height of the building, as proposed with the new architectural tower
features, is well below the maximum established for the area.
Buildina Setbacks, Coverage, and Open Space: In the redevelopment area,
these development standards are applied primarily to new construction projects only. A
change in use of an existing building or interior/exterior improvements to an existing
RPKDP 97-O 1
May 29,1997
7
building will not trigger the requirement for compliance with these specific “individual”
development standards.
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES
In addition to a project being consistent with the land use designations for the Village
and the applicable development standards, all projects within the Village .’
Redevelopment Area must make a good faith effort to design a project which is
consistent with a desired village scale and character. The Design Review Board must
be satisfied that the applicant has made an honest effort to conform to the ten (10)
basic design principles as noted below:
1. Development shall have an overall informal character.
2. Architectural design shall emphasize variety and diversity.
3. Development shall be small in scale.
4. Intensity of development shall be encouraged.
5. All development shall have a strong relationship to the street.
6. A strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of ground floor facades.
7. Buildings shall be enriched with architectural features and details.
8. Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design,
9. Parking shall be visibly subordinated.
10. Signage shall be appropriate to a village character.
Staff believes that given the site constraints and the fact that the applicant is renovating
an existing building with all of its site improvements previously installed, the applicant
has made an outstanding effort through the proposed building renovations to address
the basic design principles noted above. A more complete analysis of how the project
has been designed to address the guidelines set forth within the Village Master Plan
and Design Manual is provided in Exhibit 6 to this report.
VIII. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
As determined by the Design Review Board on April 28, 1997, the proposed project
requires a minor redevelopment and coastal development permit because it involves
interior and exterior improvements which exceed $60,000 in valuation. The signs for the
project will be approved under a separate sign permit.
The Design Review Board is being asked to hold a public hearing on the permits
requested, consider the public testimony and then take action to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the project. If the project is denied by the Design Review Board, the
applicant will be required to appeal the decision to the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission. If the project is approved or approved with conditions, an interested party
RPKDP 97-O 1 8
May 29,1997
will have ten (10) calendar days to appeal the Design Review Board’s decision to the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission. All appeals must be presented on the
proper form and submitted to the City Clerk’s Office with payment of the applicable fee.
The proposed project is not located within the appealable area of the Coastal Zone.
Therefore, the decision of the Design Review Board or the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.
IX. TRAFFIC. CIRCULATION, PARKING, SEWER, WATER, AND OTHER
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Traffic. The total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) projected for the project is 250 vehicles.
This is based on SANDAG’s information provided for “high turnover restaurants” at
peak hours, which are considered to be 7am to 9am and 4pm to 6pm. Starbucks has
indicated to staff that their peak hours for vehicle traffic are 6am to loam. During the
remainder of the day, Starbucks has stated that the parking demand and traffic is low
because most of their customers are working, shopping, dining or living in the area and
have already parked’their vehicles for other purposes. The projected ADT of 250
vehicles is a 200 vehicle increase over the current projected ADT of 50 vehicles for a
medical office. The Engineering Department reviewed the projected ADT and agree
with the assessment presented by the applicant based on use of the SANDAG figures.
The Engineering Department determined that no additional traffic studies or circulation
analysis reports were required because the Circulation System established for the
Village Redevelopment Area already takes into account the land uses which are
considered to be permitted throughout the area, which include uses such as coffee
houses and other high volume visitor-serving commercial businesses. Carlsbad
Boulevard is located within the Coastal Zone and is well traveled. These issues were
taken into consideration by staff and a determination was ultimately made that the
proposed project does not create a negative traffic condition which warrants a denial of
the project.
Circulation. Circulation for the project is designed with a two-way parking aisle with a
driveway entrance, providing access to and from the site, off of Carlsbad Boulevard.
The existing parking and driveway for the subject site have existed for many years. In
fact, when Village Faire was developed, the previous property owners agreed to
complete all of the improvements on the subject property (proposed site of Starbucks)
in exchange for a reciprocal agreement for use of parking and access. Attached (Exhibit
7) is a copy of the letter of agreement. This means that the two property owners agreed
that customers of Village Faire could use the parking on the subject site and the access
and visa versa; customers of the subject property could use Village Faire parking and
related access. However, because a legal document was never recorded against either
property that obligated both parties to honor this agreement, staff determined that the
RP/CDP 97-O 1
May 29, 1997
9
30
proposed project (Starbucks) must be considered on its own merits in terms of parking
and access.
As mentioned above, the proposed project has a single driveway which allows ingress
to and egress from Carlsbad Boulevard. Vehicles traveling south on Carlsbad
Boulevard would need to make a U-turn at Carlsbad Boulevard and Carlsbad Village
Drive to access northbound Carlsbad Boulevard and the project driveway. The City’s
Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and the anticipated traffic
patterns and determined that the parking lot design and driveway access on the subject
site (for Starbucks) are acceptable for an existing building. The Circulation Plan for the
Village has been established with consideration given to the existing businesses and
new businesses which are permitted per the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
Parking. Per the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, the reauired parking for a
coffee house (permitted land use) is 1 space for each 200 square feet of gross floor
space. The subject building will be 1000 square feet in size. Therefore, the subject
project is required to provide a total of 5 off- street parking spaces. The proposed
project will provide for one (1) handicap space and four (4) regular or compact parking
spaces. The applicant is permitted to have 2 regular sized spaces (8% feet in width) and
2 compact car spaces (8 feet in width); 40% of the total parking requirement can be
provided through compact spaces. Any compact spaces, however, would need to be
appropriately marked. Based on the space available for parking adjacent to the existing
building, the applicant has proposed 4 regular parking spaces at 8 feet 6 inches in
width. The parking proposed is, therefore, consistent with the applicable standards.
Sewer. The total number of sewer Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) required for the
project is calculated to be 4.67. Sewer service to the project will be provided by an
existing sewer line and existing sewer lateral. No new facilities are required for the
subject project. The approval of this permit imposes the requirement for the applicant to
pay all applicable fees related to sewer service at the time the building permit is issued
for the project.
Water. The total number of EDUs required for the project is calculated to be 4.67 as
noted above, with water usage estimated at 220 gallons per day per EDU. The water
service requirements for the subject project are calculated by multiplying the EDUs
(4.67) times the estimated gallons (220) per day which amounts to 1027 gallons of
water per day. Adequate water service already exists to accommodate the proposed
land use change to a coffee house. The approval of this permit imposes the
requirement for the applicant to pay all applicable fees related to water service at the
time the. building permit is issued for the project.
RPKDP 97-O 1
May 29, 1997
10
31
Trash: Chapter 6.09 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code regulates the collection of
garbage within the City of Carlsbad. While the applicant is not actually required to
provide for a “trash dumpster” on the site, there is a municipal code requirement that all
garbage created or produced in the City shall be deposited into approved containers,
equipped with suitable handles and a tight-fitting cover. The applicant is required by
Section 6.09.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code “to provide a sufficient number of
containers of sufficient capacity to hold all garbage which is created, produced or
accumulated on such place or premises between the time of successive collections by
the city or its authorized garbage collector.” This means that the applicant is required to
provide commercial containers to collect garbage and to make arrangements directly
with Coast Waste Management to remove the garbage from the site.
Attached is a copy of a letter the applicant received from Eric de Jong, of Coast Waste
Management, regarding the company’s ability to provide service to the subject site.
Coast Waste Management will provide trash collection services six (6) days per week
(Monday through Saturday). The applicant may place the collection containers at the
curb or on the west side of the building. Staff confirmed the service letter with Coast
Waste Management prior to the Design Review Board hearing on April 28, 1997.
In response to concerns raised by the public and some of the Design Review Board
members on April 28, 1997, the applicant has contacted the adjacent business owner
(Witchcreek Wineries) at 2906 Carlsbad Boulevard and reached an agreement to share
a trash dumpster for the purposes of collecting and removing trash from both
businesses. Staff will work with the two business/property owners to ensure that the
trash dumpster is properly screened from public view. A condition has also been placed
on the subject project to ensure that recyclables are appropriately collected and
removed from the site as well.
‘Per a company representative, Starbucks prides itself in its commitment to
environmental leadership in all facets of their business. Store operations personnel
prioritize store maintenance, recycling efforts and conduct periodic “greensweeps” to
collect trash from adjacent properties. Staff, therefore, believes that a condition
requiring the trash removal, together with the Starbucks commitment to maintenance
will ensure that the trash does not become a problem at this site.
Gradha: No Grading will be required for the subject project.
Imarovemenfs. All public improvements are existing. The applicant has no requirement
to provide any new public improvements as a result of approval of the subject permit.
RP/CDP 97-O 1
May 29, 1997 11
32
X. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Department 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. A determination has been made by the Planning Department that the
proposed project is categorically exempt under CEQA, Class 1, Section 15361
(alterations to an existing structure).
Xl. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
The following summary is provided by staff to highlight a few of the important issues
and concerns which have been raised to date regarding the appropriateness of the
proposed use (coffee house) and the improvements to be made to the subject
building/site.
In the Village Redevelopment Area, there are many conditions which continue to create
“blight” as defined by applicable redevelopment laws. Blight includes any one or more
of the following conditions: 1) buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to
live or work; 2) factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use
or capacity of buildings or lots, which includes visual blight; 3) adjacent or nearby uses
that are incompatible with each other and which prevent the economic development of
those parcels or other portions of the project area; 4) the existence of subdivided lots of
irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development
that are in multiple ownership.
The subject site is typical of many properties in the Village Redevelopment Area.
Decisions which were made many years ago have had a negative impact on the viable
use of many properties within the Village. Consequently, each project represents a
challenge for Redevelopment Staff to eliminate the most serious of the blighting
influences. The proposed project eliminates several blighting influences as indicated
below.
First, the existing building was seriously underutilized as a medical office. In fact, the
medical office was a non-conforming land use from 1981 to 1996, and would continue
to be a non-conforming land use unless a redevelopment permit is approved in the
future for medical office as a provisional use on the site. The property itself has also
become a blighting influence in the Village due to the lack of activity and its existing
outdated appearance.
Second, initial concerns expressed by the public over potential pedestrian conflicts with
vehicles was one of the reasons that staff requested that the applicant redesign the
RPEDP 97-O 1 12
May 29, 1997
-
entrance to, and exit from, the existing building. Prior to the redesign, the doors of the
building opened out into the driveway/parking area and into the public sidewalk. Staff
and the property owner agreed that this presented a problem which could potentially
result in injuries to pedestrians (an unsafe condition). Therefore, the applicant and staff
agreed that a portion of the existing building should be demolished to create a corner
entrance area which opens entirely onto private property and in a manner which does
greatly reduces the number of potential pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.
During review of the plans by various members of the public, concerns were also raised
regarding potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles in the driveway area.
This is an inherent problem in any downtown, urban area. The Redevelopment Agency
does have policies and standards in place to prevent the addition of new curb cuts on
Carlsbad Boulevard and in other areas of the Village in an effort to reduce the number
of direct conflicts in major pedestrian thoroughfares. However, staff is not requiring the
removal of driveways if there is no other access to a site. Since any use allowed for the
subject property will be much more intense in terms of traffic generated than the
previous medical office, staff does not believe that the pedestrian/vehicle conflict issues
will be resolved if the proposed use is denied and another permitted use is substituted.
Any highly successful business will create a traffic impact at one time or another in the
Village. However, it is also important to note that this traffic can ultimately be beneficial
to all other businesses in the area and actually should be encouraged.
Finally, the size of the lot makes the site difficult to develop in a manner which would be
entirely consistent with the current development standards for a new building. However,
the applicant has proposed a project which will result in substantial physical
improvements to the site and a much better use of the property for purposes which are
actions consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Therefore, staff
believes that the applicant, in working with staff, has effectively eliminated several
blighting influences which currently exist on the site as of this date.
In response to the proposed use of the subject property by Starbucks, comments have
been made which indicate that the City should have an ordinance or some legal method
for supporting its existing businesses by limiting the number of “like businesses” or
franchise ownerships, in a given area, such as the Village. The issue of limiting the
number or type of businesses in the Village or the City most often arises only when a
new business is proposed which has the potential to create substantial competition for
another like business. Generally, the concept of government limiting the number of like
businesses in an area is not supported by a majority of businesses. While the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual permits and encourages certain business uses, it is not
the Plan’s design or intent to regulate the private marketplace and the decisions of
individual businesses and investors, nor does staff believe this is a good idea.
RP/CDP 97-O 1
May 29,1997
13
Every effort has been made by staff to ensure that the proposed project meets the
Redevelopment Agency’s and the City’s policies and standards as they relate to
existing buildings in the Village Redevelopment Area. No variances are required to
approve the subject project. The project, as designed, meets the applicable standards,
eliminates blight and brings a desirable business to the Village. Therefore, staff
recommends that the Design Review Board aparove the minor redevelopment (RP 97-
01) and coastal development permit (CDP 97-01) for the subject project with the
conditions noted therein.
EXHIBITS:
1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 255 and 256.
2. Location Map.
3. Project Description with Disclosure Statement.
4. Photograph of existing building.
5. Rendering of building following proposed exterior improvements.
6. Staff analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines.
7. Copy of “Letter of Agreement” between previous property owners - reciprocal agreement.
8. Exhibits “A” - ’ B” (site plan and elevations), dated April, 1997.
RP/CDP 97-O 1
May 29, 1997
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. 255
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A MINOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION
OF AN EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICE TO A NEW COFFEE
HOUSE (STARBUCKS) AND TO ALLOW EXTERIOR AND
INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING BUILDING
LOCATED AT 2924 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, ON THE EAST
SIDE BETWEEN CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND GRAND
AVENUE.
CASE NAME: NEW COFFEE HOUSE (STARBUCKS)
CASE NO: RP 97-01
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and
referred to the Design Review Board: and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Redevelopment
Permit , as provided by Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design
Review Board did, on the 29th day of May, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to
consider said application on property described as:
That portion of tract 96 of Carlsbad Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No.
1661, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County March
I, 1915, described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the Southwesterly line of said tract 96, which is also
the northeasterly boundary line of Lincoln Street, a distance of 75 feet,
South 34 degrees 33’00 east from the most Westerly corner of tract 96,
thence continuing South 34 degrees 33’00 east along said southwesterly
line of tract 96, a distance of 75.00 to a point, thence North 55 degrees 27’00
east, at right angles to said southwesterly line of said tract 96, a distance of
70.00 feet to a point, thence north 34 degrees 33’00 west, parallel with
southwesterly line of said tract 96, a distance of 75.00 to a point, thence
south 55 degrees 27’00 west, a distance of 70.00 feet to the point of
beginning.
Excepting therefrom that portion thereof granted to the State of California
for Highway purposes, recorded June 11,1934, in book 294, page 370, and
July 6,1934, in book 306, page 217 of official records.
1
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
DRB Resolution No. 255
RP 97-01
WHEREAS, at said public hearing held on the 29”’ day of May, 1997, upon
hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to RP 97-01.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence at the public hearing, the Design Review Board
APPROVES RP 97-01, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
Findinqs:
1. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
8. The Design Review Board has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to
this project, ensured that the project will not be approved unless the
District Engineer finds that sewer service is available to serve the project.
In addition, the Design Review Board has added a condition that a note
shall be placed on the project that building permits may 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 Design Review Board 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.
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required
as conditions of approval,
I . . . .
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
DRB Reso. No. 255
RP 97-01
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
C. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an
appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that
contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public
facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General
Plan.
d. Assurances have been given that adequate sewer for the project will be
provided by the City of Carlsbad.
The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses and future land
uses since surrounding properties are designated for visitor-serving commercial
uses within the Village Redevelopment Plan and for “village” uses within the General
Plan.
The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or
new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure
continued availability of public facilities.
This project is categorically exempt from environmental review per CEQA , Class 1,
Section 15301.
This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has
been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
The project is consistent with the development standards for existing buildings and
the land use designations set forth with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
The project has been designed to be compatible with the Village environment
desired for the Village Redevelopment Area through the provision of new storefront
windows, colorful fabric awnings and new exterior architectural features.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
3
. I. ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 255
RP 97-01
Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The Design Review Board does hereby approve RP 97-01 for the Minor
Redevelopment Permit project entitled “Conversion of Medical Office to new Coffee
House (Starbucks)“. (Exhibits A & B on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department and incorporated by this reference, dated April 28, 1997), 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 Redevelopment Permit
Documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and conform to the
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.
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
the conditions of approval by the City. The plan copy shall be submitted to the
Planning Director and approved prior to building, grading, or improvement plan
submittal, whichever occurs first.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan
check, a reduced, legible version of the approving resolutions on a 24” X 36” blueline
drawing. Said blueline drawings shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal
Development Permit and signed approved site plan.
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.
The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July
28, 1987 (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any
development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth
management system or Facilities and Improvement Plan and to fulfil1 the Developer’s
agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated May 13, 1986, a copy of which is on
file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference. The applicant is also
required to pay any user fees which may be required for the purposes of providing
sewer and water facilities for the property. If the fees are not paid, this application
will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
This project will 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.
. . . .
. . . .
4
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
DRB Reso. No. 255
RP 97-01
7. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the
payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on
this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in
Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid
this approval shall be invalid unless the Design Review Board subsequently
determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of
law.
8. Approval of RP 97-01 is recommended for approval subject to the approval of CDP
97-01.
9. The applicant shall make the necessary arrangements with the local trash
collection company to ensure that all business-related trash is collected and
removed from the site in an effective and efficient manner. The applicant may
select one of the following options for collecting and removing trash from the
subject site:
4 The applicant shall be required to use commercial containers, which
meet city standards, to collect trash on the subject site and then to
have the trash subsequently removed from the site. The applicant shall
make arrangements to have the trash collected from the curb as early
as possible, but not later than 9:OOam on any given trash collection
day. The commercial containers shall be placed at the curb no earlier
than two (2) hours prior to the time of collection on any given trash
collection day and shall remain at the curb no longer than one (1) hour
after the trash has been collected. The trash shall be collected as often
as necessary to prevent the unsightly accumulation of trash on the
subject site. The Housing and Redevelopment Director shall be
responsible for monitoring the site and ensuring that the applicant has
taken appropriate steps to properly manage trash collection and
removal from the site;or,
B) The applicant shall enter into a written agreement with an adjacent
property or business owner, or property!business owner within 600 feet
of the subject site, to share use of a 3 cubic yard trash/refuse bin for
trash/refuse collection and removal purposes. The location of the
trash/refuse bin shall be approved by the Housing and Redevelopment
Director. The enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials as
the building it relates to the satisfaction of the Housing and
Redevelopment Director. No portion of the trash bin shall be visible to
the public.
. . . .
. I. .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.-
DRB Reso. No. 255
RP 97-01
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
The applicant shall provide for areas for recycling which are adequate in
capacity, number and distribution to serve the subject project. The recycling
areas may be located on the site of the subject project or on the site of an
adjacent property, or property within 600 feet, as part of the private agreement
described above. All recycling areas or the bins and containers must provide
protection against severe environmental conditions which might render the
collected materials unmarketable.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire
Chief. In such instance, a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire
Chief and Housing and Redevelopment Director.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on the building so as to
be plainly visible from the street; color identification and/or addresses shall
contrast to their background color.
The applicant, or his agent, shall apply for, pay the applicable fee, and
obtain a separate sign permit for the subject property in accordance with
the requirements of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. No signs
have been approved for the subject building or site as part of this Minor
Redevelopment Permit.
The applicant, or his agent, shall ensure that the on-site parking will be
made available for customers only; no employees of the related business
shall park on the subject site, with the exception that a handicapped
employee may use the parking space on the site which is specifically
designated for that use. All non-handicapped employees of the subject
business shall use public parking which is available within the Village
Redevelopment Area.
The permit has been approved with the understanding that there will be no
physical limitations to the use of all of the required parking spaces on the
subject site. If any city-approved site improvements are made by an
adjacent property owner which in effect eliminate, or otherwise limit, the
existing access to the subject parking spaces or the site itself, as shown
on the approved plans, the Housing and Redevelopment Director shall
review the project and make a determination as to whether or not the
project should be reconsidered by the Design Review Board. The Design
Review Board, following a public hearing on the matter, may require
additional action by the applicant to correct any identified access issues in
order for this permit to remain in effect.
The applicant shall install bike racks on private property to accommodate a
minimum of five (5) customers and/or employees who may arrive at the site
by bicycle.
6
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
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
DRB Reso. No. 255
RP 97-01
The applicant is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact
fee (linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The
applicant is further aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential
projects may be required to pay a linkage fee, in order to be found consistent
with the Housing Element of the General Plan. If a linkage fee is established by
City Council ordinance and/or resolution and this project becomes subject to a
linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance and/or resolution, then the applicant for
this project, or his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall pay the linkage fee. The
linkage fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits. If linkage
fees are required for this project, and they are not paid, this project will not be
consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will become null
and void.
Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards
is authorized by virtue of approval of this site plan.
The applicant shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design
requirements, if any and applicable, of the respective sewer and water agencies
regarding services to the project.
This redevelopment permit imposes the requirement for the applicant to pay all
current fees and deposits required prior to building permit issuance.
The applicant will be responsible for all water related fees and deposits plus the
major facility charge which will be collected at time of issuance of building permit.
The Developer shall pay a San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge
which will be collected at issuance of application for meter installations.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district
serving the development determines that adequate water and sewer is available
at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue
to be available until time of occupancy.
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
Applicant/Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this
Resolution.
. . . .
7
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
DRB Reso. No. 255
RP 97-01
24. This redevelopment permit shall be subject to review by the Housing and
Redevelopment Director on a yearly basis to determine if all conditions of this
permit have been met. After providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard,
this permit may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that
the conditions imposed herein have not been met.
25. Prior to the issuance of the building permits, the applicant shall record a deed
restriction on the deed to this property, subject to the satisfaction of the Housing
and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in
interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Minor Redevelopment Permit by
Resolution No. 255 on the real property owned by the declarant. Said deed
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 deed restriction. Said deed
restriction(s) may be modified or terminated only with the approval of the
Housing and Redevelopment Director, Design Review Board or Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad whichever as final decision
authority for this project.
Standard Code Reminders:
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance, including but not limited to
the following code requirements:
1. This approval shall become null and void if building permits for the exterior and
interior improvements are not issued for this project within 18 months from the
date of project approval.
2. 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 provided herein.
3. This project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access
requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
4. All roof appurtenances shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view
and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as
provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors
of Housing and Redevelopment and Building.
. . . . .
. . . . .
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
DRB Reso. No. 255
1 RP 97-01
5. The applicant, or his agent, shall apply for, pay the applicable fee, and obtain
approval from the Housing and Redevelopment Director for a separate
Administrative Redevelopment Permit specifically to be issued for any tables
and chairs to be located within the public right-of-way (on the public
sidewalk), prior to placing any tables and chairs within the public right-of-way.
6. The total number of tables and chairs to be located on private property, but I outside the building, shall be equal to or less than the total number of tables
and chairs to be located inside the subject building. The plans submitted for
the required building permit shall indicate the total number of tables and
I chairs to be located both inside and outside the subject building. As part of
this approval, the total number of seats for the subject coffee house, to be
located inside or outside, shall not exceed thirty five (35) seats total.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 29th day of May, 1997, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson
Design Review Board
EVAN E. BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
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. 256
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A MINOR
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICE TO A
NEW COFFEE HOUSE (STARBUCKS) AND TO ALLOW
EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 2924 CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD, ON THE EAST SIDE, BETWEEN CARLSBAD
VILLAGE DRIVE AND GRAND AVENUE.
CASE NAME: NEW COFFEE HOUSE (STARBUCKS)
CASE NO: CDP 97-01
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and
referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Minor 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 29th day of May, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to
consider said application on property described as:
That portion of tract 96 of Carlsbad Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No.
1661, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County March
I, 1915, described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the Southwesterly line of said tract 96, which is also
the northeasterly boundary line of Lincoln Street, a distance of 75 feet,
South 34 degrees 33’00 east from the most Westerly corner of tract 96,
thence continuing South 34 degrees 33’00 east along said southwesterly
line of tract 96, a distance of 75.00 to a point, thence North 55 degrees 27’00
east, at right angles to said southwesterly line of said tract 96, a distance of
70.00 feet to a point, thence north 34 degrees 33’00 west, parallel with
southwesterly line of said tract 96, a distance of 75.00 to a point, thence
south 55 degrees 27’00 west, a distance of 70.00 feet to the point of
beginning.
Excepting therefrom that portion thereof granted to the State of California
for Highway purposes, recorded June 11,1934, in book 294, page 370, and
July 6,1934, in book 306, page 217 of official records.
1
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
DRB Reso. No. 256
CDP 97-01
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all
factors relating to CDP 97-01.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence at the public hearing, the Design Review Board
APPROVES Minor Coastal Development Permit 97-01, based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinqs:
1. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
a. The Design Review Board has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to
this project, ensured that the project will not be approved unless the
District Engineer finds that sewer service is available to serve the project.
In addition, the Design Review Board has added a condition that a note
shall be placed on the project that building permits may 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 Design Review Board 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.
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required
as conditions of approval.
c. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and
payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be
available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
d. Assurances have been given that adequate sewer for the project will be
provided by the City of Carlsbad.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
2
46
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
DRB Reso. No. 256
CDP 97-01
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses and future land
uses since surrounding properties are designated for visitor-serving commercial
uses within the Village Redevelopment Plan and for “village” uses within the General
Plan.
The proposed project is located within the City of Carlsbad’s Village Segment of the
California Coastal Zone and it has been determined by the City of Carlsbad that no
coastal resources or implementing policies will be adversely impacted by approval of
the subject project.
The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or
new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure
continued availability of public facilities.
This project is categorically exempt from environmental review per CEQA, Class 1,
Section 15301.
This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has
been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
The project is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan which together represent the Local Coastal
Program for the Village Segment of the Coastal Zone within the City of Carlsbad.
CONDITIONS:
1. The Design Review Board does hereby approve CDP 97-01, for the project
entitled “Conversion of Medical Office to new Coffee ,House (Starbucks)“,
Exhibits A & B, incorporated herein by reference, dated April 28, 1997) 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 Minor
Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally
consistent and conform to the 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.
3
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
.
DRB Reso. No. 256 *
CDP 97-01
2. Approval of CDP 97-01 is subject to approval of RP 97-01. CDP 97-01 is subject
to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 255 dated
May 29, 1997 for RP 97-01, conversion of medical office to coffee house
(Starbucks).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 29th day of May, 1997, the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson
Design Review Board
EVAN E. BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
.
48
- EXHIBIT 2-
7
Christiansen Way
Grand Avenue
Project Site
(2 parcels) Village Faire
Shopping Ctr
Carlsbad Village Drive N
4
v
S
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MEDICAL OFFICE TO COFFEE HOUSE-;STARB”CKS)
a-
RP/CDP 97-01
ll
47
EXHIBIT ‘3 F
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION
PROJECT NAME: Conversion of Medical Office to Coffee House (Starbucks)
APPLICANT NAME: Jeff Rasak, Prouertv Owner
Please describe fully the proposed project. Include any details necessary to
adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may
also include any background information and supporting statements regarding the
reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if
necessary.
Description/Explanation:
The project consists of the conversion of a Medical Office to a Coffee House (Starbucks)
on property located at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard. The site for the project is 3750 square
feet in size and currently contains a building which is approximately 1400 square feet in
size and provides for approximately 6 to 7 parking spaces. Under the proposed project,
the existing building will be reduced in size to 1000 square feet of building and provide
for approximately 400 square feet of outdoor patio/courtyard area. The building will be
substantially improved through exterior improvements which consist of new storefront
windows, colorfiA awnings, a comer entry feature, and new architectural tower roof
features to break up the existing flat roofline. The proposed building improvements will
significantly enhance the appearance of the existing building, which is outdated and
creating a blighting influence on the area.
The proposed improvements to the site include restriping of the existing parking lot to
provide for a standard handicap parking space and 4 regular size spaces (8fi 6in in width).
The site and existing building do not currently meet applicable handicap accessibility
regulations. The improved site and building will meet the applicable handicap
accessibility regulations.
The proposed project is consistent with the land uses permitted for the site and meets all
applicable development standards. It also meets the goals and objectives for the Village
Redevelopment Area. Consequently, the project will have a substantial positive impact on
the Village from a fiscal (property tax increase) standpoint as well as physical
enhancements and an added visitor-serving commercial land use.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all
applications which will require discretionary action an the part of the City
Council or any appointed Board, Commission of Committee.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. APPLICANT
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the
2.
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the
property involved.
t--JeEF&/ @ ma4 7-x2- &/‘//u L2hq / I cl!s-wzLW ,a+ 9alq /
3.
4.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership,
list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares
in the corporation or interest in the partnership.
sa- &;//o c&q /
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of
the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust.
2075 Las Palmas Dr. l Carlsbad. CA 92009-l 576’0 (6 19) 438-l 7 6 1 l FAX (619) 438-0894
h
I
5. Have you had c ‘re than $250 worth of business ttc,lsacted with any member bf ’
City staff, Boaras, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve
(12) months? ,
cl Yes If yes, please indicate person(s):
Person is defined as ‘Any indivi&al,%n, ,co-pa&&ship, joint venture, association, social club,
fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city
and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or
combination acting as a unit.’ .
additional sheets if necessary. ,-’ ,/’ 7
&-ye g2ka-k
Print or type n&e of owner
Disclosure Statement 10196
ey? f /9-e+
Print or type nahe of applicant
Page 2 of 2
4
_- - EXHIBIT 5
. I
I
.a
. . ::
. . .
.-
. .
.- .
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
*. .
. .
* .
*
‘. .
*< . .
. . ‘.
. . . . . .
. . . . .
_- .
. .
.a .
VILLA : MASTER PLAN DESIGN GUIDE 4ES EXHIBIT 6
. II .
CHECKLIST
Provide variety of setbacks along any single commercial
block front
The subject project will be set back approximately 6 feet
from the front property line. The building to the north
has no front setback. Village Faire and Neimans have
substantial setbacks. Therefore, a variety of setbacks
are being provided on the block front, with the
assistance of the proposed project.
Provide benches and low walls along public pedestrian
frontages.
As part of the project, the applicant has proposed to
have some outdoor seating. This creates a very
attractive pedestrian frontage.
Maintain Retail Continuity along Pedestrian-Oriented
frontages
With the change in use from medical to a coffee house,
the project helps to maintain the retail continuity along
the pedestrian frontage (Carlsbad Boulevard).
Avoid Drive-Through Service Uses
Minimire Privacy Loss for Adjacent Residential Uses
Encourage off-street courtyards accessible from major
pedestrian walkways
No drive through service included in project.
No adjacent residential use.
The project has been designed to be pedestrian friendly
and encourage pedestrians to walk into the courtyard or
patio area to be provided directly off the major
pedestrian walkway.
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping planted to
create an informal character
Since the related site improvements are already in
place, it is difficult to do much more with the
landscaping. However, the landscaping provided is very
colorful and quite attractive because it was installed in
conjunction with development of the Village Faire
Shopping Center.
Treat structures as individual buildings set within a
landscaped green space, except for buildings fronting on:
Carlsbad Village Drive, State Street, Grand Avenue,
Carlsbad Boulevard and Roosevelt Street
The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the
guidelines as related to this guideline. Buildings on
Carlsbad Boulevard were intended to be more intense
and more directly related to the sidewalk area.
II Provide landscaping within surface parking lots I Landscaping is provided within the parking lot area.
Provide access to parking areas from alleys wherever
possible.
Locate parking at the rear of lots.
No Alley. This project is surrounded on three sides by
private property and on one side by Carlsbad
Boulevard.
Because this is a site with existing improvements, it wa
not possible, or reasonable to, reorient the parking lot to
the rear
All areas notrequired for parking spaces or aisles or
driveways have been landscaped.
Devote all parking lot areas not specifically requirea)for
parking spaces or circulation to landscaping.
Avoid parking in front setback areas No parking proposed in front setback.
~ Boulevard. However, this curb cut has existed for
several years. It is the only access available to the
subject property. Therefore, it has been allowed to
remain as part of the proposed project.
Avoid parking in block corner locations
Provide setbacks and landscaping between any parking
lot and adjacent sidewalks, alleys or other paved
pedestrian areas.
The parking lot is not provided in a block corner.
Landscaping is provided between the pedestrian
sidewalk and the parking lot.
Avoid buildings which devote significant portions of their Not applicable to this project.
ground floor space to parking uses.
Place parking for commercial or larger residential
projects below grade wherever feasible.
Enhance parking lot surfaces.
This project involves the renovation of an existing
building and site. This guideline applies specifically to
new construction projects.
No changes to the parking surface is proposed. It will
remain asphalt.
Provide for variety and diversity. Each building should The proposed new design of the building provides for
express its uniqueness of structure, location or tenant articulation in the building, varying roof forms, fabric
and should be designed especially for their sites and not awnings and other architectural features which provide
mere copies of generic building types. for a unique character. The proposed building will blend
into the area in a complimentary manner. The site was
taken into consideration in terms of its constraints.
Step taller buildings back at upper levels. At its peak, the proposed project is twenty-two and one
half feet in height. It is not a very tall building. However,
the building is set-back from the sidewalk and the roof
line has been varied to reduce any negative impact on
pedestrians. Ir Break large buildings into smaller units. The revised building is a small unit; it is only 1000
square feet in size.
Maintain a relatively consistent building height along
block faces.
The height of the building is fairly consistent with the
other buildings in the area. It actually could be much
taller and still be consistent with the other buildings in
the area.
Utilize simple building forms. Trendy and “look at me”
design solutions are strongly discouraged.
The building has been designed with simple lines and
forms but allows for representation of the Village
character desired for the area.
Emphasize the use of gable roofs with slopes of 7 in 12
or greater.
The existing building has a flat roofline. The applicant
proposes to renovate the roof to add two tower features
These tower features will have the desired 7:12 pitch.
Encourage the use of dormers in gable roofs. No dormers proposed.
I ‘T
Emphasize wood and composition shingle roofs, with the Concrete roof tiles are proposed. Based on recent
exception that in the Land.Use District 5 clay tile roofs decisions made regarding the use of wood shingle roofs
are acceptable. within Carlsbad, staff believes that the proposed
materials are acceptable.
Avoid Flat Roofs The existing building has a roof which is entirely flat.
The new roof has added architectural features which
effectively “break up” the roofline.
Screen mechanical equipment from public view.
Avoid mansard roof forms.
This is a requirement of the project.
The existing building has a mansard roof form. This will
be eliminated as part of the proposed project.
Emphasize an informal architectural character. Building
facades should be visually friendly.
II
The proposed project provides for a very visually
friendly new architectural character. The full window
storefronts, awnings and tower features help to create a
new building look which has much greater architectural
character than the existing building.
Design visual interest into all sides of buildings. The proposed building facades on the south and west
sides have much more visual interest than the existing
building. The rear elevation will be enhanced through
the addition of the tower features. Although the rear an
north elevations will remain as blank walls, staff feels
that this is appropriate due to the fact that these
elevations have very limited visibility from Grand
Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard.
Utilize small individual windows except on commercial
storefronts.
The proposed project provides for very attractive
window storefronts and are consistent with the
commercial storefronts desired for the Village Area.
Provide facade projections and recesses.
‘c;
The building design provides for recesses and
projections which will create some shadows and
contrast.
Give special attention to upper levels of commercial
structures.
No upper level to this commercial building.
Provide special treatment to entries for upper level uses. No upper level.
Utilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail The new column elements add visual interest and scale
elements for visual interest and scale. to the building. Also, the louvered wall sconces add
visual interest to the building. I Respect the materials and character of adjacent
development.
)I Emphasize the use of the following wall materials: wood II siding; wood shingles; wood boardand batten siding;
stucco
The materials and colors proposed for the building Will
not conflict with adjacent developments.
As currently proposed, the walls will have a stucco
finish. The property owner is also considering some tYP
of rock work to enhance the visual interest of the
building.
. . . .
Avoid the use of the simulated materials; indoor/outdoor
carpeting; distressed wood of any type
c
Avoid tinted or reflective window glass.
Utilize wood, dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated The applicant will be using aluminum, anodized black
metal door and window frames. door and window frames.
Avoid metal awnings and canopies.
I Utilize light and neutral base colors.
The applicant has proposed forest green fabric awnings
to add color and interest to the building.
The building walls will have a “French Vanilla”-colored
stucco finish. The column features will be finished in a
“Taffy Crunch” color. Forest Green will be used for trim
and the fabric awnings. The roof tiles will be a gray
blend. These are light and neutral colors which are
consistent with the desired Village character.
Limit the materials and color palette on any single
building (3 or less colors)
At this time, none of the noted materials have been
I . Indicated for use.
The largest sections of the windows are clear glass. Th
lower panels will include tempered glass.
The colors and materials are limited and will be
attractive.
Provide significant storefront glazing. The project, as designed, is consistent with the design
guideline to devote a minimum of 60% of the ground
floor to storefront glazing.
Avoid Large Blank Walls. Although there are blank walls on the east and north
side, staff believes these are appropriate considering
the fact that they have existed for many years and
actually will be improved through renovation.
/I Encourage large window openings for restaurants Not applicable.
Encourage the use of fabric awnings over storefront
windows and entries.
Fabric awnings to be used over windows and the entry.
Emphasize display windows with special lighting.
Encourage the use of dutch doors.
Utilize small paned windows
No display lighting proposed at this time.
Dutch doors not proposed. The doors as designed are
more appropriate for the selected style of the building.
The windows selected are small in scale and divided
into several parts by their design.
Develop a total design concept. All facade design elements are unified.
Provide frequent entries.
Limit the extent of entry openings.
Avoid exterior pull down shutters and sliding or fixed
security grilles over windows along street frontages.
The project does provide for only one entry. This,
however, is due to the small size of the building and the
fact that staff required a corner entry to allow for better
pedestrian access from the sidewalk and parking area.
The extent of the entry openings has been limited due
to the size of the building.
The project does not include pull down shutters or
sliding or fixed security grilles.
Emphasise storefront entries. k
colored fabric awnings as well as a corner,
Encourage front entry gardens Not applicable.
Locate residential units near front property lines and Not applicable.
orient entries to the street. r II Provide front entry porches. I Not applicable.
Provide windows looking out to the street. Not applicable.
Utilize simple color schemes. Not applicable.
Provide decorative details to enrich facades. Not applicable.
Emphasize “cottage” form, scale and character Not applicable.
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping. Not applicable.
Limit access drives to garages or surface parking areas. Not applicable.
Encourage detached garages which are subordinate in Not applicable.
visual importance to the house itself.
Provide quality designed fences and walls. Not applicable.
Visually separate multi-family developments into smaller Not applicable.
components.
- + , .--..
. 1. I _’ - ’ . ‘1,’ ., . L ( _. . -.‘1 . EAHIBIT 7 J
+
4
‘OhI Cb~lCl. Dux 1575
+
:NtL,bA!A CALIKJ)~YI~
4
Y2006-0202
6
619-434-3Y22
+
4
t
‘* I
T -.‘: i
Karch 7, 1989
Dr. Harold A. Jensen, DC 2924 Carlsbad aoulevdrd Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: MUTUAL SHARINO OF PARKING AREA
Dear Dr. Jensen:
As per our conversation of recent date, this letter is to memorialize our understanding of the mutual sharing of properties. the parking spaces on our adjoining
As I mentioned Co you in our conversation, we have very much enjoyed the.good working relationship . that we have alway shared with you and fully hope end expect to have that relationship continue in the future. . . $'
We are now in the process of beginning to rebuild the parking area which covers the northwesterly corner of our property. These improvements will be made at our full cost and expense, and we.wSll ,-. improve the parking area on jmur property as well: a6 ours1 according to the standards and requirements of the City of Carlsbad. .
In the past we have ~h~ually shared these parking areas and in that, patients could feel free to park in our parking area and customers of ours could feel free to park in yours; it is our intention to continue with that mutual use once the new parking
area is completed.
A1601 a6 we discussed, in the past, it wb6 our understanding that if either party wished to terminate thi6 mutual u6e of the parking areas that either party wobld have the absolute right6 UUO:I notice to do so. It is our intention to continue to have that right in the future.
I hope that this letter serves as an cccurate representation of what our ul?dezstanding is, if it does, please sign a copy o, f this letter enclosed
--- _. -.
&I . ..-
*3Z. Eerold A. Zensen March 7, 1989 ^ 1 * ?.age Two
for this purpose for our files and you may retain the origin1 of this letter for yours.
Once again, we can't think of anyone w.e would rather have ao a neighbor and we are looking forwJlrd to a continuation of this relationship.
Sincerely, ,
S. W. Denaham
SW3:djm
Approved a~ to form and content.
Date: 2/$$hy
. . !
.
ts. i: ;. :; 31
. . . - . .’ e < . . . -
- . .
c . . ..\ -c . . . . . . .: :. , c
, ’ ’ ! w; i
2 g
. , . . ; .!
t z C
d Tll i i I i 1
: . ‘0 3r . .& x, ’ . : 3 4. I. i ’ . .c : i=- ” iis h s Be -- $ -F
I
I !
I
‘, * I. i 4 a, ..I i.1t: .‘P s ‘- f I’ -. ; i’ J 4 - ..I . .f’. ._ =. jh 1:: 9$ ;,
:’ QI p+L- “+
1,: :
Qi ‘v
s ,;: g ;I : .‘: W’ ., . 6 ! ’ 8 :
/ 1
j i 1 j
I II
I
II I . . . ‘, I
;;; - -2 : . . 2; d . % a z
1iv.r p. . ..‘?. ;.
EXHIBIT “8” ELEVATIW G ‘3 * -
I ‘
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 29, 1997
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (Special Meeting)
6:00 P.M.
May 29,1997
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
- EXHIBIT 5
Page 1
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Welshons called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:25 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The pledge of allegiance was led by Board Member Marquez
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairperson Welshons, Members Compas, Scheer, and Marquez.
Absent: Savary
Staff Present: Evan Becker, Housing and Redevelopment Director
Debbie Fountain, Senior Management Analyst
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Shirey, Associate Engineer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Member Compas, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of April 28, 1997.
3-O-I
Welshons, Compas and Scheer
None
Marquez
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
There were no comments from the audience.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. ARP 97-01 - CONVERSION OF MEDICAL OFFICES TO COFFEE HOUSE (STARBUCKS) - Request for a
Minor Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the conversion of an existing medical
office building to a coffee house on property located at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard, between Carlsbad Village
Drive and Grand Avenue, in Land Use District 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area and Village
Segment of the Local Coastal Zone.
Board Member Marquez, excused herself from hearing this item, citing a possible conflict of interest due to the close
proximity of her family’s property.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 29, 1997 Page 2
Chairperson Welshons requested that Assistant City Attorney Rudolf explain the procedure for a hearing with only 3
Board Members present.
Mr. Rudolf advised that the Board needs 3 members to do business, thus constituting a quorum and the Board also
needs 3 affirmative votes to take any action. Consequently, the motion to either approve or deny must be approved
by 3 votes or you have no action. Unlike the Planning Commission, this Board does not have a rule in the ordinance
regarding what happens in the event of a tie vote, nor is there a provision with regard to inability to obtain an action
vote, in any direction. There is a rule for the Planning Commission which has, historically, been invoked when there
is a 2 to 2 tie vote, the action is deemed “no action” and automatically placed on the agenda for the following
meeting. Mr. Rudolf suggested that the Board discuss the options, FIRST, and decide in what manner you will
proceed if there is a deadlocked vote. The alternative is to say “the item is on the agenda, it was publicly noticed and
heard, and if It cannot get 3 votes for approval, then it is deemed denied.”
Chairperson Welshons raised a Minute Motion to resolve the possible issue of a deadlocked vote. Each Board
Member stated his/her preference (vote) as follows:
Board Member Scheer
Board Member Compas
Chairperson Welshons
Continuance
Continuance
Continuance
Chairperson Welshons announced that the Members of the Design Review Board have unanimously agreed that this
item will be continued to the next meeting of the Design Review Board, in the event of a deadlocked vote at this
meeting.
Chairperson Welshons asked the applicant to step to the podium and asked him if he wished to continue this hearing
with the 3 Board Members present or if he would rather have the item continued to the a meeting when there will be 4
Board Members present.
Applicant, Jeff Rasak, 7752 Anillo Way, Carlsbad, stated that he wished to proceed.
Senior Management Analyst, Debbie Fountain recapped the history of this item by stating that the owner of the
subject property, Jeff Rasak, submitted an application on January 14, 1997, to convert an existing medical office
building located at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard into a coffee house and has an agreement with Starbucks Coffee to
lease the building, subject to final approval of the required administrative redevelopment, coastal and building
permits. Ms. Fountain described the project’s physical aspect, both interior and exterior. The project application was
originally approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director on April 3, 1997 and appeals were subsequently
submitted in a timely fashion, prior to the deadline. Ms. Fountain further stated that the appeal came before the
Design Review Board on April 28, 1997. Based on the testimony during the public hearing on April 28”, the Design
Review Board made a determination that a Minor Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit was
required for the project. Consequently, the item is being presented tonight for consideration as a Minor
Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit application. Ms. Fountain advised that the project,
basically, remains the same. Ms. Fountain stated that Mr. Rasak has been most cooperative with respect to the
many requirements imposed on the project and his efforts have resulted in what will be a safe and comfortable
environment for the patrons of the coffee house. She pointed out that staff has determined that the proposed project
is consistent with the Village Redevelopment Area vision, goals, and objectives as well as all of the applicable City
codes, ordinances and standards.
Ms. Fountain pointed out that when the Village Master Plan was being developed, it was determined that the City
would not require a property owner to demolish a non-conforming building before re-developing a site to a conforming
use. The only criteria is that the new use must be conforming use and a use that is desirable for the area. Also, the
new use must meet the applicable parking requirement per the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. She also
pointed out that the objective of Housing and Redevelopment Department is to encourage redevelopment in an effort
to eliminate existing blight, but to encourage in a “kinder and gentler” way.
I . . ,
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 29,1997 Page 3
Ms. Fountain advised that if the Design Review Board accepts the policy direction and/or practice of not applying the
development standards for new construction projects to existing buildings and previously improved sites, the
proposed coffee house is acceptable and can be approved with no variances required for development standards
conformance. If the Design Review Board is concerned that the Village Master Plan and Design Manual is not clear
as to whether or not the development standards apply in their entirety to existing buildings, it is the suggestion of the
Housing and Redevelopment Department, that the Board, by way of Minute Motion, raise the question to the City
Council and ask for clarification, or request that staff be instructed to amend the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual to clearly state the Redevelopment Agency’s position.
Ms. Fountain, in reviewing the staff report and Resolutions, stated that staff attempted to address some of the issues
previously raised by the Board and/or public, such as trash, bike racks, parking, and included new conditions in the
approving resolutions.
Board Member Compas asked if, for some reason, the dumpster arrangement disappeared, what assurance is there
that Coast Waste will agree to the times specified for trash disposal.
Ms. Fountain indicated hat that is something that would have to be worked out between the parties (Starbucks and
Coast Waste Management). In the event the parties could not come to an agreement and comply with the conditions
set forth within the Resolution of Approval, the applicant would be required to come back to the Design Review Board
and amend their permit to allow for revised options or new conditions.
Regarding parking, Board Member Compas asked what specific mitigation actions are available should it be found (in
the future) that the experts were wrong and there is a real need for additional parking for Starbucks.
Ms. Fountain responded that there may be the possibility of adding a condition that would require that the parking
situation to be reviewed by the Design Review Board in a year or two to insure that parking has not become a
problem. There are, however, no options for the applicant to provide additional parking on their site without
completely demolishing the existing building.
Mr. Rudolf, stated that it is impossible for staff to know the solutions to a myriad of real or imagined future problems,
and that staff really has done the best they can, considering what they have to work with. He further stated that the
only realistic alternative is the possibility of shared use of a parking area with another business.
Ms. Fountain also pointed out that the Master Plan states that a business owner can enter into a parking agreement
with another private property owner within 300 ft., to help meet the parking requirement. However, it was not
required in this particular case because the project meets its on-site parking requirement.
Chairperson Welshons, after reading several lines from the Village Master Plan Design Manual, questioned the
validity of the determination that a coffee house is an acceptable form of business for that area.
Ms. Fountain responded by explaining the steps staff used to determine whether or not a coffee house can be
permitted on this site, and the logic behind its classification.
Chairperson Welshons pointed out that the regulations state, “20% of the property will be maintained as “open space”
and the building height will be 35’ maximum, with a minimum 5-12 roof pitch.” In looking at the plans for this
structure, Ms. Welshons continued by indicating that the project does not provide for the 20% open space and the
roof is, basically, flat. She then stated that, in her opinion, it appeared that staff made a subjective determination,
using selected criteria. Ms. Welshons asked Ms. Fountain why staff enforced the parking requirement but not the
building height or the open space development standards.
Ms. Fountain explained that staff first looks at the proposed land use and determines if it is different from the existing
use. The first priority is to take a non-conforming use and making it a conforming use to bring the project into
compliance with the land use policies set forth within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. She further
explained that the reference to “conformance to building code” requires the interior and exterior improvements to
meet applicable building codes, for safety purposes and basic compliance. As mentioned in staffs beginning
-
, I.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 29, 1997 Page 4
statements, the development standards set forth within the Village Master Plan and Design have not been applied to
existing buildings and previously improved sites, except for the parking requirements. The parking requirement is
applied because the Village Master Plan and Design Manual specifically states that any intensification of use triggers
the parking compliance requirement.
Regarding the bike racks, Chairperson Welshons referred to Condition No. 16 and asked staff to include an
statement similar to Condition No. 5 in the “Standard Code Reminder”, that states, ” . . . and obtain approval from the
Housing & Redevelopment Director for placement and location of these . . .” Ms. Welshons stated that she wants the
Housing and Redevelopment Director to ensure that the bicycle racks do not block access to and from the building.
She does not want the building department to do this as part of the plan check process. She wants a plan approved
in advance by the Director. She then suggested that the statement should say something to the effect, “ . . . the
location to be approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director.”
Chairperson Welshons addressed the issue of storage by referring to Condition No. 11, Resolution No. 255. She
quoted the Condition as saying, ” . . . no outdoor storage of materials shall occur on the site unless required by the
Fire Chief. In such instances the storage plan will be submitted for approval”, and stated that since conditions on this
site seem to be very tight, it is difficult to imagine that there is anywhere to go for storage, aside from the top (roof) of
the building. Ms. Welshons then suggested that any changes outside the foundation of the building should be
returned to the Design Review Board for their review.
Ms. Fountain suggested that the Condition might read, “ . . . if it is determined by the Fire Chief that they must have
outdoor storage, that the project should go back to the Design Review Board for review, in terms of how it looks and
where it will be located, etc.”
Board Member Compas suggested, ” . .must be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and the Housing and
Redevelopment Director.” He does not believe that the proposed project needs to be returned to the Design Review
Board, the Director’s review and approval is acceptable to him.
Chairperson Welshons spoke to a question raised at the last meeting regarding deliveries and suggested that a
delivery schedule be created to avoid blocking the parking spaces or driveway aisles or Carlsbad Boulevard. She
also indicated that since it is not clear in the plans where the outdoor tables and chairs will be placed, there should be
a condition or conditions attached to the project that will insure the safe ingress and egress of its patrons to and from
the building. She also pointed out that there should be a requirement that the applicant must show evidence of an
agreement with another property owner for the off-site employee parking, showing that there is a location to park.
Board Member Compas suggested that the approval of the location of the tables and chairs (as with the bicycle
racks) should be left to the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
Ms. Fountain used and overhead and distributed a memo from staff, dated May 29, 1997, to introduce some new
conditions (regarding ingress and egress and deliveries), as well as some modifications to the conditions already
included in the approving Resolutions, as requested in advance by Chairperson Welshons.
Board Member Compas suggested that one more condition be added to those submitted for consideration which
reads: “ . . . annual review of the project, by the Housing and Redevelopment Director to consider the traffic and
parking.”
Chairperson Welshons opened the hearing to public comments by first inviting the applicant to speak.
Applicant, Jeff Rasak, stated that he had no comment other than to briefly respond to the proposed changes to the
conditions of approval. He suggested that the requirement for employees to park off-site should be sufficient. He
indicated that he would make his best effort to enter into an agreement with a surrounding business or property
owner to ensure parking for the Starbucks employees, but does not believe that he should be required to do so to
obtain approval of the project.
f7
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 29,1997 Page 5
Steve Ishino, representing Starbucks, 17700 New Hope St., Fountain Valley, CA., agreed with the additional
proposed conditions and stated that they will make a conscious effort to enter into written agreements with
neighboring business owners for employee parking. Mr. lshino stated that outdoor storage is not an issue as they
have not plans for such storage. He also stated that Starbucks encourages their employees to commute on bicycles
which would eliminate the need for vehicle parking. Regarding deliveries, Mr. lshino stated that he is sure that an
agreement can be arranged between Witch Creek Winery and Starbucks and added that most of their deliveries are
made before regular business hours in the morning. Regarding the seating plan, Mr. lshino stated that they agree
with the requirements proposed for the outdoor seating and will comply with them.
Board Member Compas inquired as to how many employees are generally working at one time and Mr. Ishino’s
response was 4 to 5.
Chairperson Welshons opened Public Testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Michael Bell, (no address given) Oceanside, stated that he rides a bicycle more often than not and feels that there
should be 10 bicycle racks instead of 5. He is in favor of the coffee house and urged the Board to approve the
project.
John Kiva, representing Village Faire Shopping Center, 9191 Town Center Dr., #115, San Diego, stated that he is
delivering a message from the owners of the Village Faire Center, that if Starbucks is approved, they (the owners)
will immediately terminate their shared parking agreement. Mr. Kiva stated that there are already existing parking
problems and that the addition of Starbucks will only compound the problem, especially between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m.
He also pointed out that the awning will over-hang the Handicapped space and there is the very real possibility that a
van could easily hit the awning. Mr. Kiva also suggested that the Board visit existing Starbucks coffee houses to see
for themselves how much traffic and parking there really is. Mr. Kiva concluded by stating that his expertise in land
management compels him to advise the Board that they would be making a big mistake by allowing Starbucks to
conduct business at the subject site.
Chairperson Welshons asked Mr. Kiva to speak on traffic impacts during non-peak hours.
Mr. Kiva stated that some Starbucks are located in area shopping centers where the peak hours are from 6 a.m. to 9
a.m., and some are located in downtown areas where the peak hours are all day long, especially on weekends.
He spoke of this proposed Starbucks as one that will attract customers throughout the day and evening and pointed
out that on weekends, there are absolutely no parking spaces available anywhere in the Village Faire area.
Martha Perez, (refused to give address), Oceanside, disagreed with the proposed Starbucks and urged the Board to
avoid hurting the village atmosphere of Carlsbad by denying approval for this project.
Lew Pritten, 330 Chinquapin St., Carlsbad, resident since 1972, objected to the 5 minute testimony limit. He voiced
strong objections to large, international companies coming into small town areas, forcing local businesses out and
catering to tourists while forgetting about locals. He stated that the parking impacts will be unacceptable and that 5
bike racks probably will not be enough. Mr. Pritten concluded by stating that when he goes to a coffee house he
stays for at least an hour, as do most other patrons, and therefore Starbucks cannot be categorized as a “quick stop”
food store.
Adam Jester, Oceanside resident and Owner/Operator of Coffee House (Vinaka) at 300 Carlsbad Village Drive,
expressed his concerns regarding increased traffic, parking, and trash accumulation and disposal. Mr. Jester voiced
his opposition to this project by stating that he feels it is inappropriate for this site and urged the Board to deny the
project.
Patty Blank, 1918 S. Pacific St., Oceanside, Manager of Coffee House (Vinaka) at 300 Carlsbad Village Drive,
addressed the concerns of 1) increased traffic and “U” turns at Carlsbad Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive traffic
signal, 2) location of parked delivery trucks and associated agreements with adjoining tenants (now and in the
future), and 3) trash. Ms. Blank said she would be more comfortable with an agreement between the property owner
-
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 29,1997 Page 6
and Starbucks rather than an agreement with another lessee/tenant. Ms. Blank also asked where the trash cans,
which could be up to 10, will be stored on the property. Since there is no pick-up on Sunday, a large number of
containers will be held with trash until Monday morning. She also asked for a definition of “Green Sweep” and when
is it done. Can another business owner just go to Starbucks and ask them to do a “Green Sweep”? Ms. Blank asked
if it is realistic to expect that the City would order the closing of Starbucks if, after an annual review, it is found that
the coffee house is in need of more parking and there is none available. In addition, she asked what Starbucks will
do if, as allowed, the owners of Village Faire block off their parking areas and refuse driveway access to Starbucks.
With regard to Witch Creek Winery, Ms. Blank asked how the winery is classified and how many parking spaces are
they required to provide. She stated that to her knowledge they have none. Lastly, she pointed out that according to
the plans, there will be 35 available seats with only 5 parking spaces.
John L. Reed, M.D., 1326 Rainbow Ridge, Encinitas, a property owner with business interests in the Carlsbad
Village, cautioned the Board not to set precedent by approving this project. He made several negative observations
regarding the various proposed agreements between Starbucks and adjoining businesses. He pointed out that if the
City is going to place conditions on a business, in which they must utilize another property owner’s assets (access to
the property), that there would have to be a written agreement BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNERS in order to
avoid conflicts in the future. He further stated that agreements between lessees are not adequate and if allowed,
would set precedent. Dr. Reed also stated that it would be precedent setting to allow trash to be picked up on
Carlsbad Boulevard and that, in his opinion, CALTRANS would not be pleased with such an arrangement. Currently,
he continued, there is not a single Carlsbad Boulevard business that has trashed picked up on Carlsbad Boulevard.
Dr. Reed explained his reason for “pushing” the Board, and reaffirmed his opposition to the Starbucks project on this
site.
Applicant, Jeff Rasak responded to some of the points made by the previous speakers. He stated that contrary to Mr.
Rivals statement, they do not have a reciprocal easement agreement with Carlsbad Village Faire and the agreement
(executed in 1987) Mr. Riva referred to has been null and void since he (Mr. Rasak) took title to the subject property.
The agreement(s) did not “run with the property” and therefore are no longer in effect. Regarding Dr. Reed’s and
other’s warnings to the Board to be careful not to set precedents, Mr. Rasak stated that public records show that the
subject precedents have already been set by this jurisdiction. For example, the Carlsbad Village Faire Shopping
Center project was approved with a reciprocal easement agreement that provided Village Faire with 4 parking spaces
it does not own nor has the right to park on any longer. Mr. Rasak further stated that, in his opinion, Carlsbad Village
Faire is in violation of their Conditions of Approval and they are asking this Board to set precedent by not approving
the Starbucks project, even though Starbucks provides their own parking. Ultimately, Mr. Rasak pointed out, since
there is no such Reciprocal Easement Agreement (REA), an REA cannot be terminated as Mr. Riva has stated that
Village Faire will do. Even if there were a legitimate REA in existence, and Village Faire chose to terminate it, upon
termination Village Faire would reduce the number of parking spaces (by 4 spaces) that are required in their CUP
and place themselves in violation. Mr. Rasak suggested that perhaps Village Faire should increase their budget and
rent the 4 additional required spaces (in addition to the parking they currently rent) to meet the same parking code
that the Starbucks project has already met. He further stated that upon review, the Conditions of Approval for Village
Faire show they were granted a 15% reduction in parking spaces because they are a shopping center. Mr. Rasak
then referred to several concessions that were given Village Faire to entitle them to be exempt from the same parking
standards required for Starbucks and asked the Board to be fair and consider past concessions to other residents
and projects and to remain aware that he has gone to great lengths to meet code and continues to do so.
Mr. Rasak then addressed a statement from Ms. Blank which referenced common area maintenance expenses, and
the fact that Village Faire tenants will have additional costs because of Starbucks. Mr. Rasak stated that he did, in
fact, volunteer and requested an agreement with the owner of Village Faire to share common area maintenance
expenses, including trash, striping, paving, lighting, etc., all of which the current tenants are now paying a pro-rata
share. For the record, the Village Faire owner refused and declined to enter into such an agreement. He further
pointed out that such an agreement would have reduced the above mentioned pro-rata share of expenses of each of
the tenants of Village Faire. Mr. Rasak concluded by stating that the Starbucks project has attempted to enter into an
agreement that would reduce Village Faire’s cost of operation and those efforts have been rebuffed by the Village
Faire Owner.
-
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 29,1997 Page 7
Steve Ishino, 17700 New Hope St., Fountain Valley, CA., was asked by Chairperson Welshons if he has any
preliminary drawings that will indicate how many seats there will be, both indoors and outdoors, and responded that
there are no finalized plans as yet but a store of this size generally have approximately have 15 seats indoors and
whatever will fit in the available space outdoors.
Chairperson Welshons also asked Mr. lshino what size the outdoor tables will be.
Mr. lshino stated that the tables will be 24” in diameter, each with 2 chairs.
Chairperson Welshons closed Public Testimony and asked staff to respond to some of the questions that have been
raised.
Debbie Fountain stated that staff can look into the matter of the awning and move the loading & unloading area for
the handicap space from the right to the left to allow for more area between the building and the handicap parking
space, if necessary. As for Witch Creek Wineries, Ms. Fountain stated that they came in under a retail classification
(following Fisherman’s Supply, which was a retail classification as well). Since there was no change in land use, they
didn’t trigger any of requirements for a permit or additional parking. Regarding Village Faire Parking, it was agreed
by the City Council that they would receive a 15% reduction in the parking requirement generally received by
shopping centers because of shared parking arrangements. There were also special conditions that went with the
concessions that limited what their uses could be. Ms. Fountain stated that outdoor restaurant seating is encouraged
and even though Village Faire’s conditions did not allow for this outdoor seating area, under the new Master Plan,
they can now have outdoor seating if they wish without triggering additional parking requirements.
Regarding trash agreements, Ms. Fountain pointed out that there are two options available, which would eliminate
future problems. Ms. Fountain indicated that the matter was researched and pointed out that there are no regulations
stating that trash cannot be picked up on Carlsbad Boulevard. She agreed that it is not done in other places of
business because there are other options open to them. However, there are several trash containers maintained by
the City which require trash pick up from Carlsbad Boulevard (from a City Community Services truck). In the case of
the proposed project, she added, there are no other options but to allow trash pick-up from Carlsbad Boulevard, and
in her opinion, there is nothing wrong with business owners agreeing to share trash containers.
Regarding a possible “parking blockade” due to barriers which could be installed by Village Faire, Ms. Fountain
stated that this action would hurt both Village Faire and the subject property. Ms. Fountain stated that if Village Faire
decided to construct any barriers (Le, landscaped planter), they would need a permit from the City to do so. Village
Faire would probably lose a space or 2 if they were to go ahead with construction of any type of barrier. If, however,
a barrier is constructed with approval from the City, staff will need to look at the subject project again to ensure that
the parking and circulation still works.
Wtth respect to “U” turns, Engineering has reviewed the project and has acknowledged that there will be “U” turns
made but they do not believe this to be a problem as the current circulation system is set up to accommodate “U”
turns at Carlsbad Village Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard.
Ms. Fountain stated that Starbucks will have to answer the question of “Green Sweep”. They do it routinely but she
stated that she is not familiar with their schedule. Ms. Fountain did not know if Starbucks would conduct a “green
sweep” upon another business owner’s request.
The question of how many bike racks was also addressed by Ms. Fountain. She stated that the number of 5 bike racks was only a suggestion because they thought that number to be appropriate. However, if the Board determines
that the number should be other than 5, Ms. Fountain stated that staff can work this out with the applicant or make
that a part of the annual review suggested by Member Compas.
Ms. Fountain spoke to the issue of “international businesses” and stated that “they” cannot be discriminated against.
If the proposed project meets the applicable requirements as set forth within the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual, it should be approved, regardless of ownership status. It does not matter if the tenant is a Starbucks, Jitters
w
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 29,1997 Page 8
or Vinaka, they all are coffee houses and have the same requirements for approval. The Redevelopment Agency or
City does not have one set of regulations for the Vinaka Coffee House and then another different set of requirements
for the Starbucks Coffee House.
In addressing the question of whether or not Carlsbad should be catering to tourists rather than residents, Ms.
Fountain pointed out that the Land Use Plan established for the Redevelopment Area is set up so that, hopefully, the
different land use districts in the area give the City a good combination of services and product types that will serve
both local residents and tourists alike. In addition, the Coastal Commission demands that all areas west of the
railroad tracks be Visitor Serving Commercial, on the ground floor at a minimum.
Board Member Compas asked if anyone in the City has really studied “Starbucks” to determine that it really is not a
problem, is appropriate for that site and, in essence, disagree with Mr. Kiva.
Ms. Fountain stated that she has looked at the one in La Jolla, the one near her home, and the one in Del Mar which
appears to be the one most comparable to the store proposed for this site. The latter is located on its own property
(outside a shopping center environment) and has approximately 7 parking spaces. She stated that staff is satisfied
that Starbucks is an appropriate use for the subject site and disagrees with Mr. Kiva’s assessment.
Member Compas asked if it is true that there will be no trash pick-up on Sunday and was answered affirmatively by
staff.
Member Compas asked if the Board would, in fact, be setting precedents as Dr. Reed suggested.
Ms. Fountain stated that because of the manner in which past projects have been approved, many precedents have
already been set in most cases. Approval of the proposed project does not set any precedents.
Chairperson Welshons asked Mr. Shirey, Associate Engineer, if he had had an opportunity to look at the plans
regarding parking and then, regarding space #5, asked if the space was over the legal property line. Ms. Welshons
also asked if Village Faire needed a permit to restrict the parking lot by placing barriers.
Mr. Shirey responded that the fifth space is not over the legal property line for the subject property. As for placing
barriers, Mr. Shirey stated that by the terms of their SDP and CUP, Village Faire would not be able to arbitrarily
change anything without the proper permission from the City or Redevelopment Agency.
When asked to respond to the question of a parking lot “blockade” , Mr. Rudolf stated that the City, in a discretionary
setting, would not agree to an amendment to a SDP and/or CUP to do such a thing, when the result would be to
eliminate a required parking space for this project.
Board Member Compas stated that he could approve this project with additions and modifications that have been
discussed. However, he stated his disagreement with requiring the Design Review Board to review the storage plan.
He also stated that he can agree with “best efforts” language to obtain an agreement with a surrounding property
owner/tenant for the employee parking.
Board Member Scheer stated agreement with best efforts regarding employee self parking. He also pointed out that
by attempting to not allow a national or international company or product in a community is an “illegal restraint of
trade”, and an individual cannot be restricted from doing business just because of who they are. Mr. Scheer stated
that he feels that the trash issue has been resolved and will not create a problem. With regard to the 5 bike racks,
Mr. Scheer stated that he agrees that 5 is enough and sees no need for more. Board Member Scheer disagreed with
the idea of requiring an annual review of the project permit by the City or the Design Review Board and in his opinion
he feels that if the City wants people to come in and do business, let them come in. On the other hand, he continued,
if the City is going to restrict their ability to do business, then don’t allow them to come in at all. Member Scheer
voiced concurrence with the project and is happy to see Starbucks come in.
Chairperson Welshons asked for a motion to be followed by a vote on each of the proposed amendments shown by
staff on the overhead and in a distributed memo dated May 29, 1997, and then a final vote on the Resolutions with
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 29, 1997 Page 9
the incorporated amendments.
ACTION: Motion made by Member Compas, and duly seconded, to adopt Design Review Board
Resolutions No. 255 and 256, approving RP and CDP 97-01, based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein, and subject to the following modifications to
those conditions.
Chairperson Welshons stated that she had just been handed a written statement from someone not able to attend
this meeting and asked if it is appropriate to read it. Having been advised by the Assistant City Attorney, Mr. Rudolf,
that it is appropriate to read the statement, Ms. Welshons read a statement from Randy and Patricia Renner, Owners
of “Natural Choices”, 300 Carlsbad Village Dr., Carlsbad, who oppose the addition of Starbucks to the Village Fair
Center.
Each of the following amendments were discussed and action was taken separately to determine acceptance of the
modifications to Resolution No. 255 and 256
AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONS TO BE ADDED TO DRB RESOLUTION NO. 255, WHICH APPROVES RP 97-
01:
Amendment #I‘ (Ingress and Egress): Approved 3-O (Welshons, Compas, Scheer)
Amendment #2 (Deliveries): Approved 3-O (Welshons, Compas, Scheer)
AMENDMENTS TO MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS WITHIN DRB RESOLUTION NO. 255:
Item #ll (Outdoor Storage): Motion failed and will remain “as is” in Resolution.
Item #I4 (Employee Parking): Approved, as corrected to allow “best efforts”, 3-O (Welshons, Compas,
Scheer)
Item #I6 (Bike Racks): Approved, as corrected to require approval of location by Housing and
Redevelopment Director, 3-O (Welshons, Compas, Scheer)
Item # 17 (Annual DRB Review): Withdrawn by Board Member Compas
Ms. Fountain stated that she would also correct some minor errors in the legal description of the property, as stated
in Resolutions 255 and 256. Ms. Fountain indicated that there were some capitalization errors and some words
omitted which create an inconsistency between the approving resolution and the site plan.
Chairperson Welshons was supportive of the annual review condition that Member Compas proposed and does not
understand why the Board could not require additional parking at a later date if it is determined that the Starbucks
project needs more parking and the current parking requirement is deemed inadequate. Mr. Rudolf explained that
legally the Board is bound by the standards in place at the time the application is submitted for consideration. The
Board would not be able to require additional parking for this specific project. If the Board determines that the parking
for coffee houses is inadequate, the parking requirement would need to be changed and the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual modified to address any future coffee houses, but the Starbucks project could not be required to
provide additional parking. The Board could recommend a change in the parking requirement only. Chairperson
Welshons indicated that she was ready to approve the project until this information was provided. She said she can’t
support approval of the project.
Chairperson Welshons called for the vote to approve Resolutions 255 and 256 with the amendments:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
2-l Motion failed
Compas, and Scheer
Welshons
-72
, ,. .
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 29, 1997 Page 10
Due to the failure of the motion to approve the permit, Chairperson Welshons indicated that the public hearing would
be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Design Review Board. Mr. Rudolf stated that the Board
may wish to hear from the applicant as to his desires related to the continuance. Chairperson Welshons asked the
applicant to the podium to express his desires as related to the proposed continuance.
Applicant Jeff Rasak requested that the Board go ahead and take action to deny his permits in order for him to
appeal to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. Members Compas and Scheer indicated that they did not
want to deny the project, but would do so at the request of the applicant to assist him in getting final action on his
project.
ACTION: Motion made by Board Member Compas, and duly seconded, to deny, based on the findings
that 1) the project is not compatible with the surrounding land uses and future land uses and
is therefore not consistent with the Local Coastal Plan and Redevelopment Plan for the
Village Redevelopment Area and 2) the proposed project and use is not consistent with the
Village atmosphere desired for the Village Redevelopment Area, per the Village Master Plan
and Design Manual.
VOTE: 3-o
AYES: Welshons, Compas and Scheer
Chairperson Welshons noted that the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Design Review Board is June 23,
1997, at 6:00 pm.
Chairperson Welshons added that the Board forgot to approve a minute motion to request that the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission review the practice or policy, and provide clarification, on the application of the
development standards to existing buildings and previously improved sites, as mentioned by Ms. Fountain at the
beginning of the meeting.
ACTION: Motion made by Chairperson Welshons, and duly seconded, to approve a minute motion to
request review and clarification from the Housing and Redevelopment Commission as to
whether or not the development standards, as set forth within the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual, apply to new construction projects as well as existing buildings.
VOTE: 3-o
AYES: Welshons, Compas and Scheer
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of May 29, 1997 was adjourned at 850 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
EVAN BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRIT-TEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
May 29,1997
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: RP 97-Ol/CDP 97-Ol- ADDITIONS TO, OR MODIFICATIONS OF,
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The following conditions are to be added to Design Review Board Resolution No. 255,
which approves RP 97-O 1:
1. The applicant shall prepare and operate with a seating plan to be approved by the
Housing and Redevelopment Director which ensures a clear area of at least five (5)
feet in area around the building entry to allow for adequate pedestrian ingress and
egress from the subject building at all times.
2. The applicant shall make the necessary arrangements with the appropriate product
delivery companies to ensure that all business-related deliveries are made to the
subject site in a manner which does not impede traffic on Carlsbad Boulevard and/or
block parking on the site. The applicant may select one of the following options for
deliveries to the subject site:
A) The applicant shall be required to ensure that all deliveries are made from
vehicles parked on the subject site during non-operation hours, either prior to
opening or after closing of the facility. Deliveries shall not be made from
vehicles parked on Carlsbad Boulevard, which are impeding bicycle or vehicle
traffic; or,
B) The applicant shall enter into a written agreement with an adjacent property or
business owner, or property/business owner within a acceptable distance from
the subject site, to allow deliveries to the subject site from an off-site
location, which does not impede bicycle, vehicle or pedestrian traffic in the
area. The agreement shall be subject to approval by the Housing and
Redevelopment Director. Deliveries shall be made to the subject site in a
manner which does not block customer or employee parking on the sponsor
property during hours of regular business operation,
The following modifications shall be made to the following conditions within Design
Review Board Resolution No. 255:
11. A&No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite;-
Ghief. If the Fire Chief determines that outdoor storage of some material is required
for a snecific reason, pa storage plan will be submitted for approval
by the Fire Chief, and-Housing and Redevelopment Director, and Design Review
Board If the storage nlan is not acceptable to any of the subiect parties, the applicant -- shall be required to make alternate arrangements for the storage of the materials or
reconsider the tenant and the arrangements of anv related lease of the buildinp.
14. The applicant, or his agent, shall ensure that the on-site parking will be made
available for customers only; no employees of the related business shall park on the
subject site, with the exception that a handicapped employee may use the parking
space on the site which is specifically designated for that use-
{ The applicant shall enter into a written agreement
with a private proper& or business owner within 600 feet of the subiect proper@ to
provide emnlovee parking for the subiect business establishment. The
16. The applicant shall install bike racks on the subject private property to accommodate 1
a minimum of five (5) customers and/or employees who may arrive at the site by
bicycle.
May 28, 1997
NATURAL CHOICES 300 Carlsbad Village Dr. #217 Carlsbad, CA 92008
We could not be present at the meeting tonight, but we are totally against having Starbucks coming into the shopping center at the Village Faire.
There is insufficient parking as is presently and having .. another coffee shop in the center would definite take up badly needed parking.
We see this as having a negative effect on our retail business and are,strongly against Starbucks proposed location at the Village Faire Shopping Center.
PS: ps
-lb
JOHN & LUCILLE CLINE
3217 Via Pescado
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-720-7484
May 21,1997
Ms. Debbie Fountain
Housing & Redevelopment Dept.
City of Carlsbad
2962 Roosevelt St., Ste. B
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RFi: Case File: RPKDP 97-01
Case Name: Jeff RasakKoffee House Project
Dear Ms. Fountain:
We are writing regarding the public hearing on the above matter that will be held on May
29, 1977. We will be out of town at that time and there are a few concerns that we would
like to voice.
Parking in the Village Faire area, as you may already know, can be very crowded. On
weekend evenings it is nearly impossible to find parking anywhere in the provided parking,
across the street or within a block of Village Faire. Since the building in question is
located in the same area, we are wondering where the five parking places that they are
required to have will be. Where do they have enough room on that property for those
spaces without taking away valuable parking from the other businesses. This past
weekend our car was blocked in by a car parked in a driveway right next to the property
in question. We can see this problem, along with the traffic congestion, becoming much
worse with the addition of that type business in a building that had previously been used
for an office building.
Another area of concern is the handling of deliveries. Where are the delivery vehicles
going to be parked? Will they be using the Village Faire parking facilities or will they be
blocking the bike lane on Carlsbad Boulevard in front of the building.
Probably the most important concern of all is that of garbage pick-up. It was our
understanding from the last meeting that the garbage would be on the curb with pickup on
Carlsbad Boulevard. The City of Carlsbad is a very special place that has maintained such
high standards for. Carlsbad Boulevard businesses. This is one of the few places that
walkers and bikers can enjoy the sidewalks and the boulevard without having the mess
accompanied with garbage cans or dumpsters being in the way or in view. Carlsbad is a
resort area and we feel that the standards should not be lowered for a business coming in
now any more than the standards would have been relaxed for any of the existing
businesses.
We fully realize that Starbucks is a desirable business, especially considering the tax
revenue such a successful business will bring to the city. However, having lived in the
Seattle area, we also realize that the Starbucks corporation has a habit of steamrollering
their way into locations that they want regardless of the consequences to the existing
business people or the area. Perhaps, they thought that they could get the approvals that
they needed without going through the proper channels.
Although we realize that Starbucks facility will be very nice and that the business brings in
a good clientele, we feel that a less congested area would be a better location for them.
We already have too little parking in the area and too much traf3ic congestion. To say that
five parking spaces would service their needs is ridiculous.
We hope-that these items will be answered in full at the May 29 meeting.
John and Lucille Cline
78
* ’ PROOF OF PUBLIC. ION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County 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
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; 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:
June 27, 1997
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at C%i?o%%?%is 27th day
of June,1997
--jL5& ------_---- Si ature P
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
-
This space is ihe County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearin% --------------- ---------
on’s dedston on _ . - _ decIslon8 IS%&
The ftnal de&ton of the Housin and RedeVa able to the Californle COestEd St: Ot7ItniSSiOtr~ htmtoepeekmMeappal
. --.
g$i$kk%w~
unt CommkJm ir not iUbiWWY
, . . .
.
‘.
/-‘-tAILIN Lib7
Con pol3uc -mSBAD HISTORICAL SOCIETY - OCCUPANT . I’ .
/t&f% I N1 NOme P.O. BOX 253 2858 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD .
RPkoQ 97 -01 CARLSBAD, CA. 920 18 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
NAY I4 I 1997
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2906 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD 2935 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
OCCUPANT
2939 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
OCCUPANT ADVANTAGE VACATIONS
2975 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD P.O. BOX 763
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075
JUNE M FEENSTRA CHASE SUZANNE HEYNE
653 1 AVENIDA DEL PARAIS 4990 VIA MARTA 998 CHURCH STREET #23 CARLSBAD, CA. 92009 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 VENTURA, CA. 9300 1
BILL & JULJANNE DEEN PASCALE B. LUCIER TRENT
741 E. STREET 3080 LINCOLN STREET #5 2429 WINDWARD CIRCLE BRAWLEY, CA. 92227 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA. 9 136 1
BITONTI THOMAS
536 N. MISSION DRIVE
SAN GABRIEL, CA. 9 1775
JOHN & VIRGINIA GIPNER
4250 DUSK LANE
OCEANSIDE, CA. 92056
BRUCE A GUERNSEY
P.O. BOX 237
AMERICAN FORK, UT 84003
MARRANCA
P.O. BOX 1037
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
VERA G. M0Rl-N
5 15 1 ALZEDA DRIVE
LA MESA, CA. 9 194 1
BEATRICE H. NELSON THOMAS HODGES
1024 S. CLEMENTINE STREET RTE 3 BOX 390
OCEANSIDE, CA. 92054 ESCONDIDO, CA 92029
JERRY SEGAL
620 W. SOLANA CIRCLE 1D
SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075
STEVEN K MACPHERSON
P.O. BOX 1482
CARLSBAD, CA. 920 1 S
GARY A. & BONNIE CRINGAN RR & MARCIA JOHNS
3080 LINCOLN STREET #I 5 6565 BIRCH DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA. 9201 S SANTA ROSA, CA. 95404
GEORGE GUERNSEY
P.O. BOX 105
MIDWAY, UT 84049
DOLORES R. HORNE
P.O. BOX 1504
ESCONDIDO, CA. 92033
STEVEN L WEETHEE WILLIAM C CHANDLER
3080 LMCOLN STREET #23 1175 GAVIOTA DRIVE #2
CAIUSBAD, CA. 92008 LAGUNA BEACH, CA. 9265 I
Joseph & Theresa Baia
17 11 Shrine Dr
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Family Vigil
2901 Ocean St ##4
Carlsbad, CA 92008
MOORING APARTMENTS MC THE
330 Wisteria Way
Sierra Madre, CA 9 1024
CARLSBAD INN LTD
‘PO Box 4068
Carlsbad, CA 920 IS
Vivian Kluss & Patricia Fron
1413 W Janeen Way
Anaheim, CA 92801
Robert & Barbarba Craig
PO Box 69
South Bend, WA 98586
Damiano & Santa Trupiano
625 Southgate Dr
Oceanside, CA 92057
James & Sandra Minor
PO Box 490
San Jacinto, CA 9258 1
Jessie Minor
PO Box 490
San Jacinto, CA 9258 1
Thelma Williams
3 162 Carlsbad Blvd
Carlsbad. CA 92008
John & Joann Mullen
3053 Ocean St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Robert Le.&e & Robert & Ja Leslie
2824 1 Boulder Cir
Excelsior, MN 5533 1
JuIiarme Deen
741 E St
Brawley, CA 92227
Maksut & AM Inciyan
4444 W Point Loma Blvd #I 10
San Diego, CA 92 107
- k%nk & Patricia Maldonado
42 13 Beach Bluff Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCEAN MANOR GARDEN MOTEL MC
2950 Ocean St Carlsbad, CA 92008
Wayne & Carol Minor
PO Box 490
San Jacinto, CA 92551
Robert & Lynda Erickson
284 N Bay Dr
Bullard, TX 75757
Pew PO Box 1102
Ranch0 Santa Fe, CA 92067
William & Mary Skinner
3065 Ocean St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Douglas Dodson
3085 Ocean St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
. . ST MICHAELS-BY-THE-SEA EPISCOPA Herry % Lavina Vollmer
PO Box 427 ‘3990 Highland Dr
Carlsbad, CA 920 1 S Carlsbad, CA 92008
Jack Phillips
3702 Ingraham St
San Diego, CA 92 109
Luvik & Veronica Grigoras
2 170 S El Camino Real
Oceanside, CA 92054
Ptnshp Gericos
850 Tamarack Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Reva Hooper & Stella Stamp
3320 Oleander Ave
San Marcos, CA 92069
Jack Phillips
9309 La Riviera Dr #A
Sacramento, CA 95826
Family Mezrahi
110 E 9th St #CS71
Los Angeles, CA 90079
f
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD HOTEL
110 WCSt#1901
San Diego, CA 92101
Ralph Bumette Jr.
33 15 Mckinley St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
W H C FOUR INVESTORS L P <LF> BU
555 S Flower St Ft- 23
Los Angeles, CA 90071
John & Mary Grant
7 173 Obelisco Cir
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Daniel & Colleen Soto Jr.
PO Box 353
Carlsbad, CA 920 18
Family Thatcher & Robert Sonneman
3490 Seacrest Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Frankie Runzo
3000 Highland Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ted Tanaka & GREEN EAGLE ENTERPRI
4223 Glencoe Ave #B 107
Marina De1 Rey, CA 90292
David Profit Sharing Plan Thompson
580 Beech Ave #C
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Family Wiehle
395 Carlsbad Village Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008
CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN HOMES
2400 S Fremont Ave
Alhambra, CA 9 1 SO3
Family Garner
25775 Toluca Dr
San Bernardino, CA 92404
I\“c)L L.‘\J.\I
P.Q.EO,Y 1965 , CARLSB&D, CA.92018
BRADSHAW
4376HORIZONDRlVE
CARLSBAD,CA.92008
LISAANELSON
6497CAMINODELPARQUE
CARLSBAD,CA.92009
BUTLERPROPERTIES
1229LlNDAVISTADRIVE
SANMARCOS,CA.92069
BARBARAOSBORNE
SALON21INVILLAGEFAIRE
300CARLSBADVILLAGEDRIVE
CARLSBAD,CA.92008
JOHNREED,MD
1326RAINBOWRIDGELANE
ENCIMTAS,CA.92024
e.,,.. L. L. LLIL.L
PAUL&GUSTEERIKSEN
3080 LMCOLNSTREET#29
CARLSBAD,CA.92008
JUDITHCHESNER
603 SEAGAZEDRIVE#539 OCEANSIDE,CA.92054
BILL&LAURALRYBURN 20 19 ESTEROSTREET
OCEANSIDE,CA.92054
TERRYREED 1326RAINBOWRIDGELANE
ENClNITAS,CA.92024
MICI-IELLEHESSMAN
350S.GRANDAVENUE
46"FLOOR
LOSANGELES,CA.9007 1
JEFF RASAK STERLING DEVELOPMENT 3252 HOLIDAY COURT #225 SAN DIEGO, CA. 92037
L 1 L”,lli,3 ,k AL\,‘ 3 ILL,‘,
-+557PEDREGALDRIVE
iSC0~~1~0,~~.92025
CALIFORNIAPROPERTY
P.O.BOX449
CARLSBAD,CA.92008
BAUMGARTNER
6539CORINTLASTREET
CARLSBAD,CA.92009
PATTYBLANK
VINAKA,SUITE211
300,CARLSBADVILLAGEDRIVE
CARLSBAD,CA.92008
ADAMJESTER
VINAKA,SUITE211
300CARLSBADVILLAGEDRIVE
CARLSBAD,CA.92005
I?ii%?riationBl Christiansen P.O. BOX 1575 CARLSBAD, CA. 92018
-
.,” I CJTVOFCMIL~D
1200 CARLSBAD . ILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
434a8w
1 P
REC’D FROM 4; l.7 c 0 k DAj-E 6’7. ‘i -/
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION
RECElPTMti. 4ofs65 NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY e @ Riowdarq&dpp. CASN wEp(8TEbl
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
June 9, 1997
Debbie Fountain, Redevelopment Dept.
Bobbie Hoder, Planning Dept.
Karen Kundtz
TELEPHONE (8 19) 434-2808
Denial of RP/CDP 97-l - Conversion of Medical Office to Coffee House
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE v HOUSING & RED. COMMISSION
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council
within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item
will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by
all parties.) !'
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council
.
Date
-
----.-.-* -- .~. .-7’.,T ‘FT,-’ -. 7‘ @wF-“K-w-~ r
I” L. * REQUEST FOR REFUND *P.’
0 ’ Account No. 00132109813 .- Vendor No.
Amount of Refund - $120.00 Fee Paid For: Appeal of Design Review Board Decision (RP 97-01)
Date Fee Paid: ___ 619197 Fee Paid By: Kim Razak for Jeffrey Razak
Facts Supporting Request: Mr. Razak appealed the Design Review Board decision to deny RP 97*/
CDP 9741 (Starbucks). His appeal was granted by the Housing & Redevelopment Commission
at their meeting of 7/S/97 by Resolution No. 287. -- ---
Name of Applicant: Jeffrey Razak
Address: __ 7752 Anillo Way
Street
Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619) 546-8841 -
City State Zip Telephone
Signature of Applicant: Date -.&$$k??$~-~
-Approve
_l_l_
0 Disapprove ---
Finance Investigation:
- -. . ..-.. /_ .-.. ._. ._- ,,. r . . .
/iSty klli8iiagt3re~ Aciion;
0 Approve Cl Disapprove City Manager Signature Date 3
r.._riru--.- --.eB--~-A -..a. .d.ud.,-i-e-~b. “s-d-.+- L1-_ - Y .- .-. -
As a business owner/employee of the Village Faire, I recognize an already
intense parking problem. I oppose the 2924 Carlsbad Blvd. site for Starbucks.
This coffee house is widely known for the overwhelming amount of traffic it
produces. This site has only 5 parking spots. Without any solutions to keep their
customers limited to those 5 spots, I ask you to deny their proposal tonight.
PRINT NAME BUSINESS SIGNATURE n,
As a business o&r/employee of the Village Faire, I recognize an already
intense parking problem. I oppose the 2924 Carlsbad Blvd. site for Starbucks.
This coffee house is widely known for the overwhelming amount of traffic it
produces. This site has only 5 parking spots. Without any solutions to keep their
customers limited to those 5 spots, I ask you to deny their proposal tonight.
PRINT NAME BUSINESS SI~URE
As a business owner/employee of the Village Faire, I recognize an already
intense parking problem. I oppose the 2924 Carlsbad Blvd. site for Starbucks.
This coffee house is widely known for the overwhelming amount of traffic it
produces. This site has only 5 parking spots. Without any solutions to keep their
customers limited to those 5 spots, I ask you to deny their proposal tonight.
JUL 8'97 15:45 FR DEL MAR PARTNERSHIP 619 792 1470 TO 17607202037 P.02/03
Ian C. C;pylcl, Dad J. Wid~cr, ~au,&,~
July 8,1!297
Housing and Redevelopment Commission
city of ca&ba.d 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
(Ihhbd, California 92008
Re: Permit ##RP/CDP 9741
Proposed Starbacks Coffee Project
Dear Commission Members:
In response IO the issues raised in connection with the proposed Starbucks Coffee store in
downtown Carlabad, I submit for your consideration the following based on my direct experience
as representative of the Property Owner and Landlord of Starbucks in downtown Del Mar:
(1) Parking: Stixi~ucks Coffee bias shard a small parking lot consisting of eight (S) parking
spaces and one (1) handicapped parking space in downtown Del Mar with a bagel store, Union
Bank and 8 flower stand. Although the avhbiity of parking is exfn?nxiy limited throughout tbe
downtown area, this small lot has proved to be more than adequate to serve Starbuck’s customers
as well as those of the other uses. The parking lot has accommodated a quick turnover of
customers from Starbucks and the bagel store in the morning hours and drivers can quickly
observe whether there are parking spaces available in the lot. In the mornings when Starbucks and the bagel store have been the busiest, parking exists on-street and the parking demand Tom
other businesses in the area is the lowest. Most of Star-bucks’ customers throughout the day seem to arrive by foot or park elsewhere. Undoubtedly, most are quite f&n&r with the parking
situation downtown De1 Mar and are regular customers of Starbucks who live, work or visit the
am on a regular basis. I understand that the proposed Starbucks location in downtown Carlsbad
is comparable in terms of parking availability and I believe that you will similarly find that
Starbuck’s parking needs will be adequately accommodated.
JUL 8’97 15:45 FR DEL MAR PQRTNERSHIP 619 792 1470 TO 17607202037 P. 03/03
I&using ad Redevelopment &mission
City of Carl&ad
Ju?y!3,1997
Page -2-
(2) TratKc; Starbucks impact on traffic is minimal; most of their customers are drawn from lo&
traflic atready in the asa. Starbucks is not a large generator of tic to downtown Del Mar; it
feeds off of tfa.& already tithe area from the retail shops, offices, res&uran ts, etc. I alnnot penonatly aware of any tra6c problems in downtown due to tic generated by Starbucks.
(3) Store Operations: We are exbtnely pleaA with Smrbucks’ design, operation and
maintenane of its store in Del Mar, it is well-stocked, wehtaff&l, welhnaintained and we&
received by local residents- Seating areas are kept clean and trash is picked up on a regular basis.
I have no doubt that Starbucks will operate its store in h&bad in the same manner and will enjoy a similar reception Corn local residents upon your approval of its permit.
1 appreciate your consideration of my comments in support of Starbucks Coffee Company. If
there are fintber detaih that I may provide or questions that I may answex, pIease don’t hesitate to
corrtact me.
Yours truly,
w TOTAL PRGE.003 **
. ;J, JIJL- 8-37 YE 4:02 PM HOUS:NG h ItED. FAX 103. 7607202037 (’ Jug-08’97 13:57 La+ -3ff ices 61922-788
Law Offices of David C. Anderson
A Prdeaional Cerporhm 404 Camino de1 Rio South, Suite 605 San Diego, CA 92108 Pm (619) 2204788 (619) 220-8688
July 8, 1997
l-bmir~g & Rticve-elopment Commission City of C&bad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive ChrIsbad, CA 92008
P ? Y .‘U;:
(46fis @d -
AGENDAITEM # * 1
a Mayor
CEqv Council
” i’. Manager 4 : *,/
‘Xy Attorney
Ciiy Clerk
RE: PKOPOSED STARBUCKS COFFEE STORE
Dear Commission Members:
In response to ihe issubs raised in connection with the proposed Starbucks Coffee store in
downtown Carlslrad, I submit for your coltsideration the following based on my direct
expetimcc aa a property OHiner and Landlord of Starbucks in downtaw~~ Coronado,
I. Parking; The Starbucks 610~ in Coronado occupies a building with a parking
lot of five parking spaces. WC have never expcrienaed any complaints or
problenls regarditlg parking due to Starbucks o~v.I the lot combined m*ith atrect parking appears to be more than ~dcquate to scrvc Starbwks customers.
Starbucks’ peak hours ofopctation are in tic morning baforc many busiwssos arc open and at a (ime when on-slrcct parking is rcatlilqi available. Throughout
the remainder of the day. customers arrive by foot, bus or park their cars
clscwhcE in the arca. I would cxpcct that a Starbuc.ks store in do\hntow~~
C&bad would result in a similot situation and I doubt that any new parking
problems would result solely due to Starbucks.
2. Trafic: We have t~of expcricoccJ any traffic problems due to the Startrucks
store in downtown Coronado. There is no double parking a most customers prefer to linger and enjoy their coffm. While downtown C%onado cxpcricnces traffic congestion, it has been tny enpcriencc that Statbucks does not create new trafic on its own, brat seems to draw its customers from the
stores. restaurants. orticcs. galleries and lnocle Mater Qlrt domioale the arc&
NaciuuaJ Nrtrcvt of 65wcPlmninghwmf~n
NJ,- 8-97 YE 4: 02 PM HOUS:~K & P,ED, . ‘ /'Jul'-08-97 13:57 Law -Y=fiCCSS
* .
FAX No. 7607?02~37 61922cU88
3. Store Design: Starbucks oper~tcs a picasant wx-l inviting store offering high
quality pwducts and Friendly service. We arc extremely pleased l\ith all
aspects of their store design and operation. Sealing BRX and adjacent
sidewalks are well maintained and kept clean by the store pereonnel. I am
sue that Srarbucks will operate ita proposed s~orc in Carl&ad in a similar
niannct
I appreciate the opportunity to offer my commer~ts in support of Stxbuc.ks Cal&
Company. Plcase contact me if you need additional information or have any questjons.
Very truly yQws. Very truly yQws. /..------- /..-------
DCA: df DCA; df
F~;~~JI.T.I>J N~w.zrk d Eanr Mamag Awmcp
Jr cJ!iL- E-37 “UE ;:: 45 AM EKY-“5 h IED,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FAX COVER MEMO
r----mm II:40 AM I No. of Pages: 2 (incl. Cover)
TO: FRANK MANNW
COMPANY NAME: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
FAX NO:
FROM: Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Department
FAX NO: 720-2037
TELEPHONENO: 434-2935
MESSAGE: Hi Frank. Evan and Marty wanted me to send you a copy of the attached agreement between Jeff
Zasak and Witchcreek Wineries as related to the trash dumpster to be provided for the Starbucks Coffee House.
we thought it might be heIpfu1 for the Council to have a copy of this agreement prior to the meeting tonight,
Lhanks! -Ifbcccr * @e
FOR THE INFORMATION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL/
2965 ROOSEVELT STREET, SUITE B
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
,
, JUL- 8-97 “l!E :: :45 AM #I HOU?JIrJ ii ?ED . . .iAX NO. 75nq2037 P. 2
. FRCM : .’ STEF$ INi DE’J&LoPMENT CCRP. c___ PI-SIX YO. : 619 546 8807 Jul. 0e 1997 11:4GArl P2
r’,.<. ‘j’.~ a
:T*. 1 w.. ~ - *,,.‘a
STERLIYG
DE\‘EIL’W54~W C:01;I’~~RA~7ICmJ
May 19. 1997
VIA TELECOPIER Am U.S. .MAIL
Dave end Katherine Wodebousc
Witch Creek Winery
2906 Carlsbad Baulewd
Carlsbah California 92008
RE: Waste Maargcmenl
2924 Carbbad boulevard
Carlsbed. California
Dear Dave and Katberiae:
Wirh reference to the abavc subjar rhls letter is intended IO c~nfh and mcmoriake the WIIIS and conditions of an
a@emcn~ between Witch Creek Winery (“WiEh Creek”) and lef&y C. Rasak (“Ratak”) related IO waste management
for the property locawd ar 2924 C&bad Boulevard (he “Pmpexty”). Witch Creek and Rasak hereby agm u foUows:
1)
8
3)
4)
9
Rasak, at&or his assignees. shell be permined to place a commercial tt& dumpster or othe? tra$b receptacle(a) on
the sida yard of the property located at 2906 Carlsbad Boulewd, mbll: wmmoaly knows as the Wircb Creek
Winery. The number, size, design and placement of any such trash dumpster or receptacle(s) shall be subject to the
prim spptoval of Witch Creek.
Kasak, an&or his as@neeo, shall oonuac~ with Coast Waste Managment to provide for commnciai pick-up of
any such dumpster or receptacIe(sI or shall provide a mutually acceptable alternative for such rttbsc collecrion.
Rawk. and/or his assignees, shall psy for 100% of the costs associated with the placement, senict and/or
collettio~~ of such dumpster or recepmcle(r).
Botb Witch Crock and Rarsak, and/or his assignees, shall be permitted to use the traah dumpster vt receptacle(s) and
both pmles agree to use diligent efforts to maintain the same 3.1 a neat and orderly condition, so 81 not lo create a
burden or rruisance for c&r pmpettks benefiting from suth reciprocal use.
Rasak, and/or his assignees shall comply with all tiles anA rqulations pertaining to the UEC and collection of such
dumpster/rcceptaclc(s).
This Agrecmmt shall survive for the tam or cxrendcd term of Witch Creek’s tenancy at 2609 Carl&ad Boulevard
and mey be Icrminated by oithcr party hereto upon thirty (30) dsys advance writttn notice. . ---I- :- .&.I__ _,_
AGRE’ED TO AND ACCEflD:
Date
(y-4 a.#-9 ,y
Dare
5’--/57-77
Date
La )dlfI c<wp?.\\V C~c:11cr l -I:52 1 ft*l:,!7r (‘,lnrl. %:I::#. Z’i - l-,~;ctll,j. ::.lii:.~vttr.t “YV l rr9lW %d~h;. F..l,N ;hl’Q, ‘J,rs1;:Ir; Pt g~cx7.11 Offizc3 - .Sa~r.im~~:~l~~. < :tjiitsmin = r’:rrtt.?Iuf. c7y.y\m -
Dear Council Members,
Who would have thought it would get to this point?
First the Starbucks proposal was denied due to an oversight by the Housing and Redevelopment
Dept. They approved a proposal under an Administrative Permit, when it should have been a Minor
Coastal Permit.
Second time the Starbucks proposal was denied it was again due to an oversight of the Housing
and Redevelopment Dept. Rather than do a private study on the parking and traffic issues addressed at
the previous meeting, they proposed an Annual Review Amendment. Which required Starbucks to come
back before the Design Review Board after one year of business, to discuss solutions to any parking
and trafilc problems that might occur. When Chairperson Welchon asked what solutions could be
offered at that point that are not offered now, there was no answer. When asked if the Director had done
any studies on these issues at already established Starbucks in our area, the answer was “no”.
In my opinion, the whole idea of Starbucks taking over the storefront at 2924 Carlsbad Blvd.is one
huge oversight by the Housing and Redevelopment Dept. One look at the proposed site, a site without
proper storage for the trash of any size eating establishment, a site without a rear pickup point for the
removal of such trash, a site without proper facilities to receive deliveries, a site with only five parking
spots and one curb cut to the Coast Hwy. should have been denied before the papers hit the Director’s
desk.
But no, the department was a bit too eager to use their newly published Master Plan Manual. And
use it they did. The Chairperson of the Design Review Board brought it to everyone’s attention at the
last meeting that Ms. Fountain was using it only to her advantage.
One of our customers at Vinaka was previously employed as a county planner in the state of
Colorado. He told me of three very important issues that always need to be addressed in commercial
redevelopment.
1. Never approve a proposal that requires an agreement with a business neighbor. It will
only return to haunt you.
2. Professional planning should never take a “good use” and put it in a “bad location”.
3. In NO INSTANCE should the public’s health or safety be sacrificed by turning a
“blighted building “ in to one that improves the physical appearance of the area.
Members of our city council, I plead of you to do the proper thing.. . .Deny this site as the next
Starbucks to hit North County. Please note my request is for the denial of the site, not the denial of
Stat-bucks.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
’ 1, as a patron of Carlsbao 4illage businesses, -the chance m 11 11 d we
2924 Cl- from a Medical office to a vrfood” in an area known 85 a “major
pedestrianarea”. As stated in the Village Master Plan and Manual, conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles must be
minimized. The proposed change in land use would create a major conflict.
. Vehicle parking and access is currently inadequate. Increasing land use intensity to a high tr@c use is
inappropriate for the site and inconsistent with the Master Plan. . . 375 c
The resultant trafEc jam will create a hazard for pedestrians and block trafEc dong Carlsbad Blvd. and .
Carlsbad Wage Dr. . efindthlsm .
I k 4. Q,,,gq ‘i‘,cme~S 65 3.49 mwc .
1 4 0’ f! I 1 I n n i I J- 5. +(a\X p/o wvam- OK-AWW- I-.
23
’ nq /‘~~&~~--,~~D n~STnpFO~--~ Sno-rz-etFS . 1t I, as a patron of Carlsbad Village businesses, qe w &
w f?om a Medical office to a wefood’ in an area known as a “major
. pedestrian area”.
As stated in the Village Master Plan and Manual, conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles must be
minimized. The proposed change in land use would create a major conflict.
Vehicle parking and access is currently inadequate. Increasing land use intensity to a high traffic use is
inappropriate for the site and inconsistent with the Master Plan. . . 375cvDerdav . . . 37 campedwhour crossing . to acc&andhed w
The resultant trafEc jam will create a hazard for pedestrians and block tratfic aldng Carlsbad Blvd. and
Carlsbad Village Dr. . efind .
1 . / -\,- w
-
6. (‘;; Kk,wF- P /&tf- W&j&p 9. czc s
FOQ&S--m s-c+!3
I, as a patron of Carlsbad Village businesses, -4 chance 111 landuse at . tt w
2924 f?om a Medical office to a !!&&&$ fOodU&. in an area hewn as a “major
pedestrian area”. As stated in the Wage Master Plan and Manual, conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles must be
minimized. The proposed change in land use would create a major con&t.
Vehicle parking and access is currently inadequatk. Increasing land use intensity to a high trafEc use is
inappropriate for the site and inconsistent with the Master Plan.
1375cwoerpusrnP . .
37cmaB . l .
to *
.
The resultant traf5c jam will create a hazard for pedestrians and block tra.fIic albng Carlsbad Blvd. and
Carlsbad Village Dr.
.
‘v : 13-7 ’
3 --THE OUICKSTOPFMmsz I? x ?3WBom~ . w (1 . I, as a patron of Carlsbad Village businesses, d rn -use aA
2924 Cl&b&Blvd. from a Medical office to a !!@ckststo~~store” in an area known 8~ a “major
pedestrian area”.
As stated in the Village Master Plan and Manual, conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles must be
minimized. The proposed change in land use would create a major conflict.
Vehicle parking and access is currently inadequate. Increasing land use intensity to a high t&c use is
inappropriate for the site and inconsistent with the Master Plan. . . 375 B 4 m . . . . ce. . that’s m&&tmd 37 v a maror
The resultant trtic jam will create a hazard for pedestrians and block traffic albng Carisbad Blvd. and
Carlsbad Wage Dr. . efind.
NAME S
1.’ ALr4 Vic /v&f?Lnfi&l ‘/426R4~~.,~fi-~\~y~ ( \ - rk i
3 a. Sew P imzec q4sv Bkw w. (l0?G&-a - ./ -
/ I
3. -lLTr-Al~* ‘rnn%Y ml (hIfiL?irI,?rjI#~ .I&// FM .* A-L u I-
4. ‘R”.,“, k;, kf ’33s La /%j%‘L 1
5. I/ 2 OQ fist c/c; qg;s i/ pa//c J>#r ‘ti/R& _ ._ .
.I I/ 1 . 13. 5 . hAucr *‘5, +-dil &, c,. L, +:I>\ -+i * -
‘v’s.- ‘L2Lmmmm-OUICRSTOPFOOl . *. t, ” STJv43~~~~ . 1, as a patron of CarIsbad Wage businesses, u rn I? . Iand.e w a
2924 w Blvd from a Medical office to a “quick ” ill 8ill ZKSi hOWn as a “major
,pedestlian area”.
& stated in the Village Master Plan and Manual, conflicts between pedestrians and vehicfes must be
minim&d. The proposed change in land use would create a major conflict.
Vehicle parking and access is currently inadequate. Increasing land use intensity to a high traflic use is
inappropriate for the siti and inconsistent with the Master Plan.
The resultant trtic jam will create a hazard for pedestrians
Carlsbad Village Dr. . efrndthls- .
and block traffic along Carlsbad Blvd. and
l q*3.
-3 ’
--THED mllcamPFo=
W
‘-pE” S~ttcctcs
I, as a patron of Carlsbad Village businesses, n UR use a . I1 19 *
2924 Cartsbad f?om a Medical office to a !!@&&QzAIxLs&&!, in an area lcn0w-n as a “major
_ pedestlian area”.
As stated in the Village Master Plan and Manual, conflicts between pedestxians and vehicles must be
minimized. The proposed change in land use would create a major conflict.
Vehicle parking and access is currently inadequate. Increasing land use intensity to a high traf6c use is
inappropriate for the site and inconsistent with the Master Plan.
ce. that’s -mucars crw . . . . .
for these to 3 .
The resultant tra& jam will create a hazard for pedestrians and block trafIic albng Carlsbad Blvd. and
Carlsbad Village Dr.
w
I, as a patron of Carlsbad Village businesses, oppose the m me a . *t 1t .
2924 Cartsbad Blvd. from a Medical office to a !!i@k&~foodstorel’ in an area known as a “major
Jledestrian areaH. As stated in the Village Master Plan and Manual, conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles must be
&imized. The proposed change in land use would create a major conflict.
Vehicle parking and access is currently inadequate. Increasing land use intensity to a high traflic use is
inappropriate for the site and inconsistent with the Master Plan.
The resultant traf5c jam will create a hazard for pedestrians and block traffic albng C&bad Blvd. and
Carlsbad Village Dr.
G3+cw-mu 53?sk&~~
5. ~eisten Lnsstidl
pJti$g) n(&&&
Y
,
I, as a patron of Carlsbad Wage businesses,
2924 Blvd, from a Medical office to a !!Qu&&P food in an area known as a “major
pedestrian area”. As stated in the Village Master Plan and Manual, conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles must be
minim&d. The proposed change in land use would create a major conflict.
Vehicle parking and access is currently ing land use intensity to a high t&k use is
The resultant trtic jam will create a hazard for pedestrians and block traffic along Carlsbad Blvd. and
Carlsbad Wage Dr. . e find. - Abdhv .‘(!
1a
9. ,2-I -ec GC? I
!+*? ’ mw PQ *I . ., I OUICg $-FOOD
I, as a patron of Carlsbad W $age businesses, tt tt
2924 &&&&J&& from a Medical office to a mstoo” in an area known as a “major
pedestrian area”. As stated in the Village Master Plan and Manual, conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles must be . . . mmmmd. The proposed change in land use would create a major conflict. ,
Vehicle parking and access is currently inadequate. Increasing land use intensity to a high trafiic use is
inappropriate for the site and inconsistent with the Master Plan. . . 375 c . . . c
The resultant traflic jam will create a hazard for pedestrians and block trtic alyng Carlsbad Blvd. and
Carlsbad Wage Dr.
q,,dtT s TO m---J) O~Op FOn n
I, as a patron of Carlsbad Village businesses,
2924 from a Medid office to a “QUiCkSfoDre” in Axe area Imom a.s a “major
pedestrian area”.
As stated in the Village Master Plan and Manual, conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles must be
minimized. The proposed change in land use would create a major conflict.
Vehicle parking and access is currently inadequate. Increasing land use intensity to a high tic use is
inappropriate for the site and inconsistent with the Master Plan.
375 B 4 _oarlnng . .
e. that’s w 37 muhour crl . . . . .
for lh$suam to 3 .
The resultant tra& jam will create a hazard for pedestrians and block traffic along Carlsbad Blvd. and
Carlsbad Wage Dr.
e
14. lllr&s(j1/1 l, [v&s
+w ‘77 mN TO s n 1 -0 . FOQQslQw 3‘Qe-&.x~S
I, as a patron of Car&ad \ ..age businesses, Qt)DOSe . ,chanee 111 “1 -use 1t a
24 Carl&&J&& from a Medical 05ce to a “allick fOOd in an area known as a “major
pedestrian area”.
As stated in the Village Master Plan and Manual, conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles must be
minimized. The proposed change in land use would create a major contlict.
Vehicle parking and access is currently inadequate. Increasing land use intensity to a high traffic use is
inappropriate for the site and inconsistent with the Master Plan. . . er dav . . . 37 m . to acC
The resultant trtic jam will create a hazard for pedestrians and block traf% along Carlsbad Blvd. and
Carlsbad Village Dr. I
. efind
Y 1 ‘Zlq~TO~~D ,, . ‘.
I,’ as a patron of G&bad b ,tage businesses,
I s24carfsbad firomaMe&aIofficetoa~ ” ill SIl tU= kllOWn as a "major
pedestrian area”.
As stated in the Village Master Plan and Manual, conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles must be
minim&d. The proposed change in land use would create a major conflict.
Vehicle parking and access is currently inadequate. Inmasing land use intensity to a high trafEc use is
inappropriate for the site and inconsistent with the Master Plan.
. . l 37 c . to act
The resultant traflic jam will create a hazard for pedestrians and block traffic alpng Carlsbad Blvd. and
Carlsbad Wage Dr. . efind
-u /
7. ..%Nn\( PAQ-Qj * 3e ‘5 ;51p-l+
14.J&d J hhmeww- 817 b&at; w wtt , Ciwsbcd %oo$ I
,I +\47 -oNTo = FooD I: as a patron of Carlsbad .dage businesses,
2924 v from a Medical office to a “quick food s&we” in 811 wea known 8~ a “major
pedestrian area”. AS stated in the Village Master Plan and Manual, conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles must h
minimi&. The proposed change in land use would create a major conflict.
Vehicle parking and access is currently inadequate; Increasing land use intensity to a high traf& use is
inappropriate for the site and inconsistent with the Master Plan. . . 375 wner 1 . . . 1
w to ac
The resultant tra@ic jam will create a hazard for pedestrians and block traffk along Carlsbad Blvd. and
Carlsbad Village Dr.
-ON TO m-3-D “ouIcIpsTOP FOOD ZJ-E &+&L, Ce . I, as a patron of Carlsbad Village businesses, ooaose tn t1 muse tt &
824 CM Bled, corn a Medical office to a -restore” in an area known a a “major
.pedestlian area”.
As stated in the Village Master Plan and Manual, conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles must be
minimized. The proposed change in land use woufd create a major conflict.
Vehicle parking and access is currently inadequate. Increasing land use intensity to a high trafiic use is
inappropriate for the site and inconsistent with the Master Plan. . . . . anml375vDerdav . . . 37u . fortheseto-anduse
vemanoer.
The resultant traffic jam will create a hazard for pedestrians and block trafEc along Carisbad Blvd. and
Carlsbad Village Dr.
.
S.ez.~< ML// , ‘w
. I, as a patron of Carlsbad Village businesses, -the chance III tt iand 1t &
2924 Q&hdl&& f?om a Medical office to a vstoDegt in an area known m a “major
pedestxian area”. As stated in the ViUage Master Plan and h&nuaf, conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles must be
minimized. The proposed change in land use would create a major conflict.
Vehicle parking and access is currently inadequate. Kncreasing land use intensity to a high traf& use is
inappropriate for the site and inconsistent with the Master Plan. . . era44 . . . ur cr* . for thmxan to cand Darklng
The resultant traffic jam will create a hazard for pedestrians and block traffic along Carlsbad Blvd. and
Carlsbad Village Dr. . efindthrs-.
12. .qQ& c>r’,-;;:.(-- #,\-\y(. ‘\-t.:.. ;-;,\ ‘;‘f. .\ , I .q ‘L \ ‘2 ‘\ > .
( ‘, f ,’ , \ .a . . , :? i\\ )I\\ { ., ‘, \., , c j
^ >.I 72. ~-~-,i 1.~: _. 7f-ic i,!
l1 \
13. E& ( ce I+, F,:J*:(.:-\.,-‘ !,‘> ~(~-7~. x0-’ -k; . ...?- ‘5 : .- ..I (;e{‘\, :; i‘ :; :” -. 1.‘! :+, -i \ 13. \$I,\\ ;x ;\L;- ‘ \I-’ I _’ $ . -‘-\ ( 3 \ \ L\; \‘.. il.. ‘,i I , ; ., .X\,\ t ‘\ , i i f -it ..:
n I 3.I FO-
I, as a patron of Carlsbad .,age businesses, e . 0 we tt at
2924 Cad&&&& from aMedical office to a ‘rauick
pedestrian area”.
” in1111 8re8 kllOWll a a “major
AS stated in the Village Master Plan and Manual, conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles must be
minim&d. The proposed change in land use would create a major conflict.
Vehicle parking and access is currently inadequate. Lncreasing land use intensity to a high traffic use is
inappropriate for the site and inconsistent with the Master Plan.
. ford
The resultant trafiic jam will create a hazard for pedestrians and block traf& aiong Carlsbad Blvd. and
Carlsbad Wage Dr.
-
.- *Lb ’ . --FD OuIcg FOOQ W r7x2Rlz! . S’, L I, as a patron of Carlsb, Village businesses, -the chance rn -use a . tf tt . 2924 Carlsbad Born a Medical office to a “auickrfood” in an area known a~ a “major
pedestrian area”. As stated in the Village Master Plan and Manual, conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles must be
m.i&nized. The proposed change in land use would create a major con&t.
Vehicle parking and access is currently inadequate. increasing land use intensity to a high traf& use is
inappropriate for the site and inconsistent with the Master Plan.
I 375 can-per ] . .
37 c . l .
to access
.
The resultant trtic jam will create a hazard for pedestrians and block traI%along Carlsbad Blvd. and
Carkbad Village Dr.
A
Name/ Title
Business
Address
Dear Members of the Carlsbad City Council,
In an effort to help your city to determine wber or not to allow Starbucks to lease the property at 2939
Carlsbad Blvd., I have agreed to answer this short survey.
1) Since Starbucks has moved into the center/ neighborhood, our business has..
Increased
Remained the same
Decreased
2) Automobile tra& in the area has.. .
i@F Increased drastically
0 Remained the same, or little increase
[3 Decreased
3) Starbucks customers park.. .
c Only in the ares designated as “Starbucks parking”
G Unsure, however there is NO existing parking problem
/+ In any and all parking spaces; It is a problem for our business
4) Starbucks’ delivery trucks...
@ Park in the designated “loading area” only
Must arrive very early because I never see them
Arrive at all hours of the day and block both parking and thru traflic
5) * P er from Starbucks in the surrounding area is...
Non-existent
/o Picked up daily or hourly by their employees participating in a “greensweep”
C A problem for surroundii businesses
6) I would rate Starbucks as a business neighbor as.. \
F Excellent
q Average
0 Poor
Comments:
\ Name/ Title
k- t&\, Business
, x l\d Address FL+b” Phone
Dear Members of the C&bad City Council,
In an effort to help your city to determine \$\p;ther or not to allow Star-bucks to lease the property at 2939
Carlsbad Blvd., I have agreed to answer this short survey.
, 1) Since Starbucks has moved into the center/ neighborhood, our business has..
f
Increased
Remained the same
il Decreased
2) “x@ tomobile t&Tic in the area has., .
Increased drastically ‘: Remained the same, or little increase 2 Decreased
3) Starbucks customers park.. c; Only in the area designated as “Starbucks parking”
c Unsure, however there is NO existing parking problem
F In any and all parking spaces; It is a problem for our business
4) Starbucks’ delivery trucks.. .
c Park in the designated “loading area” only
c
-x
Must arrive very early because I never see them
Arrive at all hours of the day and block both parking and thru traffic
5) Litter from Starbucks in the surrounding area is...
E Non-existent
c
Yc
Picked up daily or hourly by their employees participating in a “greensweep”
A problem for surroundiig businesses
6) I would rate Starbucks as a business neighbor as. . c Excellent r:
-&
Average
Poor
? !-Ywu CL&w Business
-# Address
Dear Members of the Carlsbad City Council,
In an effort to help your city to determine w/-&her or not to allow Starbucks to lease the property at 2939
Carlsbad Blvd., I have agreed to answer this short survey.
I) Since Starbucks has moved into the center/ neighborhood, our business has.. .
cl Increased
v Remained the same
0 Decreased
2) Automobile tic in the area has.. .
w Increased drastically 0 Remained the same, or little increase
0 Decreased
3) Starbucks customers park. . .
Only in the area designated as “Starbucks parking” P
/;-
Unsure, however there is NO existing parking problem
In any and all parking spaces; It is a problem for our business
4) Star-bucks’ delivery trucks...
r;
F
Park in the designated “loading area” only . r? Must arrive very early because I never see- them 2 Arrive at all hours of the day and block both parking and thru traffic
5) Litter from Starbucks in the surrounding area is...
* Non-existent
Picked up daily or hourly by their employees participating in a “greensweep”
0 A problem for surrounding businesses
6) I would rate Stat-bucks as a business neighbor as. .
7 Excellent
+ Average r: Poor
BEXEN PRESS
, ‘7 I
Fax : 1-760-929-0603 - Jul 07 ‘97 13:26 PO1
FAX COVER SHEET
From BEXEN PRESS FAX NO (760)929-0603
PO Box 1865 TEL (760)929-0609
Carlsbad, CA 92018-1865
Contact: R~i4733 ~'flmq'
FAX TO: I " u
FAX NO 7&L- 7a.o- YsLbl
TEL
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET: I
COMMENTS : -
Strongly support locating Starbucks Coffee in downtown Carlsbad.
Such an outlet, in San Juan Capistrano, for instance, has
not diminished the “quaintness” or “village” atmosphere of
that city; how could it here? Did you know Starbucks will locate in downtown Encinitas?
Why should the downtown Carlsbad visitor be denied the chance to patronise a familiar store? Issues here of parking, traffic and design are nothing but a smokescreen.
Renata B. Mulry J
Director, Research
BEXEN PRESS
AGENDAlTElbltc 1 ~ ,
a Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
city cterk l/
I
BgzBN W is an ind8pexkdent publishing -Y ==bzing government policy and real estate. Our interests include public finance and debt, the wered species Act, water policy, airport land use, transit, and in--based housing.
Join others in red estate, government, public relations, ad the
da who nmke us a valuable point of contact.
Attached are the results of a private study of my own. The problem
of parking and traffic has the potential of being even greater than I first
anticipated.
Last Wednesday morning I sat in the parking lot of the Starbucks on
Vista Way from 7:30 A.M. to lo:30 A.M. The first hour 91 cars entered their
lot. The second hour only 74 cars entered the lot. The third hour the number
was reduced just like Starbucks claims it will, with a count of only 57 cars. However,
that’s right when the problems started. At nine o’clock when the dentist office
opened next door, the amount of available parking spots quickly reduced from 34 to
approximately 20. Plus, Starbucks customers were no longer rush in and out. They
were taking their time. From 9:30 A.M. till I left at lo:30 A.M., I witnessed cars
doubled parked, cars blocking handicap spots, cars parked in tire lanes. There were
several backed up on Vista Way waiting to turn in to the lot resulting in a single lane
for east bound thru traffic. I returned Saturday morning, camera in hand, to snap the
attached photos. In just a short period of time[approx. 30 min.] on a day we do not
experience commuter traffic I was able to capture just what we can expect if Starbucks
is allowed to open its doors on the Coast Highway.
Being in the coffee business for 3+ years, I have always recognized Starbucks as
leader in the industry. But to actually witness 222 cars visiting this Oceanside location
in 3 hours was amazing to me. It only made it more clear to me that the comer of our
parking lot is an extremely inappropriate spot for Starbucks.
Tonight at the City Council meeting it will be determined if Starbucks will
open its doors in downtown Carlsbad. Please plan to attend. Your opinion is
greatly appreciated.
;4?
i 3$ /i :
/ $
:\ ‘, I $
+\
! ;’
I a
I:.:
‘:D
F
1. :i
;,j l
CA‘
:j ,::;
b;, ti .’ .
.‘,’
~. ___ .__~ __ -.-- -.-
8
-, - . -.
8 F
I/
II !I
Ii Ii I i t I
ii