HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-12-08; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 304; Schilling Mixed Use Project. .
E .- 5 Q
E .- % .-
: 0 /I
- G7tGmJ
HOUSING Aw3 REDEVELOPfjllENT COMMIsSION -AGENDA BIL
AB# 30 y
‘
TITLE: DEPT. HD.
MTG. 3.2/8/98 Request for Extension of Major Redevelopment Permit CITY ATTY. 3s
DEPT. H/RED RP 95-05 for the Schilling Mixed Use Project CITY MGRa
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 3 0 I/ , APPROVING
an 18 month extension of major redevelopment permit RP 95-05 for the Schilling Mixed Use
Project located at 507 Pine Street.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On September 18, 1996 and October 16, 1996, the Design Review Board conducted and
completed a public hearing to consider the major redevelopment permit requested for a new
mixed use development project known as the Schilling Project. The Design Review Board
recommended approval of the project on October 16, 1996 with a 4-l vote (Welshons - No). The
City Council, acting as the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, took action to approve the
project on February 4, 1997.
As a condition of approval, the applicant was required to obtain building permits for the subject
project within 18 months of the project’s approval by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission. If the building permits were not obtained by August 4, 1998, the redevelopment
permit was to become null and void. Prior to the permit expiration date, the applicant filed a
request for an extension of the permit for an additional eighteen (18) months. The Housing and
Redevelopment Commission is required to take action to extend the redevelopment permit. It is
staff’s understanding that the applicant still intends to build the subject project. However,
additional time is needed to prepare plans and submit them to obtain the required building
permits.
Proiect Description
The subject project is proposed for development on an existing vacant site at 507 Pine Street,
between Tyler and Roosevelt Streets. The project consists of a total of 4 residential units over
1536 square feet of retail space and 1851 square feet of workshop space. A total of 4 single car
garages are provided for the residential units and an additional 9 parking spaces are provided
for employees and customers of the retail/workshop spaces.
The residential component of the project provides for four (4) one bedroom apartment units. Of
these 4 units, one unit will be restricted for affordable housing purposes. There are a total of 6
retail suites on the first floor of the project. These retail suites must be used for “retail purposes”
only; no restaurants or industrial uses will be permitted within these suites. The project includes 4
workshops on the first floor to the rear of the retail suites. These workshops are to be used in
conjunction with the on-site retail suites; they can’t be leased separately to an unrelated
business.
Page 2
The parking requirement was determined to be 17 spaces total. As approved, the project will
provide 13 spaces on the site and pay an in-lieu fee for 4 spaces to meet the parking
requirement.
The project reflects the concept of shopkeeper units where a business owner can live above
his/her retail store. The proposed project would also be ideal for artists. For example, an artist
can use the workshop space to create his/her artwork and then display/sell the artwork from the
retail space. The artist could then live above his/her workshop and retail space.
Staff Recommendation
There have been no changes to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual or Village
Redevelopment Plan or the City or Redevelopment Agency policies and procedures which would
effect the approvals granted to the subject project in 1996. Therefore, staff is recommending that
the applicant be permitted to extend the redevelopment permit as approved by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission on February 4, 1997 for an additional eighteen (18) months to allow
for the application and issuance of required building permits for construction of the project. From
the date of Commission approval, the applicant would have an additional eighteen (18) months to
obtain building permits for the subject project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Department has determined that the proposed project is in Prior Compliance with
the previous Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director on August 6, 1996 and
approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on February 4, 1997. No comments
were received from the public regarding the subject determination.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the project is constructed, the Redevelopment Agency will receive additional revenue through
the increase in property taxes associated with the proposed project. The assessed value of the
vacant property is $124,187. With roughly estimated improvement costs of $800,000, the new
assessed value of the property will be approximately $925,000; this will generate approximately
$9,250 per year in property taxes, compared to the current $1,242. The City will receive
additional sales tax revenue from the retail suites. There is, however, no estimate of the
projected sales tax revenue from the project.
EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 36 4
Request for Extension and Project Description with Disclosure Statement.
Location Map.
Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 284, approving original redevelopment
permit.
Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 251 and 252 providing the original approvals of the
Negative Declaration and findings and conditions for project.
Design Review Board Staff Reports with related Minutes, dated September 18, 1996 and October
16, 1996.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 304
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A REQUEST FOR
AN 18 MONTH EXTENSION OF MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT 95-05
TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE BUILDING
INCLUDING RETAIL, WORKSHOP SPACE AND FOUR RESIDENTIAL
UNITS AS WELL AS RELATED SIGNAGE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 507 PINE STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 5 OF
THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
CASE NAME: SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT
APN: 204-081-01
CASE NO: RP 95-05
WHEREAS, John Schilling, “Developer” has filed a verified application with the
Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by John
Schilling, “Owner”, described as Lots 17, 18 and 19 in Block 31, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, May 2, 1888 (“the property); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for an extension of a Major
Redevelopment Permit and Sign Permit known as RP 95-05 for the Schilling Mixed Use Project
originally approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on February 7, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission did hold a duly noticed
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to the
extension of Major Redevelopment Permit 95-05.
. . . .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HRC Resolution No. 304
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission hereby APPROVES an eighteen (18) month
extension of Major Redevelopment Permit 95-05 for the Schilling mixed use
project, and the related sign permit based on the following findings and subject
to the following conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the subject project is in prior
compliance with the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director for the project
on August 2, 1996 and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on
February 7, 1997.
2. The Project remains consistent with the land use plan, development standards, design
guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth within the Village Redevelopment Plan
and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines, with approval of the findings set forth in
Design Review Board Resolution No. 252 dated October 16, 1996 and approved by the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission on February 7, 1997.
CONDITIONS:
1. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission does hereby APPROVE an eighteen (18)
month extension of Major Redevelopment Permit 95-05, and the related sign permit, for
the Schilling Mixed-Use Project to allow the applicant additional time to apply for and
receive approval of the appropriate building permits for the subject project, subject to the
conditions set forth in Design Review Board Resolution No. 252 dated October 16, 1996
and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on February 7, 1997. The
permit shall be extended eighteen (18) months from the date of original permit expiration
which was August 5, 1998. The new expiration date for the permit shall be February 5,
2000.
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
December , 1998 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Finnila, Nygaard, and Kulchin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hall
ABSTAIN: None
4
EXHIBIT 2
WILLIAM & JOHN SCHILLING
. P.O. BOX 417
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
JUNE 16,1998
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Housing & Redevelopment Director
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2965 Roosevelt St. Ste.B
Carlsbad, CA. 92008-23 89
RE: RP-9505-PINE ST. MIXED USE PROJECT
Dear Debbie
We herein would like to request an extension of eighteen months for the above referenced
project from the current expiration date of August 4, 1998.
We understand that this would allow us to complete our current building plans and submit
them for pulling a permit on or before 18 months from August 4, 1998.
We would like to meet with you in the very near future to review our current plans before
going into final construction drawings.
We trust this letter will be satisfactory for the purpose. If you have any questions piee
call us. (760) 434-5999.
Thank you for your cooperation toward completing a wonderful project for the City of
Carlsbad.
Sincerely;
---- et-i-f OF CNILSB~ IAM) USE REMw ~PUCM-ION -
’ 1) ;\ppL[mTIONS APPKED FOR: (ChircK BOXES)
FOR PAGE 1 OF 2
0
r: L
c
m L
0
7 i-l
YJasrer Plan
Spec:tic P!an
2-rc’se 3eveiocr.er.r ?!an ..b.
Tenrauve ::3cr !Ap
?iarz.ed Deveiopmenr ?eztxr
Non-Residential Planzed 3evelopmenr
Cmdonunium Petit
Spec:al Use Permir
(FOR DEPT
USE OEiLY)
I lo
Kl
k II Li
I+
0 0
General Plan knendment
Local Coastal ?lan Amendment
Sire Development Plan
Zone Change
Csnditionai L’se ?e.xmr
Hillside Deveiopmenr permit
Environmental impact Assessment
Variance
L --
%
G Redevelopment Petit - ExmsI
3wl4hlG - PINI ST.
17 Tentative Parcel Map
a Adminisrrarive Variance
0 Planned [ndusttial Permir
0 Coastal Development permit
0 Planning Commission Dererrrtinarion
0 List any orher applications nor specificed
!) LOC\llON OF PROJECT: ON THE south SIDE OF Pine
(NORTH. SOLTH WT. WEST) (NAME OF STREET)
BETWEEN Roosevelt I AND I
(NAME OF STREET) (NAME OF STREET)
4) .ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S). 204-081-01-00
5) LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE
6) E..STlNG GENERAL PLAN I 7) PROPOSED GENERAL PLW
DESIGNATION DESIGNATION
8) LUSTING ZONING 9) PROPOSED ZONING
11) PROPOSED NUMBER OF 12) PROPOSED NUMBER 13) TYF’E OF SUBDMSlON
PJS[DENTlAL UNIl3 OF LOTS
(RESIDENTLAL
COMMERCIAL
14) NUMBER OF EXlS-llNG RESIDENTIAL UNITS [r[
IS) PROPOSED lNDU!iTRlAL - SQUARE FOOTAGE
16) PROPOSED COMMERCIAL
OFFlCVSQUhRE FOOTAGE
INDUSTRIAL)
I
. CIT(0F0,il~Sam
LWD CSE KEVEWAPPUC\~?ONFORV 2,3.&E - ‘C . - -. _
1;)PERCENTAGEOF PROPOSED PROJECTIN OPEN SPACE
18) PROPOSED SEb'ER CSACE IN EQL'WALENTDWELLINC L-NITS
;3) PRCPCSED INCRL+SE:N AL'ERICE DAlLY-fR'FIC
: 20) PROJECT SWtE:
I
Pine Street- Mixed Use Project
1 ! &closed parkinq for four vehicles: open parkinq for nine
I 22) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATiON IT MAY BE NECESSARYFOR MEMBERS OFCllYSTAFF,
PLWNINGCOMMlSSIONERS.DESlCN REVIEW 3OARD MEMBERS.ORCITYCOUNClLMEMBERSTOlNSPECT.WD
l-ION. VWECONSENTTO ENTRYFORTHIS
23) OWNER 1 24) APPLICANT
NAME (PRINT OR lYPE)
N.O.B. Irrevocable Trust
MAILING ADDRESS
P.O. Box 417
NAME (PRINT OR TYPE)
John C. Schillinq
MAlLING ADDRESS
P.O.Box 417
~-
I
I ,
CIlYANDSTATE ZIP TELEPHONE CITYAND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE
Carl&ad, CA. 92008 760-434-5999 Carl&ad. CA. 93008 - - 9 I CERTIFY lXhT I .4A THE LEGM OWER I CmllFy THAT I AM THE LEGM ow?fEKs tlEPREsLKT.4rnT .cuo
ANO THAT AU. I-HE ABOVE INFOPMAllON THAT ALL THE AEnYVE INFORMATiON IS TRUE AN0 CORRECl’ I-U THE
IS TRUE AN0 COIVECT TO THE BLSTOF BEST OF My IQ(Ow.EcGL
I
i
v V/ *.*t.*.*....*.~.....*~....*..*.**....~*~**.......*..**..*....*..
FORCI-IYL'SEONLy
FEE COMPUTATION:
APPLICATION lYPE FEE REQUIRED
DATESTAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED
TOTAL FEE REQUUIED
3ATE FEEPAID q/7/9 9 RECEIPT NO.
7
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
A?PcICANT’S STA TZCfE.hT OF 3SCLOSUAE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP IKTEFIESTS ON AU. APPLlCATiONS WHICH WILL .GEQUI~E
XXi;E;IONARY ACTICN CN TkE PAFll OF THE Ca- COUNCIL. OR ANY APPOIKTEO BOARD. COMMISSION OR CChV.Q-i7E~.
I
(Please Print)
The following information must be disclosed:
1. Applicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
John C . Schillinq P.O. Box 417 carlsbad, CA. 92008
2.
3.
4.
Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
N.O.B. Irrevocable Trust P.O. Box 417 carlsbad, CA.~8
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 owning any partnershlp
interest in the partnership.
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 offtcer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary
of the trust. John C. Schilling
P.O. Box 417 Carl&ad, CA. 92008
FRMooo13 8/90
2075 Las Palmas Drive l Carlsbad. California 920094859 l (619) 438-l 161
Disclosure Statement
(Over)
Page 2
5. Have you had more than $250 worth Of business transacted with any member of City staff. ecarzs
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No 1~ If yes, please indicate pefSOn(S)
Person II defined (u: ‘Any mdiwdual. firm. copannershlp. joint venture. asrocia:ion. social club. fraternal organlzat~on. corporation. estate. :rbst. !
recewor. syndicate. thla and any other county. ci?y and count’y, crty munlctpalrty. distrtct or other political wbdtvlsion. or any other group or 1
comblnatlon acting ad a umt.
(NOTE: Atlach additional pages as necessary.)
fJ?p&)rqf,js~
Signahre of Qnz@r/date /Yl!!rustee
N.O.B. Irrevocable Trust
Print of type name of owner
John C. Schilling
Print or type name of applicant
FRMooo13 8/90
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION
PROJECT NAME: Pine Street- Mixed Use Project PR-95-05
APPLICANT NAME: John C. Schilling
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.
3escriptiorVExplanation. This is a The-story mixed use project with 4, 1-Bedrocm apartments, 1537 Square feet of Retail space: 1851 Square feet of Workshop space: enclosed parking for four vehicles: open parking for nine vehicles and associated landscaping.
ProjDerc.frm
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-P
l-
IhE
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
OAK AVENUE
PINE STREET
‘+ Project Site
I I I I
S
CITY OF CARLSBAD
SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT RP 95-05
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-. -1
I-I .?G AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMIS EXHIRIT 4 __. RESOLUTION NO. - _.
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT (RP 95-05) INCLUDING SIGNAGE, REDUCED
SETBACK STANDARDS, NONSTANDARD STREET IMPROVEMENTS, AND
REDUCED PARKING STANDARDS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED
USE PROJECT WHICH INCLUDES 4 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 1537 SQUARE FEET
OF RETAIL SPACE AND 1851 SQUARE FEET OF WORKSHOP SPACE AT 507
PINE STREET, BETWEEN TYLER STREET AND ROOSEVELT STREET IN THE
VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA/LAND USE DISTRICT 5.
CASE NAME: SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT
APN: 204-081-01
CASE NO: RP 95-05
WHEREAS, on September 18, 1996 and October 16, 1996, the Carlsbad Design Review
Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 95-O5), including
;ignage, for construction of a new mixed use development at 507 Pine Street and adopted Design Review
3oard Resolutions No. 252 recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission that Major
iedevelopment Permit (RP 95-05) be approved; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, on the
late of this resolution held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendations and heard all
jersons interested in or opposed to Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 95-05); and
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings supporting the allowance of the
.educed setback standards, non-standard street improvements, reduced parking standards, and density in
:xcess of the growth management control point; all as authorized with the approval of the site development
)lan in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code section 21.53.120( c) and 21.90.045, as incorporated by
,eference in the Redevelopment Area Master Plan and Design Manual, justified by sufficient findings; and
WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project conducted
jursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
%vironmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, a Negative Declaration was issued for the
ubject project by the Planning Department on June 12, 1996 and recommended for approval by Design
Review Board Resolution No. 251 on October 16, 1996.
. . .
.
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
3
3
I
I
?
3
I
j 1
j (
(
I
!
l(
1'
1:
1:
1L
1:
lf
17
1E
1E
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7 ’
t
I t
t
1 i
( I
I
HRC Resolution NC- 84
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission as follows:
1.
2.
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
The Major Redevelopment (RP 95-05) Permit is auproved and that the findings and
conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 252, on file in the
City Clerk’s Office and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions
of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
3. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed,
analyzed and considered Negative Declaration (RP95-05), the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon. The Housing and
Redevelopment Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have
a significant effect on the environment and thereby approves the Negative Declaration.
The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the Negative Declaration (RP95-
05) retlects the independent judgment of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of
the City of Carlsbad.
4. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code, “Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
‘This time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil
?rocedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal
Zode Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate
:ourt not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if
Nithin ten days after the decision bekomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by
he required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the
ime within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following
he date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record,
f he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the
Jity Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008.”
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Housing and
tedevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of
‘ebruary , 1997 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Finnila and Nygaard
NOES: None
ABSENT: CommissionersKu
ABSTAIN:
- -*
^ 1
/I 2
3
'4
5
6
7
8
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 251
EXHIBIT 5 ’
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW MIXED USE COMMERCIAL BUILDING INCLUDING
RETAIL, WORKSHOP SPACE AND FOUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS
AT 507 PINE STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 5 OF THE
VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
CASE NAME: SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT
APN: 204-081-01
CASE NO: RP 95-05
9 WHEREAS, John Schilling, “Developer” has filed a verified application with the
10 Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by I , 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
John Schilling, “Owner”, described as Lots 17, 18 and 19 in Block 31, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 535, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2, 1888 (“the property); and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 18th day of September, 1996 and
on the 16” day of October, 1996, held duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to
consider said request for a Negative Declaration; and,
18 WHEREAS, at said public hearing and upon considering all testimony and
19 arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
20 considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all factors
21 relating to the Negative Declaration. +
22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review
23 Board as follows:
24
25
26
27
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
according to the one page notice and the EIA Part II Form attached hereto and
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
28
'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
FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Negative Declaration (RP 95-05), the environmental impacts therein
identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to approving the project.
Based on the EIA Part-II and comments thereon, the Design Review Board finds that
there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the
environment and thereby recommends approval of the Negative Declaration.
2. The Design Review Board finds that the Negative Declaration (RP 95-05) reflects the
independent judgment of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of the initial study, EIA Part II, and
Negative Declaration, which may be found at the City of Carlsbad Community
Development Building, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California in the custody of
the City Clerk, Director of Planning.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of October, 1996, by the
following vote to wit:
AYES: Design Review Board Members: Compas, Marquez, Savary & Scheer.
NOES: Chairperson Welshons.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
EVAN E. BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
DREI RESO NO. 25 1
PAGE 2
15
., zq *‘;
t!aJ
*,.:bd -Sity of 0’
I ’
C,rllsbad v
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: 507 Pine Street
Project Description: Two-story mixed use project with 4 l-bedroom
apartments, 1,537 square feet of retail space; 1,851
square feet of workshop space; enclosed parking for
four vehicles; open parking for nine vehicles; and
associated landscaping. Grading proposed totals 12
cubic yards of cut and 128 cubic yards of fill requiring
116 cubic yards of import.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above
described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City
of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the -
project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for
the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning
Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009.
Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the
, Planning Department within 21 days of date of issuance. If you have any
questions, please call Brian Hunter in the Planning Department at (619) 438-l 161,
extension 4457.
DATED: AUGUST 2, 1996
CASE NO: RP 95-05 I
CASE NAME: PINE STREET PROJECT
PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 2, 1996
MICHAEL J.WGLZ&flLLER
Planning Director
M.,II HI4 I,,
;‘()75 I Cl!; I";llllliiS 111 0 C,tlIl!;t>iId. CA !~?00TI-l!i-/lj 0 (l>1’1) ,l:St\ llfjl - FAX (I,~‘)I 1 I?$ ())\‘I~1
-
ENVTRO,:iENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORnl- PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: RP 95-05
DATE: 7-29-96
‘BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Pine Street Proiect
2. APPLICANT: John Schilling
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: PO box 417 Carlsbad CA 92008 (619)
8900808
4.
5.
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 12-20-95
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Mixed use nroiect which includes 4 residential units, 1537 square
feet of retail suace and 185 1 square feet of workshop space at 507 Pine Street
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
c] Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
q Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
cl Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
q Air Quality Cl Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION. - - ..,
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
X
q
q
q
q
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
remain to be addressed.
] is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier [-] , including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
73q(fl 8.
Date
Planning Director’s Signature Date
2 Rev. OX8 96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS -.
STATE CEQA GUIDEL 1. .2S, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 1~63 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
. Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
l A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
l “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
l “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
l Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but a potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
l When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
l A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
l If there are one o. ib-; potentially significant effects, the Lirj may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
l An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIr’,-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EV.\LUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Informat- ,ources).
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (1,2)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (1,2)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(1) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (1)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (1)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)
W
c)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (2,)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (2)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (2)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a>
b)
4
4
e)
9
.d
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (2)
Seismic ground shaking? (2)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (2)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (2)
Landslides or mudflows? (2)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (2)
Subsidence of the land? (2)
Expansive soils? (2)
Unique geologic or physical features? (2)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)
b)
c>
4
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (2)
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (2)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (2)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (2)
5
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
cl
cl
a
q
cl
cl
cl
cl cl cl cl cl a
cl cl 0
0
0
cl
cl
-.
A .entially .5ignificant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
q
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
q
0 cl 0 cl cl q
0 cl cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Less Than Significan t Impact
0
cl
cl
0
cl
q
.I
cl
cl cl cl 0 cl cl
0 cl cl
cl
a
a
III
No
Impact
(xl
Ix1
El
I8
Ix1
lxl
Ix1 .
1x)
IXJ
lx
lx
I24
El
(x1
Ix1
El
lxl
El
El
(x1
(x1
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting InformatJon Sources).
e>
0
g) h)
0
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (2)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (2)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (2)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (2)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (2)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (2)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (2)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (2)
d) Create objectionable odors? (2)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a)
b)
cl
4
d
0
g)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (2)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (2)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(2) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (2)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (2)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (2)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (2)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
4
b)
d
4
e)
VIII.
a>
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species oitheir habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (1)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (I)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(1) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (2)
PoIentially - Pa~entially
Significak
Impact
~ificant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
Cl
0
0
Cl
0
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
0
0
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
Cl
0
cl
Cl
cl
0
0
cl
cl 0
0
0 0
0
Cl
0
0
Cl
cl
0
cl
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
0
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl 0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
No Impact
lx lzl Ix)
El Ix1
[XI
Ix)
6 Rev. 03128196
22
Issues (and SUppOrtifIg lnformation Sources).
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (2)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (2)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
4
4
4
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (1,2)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (I ,2)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (I ,2)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (1,2)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ( I ,2)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (2)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (2)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (2) . b) Police protection? (2)
c) Schools? (2)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (2)
e) Other governmental services? (2)
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
a)
b)
c)
4
e)
r)
g)
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (2)
Communications systems? (2)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (2)
Sewer or septic tanks? (2)
Storm water drainage? (2)
Solid waste disposal? (2)
Local or regional water supplies? (2)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
Cl
cl 0 0
,P,?lentially i IifiCLUH
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
Cl
0
0
0
cl
0 0
cl
cl 0
a
cl 0
0
cl 0 q
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
0
0
0
cl
cl
cl
0
cl 0
0 0
0
cl
cl
cl q 0
0 Cl 0 0
SO
Impact
El
El
IE3
lx
&xl
IXI
El
Ix) _
El
El
lxl
El
El
Ix1
lxl
IXI
El
(xl
Ix1
IXI
EJ
Rev. 031213196
Issues (and Supporting lnfowtion Sources),
4 Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (I ,2)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (l,2)
cl Create light or glare? (I ,2)
. XIV.
4
b)
cl
4
e)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (2)
Disturb archaeological resources? (2)
Affect historical resources? (l,2)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (l,2)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (I ,2)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1,2)
XVI.
-4
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project’ have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistoty?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
C‘Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
0 0
III
0 0 0 0
0
cl
0
cl
q cl El Cl
cl
0
cl
cl
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
b)
c>
XVII.
1.
0
0
cl
q
0
0
El .
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, effective date January 12, 1996. This document is
available for review at the Housing and Redevelopment Office, 2965 Roosevelt, Suite B, Carlsbad, CA
92008.
2. Final Master EIR for The City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (EIR 93-Ol), March, 1994. This
document is available for review at the City of Carlsbad, Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive,
Carlsbad CA 92009.
Potrnhall- “.~lentially
Significar.
Impact
J nificant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Cl q cl
Less Than
Signifhn
t Impact
NO
Impan
8 Rev. 03/28/96
Earlier analyses may he used where, pursuant to the tiering, prr.Tram EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or mo- Zfects have been adequately analyzed - n earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Secti,., 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a> Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
W Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c> Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVLBONMENTAL EVALUATION - -
LAND USE AND PLA. . . .?
The project is a mixed use 4 unit residential over 1537 square foot retail and 185 1 square foot
workshop with four garages and associated open parking and landscaping at 507 Pine Street.
The General Plan is V for Village Redevelopment and the Zoning is VR for Village
Redevelopment. The project is in complete accord with the surrounding land uses of residential,
commercial, and light industrial. There is no farmland in the immediate vicinity. The lot is
presently vacant.
* POPULATION AND HOUSING:
Properties within the vicinity of the project with residential development have been developed
within the RMH General Plan residential density ranges of up to 15 dwelling units per acre. The
project is proposing 14.8 dwelling units per acre. The site is presently vacant so no existing
housing will be displaced.
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS:
The General Plan indicates no unusual problems with this Pleistocene Beach Terrace.
WATER
The site is presently vacant. The development of the .27 acre infill site will take advantage of the
completely developed infrastructure so that there will be no impact.
AIR OUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
26
CIRCULATION: ?
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
. 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the Genera1 Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
There are no biological resources present on site.
NOISE
The project is within the noise impact area from the railroad corridor. The building department
will ensure that construction meets the interior noise requirements for dwelling units per the
plancheck process. There are no adopted outdoor standards for apartment projects as there is no
required open space.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
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. 252
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE
BUILDING INCLUDING RETAIL, WORKSHOP SPACE AND
FOUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS WELL AS RELATED
SIGNAGE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 507 PINE STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 5
OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
CASE NAME: SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT
APN: 204-081-01
CASE NO: RP 95-05
WHEREAS, John Schilling, “Developer” has filed a verified application with the
Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by
John Schilling, “Owner”, described as Lots 17, 18 and 19 in Block 31, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 535, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2, 1888 (“the property); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment
Permit and Sign Permit as showr? on Exhibits A-F, dated September 18, 1996 on file in the
Housing and Redevelopment Department, Schilling Mixed Use Project RP 95-05 as provided
by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 18th day of September, 1996,
and on the 16” day of October, 1996, hold duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to
Major Redevelopment Permit 95-05.
DRE3 RESO NO. 252
PAGE 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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board
as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Major Redevelopment Permit,
Schilling Mixed Use Project, RP 95-05, and the related sign permit based on
the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board finds that the subject project will have no significant impact
on the environment and has recommended approval of a Negative Declaration for the
subject project to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
2. The Project qualifies as a Major Redevelopment Permit under Chapter 21.35 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code because the project involves new construction of a building
with a building permit valuation exceeding $150,000.
3. As established within the staff reports to the Design Review Board dated September
18, 1996 and October 16, 1996, the Project has been determined to be consistent with
the land use plan, development standards, design guidelines and other applicable
regulations set forth with the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and
Design Guidelines, with the following additional findings to allow for reduced setback
and parking standards, an increase in density for one (1) unit, and for non-standard
street improvements:
a) The reduced setback and parking standards will not have an adverse impact
on surrounding properties due to the location of the project site. The site is
bordered on three sides by public streets and adjoined on the south by a
single family property. The building is separated from the single family
home by the parking lot and five foot landscaped setback. Also, there are a
variety of setbacks already existing in the area of the project.
b) The reduced setback and parking standards will assist in developing a
project which meets the goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is
consistent with the objectives for the land use district in which the project is
located. The reduced setback and parking standards will allow the applicant
to build a project which will be financially feasible and remain generally
consistent with the established development standards for the area. Mixed
use, neighborhood commercial development is very desirable within Land
Use District 5. The reduced setback and parking standards are necessary to
facilitate the development of the proposed project.
DRB RESO NO. 252
PAGE 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
C)
4
e)
g)
h)
The reduced setback and parking standards will assist in creating a project
design which is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the Village
character of the area. Due to the fact that Roosevelt Street represents a
pedestrian corridor and that there are a number of residential units in the
immediate area of the proposed project, it was important to design the
project in a manner which takes advantage of pedestrian traffic and does
not conflict with it. By developing the subject project in a manner which
brings it closer to the sidewalks and designing the parking lot as proposed,
the project will connect better with pedestrians and create a more positive
interaction between residents, commercial tenants and the pedestrians in the
area.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The land uses
surrounding the proposed project include a variety of uses such as
residential, retail, and light industrial. In addition, mixed use projects are
strongly encouraged within Land Use District 5, as set forth in the new
Village Master Plan. Also, mixed use projects are encouraged for the
Village, as stated in the Carlsbad General Plan.
The public facilities, such as sewer, water, and other public improvements,
are currently in place and adequate to allow construction of the subject
project, with the increased density.
The project is located in close proximity to a freeway (I-5), major roads
(Carlsbad Village Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard, elementary schools (Pine
and Jefferson), a park (Chase Field) and the Village Transit Station.
There are extraordinary or unusual circumstances or conditions applicable
to the situation of surrounding property necessitating a standards waiver to
allow for non-standard street improvements. The east side of the project
site fronts on Roosevelt Street, which is the designated corridor for future
thematic streetscape improvements, similar to the streetscaping project
recently completed along Carlsbad Village Drive. It is anticipated that the
improvements to be installed under this standards waiver will be compatible
and enhance the connection of Pine Street to the future Roosevelt Street
Improvements. The improvements will consist of enhanced brick pavers,
landscaping, lighting, and sitting areas. The applicant is willing to install
these improvements at their own expense and has limited the improvements
along their project frontage on Roosevelt Street to provide an opportunity
for the future streetscape theme to continue uninterrupted along the
designated corridor.
The granting of a standards waiver for the non-standard street
improvements will not cause substantial drainage problems. The proposed
surface improvements are to be installed to match the existing grade and
elevations of the existing improvements, which drain in a positive direction *
DRB RESO NO. 252
PAGE 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to the public storm drain system.
i) The granting of a standards waiver for the non-standard street
improvements will not conflict with existing or future traffic and parking
demands or pedestrian or bicycle use. The proposed improvements do not
involve modifications to the travel lanes of the streets nor will it cause any
changes to the street parking. The width of the existing sidewalk fronting
the project will not be changed.
j) The granting of a standards waiver for the non-standard street improvements
will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity in which the standards waiver is granted. The
proposed surface improvements will be at the same grade as the existing
improvements and the landscape, lighting and benches will be situated out
of the pedestrian travel path.
k) The granting of a standards waiver for the non-standard street
improvements will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan.
The roads surrounding this project are not designated as Circulation
Element roadways within the Carlsbad General Plan.
4. The granting of the ten foot street vacation will have no adverse impact on vehicular
circulation within the area and the surplus right-of-way is not required for future
public street purposes. The project is approved with the understanding that the
required street vacation will be approved by the Carlsbad City Council prior to
approval of the redevelopment permit for the subject project.
5. Due to configuration of the site, the project is unable to provide an acceptable
alternative for access to the site. Approval of an access off of Roosevelt Street will not
have an adverse impact on pedestrian or vehicular circulation within the area.
GENERAL PLAN AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
6. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the following:
a) That the General Plan identifies the “Village” and references the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual as the appropriate land use plan for the area.
The project is consistent with the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan
and the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, effective as of January 12,
1996, because it will provide for an encouraged land use within Land Use
District 5 of the Village Redevelopment Project Area. The uses allowed in this
land use district include retail and residential as well as mixed use projects.
b) That the existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
public right-of-way has been dedicated and has been or will be improved to ’
DRE3 RESO NO. 252
PAGE 4
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have been
designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Pedestrian
circulation is provided through pedesnian-oriented building design,
landscaping, lighting and street furniture. Public facilities have been or will be
constructed to serve the proposed project. The project has been conditioned to
develop and implement a program of “best management practices” for the
elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are transported
within storm drainage facilities.
c) That the project is required to comply with Title 24 of the Uniform Building
Code which sets forth insulation requirements to reduce internal noise levels for
the residential apartment units to a level not to exceed 45 dBA CNEL, which is
consistent with the Noise Element of the General Plan.
d) The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed
project will be consistent with the residential density applicable to the RMH
density designation which has been assigned to the property with the approval
of a density increase and the findings below to exceed the Growth Management
Control Point for the subject site. The project is permitted to exceed the
Growth Management Control Point of 3.11 for the site based on the following
findings:
1.
2.
3.
There is no need for the project to provide additional public facilities
for the density in excess of the control point (one housing unit).The
Developer has been conditioned to pay the appropriate public facilities
fee for the subject project which will ensure that adequate public
facilities will be provided within the area to serve this and other
projects in the future.
There have been sufficient developments approved in the northwest
quadrant at densities below the control point to cover the units in the
project above the control point so that approval will not result in
exceeding the quadrant limit.
All necessary public facilities required by Chapter 21.90 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code will be constructed or are guaranteed to be
constructed concurrently with the need for them created by this
development and in compliance with the adopted City standards.
e) The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan, the
City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the Redevelopment Agency’s
Inclusionary Housing Requirement, as the Developer has been conditioned
to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to provide and deed restrict
one (1) dwelling unit as affordable to low income households.
DRB RESO NO. 252
PAGE 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7.
8.
fl
g)
h)
8
The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space
within the surrounding area. The project is being developed on a vacant lot
which has appropriate zoning for commercial/mixed use development. The
project is also consistent with the Open Space requirements for new
development within the Village Redevelopment Area.
The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform
Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project
meets appropriate fire protection and other safety standards.
The proposed project has been conditioned to pay all applicable fees related
to the construction of public facilities, including parks and recreation
facilities.
The proposed project has been conditioned to require the developer to
consult with the City’s Art Manager in the construction of the above
standard public improvements which could incorporate art-related features,
such as an artist designed park bench.
The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
b)
cl
4
The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer
service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless
sewer service remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that
the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have
been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
Statutory School Fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school
facilities in the Carlsbad Unified School District.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
The Developer 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.
The project has been conditioned 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 the Local Facilities Management Plan prepared ’
DRB RESO NO. 252
PAGE 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure
continued availability of public facilities.
9. The project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part
of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
10. The project is conditioned to comply and remain consistent with the City’s
Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council Resolution No.90-384.
11. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the
Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the
exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the
project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to
the impact caused by the project. ,
GENERAL AND PLANNING CONDITIONS:
12. The Design Review Board does hereby RECOMMEND APPROVAL of Major
Redevelopment Permit, Schilling Mixed Use Project, RP 95-05, and the related
sign permit, subject to the conditions herein set forth. Staff is authorized and
directed to make, or require Developer to make, all necessary corrections and
modifications to the Exhibits and/or other documents to make them internally
consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Developer shall
develop the property substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits, or first
obtain appropriate amendment(s) to this approval.
13. The Developer shall provide the Agency 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 Agency. The plan copy shall be
submitted to the Planning Director and approved prior to building or grading
permit approval, whichever occurs first.
14. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan
check, a reduced, legible version of the approving resolution on a 24” X 36”
blueline drawing.
15. 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.
16. 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. If the fees are not paid,’ I
DRB RESO NO. 252
PAGE 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this
project will be void.
The Developer shall provide proof of payment of statutory school fees, if
applicable, to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as part of the building permit
application. The amount of these fees shall be determined by the fee schedule in
effect at the time of building permit application.
Prior to the issuance of the Redevelopment Permit, Developer shall submit to the
City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject
to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all
interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad’s
Redevelopment Agency has issued a Redevelopment Permit by Resolution No. 252
on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note
the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and
all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for
inctusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director or the Housing and
Redevelopment Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to
the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause
by the developer or successor in interest.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates
pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Planning Director or the Housing and Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall
be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director.
All visitor parking spaces shall be striped a different color than the assigned
resident parking spaces and shall be clearly marked as may be approved by the
Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director.
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning
Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director approval. All lighting shall be
designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or
property.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
In such instance, a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief
and the Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director.
The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in
conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s
Landscape Manual. The plans shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the
Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to the approval
of the grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. The Developer shall
construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and maintain ’
DRF3 RESO NO. 252
PAGE 8
/
I
I
I
I I
1
I ,
I
I
/
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
all landscaping in a healthy and thriving conditions, free from weeds, trash ard
debris.
The first submittal of detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall he
accompanied by the project’s building, improvement and grading plans.
The project’s discretionary sign permit is approved as part of this
redevelopment permit. All building signs shah conform to the plans submitted
for approval under this permit. Any changes to the sign plan shall require
prior written approval from the Planning Director or Housing and
Redevelopment Director prior to the installation of signs on the building.
Building permits shall be required for the installation of all approved signs on
the building.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street; color of identification and/or
addresses shall contrast to their background color .
Prior to the issuance of building permits for the building, including the residential
units, the Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the
City to provide and deed restrict one (1) dwelling unit within the project affordable
to lower-income households for the useful life of the dwelling unit, in accordance
with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85, Section 2 1.85.150 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall
be binding on all future owners and successors in interest.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall apply for and obtain
approval to participate in the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and pay
the applicable fee established by the Carlsbad City Council for a total of four
(4) parking spaces. If the Developer is unable to obtain approval to participate
in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and/or does not pay the applicable fee for
four (4) spaces, the approval of this permit shaB become null and void.
In preparing the detailed public improvement plans for the Project, which
include non-standard sidewalk improvements the Developer shall consult with
the City of Carlsbad’s City Engineer, Housing and Redevelopment Director
and Arts Manager prior to completing the plans to design the project in a
manner which is consistent with the proposed Roosevelt Street Streetscape
Improvement Plans and incorporates appropriate art elements. The final
improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer, following
consultation with the Housing and Redevelopment Director. If the Roosevelt
Street Streetscape Improvement Plans are not approved by the City of
Carlsbad in a timely manner, the City Engineer is authorized to approve an
alternate plan prepared by the Developer if acceptable to the City Engineer
and Housing and Redevelopment Director.
DREI RESO NO. 252
PAGE 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 I
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30.
31.
Where retail and workshop spaces are adjacent, the property owner of the subject
project shall be required to lease the workshop and retail space together. The workshop
space must be used as an extension of a single business operation. The workshop space
may not be used for a business enterprise which is separate from the on-site retail
space.
The retail suites on the site may be used for the sale of items which are permitted
within Land Use District 5. The workshop space may be used for the production of the
same permitted sale items to be sold within the retail suite.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
32.
33.
34.
The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City
Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions
and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide the best
management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management
Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to
discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City
Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners
and tenants of the following:
4
b)
cl
All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work
with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of
toxic and hazardous waste products.
Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor
oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and
other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or
private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use
and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides,
fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State,
County, and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface
pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface
improvement.
DRBRESON0.252
PAGE10
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
35.
36.
37.
38.
Plans, specifications and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards,
the developer shall install, or agree to install ‘and secure with appropriate security as
provided by law, improvements shown on the site plan.
The structural section for the access aisle shall be designed with a traffic index of 5.0 in
accordance with City Standards due to truck access through the parking area. The
structural pavement design of the aisle way shall be submitted together with required R-
value soil test information and approved by the City as part of the building site plan
review.
Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall submit and receive approval
of a street vacation of ten feet along the project frontage on Pine Avenue. If
approval for the street vacation is not granted, approval of the site plan shall be
null and void.
Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall submit and receive approval
for an encroachment permit for the above ground non-standard street
improvements from the City Engineer.
WATER, SEWER AND FIRE CONDITIONS
39. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to insure that adequate capacity. pressure and flow demands can be
met.
40. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits, and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego
County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for
meter installations.
41. Sequentially, the Developers Engineer shall do the following:
a) Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection
requirements. Also obtain GPM demand for domestic and irrigational needs
from appropriate parties.
b) Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning
Department for processing and approval.
c) Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement
plans, a meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review,
comment and approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (i.e..
GPM - EDU).
DRE3 RESO NO. 252
PAGE 11
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
42. This project is approved under the expressed 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 service and sewer facilities are available at
the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to be
available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the project plans.
43. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall evaluate building plans
for conformance with applicable fire and life safety requirements of the state and .local
Fire Codes. The plans must include a site plan which depicts the following:
a) Location of existing public water mains and fire hydrants.
b) Location of off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
c) Depiction of emergency access routes, driveways and traffic circulation for
Fire Department approval.
44. Prior to building occupancy, private roads and driveways which serve as required
access for emergency service vehicles shall be posted as fire lanes in accordance with
the requirements of Section 17.04.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited
to the following code requirements.
1. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
2. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 18 months from the date of final project approval.
3. 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.
4. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
5. The project shall comply with insulation requirements for residential units to reduce the
interior noise levels within the apartments to 45 dBA CNEL pursuant to Title 24 of
State Building Code.
6. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated
and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets,
in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of .
the Directors of Planning and Building.
DRB RESO NO. 252
PAGE 12
.
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
*16 Y'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7.
8.
9.
10.
All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape
Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning
Director.
The project shall comply with recycling collection area requirements pursuant to
Section 21.105.060. The recycling area shall be noted on the fmal plans submitted for
applicable building permits for the project.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any of the foregoing conditions fails to occur; or, if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the Redevelopment Agency shall
have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further
condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all
certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted;
institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or
seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a
successor in interest by the Agency’s approval of this Resolution,
. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of October, 1996 by the
following vote to wit:
AYES: Design Review Board Members: Compas, Marquez, Savary 8r Scheer.
NOES: Chairperson Welshons.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None. . 7$?d!L&
KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
EVAN E. BECKER’
Housing and Redevelopment Director
DREt RESO NO. 252
PAGE 13
- EXHIBIT 6
City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department
A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Application Complete Date:
April 2, 1996
Environmental Review:
Nea. Dec. 8/2/96
Staff: Debbie Fountain
Brian Hunter
Ken Quon 1
DATE: October 16, 1996
SUBJECT: RP 95-05 - SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT - Request for a Major
Redevelopment Permit to allow the construction of a mixed use project
which includes 4 residential units, 1537 square feet of retail space and
1851 square feet of workshop space at 507 Pine Street, between Tyler
Street and Roosevelt Street in the Village Redevelopment Zone/Land Use
District 5.
The following provides a supplemental report on the Schilling Mixed Use Project for
Design Review Board consideration during the continued public hearing to be held on
October 16, 1996.
BACKGROUND
On September 18, 1996, the Schilling Mixed Use project was presented to the Design
Review Board for consideration. The Board raised several questions regarding the
project design and special features which could not be adequately addressed during
the hearing on September 18th due to time constraints. Consequently, the public
hearing was continued to October 16, 1996 in order to allow staff the opportunity to
provide the Board with additional information on the project as related to I) residential
density, 2) parking, 3) noise conflicts*between workshop space and residential units, 4)
vacation of the city street, 5) location of the trash enclosure, 6) lighting plan, 7) the roll
up doors for the workshop space, 8) loading and unloading areas, and 9) limits on the
operations of the workshop/retail spaces.
The questions or issues raised by the Design Review Board are addressed in further
detail within this report. Also, staff has addressed two additional issues which required
more discussion 1) landscaping in public right-of-way; and, 2) building setbacks.
41
RP 95-05
Supplemental Report
October 16,1996
Page 2
Residential Density
Chairperson Welshons raised the issue of residential density as related to the
calculations in the staff report and concern regarding the application of a density bonus
to the subject project.
As mentioned in the original project report, the site area for the proposed mixed use
project is .27 acres, approximately a quarter of an acre. Density designations are set
according to full acres of land. So, within the original report staff calculated what the
project density would be if related to a full acre site. With the 4 dwelling units proposed,
the project results in a density of 14.8 dwelling units per acre which is within the upper
range of the RMH designation (8 to 15 units) assigned to the property. The project is,
therefore, consistent with the RMH density designation. However, in reviewing
residential density, the City must also consider the Growth Management Control Point
(GMCP) for the property which is determined to be the midpoint of the density range.
For the subject project, the GMCP is 11.5 (midpoint between 8 and 15). Application of
the GMCP (11.5 X .27) to the subject site results in permitted dwelling units equal to
3.11. The project proposes 4 one bedroom units, which exceeds the GMCP by 1 unit
because we round to the lowest whole number.
For information purposes, both the Planning and Redevelopment Departments agree
that 4 units are appropriate for the subject site. The density is not excessive. The City
will be granting only one additional residential unit above that which the applicant would
be permitted to have under normal circumstances. Since there are nearly 1000 units in
the excess dwelling unit bank for the Northwest Quadrant, granting one additional unit
to the subject project creates no threat of exceeding the housing cap for the quadrant.
The Village Master Plan and Design Manual sets forth the process for addressing
residential density for each project within the Redevelopment Area. The Manual states
that the maximum project density may not exceed the GMCP for the applicable density
designation unless a density increase or bonus is granfed in accordance with Chapters
21.53 and 21.86 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Appropriate findings must also be
made per Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to exceed the GMCP. In
general, these findings are: I) assurances that adequate public facilities are provided to
compensate for the increase in density; 2) that the granting of the increase will not
result in the northwest quadrant exceeding its housing cap; and 3) all required public
facilities will be constructed or guaranteed to be constructed concurrently to meet the
need created by this development. These findings are included in the resolutions
recommending approval of the project and contained in the original staff report.
42
RP 95-05
Supplemental Report
October 16,1996
Page 3
In the original staff report, redevelopment staff recommended that the Density Bonus
Ordinance (Chapter 21.86) be applied to the project to allow for the additional unit and
an incentive representing a reduced parking standard for the entire mixed use project
because it was believed that the density bonus was the most appropriate method for
approving the additional density for the project. Concern was raised by Chairperson
Welshons, however, over the fact that the density bonus ordinance specifically refers to
housing development of at least five (5) units.
The following information is provided to clarify the two methods for approving increased
density for the subject project. Staff hopes that this information will help to clarify the
authorization under which the City/Redevelopment Agency can grant additional density
for a project and what staffs current position is on how to grant additional density for
the Schilling Mixed Use Project.
Densitv Bonus (Chapter 21.86):
Chapter 21.86, the Density Bonus Ordinance, was incorporated into the Carlsbad
Municipal Code because California State Law requires the City to grant a density
bonus of 25% and provide one additional incentive to any housing developer of five (5)
units or more who agrees to construct 1) a minimum of 20% of the total units of the
housing development as restricted and affordable to low-income households; or 2) a
minimum of 10% of the total units of the housing development as restricted and
‘affordable to very low income households; or 3) a minimum of 50% of the total units of
the housing development as restricted to qualified (senior) residents.
State Law does not give the City a choice in granting additional density for projects
which include five (5) dwelling units or more and where the applicant has agreed to
provide the required affordable hous/ng as noted above; the City must do this.
According to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD),
the City mav also apply the density bonus law to smaller projects (less than 5 units); it
is not required but it is an allowed option that cities have used historically in
implementing density bonus law. The general City position has been, however, that
the Density Bonus Ordinance shall only apply to projects of 5 units or more. Therefore,
based on advice from the City Attorney’s Office, staff is now recommending that the
Density Bonus Ordinance not be applied to the subject project.
The Redevelopment Agency still has the authority to grant a density increase and
modify standards for the subject project. The authority to grant density increases and
modify development standards is also provided through Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code.
RP 95-05
Supplemental Report
October 16,1996
Page 4
Site Development Plan (Chapter 21.53):
Chapter 21.53 refers to the requirement to process a Site Development Plan for an
affordable housing project of anv size. The plans submitted for the Redevelopment
Permit serve as the required Site Development Plan. Under a Site Development Plan
approval and via the General Plan, the City/Agency can grant a density increase and
approve reduced standards for the subject project because it provides for an affordable
housing unit.
Any site development plan application request to increase residential densities (either
above the GMCP or upper end of the residential density range) for purposes of
providing lower-income affordable housing must be evaluated relative to 1) the
proposal’s compatibility with adjacent land uses; 2) the adequacy of public facilities; and
3) the project site being located in proximity to a minimum of one of the following: a
freeway or major roadway, a commercial center, employment opportunities, a city park
or open space, or a commuter rail or transit center. Through the site development plan
(redevelopment permit) process, the City/Agency may also reduce or modify standards,
such as the parking and the setbacks for the project.
Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code provides the authority to the Design
Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission to approve the subject
project as proposed.
Residential Density Issue Summary:
After further staff discussion on the residential density issue, staff is recommending that
the Design Review Board approve Resolution No. 252, as revised by staff and attached
to this report, recommending approval of the additional density and reduced standards
for the project through application of ‘Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and
the Site Development Plan process, rather than the previously recommended Density
Bonus Ordinance. The following findings have been incorporated into DRB Resolution
No. 252 to allow approval of the increased density through the Site Development
Plan/Chapter 21.53 process:
1. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The land uses surrounding the
proposed project include a variety of uses such as residential, retail, and light
industrial. In addition, mixed use projects are strongly encouraged within Land Use
District 5, as set forth in the new Village Master Plan. Also, mixed use projects are
encouraged for the Village, as stated in the Carlsbad General Plan.
RP 95-05
Supplemental Report
October 16,1996
Page 5
2. The public facilities, such as sewer, water, and other public improvements, are
currently in place and adequate to allow construction of the subject project.
3. The project is located in close proximity to a freeway (l-5), major roads (Carlsbad
Village Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard; elementary schools (Pine and Jefferson), a
park (Chase Field) and the Village Transit Station.
Redevelopment Staff strongly believes that it is its role to facilitate development in the
Village according to the Master Plan while also complying with our established
standards which were designed to be flexible and to allow for unique projects. The
subject project is very desirable and it has been designed to meet the goals and intent
of applicable design and development standards set forth in the Village Master Plan
and Design Manual. The applicant is proposing to build the project because he believes
that it is needed within the community and it can help to initiate other improvements
within the area. The applicant is financing the project entirely on his own. The Density
Increase and reduced parking and setback standards will assist the applicant in
development of the subject project. Therefore, staff supports the density increase and
the reduced parking and setback standards.
As an additional note for considering the proposed project, it is important to distinguish
between more general opposition to mixed use projects and the appropriateness of the
density increase and reduced standards. If the primary concern about the project is its
mixed use nature, that specific issue should be addressed. The Design Review Board
is under no obligation to recommend approval of the project with the added density and
reduced standards. However, if the Board believes the project is desirable and is
appropriate for the area, staff believes the Board has more than adequate justification
to recommend approval of it to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
Parkinq:
As stated within the original staff report, the project is required to provide off street
parking per the standards set forth within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
As a mixed residential-commercial project, the total parking requirement is twenty (20)
spaces.
Staff recommended that the workshop space be restricted in that it must be used in
conjunction with an on-site retail suite; the space can’t be leased to a separate,
unrelated business. Due to the uniqueness of the project and to compensate for this
proposed restriction as well as to provide an “additional incentive” for the purposes of
45
RP 95-05
Supplemental Report
October 16,1996
Page 6
developing a unit on the site which will be restricted for affordable housing purposes,
staff is recommending that the Design Review Board recommend approval of a
reduced parking requirement for the project.
Staff recommended that the Board consider approval of a modified parking requirement
for the workshop space of 1 space per 650 square feet of gross floor space, which is
developed by averaging a 50% retail (1:300) and 50% warehouse (1 :I 000) standard.
When applied to the project, this modified parking requirement would result in 8 spaces
for the residential, 6 spaces for the retail and 3 spaces for the workshop space, which
amounts to 17 spaces total. The practical effect of this modified parking requirement is
that the parking requirement for the project would be reduced by 3 spaces. While there
is a logical basis for this parking reduction, it can also be considered an incentive for
providing affordable housing and a desired mixed use project.
Per the Village Master Plan, the applicant is eligible to participate in the Parking In-Lieu
Fee Program for a maximum of 25% of the project parking requirement. Therefore, the
applicant is eligible to pay a fee for up to 5 parking spaces. The applicant will provide
13 parking spaces on site and pay the Parking In-Lieu Fee for 4 spaces. If the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission approves the reduced parking requirement for the
project, the construction of 13 spaces on site and the payment of the fee for 4 spaces
will satisfy the project requirement for parking.
As a side note, the applicant has agreed to provide signage which indicates “parking in
rear”. The sign will be mounted on the wall of the building which fronts on Roosevelt
Street.
Noise Conflicts:
Board member Marquez expressed concern about the noise generated from the
workshop space and the potential impact on the residents of the project. As staff
indicated in the hearing on September 16, 1996, residents moving into this project will
need to go in with their “eyes open”. They will need to understand that it is a mixed use
project and there are inherent differences between this and traditional residential areas.
This mixture of activities and uses that may bother some, is what attracts others.
The applicant has indicated to staff that there will be one hour fire rated floors, ceilings
and walls separating the retail/workshop space from the residential units, as required by
the Uniform Building Code. Noise control must meet minimum Sound Transmission
Standards (STC) as well as Impact Insulation (IIC) requirements.
RP 95-05
Supplemental Report
October 16,1996
Page 7
The project will also provide for resilient sound channels and light weight concrete on
the floor and ceiling assemblies between the garage and workshop space and the
residential units to reduce sound transmission between the spaces,
As stated in the findings for approval of the subject project, the project is required to
comply with Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code, which sets forth insulation
requirements to reduce internal noise levels for the residential apartment units to a level
not to exceed 45 dBA CNEL. New projects developed today or in the future will be
better insulated and provide for more noise control than any residential units built in the
past.
Vacation of a Portion of City Right-of-Wav:
In the design phase of the project, the applicant was experiencing problems meeting
the sight distance requirements for the project as set forth by the Engineering
Department. To assist in facilitating the development of the project, Engineering Staff
suggested that the applicant apply for a street vacation of 10 feet. There is currently
excess right of way (20 feet) which is not required for public street or improvement
purposes per the Engineering Department. In exchange for the vacation of the right-of-
way, the applicant offered to provide enhanced paving and landscaping to compliment
the future streetscape improvements to Roosevelt Street. This is an important feature of
the project which provides a substantial benefit to the City and the area in which the
project is to be located.
The site improvements currently include sidewalks on all three sides of the property.
Therefore, the project would not have had any additional requirement to provide for
these improvements. However, in an attempt to show his commitment to doing his part
to improve the area, the applicant offered to provide enhanced above ground
improvements which include brick pavers, park benches and attractive landscaping.
Location of Trash Enclosure:
Trash Enclosures are very often difficult to locate on a site. Originally, the applicant
proposed that the trash enclosure be located at the exit from the driveway, adjacent to
Tyler Street. This is probably the preferred location in terms of aesthetics. However, this
location creates safety problems related to sight distance for exiting vehicles.
Consequently, Engineering staff required the relocation of the trash enclosure to the
Roosevelt side of the parking lot. One of the goals of the Village Master Plan is to
reduce the pedestrian conflicts on Roosevelt Street. The exit onto Tyler Street assists in
RP 95-05
Supplemental Report
October 16,1996
Page a
the effort to reduce these pedestrian conflicts on Roosevelt Street because pedestrians
will not need to worry about vehicles exiting from the parking lot. Vehicles entering the
site will be able to clearly see pedestrians and wait for them to cross the driveway
before entering into the parking lot.
For trash collection purposes, the current location is also more convenient. To screen
the trash enclosure from Roosevelt Street and the neighboring residents, the applicant
has proposed to use decorative masonry walls and a landscape planter area. The
applicant can work with the trash collection company to arrange a service schedule
which reduces any negative impact on adjacent residents as well as those located on
the site.
Liqhtinq Plan:
As a condition of approval, the applicant is required to submit and obtain approval of an
exterior lighting plan for the plan, including the parking area. This plan must be
approved by the Planning Director or the Housing and Redevelopment Director. All
lighting must be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent
homes or property.
In response to the lighting concern raised by Member Marquez, the applicant indicated
that the current proposal is to install two free standing parking light poles with shields
within the parking lot. Additional lighting shall be provided by down lights located in the
soffit on the south side of the proposed building.
As an additional note on security, the residential units will be controlled at the street
level by providing lockable wrought iron gates and security lighting on both the south
and north entry to the stair/mailbox center alcove.
Roll Up Doors for Workshop Space
At the request of Member Marquez, the applicant has provided information on the
garage and workshop doors. The roll-up doors will all match. They will be sectional
raised panel roll-up doors with glass lights. They will not be an “industrial” metal roll-up
door. They shall be residential in scale, except for the added height, and the quality has
been selected to match the architectural treatment of the building. The noise generated
from the doors will be similar to the noise generated by a residential garage door.
RP 95-05
Supplemental Report
October 16,1996
Page 9
LoadinqNnloadinq Areas
Staff has proposed no restrictions on the times in which deliveries may be made to and
from the proposed project. If the Design Review Board desires to do so, a condition
may be added to the resolution limiting delivery hours. It should probably be recognized
that the types of deliveries and trucks will not be large in comparison to deliveries
made to grocery stores or restaurants. The retail within the complex will be small in
scale and will most likely represent a “mom and pop” type operation.
As indicated during the hearing on September 16th, the project provides a wide enough
driveway which will allow for use of the parking spaces as well as an area to load and
unload products and/or supplies to the retail and workshop areas.
Restrictions on Hours of Operation within Retail and Workshop Space:
Staff has not suggested any type of restriction on the hours of operation for the retail
and workshop spaces. Since the workshop space is to be used together with the retail
space, it is very likely that the workshop space will be used either before the store is
open or after the store closes. Staff did not feel that it was reasonable to try and
regulate the hours of use. Staff suggests that the property owner be allowed to regulate
the hours of use through lease agreements. The property owner or manager will
ultimately be responsible for any complaints received from neighbors or residents of the
project and will most likely need flexibility to resolve them.
As a reminder, the types of retail permitted within the front suites will dictate the type of
activities to occur within the workshop area. For example, arts and crafts may be sold in
the front retail suite. The proprietor of the shop may specialize in handmade toys. The
shopkeeper will establish his/her retail outlet in the front and set up his/her equipment
to make the toys in the back workshop. The toymaker may use a table saw, a hammer,
etc. to make his/her products; these types of tools would be similar to those used by
local residents in their garages or homes. Conversely, a cabinet maker would not be
permitted to lease space in the project because he/she has a business which is
considered light industrial and would not be allowed on this site within Land Use District
5. A cabinet maker would typically have much more industrial type equipment and
supplies for making products which would produce higher levels of noise.
RP 95-05
Supplemental Report
October 16,1996
Page 10
Landscapina in the Public Rinht-of-Wav
During the hearing on September 18, 1996, Chairperson Welshons inquired about
landscaping between the sidewalk and the street. On Roosevelt Street, there is a
“parkway” area between the existing sidewalk and the curb. This area will be
landscaped by the applicant to include groundcover and three (3) trees. The landscape
plan provides information on the type of groundcover and trees. There is currently no
similar parkway area to be located on Tyler or Pine.
Buildinq Setbacks
In the staff report to the Board dated September 18, 1996, staff indicated that all of the
building setbacks were proposed at the minimum 5 feet. This is within the range for the
permitted setbacks (5ft to IOft or 5 ft to 20ft). However, to allow the minimum (of 5 feet)
setback to be used, the applicable findings must be made by the Design Review Board
and recommended to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. These findings
were outlined in the original staff report. Staff believes there is adequate justification to
make the findings and allow the reduced 5 foot setbacks.
Staff recently discovered that the above information is not entirely correct. On the east
and west side of the property, there are some features (entryway) of the building which
actually extend to the property line; this results in no setback from the property line for
these portions of the building. Also, on the east side of the project, a portion of the
building (workshop space) provides for a 3 foot setback only. For these areas of the
project, the Design Review Board would need to recommend, and the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission would need to approve, reduced setback standards for
the project which are below the range indicated in the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual. As noted above in the section on residential density, the Design Review Board
and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission have the authority through Chapter
21.53 of the Municipal Code to approve reduced development standards for a project
which provides affordable housing. The subject project provides for a very desirable
mixed use project as well as an affordable housing unit.
Staff believes that the reduced setback standards are justified for the following reasons:
l The general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan is
to eliminate blight and economically enhance the Village Redevelopment Area
through stimulation and attraction of private investment. This project eliminates a
blighting influence in Land Use District 5 through development of a vacant lot into a
project which is both desirable and practical for the area. One of the objectives of
RP 95-05
Supplemental Report
October 16,1996
Page 11
the Redevelopment Plan is to provide for a variety of spaces and locations for specialty,
unique and attractive shops with strong pedestrian orientation. The project as proposed
assists the area to achieve this objective.
l At this time, it is very difficult to finance mixed-use projects through a private lending
institution. This is primarily due to the fact that personnel of lending institutions do
not have adequate data on the success of these types of project and are very
uncomfortable in approving loans for them. Therefore, the applicant will be financing
the project entirely on his own. The hope is that in time a successful “track record”
will be created which can be used to encourage lending institutions to make new
loans on mixed use types of projects. In the meantime, the applicant must develop a
project which he can afford to finance and operate. Without the reduced setback
standards, the applicant will not be able to build the project which would result in a
great loss to the Redevelopment Area.
l The proposed mixed-use project will initially be the only project of its kind in the
Village Redevelopment Area. Therefore, it has features which are unique to this
proposed development which must be addressed with special consideration.
Because the property is bordered on three sides by public streets and the property
fronts on Pine Street, the side setback standards are not as critical for preserving
privacy and creating space between buildings. In fact, due to the desire to enhance
the pedestrian orientation on Roosevelt Street and draw retail customers into Land
Use District 5 from Carlsbad Village Drive, it is important to develop some features
of this project right to the property line for visibility purposes.
l The setback standards were established to provide for areas which can be
landscaped, provide for desirable pedestrian amenities, and create space between
buildings. The project as proposed will provide for landscaping and the desirable
pedestrian amenities which is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual. The side setbacks are not needed to create space between buildings.
CONCLUSION
Staff continues to recommend approval of this project. The project will provide for a very
desirable mixed use project with “shopkeeper” type units which are currently very
RP 95-05
Supplemental Report
October 16,1996
Page 12
difTicult to finance. Since the applicant is willing to finance the project on his own in
order to help get things started, staff believes it is incumbent upon us to try and assist
him wherever we are able. Attached for your information is a copy of a letter from
Connie Trejo and Frances Jauregui-Moreno supporting the Schilling Mixed Use Project.
EXHIBITS:
1. Revised DRB Resolution No. 252, recommending approval of Major Redevelopment Permit
95-05.
2. Original DRB Resolution No. 251, recommending approval of the Negative Declaration for
Environmental Review.
3. Correspondence from Connie Trejo and Frances Jauregui-Moreno, dated September 25,
1996.
City of -. Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: 507 Pine Street
Project Description: Two-story mixed use project with 4 l-bedroom
apartments, 1,537 square feet of retail space; 1,851
square feet of workshop space; enclosed parking for
four vehicles; open parking for nine vehicles; and
associated landscaping. Grading proposed totals 12
cubic yards of cut and 128 cubic yards of fill requiring
116 cubic yards of import.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above
described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California _
Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City
of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the
project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for
the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning
Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009.
Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the
1 Planning Department within 21 days of date of issuance. If you have any
questions, please call Brian Hunter in the Planning Department at (619) 438-l 161,
extension 4457.
DATED: AUGUST 2, 1996
CASE NO: RP 95-05
CASE NAME: PINE STREET PROJECT
PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 2, 1996
MICHAEL J.+/GLZtiLLER
Planning Director
M.III ,,,, 111
:‘07f, 1 iI!> I’~llll~~iS I)1 - C;;lII:,I~;~(j. <:A O?OO<) l!j./(j - (fil’b) ,1:3t\ llfil - I AX (010) /l:(I< (It(!).1
53
BACKGROUND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - FART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: RP 95-05
DATE: 7-29-96
1. CASE NAME: Pine Street Proiect
2.
3.
APPLICANT: John Schilling
424 0 ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: PO box 417 Carlsbad CA 92888 (619)
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 12-20-95
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Mixed use proiect which includes 4 residential units, 1537 square
feet of retail space and 185 1 square feet of workshop space at 507 Pine Street
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
0 Population and Housing 17 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
cl Water cl Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
0 Air Quality cl Noise Cl Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
X
0
0
cl
Cl
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An -1 - is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
-1 pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier [-I
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
, including
Therefore,
723qLfl /‘
Date
Planning Director’s Signature Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96 55
ENVIRONMENTAL IMI ;:TS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
.factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but alJ potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
a If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
a An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
4
b)
c)
4
4
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (1,2)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (1,2)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(1) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (1)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (1)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (2,)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (2)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (2)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4
b)
cl
d)
4
0
!a
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (2)
Seismic ground shaking? (2)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (2)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (2)
Landslides or mudflows? (2)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or.fill? (2)
Subsidence of the land? (2)
Expansive soils? (2)
Unique geologic or physical features? (2)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (2)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (2)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (2)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (2)
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
0
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
0
Cl
0
0
cl
cl
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
cl
cl
cl
0
0
Cl
0
0
cl
0
0
cl
0
cl
0 q 0
0
cl
0
0
Less Than
Significan t Impact
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
No Impact
lxl
Ix1
IXI
lxl
(XI
lx
Ix1 -
lx
l-xl
Ix)
lx
El
ix1
[x1
Ix1
lxl
El
lxl
El
(XI
El
5 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
9
g>
h)
9
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (2)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (2)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (2)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (2)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (2)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (2)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (2)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (2)
d) Create objectionable odors? (2)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a>
b)
c>
4
e)
9
g)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (2)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (2)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(2) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (2)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (2)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (2)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (2)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the’ proposal result
a>
b)
cl
4
e>
VIII.
a)
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (1)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(1) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (2)
Potentially Significant Impact
cl
cl
cl
cl q
cl
cl cl
cl
0 cl
Cl
cl q 0
cl
Cl
cl cl
cl
cl
q
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
cl
El
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl q cl
cl
cl
0 cl
cl
cl
cl
Less Than Significan t Impact
cl
0
cl
0
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
No Impact
lx
[XI
IXI
I8
lx!
[x1
I8
E-l
Ix1 -
[XI
Ix1
lx
El
lxl
Ix1
Ix1
lx
ix)
El
[XI
ix
El
6 Rev. 03128196
tssues (and Supporting Informa Sources).
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (2)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (2)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (1,2)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (1,2)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (1,2)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (1,2)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (2)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (2)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (2)
b) Police protection? (2)
c) Schools? (2)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (2)
e) Other governmental services? (2)
XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
4
b)
cl
4
e)
9
.a
XIII.
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (2)
Communications systems? (2)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (2)
Sewer or septic tanks? (2)
Storm water drainage? (2)
Solid waste disposal? (2)
Local or regional water supplies? (2)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
cl
q
cl
cl
cl
III
cl
cl cl
cl cl cl cl cl
cl cl 0
cl cl cl •J
_ otentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
El
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl q cl
cl 0 cl cl
Less Than Significan t Impact
El
cl
cl
cl
q
El
cl
cl cl
cl cl q cl cl
cl 0 cl
cl cl 0 cl
No Impact
lxl
Ix1
Ix1
El
Ix1
El
Ix1
lxl
El
Ix1
lzl
El
lxl
El
El
IXI
El
lxl
IXI
Ix1
Ix1
7 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (1,2)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (1,2)
c) Create light or glare? (1,2)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (2)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (2)
c) Affect historical resources? (1,2)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values’? (1,2)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (1,2)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1,2)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
q lJoIx1 cl q oIx1 cl clclE3
cl cl cl 0
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl cl cl cl
0
cl
cl
0
q
Cl
cl q 0 cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Ix1 IXI Ix1 Ix1
El
1x1
El .
Ix1
IXI
El
1. Village Master Plan and Design Manual, effective date January 12, 1996. This document is
available for review at the Housing and Redevelopment Office, 2965 Roosevelt, Suite B, Carlsbad, CA
92008.
2. Final Master EIR for The City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (EIR 93-Ol), March, 1994. This
document is available for review at the City of Carlsbad, Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive,
Carlsbad CA 92009.
8 Rev. 03128196
Earlier analyses m. _ Je used where, pursuant to the tiering, ,,ogram EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
W Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
4 Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. Q3/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIKONMENTAL EVALUATION
LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The project is a mixed use 4 unit residential over 1537 square foot retail and 185 1 square foot
workshop with four garages and associated open parking and landscaping at 507 Pine Street.
The General Plan is V for Village Redevelopment and the Zoning is VR for Village
Redevelopment. The project is in complete accord with the surrounding land uses of residential,
commercial, and light industrial. There is no farmland in the immediate vicinity. The lot is
presently vacant.
POPULATION AND HOUSING:
Properties within the vicinity of the project with residential development have been developed
within the RMH General Plan residential density ranges of up to 15 dwelling units per acre. The
project is proposing 14.8 dwelling units per acre. The site is presently vacant so no existing
housing will be displaced.
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS:
The General Plan indicates no unusual problems with this Pleistocene Beach Terrace.
WATER
The site is presently vacant. The development of the .27 acre infill site will take advantage of the
completely developed infrastructure so that there will be no impact.
AIR OUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
10 Rev. 03/28/96 63
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
.generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
There are no biological resources present on site.
NOISE
The project is within the noise impact area from the railroad corridor. The building department
will ensure that construction meets the’ interior noise requirements for dwelling units per the
plancheck process. There are no adopted outdoor standards for apartment projects as there is no
required open space.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
EXHIBIT 3
25 September 1996 '*_
SEP ’ ; “1;. <: f. ,-. /.-
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS . HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT OFFICE 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B Carlsbad, California 92008-2389
RE: JOSEPH AND MARIETTA MARTIN LETTER DATED 11 SEPTEMBER 1996 REGARDING SCHILLING MIXED USE - COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 506 PINE STREET
GENTLEMEN:
We recently saw the letter written by the Martin's in regards to Mr. Schilling's project on Pine Street. As long-time residents of Carlsbad and long time business and property owners on Roosevelt Street, we fail to see the reason or rationale for the Martin's concern. Mr. Schilling's pro- ject would certainly enhance an area that has long been neglected and left to deteriorate. The proliferation of automotive type businesses, as well as other toxic producing type businesses are what is ruining the appearance and quality - of the neighborhood.
We have been in this area over 50 years and for the first time attention has been focused on this area. Many of the older generation wanted to retain the residential, historical and cultural heritage of the area. BUT because of the misinfor- mation and misrepresentations thathas surfaced recently, many of the residents have become intimidated and made to feel afraid.
We cannot understand the Martin's concern now. Why was the con- cern not evident 28 years ago, when they bought their property and founded their automotive and auto wrecking and dismantling business? The area was then residential and many of the residents still lived there. Perhaps the residents should have been more vocal, but they failed to speak up and voice their concerns.
We would certainly like to see something more conducive to what the General Plan specifies. Mr. Schilling's project certainly fits the bill and would be a tremendous improvement to the area. We need to have more quality businesses, the type that will contribute to the quality of life for the community and that will discourage loitering of young adults on the street corners and outside the evening. of the stores that are open until the late hours of Our community needs job opportunities and homes for the young people in the area, something that will make them feel proud of their community and their heritage. We feel that Mr. Schillings project is a step in the right direction. Thank you for your consideration f
- * ,.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 16,1996 Page 1
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
. Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
300 P.M.
October 16,1996
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Welshons called the Regular Meeting to order at 500 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The pledge of allegiance was led by Member Larry Scheer.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairperson Welshons, Members: Compas, Marquez, Savary and Scheer.
Absent: None
Staff Present: Evan Becker, Director of Housing and Redevelopment
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
Debbie Fountain, Senior Management Analyst
Brian Hunter, Senior Planner
Ken Quon, (Tiile ?)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Chairperson Welshons, referring to page 7, Paragraph 9, of the Minutes of
September 18, 1996, corrected the line as follows: “Chairperson Welshons
stated that with the foregoing revelations, it appears that the proiect is aoins to
be “sent back to the drawing board”.
Motion by Member Compas, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of September 18, 1996, as corrected.
5-o
Welshons, Compas, Savary, Marquez, and Scheer
None I
None
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
There were no comments from the audience.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. RP 95-05 - SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT - Request for a Major Redevelopment Permit to
allow the construction of a mixed use project which includes 4 residential units, 1537 square feet
of retail space and 1851 square feet of workshop space at 507 Pine Street, between Tyler Street
and Roosevelt Street in the Village Redevelopment Zone/Land Use District 5.
MINUTES
-
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 16,1996 Page 2
Chairperson Welshons reminded the applicant, Board Members and the public that if the Board recommends
approval of this item, itwill be forwarded to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission for their consideration.
Evan Becker, Director of Housing & Redevelopment, assisted by the Principal Civil Engineer, Bob Wojcik and
Project Planner, Brian Hunter, gave a general overview of the project and began his presentation of the
supplemental report on the Schilling Mixed Use Project with a slide presentation focussed on the nine (9) items
the board had previously asked to have clarified. The nine (9) items are as follows:
1) Residential Density: Staff recommends, with the approval of the City Attorney, using Site
Development Plan Ordinance 21.53 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, to permit the granting of the additional unit
in density and also the modification of development standards. The modification of development standards will
be addressed separately.
Mr. Becker told of a “spirited” staff discussion, over the past week or so, over the application of the State Density
Bonus Program, which is what staff had previously recommended. He advised that the City Attorney felt that the
alternative of using the Site Development Plan Ordinance to deal with the density matter (as well as the standards
modification) is the best route to take, and the Housing and Redevelopment Staff concurs. Mr. Becker then offered
time for any questions and or discussion on this item.
Chairman Welshons, referring to Site Development Plan Ordinance 21.53-120 and its reference to the powers of -
the Planning Commission and the City Council, asked if it is also true that the Design Review Board has the same
latitude to impose special conditions or requirements and that the Ordinance works both ways, She was answered
in the aftirmative.
2) Parkinq: Staff has established the parking need for the project using a mixed approach to the
combination retaihorkshop space. Mr. Becker explained that if the project was all retail, the parking requirement
would be twenty (20) spaces but since it is a combination of retailhorkshop has used the “mixed parking standard”
as a basis for lowering the parking requirement to seventeen (17). He added that the reduction in the required
spaces should be viewed as an incentive or modification and as such is dealt with through the Site Development
Plan Ordinance 21.53, which allows for the modification of development standards for the “affordable housing”
projects. Mr. Becker further explained that there will be thirteen (13) on-site spaces and four (4) spaces are
provided for through the payment of the Master Plan “in-lieu fee” parking program. Mr. Becker also stated that
Staff is suggesting that a condition be added to say that “signage shall be placed on the wall of the building (which
fronts on Roosevelt Street) to read PARKING IN THE REAR”.
Member Compas asked where the four (4) parking spaces would actually be located in relation to the project.
Mr. Becker explained that since there is still a surplus of public parking available, the location of the four (4) spaces
in question has not yet been determined. However, he added, there is a public parking lot on Oak Street which
is about two (2) blocks away.
Chairperson Welshons asked what is to prevent this project from moving (expanding) the retail space by moving
interior walls and shifting the dimensions of the retail and the warehouse/workshop space.
Mr. Becker responded by saying that this would be a matter of enforcing the code either in answer to a complaint
or by regular monitoring by Code Enforcement.
Member Compas asked Ms. Welshons if her question was related to the parking issue and found that it was.
Chairperson Welshons clarified her questions by offering that if the retail space were to be increased and the
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 16,1996 Page 3
workshop space reduced, there would be a need for more parking and she wanted to know how that problem
could be prevented from happening.
Mr. Becker made mention of the fact that if that were to be contemplated, the party making the modification would
first have to acquire a building permit and the City would not allow a permit to be issued.
Chairperson Welshons suggested that a condition be added to Resolution No. 252, indicating that the interior
dimensions, defning the retail and the workshop space, cannot be modified.
Mr. Becker concurred that such a condition could be added to underscore the delineated areas of retail and
workshop space.
Chairperson Welshons expressed her interest in an added condition so that in the event that someone were to
attempt to make changes, the engineer checking the plans would be aware that there were some hybrid parking
standards used to acquire the original permit and the new application bears some further investigation.
Member Marquez asked if the applicant could or would afford to pay for the extra three (3) parking spaces needed
to bring the total spaces available to twenty (20).
Mr. Becker replied that if the applicant were to be required to pay for those extra three (3) parking spaces, it would -
create a rather severe economic impact on the project and said that the applicant would have to address the
question further.
Member Marquez also inquired as to how the use of the workshop space, (such as painting, manufacturing, etc.,)
would be controlled and suggested that a two (2) hour fire wall rating or sprinkler system be required.
Mr. Becker reminded everyone that the conditions require that the workshop activity can be only that which is
directly related to the merchandise sold in the retail spaces.
Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, noted that the operator(s) of the retail space(s) will be required to have a city
business license. He added that all business license applications go through the building department so they are
able to check and make sure that the type of business going into that building meets the building code
requirements for the structure they will be occupying. In addition, Mr. Wojcik pointed out that the Fire Department
also makes annual inspections of all businesses as another means of monitoring business activities.
Member Marquez also asked if the I.C.B.O. standards are being applied to the different types of occupancies in
this project.
Mr. Wojcik replied by saying that the I.C.B.O. standards are being applied to this project and that it is his
assumption that the applicant has designed the building for the proper types of businesses that will occupy it
Member Savary pointed out that each of the four (4) residential units are equal in size and as such, how can the
“affordable” unit be much less expensive than the others and how can the savings be enough to excuse the seven
(7) parking spaces.
Mr. Becker responded that the parking requirements were figured on a combination of “affordable housing” and
“mixed use”, thereby allowing the reduction of parking spaces.
3) Noise Conflicts: Staff is not recommending any new conditions regarding noise conflicts.
However, in terms of the residential component of the project, Title 24 of the U.B.C. must be complied with to
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 16,1996 Page 4
mitigate the noise levels to 45 dBA inside the units. Mr. Becker added that there is a certain inherent friction, within
a mixed use project between residential and retail occupants, and that the city is well aware of those frictions and
. in no way is trying to say that they do not exist. He also pointed that some of the friction between tenants might
be avoided if each prospective residential tenant is made fully aware of the noises that accompany the activities
that will be carried on below their units.
Chairperson Welshons asked if there could be language (a condition) added that, where the noise levels are above
the city’s noise standards, some type of mechanical air circulation must be provided so that windows can remain
closed to repel noise.
Project Planner Brian Hunter stated that, generally, that wording is used when there are five (5) or more units, but
that such a condition can also be added for this project. He explained that the language is essentially a notification
that the outside decibel level is of such an intensity that the City requires either double pane glass, air conditioning,
etc., for second floor units.
Chairperson Welshons, referring back to the questions regarding regulating the permitted types of businesses,
asked Mr. Wojcik if the prospective occupants of those businesses can be required to obtain their business
licenses before they occupy the premises.
Mr. Wojcik replied that that is how it is supposed to be done. He added, however, that there have been a few
instances of people moving into buildings before getting their business licenses. Mr. Wojcik also pointed out that
if and when an individual attempts to conduct an “illegal” business, he/she is soon found out by way of Fire
Department inspections or some other form of Code Enforcement.
4) Vacation of a Portion of City Riqht-of-Wav: Staff points out that the overall effort here, is
to do something that will allow this project to “happen”, and to do it without added expense to the city. Mr. Becker
indicated that the street “vacation” is accompanied by an above standard set of public improvements, including
the parkway landscaping, brick pavers, street furniture, etc.
Mr. Compas, referring to a drawing (?), asked for clarification of an item marked “one (1) land each direction’.
Mr. Becker stated that “land” is a typographical error and the item should read, “one (1) lane each direction”.
Mr. Wojcik, by means of the transparencies, indicated exactly where the “vacation” will be and also explained the
standard setbacks.
Member Marquez asked if her understanding that the roadway will pcJ change, is correct, and was answered in
the affirmative.
5) Location of Trash Enclosure: Staff is not proposing any additional conditions regarding this
issue. The location, screening, etc., has been looked at very carefully and it has been determined that the current
proposal for the trash enclosure is the most acceptable.
Chairperson Welshons asked how the trash disposal trucks will access the dumpsters in the currently proposed
location.
Mr. Wojcik responded by stating that the trucks will, most likely, have to straddle the sidewalk area (and possibly
encroach upon the parking area) in order to reach the dumpsters.
6) Liahtina Plan: Staff is not proposing any new conditions. Mr. Becker stated that there will be
MINUTES
. .
- ‘-
. .
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 16,1996 Page 5
two (2) free-standing parking light poles with shields to insure the avoidance of light impact on the adjacent uses.
Additional lighting is all down-lighting located under the soffits of the building and all lighting is required to be
’ approved by the Planning Director or the Housing and Redevelopment Director to insure that these standards are
met.
Chairperson Welshons asked Mr. Becker if there was a lighting exhibit and was answered in the negative.
7) Roll-UR Doors for Workshop Space: Other than being taller, the roll-up doors will be
residential in scale and are not the industrial type of door. They have been designed to match the architecture of
the building, have raised panels with glass lights across the top and will generate the same amount of noise as
a residential garage door.
Member Marquez asked if vehicles will be able to drive into the workshop area.
Mr. Becker alluded to the fact that the size of the doors would allow a motor vehicle to drive in but that because
these are workshop spaces, there will probably be equipment of one sort or another that would prevent entry of
a vehicle.
8) LoadinqlUnloadinq Areas: Mr. Becker stated that considering the nature of the businesses _
and that the loading/unloading areas involve a very wide driveway of approximately forty-five (45) feet, Staff feels
that the scale of the operations will be such that the areas provided are more than adequate.
9) Restrictions on Hours of Operation within Retail and WorkshoD SDace: Staff did not
suggest any new restrictions but Mr. Becker pointed out that it will be the responsibility of the owner/property
manager to regulate the hours of operation by means of a lease/rental agreement.
Chairperson Welshons suggested that there might be a condition, such as C. C. & R’s, that would require an on-
site property manager, so that all the rules and regulations of the project can be enforced.
Mr. Rudolf pointed out that since this is not a condominium project, C. C. B R’s cannot be applied to this project.
However, a condition could be developed that would require minimal lease provisions to ensure there would be
certain requirements contained in each lease.
Member Scheer stated that C. C. & R’s would be totally inappropriate for this project and the terms of the lease
should be very specific, with regard to the hours of operation and control of the property. He also pointed out that
to have an on-site manager would also be inappropriate due to the minimal size of the project,
Chairperson Welshons asked who, in the absence of an on-site manager, would be responsible for making sure
the rules are adhered to. No one was able to give Ms. Welshons a definitive answer.
Mr. Becker continued his presentation by addressing two (2) additional issues; 1) landscaping in the public right-of-
way and, 2) building setbacks.
1) 1: Project Planner Brian Hunter, advised that the
“parkway” area (on Roosevelt St.), between the curb and existing sidewalk, will be landscaped by the applicant,
using and combination of ground cover, trees, brick pavers & bench. He pointed out that there is no similar
parkway area on Tyler or Pine streets, so, there will be minimal landscaping on that side.
Chairperson Welshons, referring to two (2) different exhibits, pointed out that one (1) exhibit appears to indicate
that there will be three (3) trees used while the other exhibit appears to indicate there will be six (6) trees planted,
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 16,1996 Page 6
and asked for a clarification of which exhibit is correct.
. Mr. Becker answered by pointed out that the “landscaping plan” would apply and the exhibit indicating six (6) trees
is the correct one.
2) Buildina Setbacks: Mr. Becker spoke of the Building Setbacks as involving one of the
modifications that Staff is recommending be accomplished through 21.53, that essentially makes the requirement
a minimum of a five (5) foot setback. There are, however, two (2) areas of this project that would require that the
minimum setback be reduced or eliminated. The first addresses the entryways on the east and west sides of the
building. These entryways are designed to be right on the property line and would require that the minimum
setback requirement be eliminated. The second area is also on the east side of the property, at the workshop
space, where the design provides for a three (3) foot setback and would require that the minimum setback
requirement of five (5) feet be reduced by two (2) feet.
Chairperson Welshons asked Mr. Hunter where the rear setbacks of the building are measured from and was
informed that the measurements are taken from the rear property line.
Chairperson Welshons also asked Mr, Hunter how large the existing rear setback is and was told that it is
approximately forty (40) feet.
Chairperson Welshons asked Mr. Hunter for definitions of “landscape” and “hard scape” and to explain why they
are combined in square footage.
Mr. Hunter explained that “landscaping” is a combination of softscape and hard scape. Softscape is plant material
and hard scape is enhanced pavement, benches, artwork, etc.
Chairperson Welshons inquired as to the existing setbacks in the Village area, according to the redevelopment
design manual. Mr. Becker replied that the setbacks are now a minimum of five (5) to ten (10) feet and added that
it is his belief that the Master Plan refers to this requirement as an “open space” requirement and not specifically
as landscaping.
Mr. Becker stated that while trying to deal with some of the changes from the last meeting, Staff continues to
recommend approval of the project as designed and conditioned through Resolution 252. He advised the Board
that hi office is recommending some of the previously mentioned “tools” to allow the modifications, that have been
discussed at this meeting, in order to accommodate a project believed to be very consistent with the Master Plan
objectives in terms of mixed use development. Mr. Becker added that his office has received letters from two (2)
property owners, voicing their support for the project.
Mr. Becker reviewed the Errata Notes that were distributed to each member of the Board and concluded his
presentation
Member Compas asked Mr. Becker is he had received any opposition from any property owners.
Mr. Becker responded by saying that he had received correspondence from the Martins who are property owners
in the area. While they dii not oppose the project, overall, voiced their opposition to the residential units from the
standpoint of conflicts with other uses. He added that the Martins are the owners of some of the automotive uses
or properties on which some automotive uses take place and had concerns about what goes on there, twenty-four
(24) hour a day, such as noise, etc.
Chairperson Welshons indicated that there are three (3) places, in Resolution 252, that need clarification or
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 16,1996 Page 7
correction. They are as follows:
1) Page 10, Paragraph 17, Line 1: . . . , the Developer shall (the word receive should be
deleted and the following added) awlv for and obtain approval . . . .
2) Page 11, Paragraph 21, Line 2: . . . and retail space together (the following should be
added) where the two (2) adjoin.
3) Page 11, ENGINEERING CONDITIONS, Paragraph 2, Line 1: Prior to hauling (the word
direct should be deleted and the following added) d&t or construction materials . . .
Member Scheer also indicated an error on Page 13, Paragraph 5, Line 2: . . . safety requirements of the (the word
stand). He said he thought the word was meant to be standard. However, it was ultimately concluded that the
word was meant to be state and should read . . . state and local Fire Codes.
Chairperson Welshons invited the applicant, or his representative, to speak.
Robert Richardson, KARNAK ARCHITECTURAL AND PLANNING, 2802 State Street, Suite C, Carlsbad, CA
92008, speaking on behalf of his client & applicant, John Schilling, began his testimony by addressing some of the _
issues already having been discussed. Regarding the affordable housing allocation for parking; his client
(applicant) has expressed to him that the affordable housing rates in the area are higher than the actual rents that
he will be collecting there. In reality, all four (4) units would not rent unless they are below the “affordable rates”.
With respect to the parking area, itself, they have made ample allowances for runoff and the center isle of the lot
has been widened to allow vehicles to pass when there may be a truck loading or unloading.
Regarding the workshop/retail space; that area is governed by the Uniform Building Codes and Fire Codes, in
addition to the fact that that wall is the only really solid bearing wall they have. He pointed out that if someone were
to even begin to try and take that wall out, it would be extremely costly to do so, not to mention that the building
would probably collapse.
As to the wall between the workshop/retail space itself, it will have fire separation.
Regarding hazardous materials; Mr. Richardson addressed the fact that the City has very strict rules concerning
those materials. He described the rules and paperwork regarding the use of hazardous materials as “a
nightmare”, and consequently, they haven’t planned for such uses and those uses will not be allowed.
Regarding the noise issues; Mr. Richardson explained that they could possibly have the units “ready” to receive
air conditioning but because those units will generate such low rents, it would be cost prohibitive to install “air”.
Additionally, with such close proximity to the ocean, air conditioning would only be used for about 10% of the year.
Mr. Richardson also pointed out that his client (the applicant) has gone far beyond the norm in providing additional
amenities for this project, and to ask him to air condition the project, would be one more expense that he may not
be able to afford. He did point out, however, that his firm routinely plans the heating and ventilation systems to be
“air” ready so that “air” can be added at a later time, should it become a problem.
Mr. Richardson complimented his client, Mr. Schilling, on his expertise in all aspects of projects such as this one,
and alluded to the fact that Mr. Schilling is often asked to consult with other building owners & managers regarding
the rents and regulations on their own properties.
Regarding the trash enclosure: Mr. Richardson informed the Board that they had tried to locate the enclosure in
other spots but for several reasons, including “handicapped parking”, they are forced to leave it in its original
MINUTES
-/
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 16,1996 Page 8
location.
. He continued by addressing the question of whether or not someone would be able to park a vehicle in the work
space. He allowed that it is possible for a business person to have storage on one side of the shop and use the
other side to lock up a vehicle overnight, but reminded everyone that there will be proper separations between the
workshop and retail space and the workshop area is governed by a stricter building code than a garage.
Mr. Richardson spoke of the presence of proper lighting in all of the areas of concern and also described a security
gate system (sealed compound) for the protection of the residential tenants.
Mr. Richardson, referring to the quickly rendered elevations showing the building and landscaping, assured the
Board that the reason the landscaping appears to be lacking, in some areas, is because he was attempting to
show the architecture of the building and included only a small number of plantings to show that there will, indeed,
be proper landscaping in accordance with the landscaping requirements of the City.
Mr. Richardson summarized how his client and his firm have worked very hard to adhere to the building setbacks,
that became part of the Building Code after December, 1995. Prior to January, 1996, they had been told that they
could build all the way to the property lines but they chose not to, in order to give the building some excitement and
personality.
In, closing, Mr. Richardson spoke of the fact that his client (the applicant) has allowed his firm to erect a building
that is of very high quality - far beyond what is currently in the neighborhood and in the whole redevelopment area.
He listed a number of “extras” and emphasized that anything the Board could do to avoid his client having to spend
too much more money, would not only be beneficial to his client but also to the City. He also emphasized the fact
that this projed is being financed solely with personal funds belonging to his client. Because the concept of “mixed
use” is so new, conventional financing is currently not available.
Chairperson Welshons inquired as to whether or not Mr. Richardson or his client had any problems with the items
on the Errata Sheet, circulated earlier, and his answer was “no”. Ms. Welshons asked if he had any objections to
the amendments to the language in the Conditions in Resolution 252, as outlined earlier in this meeting, to which
he answered “no”.
Member Marquez asked if Mr. Schilling would be willing to pay for an additional three (3) parking spaces as part
of the “parking in lieu” fee.
Mr. Richardson’s reply was unequivocal in that if his client were to be required to purchase those three (3) extra
spaces, he would be forced to eliminate some of the “extras” to compensate.
Chairperson Welshons inquired as to the height of the building and found that, at it’s highest point, the height is
twenty-eight feet. Ms. Welshons also asked if the applicant would be applying for the “affordable housing subsidy”.
Mr. Richardson responded that he was not sure but it is a possibility.
Chairperson Welshons acknowledged that the Board had received a “Request to Speak” from Ofelia Escobedo
and invited Ms. Escobedo to the podium.
Ofelia Escobedo, 1611 James Dr., Carlsbad. Ms. Escobedo explained that she and her sister, Connie Trejo of
3383 Adams St., Carlsbad, own a business on Roosevelt St., and for many years have looked forward to seeing
the area south of Carlsbad Village Dr., as beautiful as the downtown Village has become. She expressed the need
for this much needed project and how certain she is that it will initiate other worthwhile projects in the area. She
pointed out that although the concept of “mixed use” is new to this area, La Jolla has several wonderful examples
MINUTES
- - . . . .
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 16,1996 Page 9
of “mixed use” on Avenida de la Plaza. She also mentioned a similar example in the City of Huntington Beach.
Ms. Escobedo concluded her testimony by declaring that she and Ms. Trejo believe that this project will benefit
’ the community, at large, and request the Board’s support.
Before leaving the Podium, Ms. Escobedo requested that she be allowed to read a letter from her sister, Connie
Trejo, who could not be present at this meeting. She was allowed to read the letter, dated S/25/96, in which Ms.
Trejo states that she believes that the Schilling Mixed Use Project is one of the first really worthwhile ventures that
has been introduced to the community of Carlsbad. She also stated that she is very hopeful that this project will
begin the revitalization of this very neglected area and believes that this is one step in the right direction. Ms. Trejo
also urged the Board to support this project.
Chairperson Welshons asked if there were any other present who wished to speak. Seeing no one, Chairperson
Welshons closed public testimony.
Before opening Board discussion, Chairperson Welshons asked for a clarification of the requirements regarding
buying units in lieu of parking. Mr. Becker explained that 25% of the total spaces required could be purchased and,
based on twenty (20) spaces, five (5) spaces could be purchased. In the case of the Schilling project, 25% of the
seventeen (17) spaces required is four (4).
Member Compas remarked that, even though it seems to stretch some of the City’s minimum standards, he likes .
the project very much. He also stated that parking is his biggest worry but that he is willing to go along with Staffs
recommendation and recommended approval. He added, however, that if anyone wants to add some additional
“belts and suspenders” to what has already been said, he would be willing to consider them.
Member Scheer concurred, 100% with Mr. Compas. He spoke of the needed improvement in the Village and feels
compelled to recommend approval.
Member Marquez referred to this meeting as “precedent setting” in that there has been quite a bit of negotiating
done with regard to parking. She expressed her concern that future developers will use the construction of
workshop spaces as a way to circumvent the parking requirements. After weighing the benefits against the
shortcomings of the project, she rather reluctantly will support it.
Member Savary declared that she, too, has some of the same concerns as her fellow Board members but
somewhat reluctantly will also support the project. She emphasized that even though she feels it will be an asset
to the community, she wishes to have it known that she is very much concerned about the parking.
Chairman Welshons made a finding, against this project, taken from the Site Development Plan under Chapter
2153.120 regarding the conformity with the General Plan and adopted policies and goals of the City and it would
have no detrimental effect on public health, safety and welfare. Based on the testimony and information on this
project, she stated that she believes that the parking issue will be detrimental on the health, safety and welfare and
that the need for parking is critical, particularly in this Village area. Ms. Welshons went on to say that she also feels
that the cost to the City (in terms of what is being given up to get this project into place) is too great. She named
each item that appeared to conflict with existing standards and requirements and concluded by announcing that
she will not support the project.
ACTION: Motion by Member Compas, and duly seconded, that the Design Review Board
adopt Design Review Board Resolution No. 251, recommending approval of a
negative declaration and adopt the supplemental Design Review Board
Resolution No. 252, recommending approval of RP 95-05 to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, based on the findings and subject to the
MINUTES
. .
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 16,1996
-c.
- I
Page 10
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
conditions contained therein, including the Errata Sheet of October 16, 1996 and
the Principal Ciil Engineer’s letter of October, 16, 1996 plus the other changes
to General Conditions #17 & #21, Engineering Conditions #2, and Water, Sewer
and Fire Condition #5, in addition to those changes previously noted on the
Errata Sheet.
4-l
Compas, Savary, Marquez, and Scheer.
%e Welshon%
None
No announcements from Housing and Redevelopment Director Becker.
No announcements from Assistant City Attorney Rudolf.
Chairperson Welshons noted that the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Design Review Board will be on
November 20,1996, at 5:00 pm.
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of October 16,1996 was adjourned at 6:45 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
EVAN BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
CAROL CRUISE
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
MINUTES
October 16, 1996
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
FROM: Principal Civil Engineer
RP 95-05
The street vacation of Pine Avenue is discussed in both the staff report and as a finding
in Design Review Board Resolution No. 252. However, the condition of approval for
the street vacation was inadvertently left off of Design Review Board Resolution No.
252. Therefore, the following condition should be added to that resolution:
“Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit and receive
approval for a street vacation of ten feetalong the project frontage on Pine
Avenue. If approval for the street vacation is not granted, approval of the site
plan shall be null and void.”
ROBERT J. WOJCIK
Principal Civil Engineer
RJW:acw
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-I 576’0 (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-089
- -.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MEETING OF OCTOBER 16,1996
SCHILLINC MIXED USE PROJECT
ERRATA NOTES
1. Resolution No. 252, General and Planning Condition No. 17 at Page
10, will be corrected to refer to the payment of the Parking In-Lieu
Fee for four (4) spaces, not five (5) spaces.
2. All conditions of Resolution No. 252 will be renumbered
sequentially.
3. General and Planning Condition No. 19 will be re-ordered as the last
condition of Resolution No. 252.
4. Resolution No. 252, General and Planning Condition No. 20 will be
categorized as a General Code Reminder.
5. A condition requiring the approval of a street vacation was omitted
and will be included as drafted by the Engineering Staff.
City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Application Complete Date:
April.2, 1996
Environmental Review:
Neg. Dec. 8/2/96
Staff: Debbie Fountain
Brian Hunter
Ken Quon
DATE: September 18, 1996
SUBJECT: RP 95-05 - SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT - Request for a Major
Redevelopment Permit to allow the construction of a mixed use project
which includes 4 residential units, 1537 square feet of retail space and
1851 square feet of workshop space at 507 Pine Street, between Tyler
Street and Roosevelt Street in the Village Redevelopment Zone/Land Use
District 5.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 251
recommending APPROVAL of a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Design Review
Board Resolution No. 252 recommending APPROVAL of RP 95-05 to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant, John Schilling, has requested a major redevelopment permit to allow the
construction of a new mixed use complex which will include four (4) residential units,
1537 square feet of retail (6 suites), 1851 square feet of workshop space (4 spaces),
four (4) single car enclosed garages and other related parking facilities at 507 Pine
Street. The new mixed use complex will require site improvements which include
parking, a trash dumpster/enclosure, decorative sidewalk, and landscaping.
III. VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed commercial/residential use is consistent with the new Village Master Plan
and Design Manual which became effective January 12, 1996 as well as the
Redevelopment Plan for the Village Redevelopment Area which was adopted in 1981.
RP 95-05
September l&l996
Page 2
*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. The site is
not located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, consistency with the Village Local
Coastal Program is not applicable to this project.
IV. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION, GOALS
AND OBJECTIVES
The proposed project satisfies several components of the Vision Statement for the
Village Redevelopment Area of Carlsbad. First, it provides a high quality, well-designed
private development project, including public improvements. Second, the project assists
in the Redevelopment Agency’s efforts to accommodate a wide range of land uses and
to create a specialty retail center for the entire City of Carlsbad. Finally, the project will
help in the effort to create a Village which provides for a comfortable and safe place to
work, shop, visit and live by developing a complex which allows a person to live and
work in the same location. By mixing residential with commercial, the project supports
the concept of creating a “24 hour” community within the Village.
The proposed project addresses various objectives within all five (5) goals outlined
within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual as follows:
Goal 1: Establish Carlsbad Villaqe as a Quality Shoppinq, Workinq and Living
Environment. The proposed mixed use project will provide for shopping, work and living
opportunities. The project will increase the number of commercial/retail uses serving
Carlsbad residents. The project also has the potential to attract additional tourist-
serving uses if the complex becomes a location which is popular to local artists. In
addition, it provides an important residential component in conjunction with the
commercial/retail uses.
Goal 2: Imorove the Pedestrian’ and Vehicular Circulation in the Villaqe Area, The
project has been designed to minimize the pedestrian/vehicular conflicts along major
pedestrian walkways (Roosevelt Street). The project will also provide for the
construction of enhanced sidewalk areas around the site (on Pine and Roosevelt
Streets).
Goal 3: Stimulate Property Improvements and New Development in the Villaqe.
The Master Plan and Design Manual was developed in an effort to stimulate
development within the Village. The intent is that this new development will then
stimulate other property improvements and additional new development. The proposed
project is possible due to the establishment of more flexible development standards and
a parking in-lieu fee developed specifically for the Village Redevelopment Area. The
19
RP 95-05
September 18,1996
Page 3
new standards encourage intensity of development within the Village and mixed use
.development. The proposed project is exciting in that it is being developed in an area
which deserves special attention and where new neighborhood commercial
development should be encouraged. Hopefully, this new development will encourage
other property owners in the area to improve their properties or construct new
buildings.
Goal 4: improve the Phvsical Appearance of the Villaqe Area. The proposed
project will be constructed on a piece of property which is currently vacant. It will
reinforce the Village character through appropriate site planning, architectural design
and attractive signage. 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 supr>ottive of commercial vita/i& and a unique
Villaqe Imaqe. The signage for this project is appropriately designed and scaled. The
types of signage selected also provide for a unique visual image for the proposed
project and will add interesting and creative character to the area. The signage is
pedestrian oriented and is compatible with the architecture of the structure.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN
The site of the proposed project is located within Land Use District 5 of the Village
Redevelopment Area. All types of retail businesses are permitted within this land use
district, with an emphasis on shops and commercial uses to meet the needs of the local
neighborhood and city population. Mixed use projects are permitted within Land Use
District 5 on a provisional basis, with a specific condition that all ground floor space be
devoted to commercial uses. The workshop space identified within this project is a
unique feature which is desired and deserves special consideration.
If tied to the proposed commercial retail suites, the workshop space will serve as a
“working area” extension of the proposed commercial use. Under this scenario, the
workshop space may be used for a combination of storage and work/production space
for the retail outlet on the site. A project condition has been proposed by staff which
requires the property owner to lease the workshop and retail space together. This will
ensure a single business operation rather than several businesses operating
independently and creating a more intense use of the property. As an example of how
this would work, an artist may create his sculptures or paintings in the workshop area
and then sell those items in the corresponding retail suite. Or, a custom clothing maker
will produce his/her products within the workshop space then sell them within the front
retail suite. The project’s uniqueness also allows for the artist or clothing maker to live
on site as well.
RP 95-05
September 18,1996
Page 4
*It should be noted that the applicant is not supportive of the restriction on the use of the
workshop space. The applicant prefers no restrictions which would allow him to lease
the workshop space and the commercial retail space to separate tenants, if so desired.
Staff understands the applicant’s desires. However, allowing the workshop spaces to
be used separate from the on-site retail suites has much greater potential to become a
“manufacturing” or “light industrial” site with increased traffic for product loading and
unloading purposes; this is not desirable or permitted within Land Use District 5. With
the condition that the workshop space be used as an extension of a single business
operation, staff can support the classification of the workshop space as “commercial” for
land use consistency purposes.
The retail suites may be used for the sale of items which are permitted within Land Use
District 5 which means that the workshop space is limited to the production of the same
permitted sale items. To compensate for the restriction on the lease of the workshop
spaces, staff has proposed a reduced parking standard for the project which would
result from the use of a “hybrid” parking requirement for the workshop space. The
parking requirements for the project will be discussed in further detail later in this report.
The goal of Land Use District 5 is to provide both residential units and residential
support services for the area. All uses permitted within the area, as identified within the
Village Land Use Plan, have been determined to be compatible with existing residential
uses. In the new Village Master Plan and Design Manual, it is intended that Land Use
District 5 provide for neighborhood commercial and support the residential character of
the area. With the conditions to be placed on the use of the workshop space, the
project is consistent with the goals of Land Use District 5 and will be compatible with
existing residential uses within the area.
VI. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The Village Master Plan and Design ‘Manual provides for two types of standards that
every project must be consistent with in order to receive approval. 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.
“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
RP 95-05
September 18,1996
Page 5
.project meets the “Universal Standards”.
A. General Plan: The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
various elements of the General Plan. One of the goals of the City for the Village
Redevelopment Area is to create a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging
activities that traditionally locate in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, including
residential, offices, restaurants and specialty retail shops. The proposed mixed use
project will provide for additional residential to support other existing uses within the
Village. The project is located within easy walking distance of Village restaurants,
specialty retail shops and the Commuter Rail Station. In addition, the project provides
for an opportunity for residents to live and work at a single location which helps to
create a very distinct identity for the Village as an area where a person can live, work
and shop. The General Plan references the Village Master Plan and Design Manual as
the implementing tool for the General and Redevelopment Plans. If the project is
consistent with the Master Plan and Design Manual, it will also be consistent with the
General Plan.
B. Residential Density: Properties within the Village Redevelopment Area do
not have assigned residential density designations. Per the new Village Master Plan
and Design Manual, the applicable General Plan residential density designation is to be
determined for each project based upon compatibility findings with the surrounding
area. Properties located within the general proximity of the site, but outside the
Redevelopment Area, have a General Plan residential density designation of RMH
(Medium-High Residential). There are also several existing residential rental complexes
with medium-high density within close proximity to the proposed project and located
inside the boundaries of the Village Redevelopment Area as well as a number of single
family homes, including one which is immediately adjacent to the proposed project site.
Due to the mix of residential densities existing in the area and the fact that the RMH
general plan designation is applicable to other properties within the immediate area,
staff is recommending a RMH General Plan Designation for the subject property. The
RMH designation allows for a density range of 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre with a
Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 11.5 dwelling units per acre.
The site area for the proposed mixed use project is .27 acres. With 4 dwelling units
proposed, the project results in a density of 14.8 dwelling units per acre which is within
the RMH density range (8 to 15 units) but above the growth management control point
of 11.5. Application of the GMCP (11.5 X .27) to the site results in permitted dwelling
units equal to 3.11. The project proposes 4 one bedroom units, which exceeds the
GMCP by 1 unit.
RP 95-05
September 18,1996
Page 6
.Per the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, the maximum project density may not
exceed the Growth Management Control Point for the applicable density designation
unless a density increase or bonus is granted in accordance with Chapters 21.53 and
21.86 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (and appropriate findings are made per Chapter
21.90). In general, the findings which must be made to exceed the growth management
control point are 1) assurances that adequate public facilities are provided to
compensate for the increase in density; 2) that the granting of the increase will not
result in the northwest quadrant exceeding its housing cap; and 3) all required public
facilities will be constructed or guaranteed to be constructed concurrently to meet the
need created by this development. Design Review Board Resolution No. 252 sets forth
the formal findings which are required to exceed the Growth Management Control
Point.
Per the Municipal Code, a 25% density bonus, and one additional incentive, shall be
granted to projects which are providing a total of 5 units or more and where the
developer has agreed to restrict 20% of the units for affordable housing purposes. The
subject project is very small, only 4 units are proposed. The developer has agreed to
restrict one unit (25%) for affordable housing purposes for a low income household. In
determining the number of density bonus units to be granted to the project, the
maximum allowable residential yield for the site (3.11) is multiplied by .25. Based on
this formula, the subject project may be granted one (1) density bonus unit (3.11 X .25
= .78, which is rounded up to 1). To determine the number of units which must be
reserved for affordable housing, the maximum allowable residential yield for the site
(3.11) is multiplied by .20, which amounts to .62 or 1 when rounded up.
With approval of DRB Resolution No. 252, the Board will recommend approval of the
25% density bonus of one housing unit for the project to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission with the requirement for the Developer to enter into a
density bonus housing agreement with the City of Carlsbad to deed-restrict one (1)
(20%) of the residential units for affordable housing purposes for low income a
household. The approval of Resolution No. 252 approves the project with a reduced
parking standard for the entire mixed use project; this modification of the parking
standard shall serve as the additional incentive required by Chapter 21.86 for granting a
density bonus with the provision of affordable housing. Chapter 21.86, Section
21.86.060(l) of the Municipal Code specifically allows for the reduction of the parking
standard as an acceptable “additional incentive” for the provision of affordable housing.
C. lnclusionary Housing Requirements: Per Redevelopment Law, 15% of the
private housing units constructed within the boundaries of the Village Redevelopment
Area must be affordable to low and moderate income persons, of which not less than
40% (or 6% of the total units) must be affordable to very low income households. Per
RP 95-05
September 18,1996
Page 7
City Ordinance, 15% of the total housing units must be affordable to low income
households. Developers of housing within the Village Redevelopment Area must
comply with both the Redevelopment Law and the City Ordinance in terms of the
lnclusionary Housing Requirements. To satisfy both the Redevelopment Law and the
City Ordinance, the applicant may pay an in-lieu fee rather than construct or otherwise
provide the affordable housing units. However, since the project needs a density bonus
of one (1) unit, the applicant has agreed to enter into an affordable housing/density
bonus agreement to deed restrict one (1) unit within the project for the purposes of
providing housing which is affordable to a low income household for a period of at least
thirty (30) years. With the provision of one (1) unit for affordable housing purposes, the
project will meet its lnclusionary Housing requirements.
D. Parking: The project is required to provide off street parking per the standards
set forth within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. With a commercial land
use designation, the workshop space is parked at a commercial retail ratio (1:300), the
total parking requirement for the subject project is twenty (20) spaces, calculated as
shown in the chart below:
Land Use/Square Footage Parking Spaces Required Parking Spaces Provided
Residential - 4 one bedroom units 2 parking spaces per unit, or 8 units 4 single car enclosed garages and 4
uncovered spaces on site.
Retail - 1537 Square Feet 1 space per 300 square feet, or 5.12 5 uncovered spaces provided on site.
spaces
Workshop Space - I85 1 Square Feet 1 space per 300 square feet, or 6.17 Provided within public parking off
spaces site; pay parking in-lieu fee.
Total 19.29 or 20 spaces 13 spaces provided on site; propose
to oav fee for 7 soaces.
As stated previously, staff is recommending that the workshop space be restricted in
that it must be used in conjunction with an on-site retail suite; the space can’t be leased
to a separate, unrelated business. Due to the uniqueness of the project and to
compensate for this proposed restriction as well as to provide an “additional incentive”
for the purposes of developing a unit on the site which will be restricted for affordable
housing purposes, staff is recommending that the Design Review Board recommend
approval of a modified parking requirement for the workshop space which will assist the
entire project, which includes an affordable housing unit, to be financially feasible.
The Village Master Plan and Design Manual references the Carlsbad Municipal Code
as the applicable document to regulate on issues/standards not covered in the
Manual. Neither the Master Plan nor the Municipal Code have an actual parking
standard for workshop space. In this situation, the Municipal Code requires the use of
the most comparable parking standard. The most comparable is the commercial or
RP 95-05
September 18,1996
Page 8
.retail parking requirement (1:300). Staff is, however, recommending that the Design
Review Board recommend approval of a “hybrid” parking requirement for the workshop
space of 1 space per 650 square feet of gross floor space, which is developed by
averaging a 50% retail (1:300) and 50% warehouse (1:lOOO) standard.
Staff believes that it can be safely assumed that at least fifty percent (50%) of the
workshop space will be used for storing supplies for the workshop and warehousing
finished products. Therefore, we believe that the “hybrid” parking standard is
appropriate for the site and the project. It will result in a parking requirement for the
project of 8 spaces for the residential, 6 spaces for the retail and 3 spaces for the
workshop space, which amounts to 17 spaces total. This would result in a parking
reduction of 3 spaces, which provides an “additional incentive” for the purposes of
affordable housing development.
As stated previously, the applicant will provide a total of 13 spaces on the site of the
project. Also per the Parking In-Lieu Program option outlined within the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual, the applicant is eligible to pay a fee for up to 25% of the on-
site parking requirement, which amounts to 4.25 or 5 spaces. With the provision of 13
parking spaces on the site and the payment of a Parking In-Lieu Fee for 4 spaces, the
applicant will be able to satisfy the modified parking requirements for the subject
project. It should be noted, however, that the Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment
Commission has not yet approved a resolution which would fully implement the Village
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and set the fee. A condition has been placed on the
project requiring that the applicant pay the appropriate fee prior to obtaining a building
permit for the subject project. If, for any reason, the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission does not implement the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and set the
applicable fee, the applicant shall be required to obtain an amendment to the subject
permit, revising the parking plan to add on-site parking and/or to reduce the total
amount of commercial/residential space within the project. If the project is revised, it will
be returned to the Design Review Board for additional consideration.
E. Building Coverage, Height and Setbacks: These standards are
established individually according to the applicable land use district within the
Village Redevelopment Area. The Universal Standards section of the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual provides information on variances and criteria to be used in
setting the standards for individual projects when a range is set forth for the subject
standard. The details of the subject standards are described below.
“Individual” development standards set forth specifically for new development within
Land Use District 5 are as follows:
RP 95-05
September 18,1996
Page 9
A. Building Setbacks: The front setback standard is set as a range from 5-20
feet for residential and 5-10 feet for commercial. The project, as proposed, provides for
5 foot front setbacks for both the residential and commercial. The side and rear setback
standards are indicated as a range from 5-10 feet, The proposed project provides for 5
foot side and rear setbacks. As set forth in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and
Design Manual, the top of the range is considered to be the desired setback standard.
However, a reduction in the standard to the minimum may be allowed if the project
warrants such a reduction and appropriate findings are made by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission. The findings to be made are as follows:
1.
2.
The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surroundinq properties.
The reduced standard for the subject project will not have an adverse impact on
surrounding properties due to its location. The project is surrounded by public
streets on three sides (east, west and north) and adjoins a single residential
property on the south. The building for the proposed project will be separated from
the residential property by a parking lot and the landscaped five foot setback. This
separation will prevent any adverse impact on the property to the south based on
location of the building. There are a variety of setbacks within this land use district
for existing buildings. Therefore, the reduced setbacks will also not have an adverse
impact on the area as a whole.
The reduced standard will assist in developinq a proiect which meets the qoals of
the Villaqe Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land
use district in which the proiect is located. In general, the properties located within
Land Use District 5 are small and narrow. This may often create a problem in
development of a project which is financially feasible. In this particular case, the
reduced setback standard will allow the applicant to build a project which will be
financially feasible and remain generally consistent with the established
development standards for the area. Mixed use, neighborhood commercial
development is very desirable within Land Use District 5. The reduced setbacks are
necessary to facilitate the development of the proposed project in this area.
3. The reduced standard will assist in creatinq a proiect desiqn which is interestinq and
visuallv appealinq and reinforces the Villaqe character of the area. Due to the fact
that Roosevelt Street represents a pedestrian corridor and that there are a number
of residential units in the immediate area of the proposed project, it was important to
design the project in a manner which takes advantage of pedestrian traffic. By
developing the subject project in a manner which brings it closer to the sidewalks,
the project will connect better with pedestrians and create a more positive inter-
action between residents, commercial tenants and the pedestrians in the area . This
design reinforces the Village character of being pedestrian-friendly and allows for a
RP 95-05
September 18,1996
Page IO
.gradual transition from commercial to other residential land uses in the area. The
project has been designed so that it is visually friendly and interesting. It provides for
attractive landscaping, benches and low walls for pedestrians to use.
B. Open Space: A minimum of 20% of the property must be maintained as open
space. The open space must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities in
accordance with the City of Carlsbad’s Landscape Manual. Open space may be
dedicated to landscaped planters, open space pockets and/or connections, roof
gardens, balconies, patios and/or outdoor eating areas. No parking spaces or aisles are
permitted in the open space. Within the proposed project, the open space amounts to
2586 square feet, or 21.9% of the property. This open space is broken down into 1504
square feet of landscaped areas and 1082 square feet of hardscape, which includes
pedestrian amenities such as decorative sidewalk, interlocking pavers, benches and
planters.
C. Building Coverage: The range of building coverage permitted for all projects
in Land Use District 5 is 60% to 80%. The bottom of the range is considered the desired
standard. However, similar to the setback standards, an increase in the standard to the
maximum may be permitted if the project warrants such an increase and the same
findings can be made as noted above for the setback standards. In the particular case
of the subject project, the building coverage represents only 35% of the total site. This
was necessary in. order to accommodate the required parking and minimum setbacks.
The building coverage for the proposed project is well below the established standard.
D. Building Height: The height limit for Land Use District 5 is 30 feet with a
minimum 4:12 pitch. The proposed project is designed to be 28 feet at its peak and
provides for a 7:12 roof pitch. The height is below the maximum permitted and the roof
pitch exceeds the requirement.
E. Parking: The parking requirement and manner in which the applicant
proposes to meet the requirement is noted above. With payment of a parking in-lieu fee
for 4 spaces and the provision of 13 spaces on site, the project meets the modified
parking requirement, as suggested by staff.
F. Other Miscellaneous Requirements: The “Individual Standards” for Land Use
District 5 include a statement that access to parking will not be allowed from
Roosevelt Street unless no other access is available. The proposed project does, in
fact, have an access to parking off of Roosevelt Street. This, however, is due to the
configuration of the lot. The site for development has wide frontage on Pine, with
narrow frontage on Roosevelt and Tyler Streets. It was difficult for the applicant to
design an alternate access off of Pine Street and continue to meet all of the other
RP 95-05
September 18,1996
Page 11
*development standards for the proposed project. To limit vehicle and pedestrian
conflicts, however, the driveway off of Roosevelt Street will be used for entering the
site only. The exit is provided onto Tyler Street. An appropriate finding for approval of
the access from Roosevelt Street has been incorporated into Design Review Board
Resolution No. 252.
In addition, there is also a miscellaneous development standard which requires
that for any lot proposed for non-residential development which adjoins an existing
residential lot, the project shall include construction of a solid masonry wall along
common lot lines. Also, any non-residential development constructed shall be designed
in a manner which respects the area’s transitional or residential character. Although the
proposed project includes residential, the commercial and workshop space creates a
need to construct the subject wall for sound attenuation purposes. As shown on the
project plans, a 6 foot tall masonry wall will be constructed along the property line
which separates the project from the adjoining residential property to the south. Also,
the project has been designed in a manner which incorporates the design of the
commercial and residential into an overall character which respects the transitional
nature of the area.
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES
In addition to a project being consistent with the land use plan for the Village and the
applicable development standards, all new projects within the Village Redevelopment
Area must make a good faith effort to design a project which is consistent with a village
scale and character. The Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission, as appropriate, must be satisfied that the applicant has made an honest
effort to conform to ten (10) basic design principles. These design principles are:
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 the 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, the applicant has made an honest effort
through the proposed design of the subject project to address the basic design
4 8
RP 95-05
September 18,1996
Page 12
*principles noted above. A more complete analysis of how the project was designed to
address the guidelines set forth within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual is
provided in Exhibit 5 to this report.
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH SIGN STANDARDS
Within the Village Redevelopment Area, all signs are expected to support the Village’s
image as a high quality specialty shopping district and business location. The sign
sizes, shapes and colors are to be reflective of the lower traffic speeds and pedestrian
orientation of the Village. Creative and interesting signs are encouraged.
As established by approval of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, each
building/project in the Village Redevelopment Area is allowed a total of one (1) square
foot of signage for each lineal foot of building frontage. A variety of options are provided
to assist businesses in meeting their signage needs. For the subject project, the
building is allowed a total of 135 square feet of signage for the entire building, 1 square
foot of signage for each lineal foot of building frontage. The signage plan for the
proposed building is attached as an exhibit to this report.
The applicant proposes to include a total of five (5) projecting signs on the building
which will not exceed six (6) square feet each, excluding supporting brackets, or a total
of 30 square feet. Additional signage includes individual wall tenant signs, a building
wall tenant sign and a monument sign. The total amount of signage for the building is
proposed at 132 square feet. The sign types selected and the total amount of signage
is in compliance with the standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual. The proposed signs add visual interest to the building and are creative in
character which is also consistent with the goals and objectives for signage in the
Village.
All businesses within the building will’be allowed window signs, address signs and
sidewalk signs which meet the standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual. These types of signs are not calculated in the total amount of signage
permitted for each business or the building as a whole. The individual businesses will
be required to apply for a separate permit for these types of signs.
IX. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
The project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new
construction of a building which will have a building permit valuation which is greater
than $150,000. The signs for the project also require a discretionary review permit. The
project site is not located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, a Coastal Development
RP 95-05
September 18,1996
Page 13
.Permit is not required for the project.
Whenever several different types of permits or approvals are required for a project, the
decision-making body on all of the permits shall be the body with the highest level
authority on any of the individual permits. In other words, the final decision-making
body will take action on the highest and lowest level permits. For the Schilling Mixed
Use Project, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission is the final decision-making
body. Consequently, the Commission will take final action on both the major
redevelopment permit and the sign permit for the project.
The Design Review Board is asked to hold a public hearing on the permits requested,
consider the public testimony and staffs recommendation on the project, discuss the
project and then take action to recommend approval or denial of the project. If the
project is denied by the Design Review Board, the applicant would be required to
appeal the decision to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The project will
then be forwarded to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
X. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, SEWER, WATER, RECLAIMED WATER AND
OTHER SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Traffic. The total projected average daily traffic for the project is 110 ADTs. This breaks
down to 32 ADT for the residential, 65 ADT for the retail and 13 ADT for the workshop
space.
Circulation. Circulation for the project is designed with a one-way parking aisle with the
entrance off of Roosevelt Street and the exit onto Tyler Street. A 20 foot long queuing
area will be provided at the entrance driveway to avoid vehicles backing out directly on
to the street. Signing and striping will be provided to prevent vehicles from entering the
site from Tyler Street. The 24 foot wide parking lot aisle is adequate to serve vehicular
traffic for both the angled parking spaces and the enclosed garages. On-street parking
is allowed on all three streets surrounding the project site.
Sewer. The total number of sewer Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) required for the
project is calculated to be 5.40. This breaks down to 4 EDUs for the residential, .90
EDUs for the retail and .50 EDUs for the workshop space. Sewer service to the project
will be provided by an existing sewer line on Tyler Street. The sewer pipe size is 8
inches. The developer will need to verify the depth of the sewer line to prepare for
installation of any new sewer lateral onto the property.
Water. The total number of EDUs required for the project is calculated to be 5.40, as
noted above, with water usage estimated at 220 gallons per day. The water service
RP 95-05
September 18,1996
Page 14
requirements for the subject project are calculated by multiplying the EDUs times the
estimated gallons per day which amounts to 1,188 gallons per day. Water service will
be provided by an existing 6 inch water main on Tyler Street.
Gradinq: In its current existing condition, the project is undeveloped and fairly level.
Grading for this project will consist primarily of building pad preparation and establishing
the desired drainage pattern for the site. There are no slopes or retaining walls on this
project.
Drainaqe and Erosion Control: The site is designed to drain in a westerly direction.
Surface runoff will drain along the southern edge of the site through a landscape swale,
with the intent of providing surface pollutant mitigation, and then through an outlet
under the sidewalk and in to the gutter on Tyler Street.
Land Title. In order to meet parking and circulation requirements, and to maintain the
integrity of the project, the project proposes a ten foot (IO’) wide street vacation along
the project frontage on Pine Street. Since the existing eighty foot (80’) right-of-way
width of Pine Street exceeds the sixty foot (60’) standard right-of-way width currently
required for local streets, City staff has determined that this street vacation can be
allowed. The street vacation will be processed concurrently with the redevelopment
permit for approval by the City Council. If the street vacation is not approved, the
developer will be required to revise the project plans and resubmit them for
consideration by the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment
Commission.
Improvements. The project applicant has offered to construct non-standard street
improvements along the project frontage on Pine Street and along a portion of the
frontage on Roosevelt Street. These improvements will consist of replacing selected
areas of sidewalk with pavers, and the installation of benches, light bollards and
landscaping. The findings to grant a variance for these non-standard improvements
have been incorporated into Design Review Board Resolution No. 252. Additionally, a
condition will be imposed on the project requiring the applicant to obtain an above
ground encroachment permit for these improvements prior to issuance of building
permit.
In the future, the specific details of any proposed public improvements will be included
within the plans submitted for approval by the Design Review Board so that the
developer is not required to obtain a separate above ground encroachment permit from
the Engineering Department. The encroachment permit will actually be approved as
part of the Redevelopment Permit. However, in this particular case, some additional
time is needed to address issues related to the sidewalk improvements. Therefore, a
RP 95-05
September 18,1996
Page 15
project condition requires a separate ground encroachment permit in order to identify
and approve the specifics for construction of the improvements. The reason for the
delay in approving the actual improvement plans is that there are currently plans for
the City/Redevelopment Agency to complete street improvements on Roosevelt Street
from Carlsbad Village Drive to Walnut Avenue. Staff has asked the developer to install
improvements which would be consistent with the new improvements designed for
Roosevelt Street. We do not want the developer to construct improvements which
would be inconsistent with the improvements to be installed by the City. Also, we do not
want the developer to construct standard improvements and then have the City come in
and tear them up only a few months later. Staff is therefore recommending a condition
that requires the developer to work with the City/Agency to design and construct
improvements which will compliment those proposed for the Roosevelt Streetscape
Project. It is anticipated at this time that the streetscape improvements will be similar to
those installed on Carlsbad Village Drive.
Unfortunately, due to the recent concerns raised over the Barrio Specific Plan, the
Roosevelt Streetscape Project has remained pending. Staff hopes that when the
Developer is ready to prepare the improvement plans, the City/Agency will have the
plans ready for the Roosevelt Streetscape Project. In this manner, we will be able to
appropriately coordinate the construction activities for the improvements related to this
project. If the plans are not ready, the City Engineer will make a decision as to how the
developer should proceed to construct the subject improvements. With approval of
Design Review Board Resolution No. 252, the City Engineer will be authorized to
approve the type of improvements to be constructed around the site and within the
public right-of-way with the understanding that every effort will be made to have the
Developer construct non-standard, enhanced improvements.
Xl. 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. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration was issued for the subject
project by the Planning Director on August 2, 1996 and made available for public
review. No comments were received on the environmental document. Adoption of
Design Review Board Resolution No. 2!jJ will recommend approval of the Negative
Declaration for this project to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
RP 95-05
September 18,1996
Page 16
‘XII. ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed project will have a positive financial impact for the community. Currently,
the property for the subject project is vacant. The vacant property has an assessed
value of $124,187. With roughly estimated improvement costs of $800,000 for the
subject project, the new assessed value of the property will be approximately
$925,000; this will generate approximately $9,250 per year in property taxes, compared
to the current $1,242. Also, there will be sales tax generated from the retail suites. The
success of the businesses located at the site will ultimately determine the amount of
sales tax to be generated.
The project provides for residential opportunities. If we assume that the residents will
be new to the community, we can also assume that they will have income to spend
within the community which will generate sales tax revenues through other businesses,
such as grocery stores. The most significant economic impact, however, will hopefully
be reflected in other new development and rehabilitation which will occur as a result of
this investment in the area.
XIII. CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of this project because 1) it will provide a new, desired
mixed use project with “shopkeeper” type units in the Village and ultimately add to the
variety of services and products available within the area; 2) it will result in construction
of a new building which is consistent with the Village character and the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual; and 3) it will have a positive financial impact in terms of
increased property tax and sales tax revenue.
EXHIBITS:
1. Design Review Board Resolutioi No. 251.
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 252.
3. Location Map.
4. Project Description with Disclosure Statement.
5. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines.
6. Exhibits “A” - “F”, dated September 18, 1996.
EXHIBITS
l&2
Resolutions
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. 252
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A
MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE BUILDING INCLUDING RETAIL,
WORKSHOP SPACE AND FOUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS WELL AS
RELATED SIGNAGE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 507 PINE STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 5 OF THE
VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
CASE NAME: SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT
APN: 204-081-01
CASE NO: RP 95-05
WHEREAS, John Schilling, “Developer” has filed a verified application with
the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by
John Schilling, “Owner”, described as Lots 17, 18 and 19 in Block 31, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 535, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2, 1888 (“the property); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment
Permit and Sign Permit as shown on Exhibits A-F, dated September 18, 1996 on file in the
Housing and Redevelopment Department, Schilling Mixed Use Project RP 95-05 as provided
by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 18th day of September,
1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
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. 252
Page 2
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors
relating to Major Redevelopment Permit 95-05.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review
Board as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design
Review Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Major
Redevelopment Permit, Schilling Mixed Use Project, RP 95-05, and
the related sign permit based on the following findings and subject to
the following conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board finds that the subject project will have no significant
impact on the environment and has recommended approval of a Negative
Declaration for the subject project to the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission.
2. The Project qualifies as a Major Redevelopment Permit under Chapter 21.35 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code because the project involves new construction of
a building with a building permit valuation exceeding $150,000.
3. As established within the staff report to the Design Review Board dated
September 18, 1996, the Project has been determined to be consistent with the
land use plan, development standards, design guidelines and other applicable
regulations set forth with the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master
Plan and Design Guidelines, with approval of the following additional findings
regarding reduced setback standards and for non-standard street improvements:
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
a) The reduced setback standards will not have an adverse impact on
surrounding properties due to the location of the project site. The site is
bordered on three sides by public streets and adjoined on the south by a
single family property. The building is separated from the single family
home by the parking lot and five foot landscaped setback. Also, there are a
variety of setbacks already existing in the area of the project.
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. 252
Page 3
b) The reduced setback standards will assist in developing a project which
meets the goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with
the objectives for the land use district in which the project is located. The
reduced setback standards will allow the applicant to build a project which
will be financially feasible and remain generally consistent with the
established development standards for the area. Mixed use, neighborhood
commercial development is very desirable within Land Use District 5. The
reduced setback standards are necessary to facilitate the development of the
proposed project.
c) The reduced setback standards will assist in creating a project design which
is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of
the area. Due to the fact that Roosevelt Street represents a pedestrian
corridor and that there are a number of residential units in the immediate
area of the proposed project, it was important to design the project in a
manner which takes advantage of pedestrian traffic. By developing the
subject project in a manner which brings it closer to the sidewalks, the
project will connect better with pedestrians and create a more positive
interaction between residents, commercial tenants and the pedestrians in the
area.
d) There are extraordinary or unusual circumstances or conditions applicable
to the situation of surrounding property necessitating a standards waiver to
allow for non-standard street improvements. The east side of the project
site fronts on Roosevelt Street, which is the designated corridor for future
thematic streetscape improvements, similar to the streetscaping project
recently completed along Carlsbad Village Drive. It is anticipated that the
improvements to be installed under this standards waiver will be compatible
and enhance the connection of Pine Street to the future Roosevelt Street
Improvements. The improvements will consist of enhanced brick pavers,
landscaping, lighting, and sitting areas. The applicant is willing to install
these improvements at their own expense and has limited the improvements
along their project frontage on Roosevelt Street to provide an opportunity
for the future streetscape theme to continue uninterrupted along the
designated corridor.
e) The granting of a standards waiver for the non-standard street
improvements will not cause substantial drainage problems. The proposed
surface improvements are to be installed to match the existing grade and
elevations of the existing improvements, which drain in a positive direction
to the public storm dram system.
- 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 Resolution No. 252
Page 4
f) The granting of a standards waiver for the non-standard street
improvements will not conflict with existing or future traffic and parking
demands or pedestrian or bicycle use. The proposed improvements do not
involve modifications to the travel lanes of the streets nor will it cause any
changes to the street parking. The width of the existing sidewalk fronting
the project will not be changed.
g) The granting of a standards waiver for the non-standard street
improvements will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the standards waiver
is granted. The proposed surface improvements will be at the same grade as
the existing improvements and the landscape, lighting and benches will be
situated out of the pedestrian travel path.
h) The granting of a standards waiver for the non-standard street
improvements will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan.
The roads surrounding this project are not designated as Circulation
Element roadways within the Carlsbad General Plan.
4. The granting of the ten foot street vacation will have no adverse impact on
vehicular circulation within the area and the surplus right-of-way is not required for
future public street purposes. The project is approved with the understanding that
the required street vacation will be approved by the Carlsbad City Council prior to
approval of the redevelopment permit for the subject project.
5. Due to configuration of the site, the project is unable to provide an acceptable
alternative for access to the site. Approval of an access off of Roosevelt Street will
not have an adverse impact on pedestrian or vehicular circulation within the area.
GENERAL PLAN AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the following:
a) That the General Plan identifies the “Village” and references the Village . Master Plan and Design Manual as the appropriate land use plan for the
area. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan and the Village Master Plan and Design Manual,
effective as of January 12, 1996, because it will provide for an encouraged
land use within Land Use District 5 of the Village Redevelopment Project
Area. The uses allowed in this land use district include retail and residential
as well as mixed use projects.
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. 252
Page 5
b) That the existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all
required public right-of-way has been dedicated and has been or will be
improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation
have been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking.
Pedestrian circulation is provided through pedestrian-oriented building
design, landscaping, lighting and street furniture. Public facilities have
been or will be constructed to serve the proposed project. The project has
been conditioned to develop and implement a program of “best
management practices” for the elimination and reduction of pollutants
which enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities.
c) That the project is required to comply with Title 24 of the Uniform
Building Code which sets forth insulation requirements to reduce internal
noise levels for the residential apartment units to a level not to exceed 45
dBA CNEL, which is consistent with the Noise Element of the General
Plan.
d) The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed
project will be consistent with the residential density applicable to the RMH
density designation which has been assigned to the property with the
approval of a density bonus and the findings below to exceed the Growth
Management Control Point for the subject site. The Developer has been
conditioned to enter into a Density Bonus Housing Agreement to detail the
approved density bonus and the additional incentive provided for the
purposes of developing an affordable housing unit on the site. The project
is permitted to exceed the Growth Management Control Point of 3.11 for
the site based on the following findings:
1. There is no need for the project to provide additional public
facilities for the density in excess of the control point (one
housing unit).The Developer has been conditioned to pay the
appropriate public facilities fee for the subject project which
will ensure that adequate public facilities will be provided
within the area to serve this and other projects in the future.
2. There have been sufficient developments approved in the
northwest quadrant at densities below the control point to cover
the units in the project above the control point so that approval
will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit.
3. All necessary public facilities required by Chapter 21.90 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code will be constructed or are guaranteed
to be constructed concurrently with the need for them created
by this development and in compliance with the adopted City
standards.
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
2E
27
2E
DRB Resolution No. 252
- j
Page 6
e)
0
2%)
h)
0
The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan, the
City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the Redevelopment Agency’s
Inclusionary Housing Requirement, as the Developer has been conditioned
to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to provide and deed restrict
one (1) dwelling unit as affordable to low income households.
The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space
within the surrounding area. The project is being developed on a vacant lot
which has appropriate zoning for commercial/mixed use development. The
project is also consistent with the Open Space requirements for new
development within the Village Redevelopment Area.
The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform
Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project
meets appropriate fire protection and other safety standards.
The proposed project has been conditioned to pay all applicable fees related
to the construction of public facilities, including parks and recreation
facilities.
The proposed project has been conditioned to require the developer to
consult with the City’s Art Manager in the construction of the above
standard public improvements which could incorporate art-related features,
such as an artist designed park bench.
2. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
a) The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer
service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless
sewer service remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that
the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have
been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
b) Statutory School Fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school
facilities in the Carlsbad Unified School District.
.
c) All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
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. 252
Page 7
3.
4.
5.
6.
- .r
d) The Developer 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.
The project has been conditioned 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 the 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 has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as
part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
The project is conditioned to comply and remain consistent with the City’s
Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council Resolution No.90-384.
The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the
Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the
exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to
the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough
proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
GENERAL AND PLANNING CONDITIONS:
1. The Design Review Board does hereby RECOMMEND APPROVAL of Major
Redevelopment Permit, Schilling Mixed Use Project, RP 95-05, and the related
sign permit, subject to the conditions herein set forth. Staff is authorized and
directed to make, or require Developer to make, all necessary corrections and
modifications to the Exhibits and/or other documents to make them internally
consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Developer shall
develop the property substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits, or first
obtain appropriate amendment(s) to this approval.
2. The Developer shall provide the Agency 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 Agency. The plan copy shall
be submitted to the Planning Director and approved prior to building or grading
permit approval, whichever occurs first.
3. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan
check, a reduced, legible version of the approving resolution on a 24” X 36”
blueline drawing.
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. 252
Page 8
4. 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.
5. 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
2 1.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement
a growth management system or Facilities and Improvement Plan. If the fees
are not paid, this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and
approval for this project will be void.
6. The Developer shall provide proof of payment of statutory school fees to
mitigate conditions of overcrowding as part of the building permit application.
The amount of these fees shall be determined by the fee schedule in effect at
the time of building permit application.
7. Prior to the issuance of the Redevelopment Permit, Developer shall submit to
the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder,
subject to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director,
notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of
Carlsbad’s Redevelopment Agency has issued a Redevelopment Permit by
Resolution No. 252 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice
of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing
complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions
or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning
Director or the Housing and Redevelopment Director has the authority to
execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates
said notice upon a showing of good cause by the developer or successor in
interest.
8. Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with
gates pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved
by the Planning Director or the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment
Director.
9. All visitor parking spaces shall be striped a different color than the assigned
resident parking spaces and shall be clearly marked as may be approved by the
Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director.
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
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
DRB Resolution No. 252
Page 9
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning
Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director approval. All lighting shall be
designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. In
such instance, a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and the
Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director.
The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance
with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The
plans shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director or
Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to the approval of the grading or building
permit, whichever occurs first. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy
and thriving conditions, free from weeds, trash and debris.
The first submittal of detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be accompanied by
the project’s building, improvement and grading plans.
The project’s discretionary sign permit is approved as part of this redevelopment
permit. All building signs shall conform to the plans submitted for approval under
this permit. Any changes to the sign plan shall require prior written approval from
the Pbuming Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to the
installation of signs on the building. Building permits shah be required for the
installation of all approved signs on the building.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street; color of identification and/or
addresses shall contrast to their background color.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for the building, including the residential units,
the Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to
provide and deed restrict one (1) dwelling unit within the project affordable to lower-
income households for the useful life of the dwelling unit, in accordance with the
requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and
successors in interest.
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. 252
Page 10
17. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the building, including the residential units,
the Developer shall enter into a Density Bonus Housing Agreement. The Agreement
shall be consistent with Chapter 2 1.86, Section 21.86.100 of the Carlsabad Municipal
Code. The relevant terms and conditions of the density bonus housing agreement shall
be filed and recorded as a deed restriction on the individual unit of the project
development which has been designated for the target dwelling unit for affordable
housing purposes. The recorded Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall be binding on
all future owners and successors in interest for a period of at least thirty (30) years.
18. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall receive approval to
participate in the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and pay the applicable fee
established by the Carlsbad City Council for a total of five (5) parking spaces. If
the Developer is unable to obtain approval to participate in the Parking In-Lieu
Fee Program and/or does not pay the applicable fee for five (5) spaces, the
approval of this permit shall become null and void.
19. In preparing the detailed public improvement plans for the Project, which include
non-standard sidewalk improvements,the Developer shall consult with the City of
Carlsbad’s City Engineer, Housing and Redevelopment Director and Arts
Manager prior to completing the plans to design the project in a manner which is
consistent with the proposed Roosevelt Street Streetscape Improvement Plans and
incorporates appropriate art elements. The Rnal improvement plans shall be
approved by the City Engineer, following consultation with the Housing and
Redevelopment Director. If the Roosevelt Street Streetscape Improvement Plans
are not approved by the City of Carlsbad in a timely manner, the City Engineer is
authorized to approve au alternate plan prepared by the Developer if acceptable
to the City Engineer and Housing and Redevelopment Director.
19. If any of the foregoing conditions fails to occur; or, if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the Redevelopment Agency shall
have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further
condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all
certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted;
institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or
seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a
successor in interest by the Agency’s approval of this Resolution.
20. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
21. The property owner of the subject project shall be required to lease the workshop and
retail space together. The workshop space must be used as an extension of a single
business operation. The workshop space may not be used for a business enterprise
which is separate from the on-site retail space.
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
C - _.
DRB Resolution No. 252
Page 11
22. The retail suites on the site may be used for the sale of items which are permitted
within Land Use District 5. The workshop space may be used for the production of the
same permitted sale items to be sold within the retail suite.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
1. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
2. Prior to hauling direct or construction materials to or from any proposed construction
site within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the
City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all
conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling
operation,
3. The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide the best
management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management
Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to
discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City
Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners
and tenants of the following:
a) All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous
waste products.
b) Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners; wood preservatives, and other such fluids
shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm
water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides,
insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State,
County, and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers.
c> Best Management Piactices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface
pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
4. Plans, specifications and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. in accordance with City Standards, the
developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided
by law, improvements shown on the site plan.
5. The structural section for the access aisle shall be designed with a traffic index of 5.0 in
accordance with City Standards due to truck access through the parking area. The
structural pavement design of the aisle way shall be submitted together with required R-
value soil test information and approved by the City as part of the building site plan review.
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. 252
Page 12
6. Prior to building petit issuance, the developer shall submit and receive approval for
an encroachment permit for the above ground non-standard street improvements from
the City Engineer.
WATER, SEWER AND FIRE CONDITIONS
1. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be met.
2. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits, and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego
County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for
meter installations.
3. Sequentially, the Developers Engineer shall do the following:
a) Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements.
Also obtain GPM demand for domestic and irrigational needs from appropriate
parties.
b) Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning
Department for processing and approval.
c) Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement plans, a
meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review, comment and
approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (i.e., GPM - EDU).
4. This project is approved under the expressed 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 service and sewer facilities are available at the
time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to be available
until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the project plans.
5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall evaluate building plans for
conformance with applicable fire and life safety requiremenJs of the stand and local Fire
Codes. The plans must include a site plan which depicts the following:
a) Location of existing public water mains and fire hydrants.
b) Location of off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
c) Depiction of emergency access routes, driveways and traffic circulation for Fire
Department approval.
6. Prior to building occupancy, private roads and driveways which serve as required access
for emergency service vehicles shall be posted as fire lanes in accordance with the
requirements of Section 17.04.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
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. 252
Page 13
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited
to the following code requirements.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
,...
.I..
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
..,.
The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 18 months from the date of final project approval.
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.
The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
The project shall comply with insulation requirements for residential units to reduce the
interior noise levels within the apartments to 45 dBA CNEL pursuant to Title 24 of
State Building Code.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated
and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets,
in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of
the Directors of Planning and Building.
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. 252
Page 14
7. All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape
Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning
Director.
8. The project shall comply with recycling collection area requirements pursuant to
Section 21.105.060. The recycling area shall be noted on the final plans submitted for
applicable building permits for the project.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of September, 1996 by
the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KIM WELSHONS, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
EVAN E. BECKER, Housing and Redevelopment Director
EXHIBIT
3
Location Map
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
z
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
E
OAKAVENUE
PINE STREET
4-- Project Site
I I I CITY OF CARLSBAD
SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT RP 95-05
EXHIBIT
4
Project Description
&
Disclosure
Statement
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION
PROJECT NAME: PINE STREET PROJECT
APPLICANT NAME: =OHN SCHILLING
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 [ncLde ar,y
background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, cr
appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary.
Description/Explanation.
SEE ADDENDUM TO APPLICATION
.-, t&#iL ic” ..I,-_, l “_, ,.
,., -. . i* -.- _. .-
Rw. 4m1 ProjO*rc.hm
/IL
PINE STREET PROJECT
PROJECT DEFINITION:
ixx 2 3 lzm
.’ ” *‘. ., ,-,, .:. .: -;. i . . :I --GA- --’ . ., d __.--.- _ -i-.. -0
This is a multi-use commercial/ living project, that here after is referred to as a
contemporary project of “SHOPKEEPERS/LIVING SPACES.” We propose to
construct this project in the CITY OF CARLSBAD, ZONE 5 REDEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT. The property is located on the corner lot of Pine I Roosevelt I Tyler
streets. The project will establish a high visibility building in the existing
community which may become part of the gateway to the Barrio District. We
designed the project to meet several redevelopment objectives and community
goals of the Barrio District.
COMMUNITY GOALS:
The main focus is to redevelop the area through refurbishing and modemization s
of existing buildings, including homes. The community also wishes to encourage
development of new buildings in accordance with the zoning. One of the
community’s visions is to encourage development of new buildings with multi- .
use spaces. Hopefully, these multi-use buildings will provide employment and
capital development within the community. This project specifically targets the
community objectives.
1. The project will provide four (4) shop-keeper units of
approximately 650 sq. ft. of office1 warehouse work space plus
600 sq. ft. of living space above each unit.
2. There will also be two (2) additional studio/office spaces of
approximately 250 sq. ft. each and for (4) single car enclosed
garage spaces.
3. Parking spaces will be provided on-site to meet the parking
requirements of the project.
4. A decorative bench will be placed along the Roosevelt Street
-’
side of the project.
CIlY OF CARLSBAD OBJECTIVES:
The City Of Carlsbad has recently completed development of a new “Center
Piece” Transportation Center in the redevelopment zone. We believe the city’s
focus is now directed towards enhancement of areas which complimentthe
“Center Piece. This project is within easy walking distance of the Center and,
hopefully, will be helpful to the city’s goal of encouraging Private Sector
development in the zone.
DEVELOPER OBJECTIVES:
To develop a project on this property that will accomplish the goals of the CITY,
COMMUNITY, AND DEVELOPER. A project that will be visionary in both
purpose and function . . . . . ..and a project that will be economically sound, This
project will be very difficult, if not impossible, to finance through conventional
lending institutions because of its contemporary vision of purpose and its low
return on investment. The purpose of this proposal is to solicit both cooperation
and financial assistance from the city in any way possible.
r . . c I. .
t ; ;u .I l-r, 2 u
>
CEC 2 0 I’75
: ..,
‘2 !, .- ._ __.. _ ._I._ - J ‘0 . ” _/ _. ._ -. . ___ __
DISCLOSL’RE STATEMENT
&~sr_v.xNT’s STATEL4E.q OF 2lSCLOSUAE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATKJNS WHICH WILL RECUGE
;,SCAE;IONAiW ACTCN ON :X PART Of THE Cl-R COGNCIL. OR ANY APPOIKTED BOARO. COMMISSION OR CCMMflTEE.
(Please Print)
ihe following information must be disclosed:
Aoplicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. JOHN SCHILLING P.O. BOX 417
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the pr~~~-Q,i~~~~Q JOHN SCHILLING P-0. Box 417 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 r*-zy 3 fl jq
. ..- * "9 n =? -. . . _. - -- L&s-&J *i-' :___ -. .._ -.- I-* "U
3. 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 owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
N/A
4. If any person identfled 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.
FRMooo13 8/90
2075 Las Palmas Drive l Cartsbad. California 92009-4859 l (619) 438-l 161
Disclosure Statement
!Oveq
Page 2
5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, z:arcs
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No x If yes, please indicate person(s)
c
Per,on IS defined M: ‘Any Individual, km. copartnrrsh,p. jornt vrnturr. association. social club, fraternal organlzafion. corporation. estate. trLs:.
rwwer. ryndicatr. Ihlc and any other county. crly and county, crty muniapality. distnd or other political subdivwon. or any other group zr
combmatlon acting as 1 unit’
‘
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
JOHN.SCHILLING JOHN SCHILLING
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
EXHIBIT
5
Staff Analysis of
Design’ Guidelines ‘. Consistency
VILLA( - timASTER PLAN DESIGN GUIDEL-.ES
CHECKLIST
Provide variety of setbacks along any single commercial
block front
Provide benches and low walls along public pedestrian
frontages.
Maintain Retail Continuity along Pedestrian-Oriented
frontages
Avoid Drive-Through Service Uses
Minimize Privacy Loss for Adjacent Residential Uses
Encourage off-street courtyards accessible from major
pedestrian walkways
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping planted to
create an informal character
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
Provide landscaping within surface parking lots
Project: Schilling Mixed Use Project
The area the project is located has a mix of uses,
including residential and commercial. Due to this mix,
there are a will continue to be a variety of set-backs on
the Roosevelt Block. The proposed project fronts on
Pine Street, but also has an entrance to one of its
workshop and retail spaces off of Roosevelt.
As part of the project, the applicant has proposed to
construct enhanced public improvements in the right-of-
way as well as create a pedestrian friendly frontage
directly on the private property. The planter areas will
have low walls.
The retail portion of this project is located entirely on th
first floor which creates a very pedestrian-oriented
frontage on Pine Street.
No drive through service included in project.
A 6’ Masonry Wall will be constructed on the south side
of the property to provide privacy for the residential unit
located adjacent to and south of the proposed project.
Also, the second story residential units are located on
the Pine Street (or north side of the property) which will
provide for privacy for the single story residential units
to the south. The parking lot for the proposed project is
located between the residential units to the south and
the retail/ workshop spaces; this will help to provide a
buffer for the residential uses.
The project has been designed to be pedestrian friendly
and encourage pedestrians to walk into the retail areas.
Enhanced public spaces are being created as part of
the project in the public right-of-way.
Landscaped areas surround this project. There are
landscape planters, trees, low level ground cover, and
landscaping throughout the parking lot . All of these
various types of landscaping are used within the project
to provide for an informal character/setting.
This project has been designed in a manner which
provides for “green space” that completely surrounds
the building. This will assist in making it a desirable
place to live and work.
Landscaping is provided within the parking lot area.
=
Provide access to parking areas from alleys wherever
possible.
-, =-
No Alley. This project is surrounded on three sides by
streets: Pine, Tyler and Roosevelt. The fourth side is
adjacent to a residential lot.
Locate parking at the rear of lots. With Pine Street considered to represent the front of th
lot, the parking is located at the rear of the lot. However
the entrance will be off of Roosevelt Street and the lot
exits onto Tyler.
Devote all parking lot areas not specifically required for
parking spaces or circulation to landscaping.
All areas not required for parking spaces or aisles or
driveways or the trash enclosure have been
landscaped.
Avoid parking in front setback areas No parking proposed in front setback.
Avoid curb cuts along major pedestrian areas. Roosevelt is a major pedestrian area and there is a cur
cut to be constructed on it. However, this curb cut will
provide for entrance only to the project. Therefore, ther
should be less disruption to pedestrians in the area.
Avoid parking in block corner locations The parking lot will be partially visible from the corner.
However, this should not have a negative visual impact
on the area. The majority of the block corner will consist
of landscaping and the building.
Provide setbacks and landscaping between any parking
lot and adjacent sidewalks, alleys or other paved
pedestrian areas.
Setbacks, decorative hardscape and/or landscaping
were provided between the parking lot and the adjacent
sidewalks.
Avoid buildings which devote significant portions of their
ground floor space to parking uses.
Not applicable to this project.
Place parking for commercial or larger residential
projects below grade wherever feasible.
Enhance parking lot surfaces.
At this site, it was not feasible or necessary to place
parking below grade. To be feasible, a much larger/talle
building would need to be constructed. Staff could not
support a larger or taller building on this particular site.
The parking lot surfaces will most likely be asphalt. The
applicant, however, has proposed to enhance the
surface by incorporating interlocking tile pavers in the
middle section of the lot.
Provide for variety and diversity. Each building should
express its uniqueness of structure, location or tenant
and should be designed especially for their sites and not
mere copies of generic building types.
The proposed new design of the building provides for
articulation in the building, varying roof forms, fabric
awnings and other architectural features which provide
for a unique character. The proposed building will not
look like any other building currently in the area.
However, it will also blend into the area in a
complimentary manner. The site was taken into
consideration in terms of its constraints. Also the
location within.the Village and Barrio Area were
important in development of the design.
Step taller buildings back at upper I :IS. At its peak, the P Jposed project is 28 feet in height. It i
not a very tall building. However, the building is set-bat
from the sidewalk and the roof line has been varied to
reduce any negative impact on pedestrians.
Break large buildings into smaller units. The applicant has made a good faith effort to design the
building in a fashion which creates a sense of individua
retail units. The retail suites have varying entrance
locations. There are also pop-outs and awning which
create a feeling of smaller units.
Maintain a relatively consistent building height along
block faces.
Utilize simple building forms. Trendy and “look at me”
design solutions are strongly discouraged.
The height of the building is consistent with the other
buildings in the area, with the exception of some of the
single family homes located within the area.
The building has been designed with simple lines and
forms but allows for representation of the Village/Barrio
character desired for the area.
~ Emphasize the use of gable roofs with slopes of 7 in 12 Gabled-type roofs and roof features with the desired
or greater. pitch have been provided within the project.
Encourage the use of dormers in gable roofs. Dormers are used within the proposed gabled roofs.
Emphasize wood and composition shingle roofs, with the The project provides for a clay tile roof. The project is
exception that in the Land Use District 5 clay tile roofs located in Land Use District 5 which allows for clay tile
’ are acceptable. roofs.
Avoid Flat Roofs The building does not have a flat roof. It has varying
levels of pitch.
Screen mechanical equipment from public view. This will be a requirement of the project.
II ~ Avoid mansard roof forms. Mansard roof not designed into project.
Emphasize an informal architectural character. Building
facades should be visually friendly.
By providing for attractive front and side yards and
decorative paving, the entry to the project is very
visually appealing. Visual interest is added to the
building through attractive. building colors, many
windows, varying entrances and colotful fabric awnings.
Design visual interest into all sides of buildings. The building facades which are visible from the three
streets have been given special design attention by the
variation in facade fronts and entrances to the retail and
a separate central entrance for the residential, recessed
entrances, a varying roof line and a variation in
landscaping. To provide some visual appeal to the rear
of the building, the parking lot will be landscaped and
interlocking tile pavers will be used in the central area o
the lot for enhancement purposes. Decorative doors will
be used for the rear entrances to the garages and
workshop spaces.
II=-=
’ Utilize small individual windows except on commercial
storefronts.
Provide facade projections and recesses.
The proposed project provides for smaller, individual
window openings for both the residential as well as the
retail areas.
The building design provides for recesses and
projections which will create some shadows and
contrast. The entrances to the retail are varied, some
are recessed while others are flush with the front of the
building.
Give special attention to upper levels of commercial
structures.
The upper level of this commercial building provides for
4 residential units. Effort was made by the applicant to
design features in the second floor which would provid
for special attention to detail.
11 Provide special treatment to entries for upper level uses. The entry to the second floor (residential units) is
accessed through an interior courtyard area to provide
security for these units. Special attention was given to
the design of the wrought iron fencing and gates which
create the entry way to the second floor.
Utilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail
elements for visual interest and scale.
Detail elements have been incorporated into the entire
project by design. The fencing and window designs all
provide for detail which adds visual interest. The
balcony areas and central entry way were also designe
to provide for detail in architecture. Additionally, the
projecting signs proposed for the project (retail areas)
help to create visual interest and the appropriate scale
for the building.
Respect the materials and character of adjacent The materials and colors proposed for the building will
development. not conflict with adjacent developments.
Emphasize the use of the following wall materials: wood
siding; wood shingles; wood board and batten siding;
stucco
The wails will have a stucco finish.
I II
Avoid the use of the simulated materials; indoor/outdoor
Avoid tinted or reflective window glass.
carpeting; distressed wood of any type
At this time, none of the noted materials have been
indicated for use.
The windows are clear glass
Utilize wood, dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated
metal door and window frames.
The applicant will be using white aluminum door and
window frames. These types of windows and doors are
more desirable due to the design of the building and the
colors to be used on the exterior of the building.
Avoid metal awnings and canopies. The applicant has proposed teal-colored fabric awnings
to add color and interest to the building.
Utilize light and neutral base colors. The building walls will have a light peach-colored stucco
finish, with “creme bute” trim/caps and a “cedar rust”
base.
Limit the materials and color palett “I any single
building (3 or less colors)
Provide significant storefront glazing.
Avoid Large Blank Walls.
Encourage large window openings for restaurants
Encourage the use of fabric awnings over storefront
windows and entries.
Emphasize display windows with special lighting.
Encourage the use of dutch doors.
Utilize small paned windows
Develop a total design concept.
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.
Emphasize storefront entries.
Integrate Fences and walls into the building design.
The colors and .ierials are limited to stucco (3 colors)
Desert Terra Cotta roof tiles and teal awnings.
The project, as designed, is consistent with the design
guideline to devote a minimum of 60% of the ground
floor to storefront glazing. There are a number of
windows and glass doors on the east, west and north
elevations, which front on Roosevelt, Pine and Tyler
Streets.
The project provides for no blank walls.
Not applicable; no restaurants proposed within the
project.
Fabric awnings to be used over windows and most of
the entries.
No display lighting proposed at this time.
Dutch doors not proposed. The applicant believes that
the doors as designed are more appropriate for the
selected style of the building.
The applicant is not using small divided paned windows
However, the window selected is small in scale and
divided into three parts by its design.
All facade design elements are unified. The residential
uses together with the retail and workshop space have
been well-blended in terms of design.
The project does provide for frequent a varying
entrances in terms of the individual retail suites.
However, no single retail suite has more than one
entrance due to their size. The suites are not large
enough to require several entries. The design of the
building is consistent with the desire to promote the
Village character.
The extent of the entry openings has been limited due
to the size of the retail suites.
The project does not include pull down shutters or
sliding or fixed security grilles over windows along the
street frontage.
The storefront entries are emphasized through the use
of brightly colored fabric awnings or porch type
structures. Also, decorative paving will guide customers
to the retail entries.
Fences and walls have been incorporated into the
building design.
Encourage front entry gardens
Locate residential units near front property lines and
orient entries to the street.
Provide front entry porches.
The proposed first level landscaping does provide for a
entry garden to the second level residential units.
Due to the mixed use nature of this project and the
second story location of the residential units, it was not
possible to locate the residential units any closer to the
front property lines or to orient the entries to the street.
The project provides for a multi-family, mixed use
project which does not lend itself to front entry porches
for the residential units.
Provide windows looking out to the street. The project provides for windows which overlook all
three streets.
Utilize simple color schemes. The color scheme for the residential units is part of the
overall color scheme for the entire project. The color
scheme is discussed in more detail above.
Provide decorative details to enrich facades. The applicant applied windows and decorative window
trims, dormers and other architectural features to enrich
the facade of the total project, which includes the
second story residential units.
Emphasize “cottage” form, scale and character The use of gable-type roofs, varied roof heights and
dormers help to provide a visual relationship between
the residential/commercial design of this building and
others within the area.
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping. This project will provide for an abundance of
landscaping as well as hardscape both on private
property and within the public right-of-way.
Limit access drives to garages or surface parking areas. Access to the parking lot and enclosed garages has
been limited. There is only one driveway into and out of
the proposed project. This driveway leads to the
individual garages for the residential units.
Encourage detached garages which are subordinate in
visual importance to the house itself.
It was not possible to incorporate detached garages
within this project. However, the garages for the
residential units are subordinate to the residential units
(as well as the retail space).
Provide quality designed fences and walls. The applicant has designed very high quality fencing
which has been incorporated into the design of the
building as related to the entryway to the residential
units. The fencing is decorative a provides a desirable
architectural feature.
Visually separate multi-family developments into smaller Through the use of windows, the applicant has been
components. able to visually separate the multi-family units,
EXHIBIT
6
Project Plans
Exhibits “Ass - “Ii“’
-
7%;
1-q;
b 4’
j”l:
IL I I i
/ ;
ir ) ,- I I I I -- 4
I: l!f L
1 II
I \ -_
.______ .“. ---. ..-~_ .-------.L------t-----
i ! ----y--1-c-y i \ 1%
“5 I i: pj -j&--; / r-+-7 /
I-
9 ,$ .y , W.‘ * IIP(
I- -w -Yr
:: 1 i ::
I
: ; 1, : jl p-- It 2” B
1
-- -a t ;: 2 z 3
: 1
P-7
W
.L------ C--.---------------------------------- I , I I 1957.YI.r 17.7,43sooIy ~.-.--1-.,.-.-.-...-._ i 7 r 2 1 > i .i -.-.- -._
13.7x13- rY37A1 ;- ____ ‘----i-:dev 1 j 7 .y , :, ; I _
:- ----- -- -- -- __Le_-_- __.__.__.__.__.__.___ -.- ___._________.__.
k
.__ __._________ - --___-.. ---+’
6 $ L- _______ -.----__- . .3 TY/:FR .TT”/zIpPT -.-. “.j .-.-.-.
; I --.-----------------~------------------------------------------~---~------~-------------+- *”
9% : I
T + %
---- .---_ - ----- - ---__ ------..----+..-- +r- _- ----- ----??,,I--_-_----
b
+
-y-j---,?
II
.._. 1 .._--. _____ _
DESIGN REVIEW BOARL September 18, 1996 Page 1
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
’ Place of Meeting:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
5:00 P.M.
September 18, 1996
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Welshons called the Regular Meeting to order at 5:02 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The pledge of allegiance was led by Member Savary.
Chairperson Welshons introduced and welcomed new member Larry Scheer, who was appointed to the
board by the City Council on Tuesday, September 17, to fill the vacancy left by Nick Vessey.
Ms. Weishons also read a letter (dated April 25, 1996) from Mayor Lewis, seeking assistance in reminding the
members of the Design Review Board of the process for seeking reappointment to the body on which they
currently serve. The letter also was a reminder that re-appointment is not automatic and that the policy of the
Mayor and City Council is to appoint individuals to a maximum of two (2) complete terms. Any questions -
regarding the process should be directed to the office of the Mayor or the City Clerk.
Chairperson Welshons noted that all five DRB appointments expire in October, 1997, and that Mr. Scheer’s
span on this commission may be very short, indeed. She pointed out, however, that the Village Master Plan
Is now officially in effect, and the composition of the board does shift to a 2-3 membership, consisting of two
planning commissioners and three village members. Ms. Welshons then asked Senior Management Analyst,
Debbie Fountain, to update the board on the city council’s plans for re-configuring the membership of the
board and to advise the members of the process for re-applying for any one of the five positions.
Ms. Fountain explained that when the change takes place in October of 1997, the membership will essentially
be a “flip” of the current configuration. Instead of the DRB being comprised of three (3) Planning
Commissioners and two (2) Village Members, there will then be two (2) Plannins Commissioners and three
(3) representatives from the Village Redevelopment area. These representatives will each be required to
li&e a specific relationship with the redevelopment area. They must own property, own a business, work or
live in the redevelop-a . Ms. Fountain further advised the Board that, prior to October, 1997,
applications will be solicited and (when received) will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. She
also stated that the Council will (at that time) make appointments from the current membership of the
Planning Commission to serve on the Design Review Board and those Planning Commissioners interested in
serving on the DRB should make the Council aware of their interest at the appropriate time.
Chairperson Welshons then asked the DRB members to consider that they had been given notice of the need
to re-apply for the positions they now hold. She went on to explain that the delay in reading Mayor Lewis’
letter was attributed to the fact that the Design Review Board meetings are “few and far between” and the
opportunity to present such correspondence is limited.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairperson Welshons, Members: Compas, Marquez, Savary and Scheer.
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - September 18, 1996 Page 2
Absent: None
Staff Present: Evan Becker, Director of Housing and Redevelopment
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
Debbie Fountain, Senior Management Analyst
Brian Hunter, Senior Planner
Ken Quon, Associate Engineer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
ACTION: Chairperson Welshons, referring to pages 6 though 8 of the Minutes of
August 7, 1996, pointed out a duplication of the “main” motion and also the
lack of clarification of the amendments to the “main” motion. She explained
how that action should read and the changes that should be made to
differentiate between the introduction of the main action to the floor, the
amendment actions & votes, the “main” motion, and ultimately, the vote on
the “main” motion including the amendments. Wishing to reduce future
confusion (with respect to similar actions) Ms. Welshons asked the Minutes
Clerk, to devise a format for this type of action that would be more readily
understood.
Chairperson Welshons also asked for a correction regarding the next
regularly scheduled meeting of the DRB. It was reported that Ms. Welshons
announced that the next regularly scheduled meeting on August 21, 1996,
would be a joint meetinq with the Planninq Commission. This is not correct
and should be changed to read: Chairperson Welshons noted that the next
regularly scheduled Design Review Board meeting will be on August 21,
1996 at 500 pm.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Member Compas, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of
the Regular Meeting of August 7, 1996, as corrected.
4-o
Welshons, Compas, Marquez, and Savary
None
Scheer
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
There were no comments from the audience.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. RP 95-05 - SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT - Request for a Major Redevelopment
Permit to allow the construction of a mixed use project which includes 4 residential units,
1537 square feet of retail space and 1851 square feet of workshop space at 507 Pine Street,
between Tyler Street and Roosevelt Street in the Village Redevelopment Zone/Land Use
District 5.
MINUTES
I ’ 3
DESIGN REVIEW BOAR. September 18, 199b Page 3
Chairperson Welsons reminded the applicant, Board Members and the public that if the Board recommends
approval of this item, it will be forwarded to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission for their
consideration.
Debbie Fountain, Senior Management Analyst, gave a brief presentation of this fairly complicated project, in
order to leave plenty of time for questions and discussion. Ms. Fountain shared information, as a general overview of the project. She emphasized that this is a request for a mixed use/major redevelopment project,
described the project location and discussed the community surrounding the proposed project area. Senior
Analyst Fountain presented a series of slides addressing all facets of the project and outlined each proposed
use. She also mentioned that the applicant is proposing to place 4 residential units in this project and with
the approval of the DRB, will be given a 25% density bonus for one of these units. Further, the project does
meet the inclusionary housing requirements in that one of the units will be affordable to lower income
households. Ms. Fountain continued by noting that there needs to be a correction to DRB Resolution No. 252
which states that the applicant would have to pay for five (5) spaces (Condition #18, page 10). The change
would reflect four (4) spaces rather than five (5) spaces, as related to the “in-lieu” fee. It was also noted that
the public improvements to be designed and constructed need to be consistent with the proposals for the
Roosevelt Street improvements. Those improvement plans have not been completed, to date, but the project
has been conditioned to be consistent with those proposed improvement plans. If the plans are not
completed before the applicant is ready to go forward, the City Engineer will make a determination as to what
would be required. There has been a special condition added which requires that the workshop space would
have to be leased with the retail space rather than as two (2) separate units. She also spoke of the
necessity for prior approval from the City Council, for a street “vacation” and that every attempt would be
made to take these two items to the City Council and the Housing & Redevelopment Commission, at the
same time, so the City Council can make the decision on the street “vacation” first. Ms. Fountain pointed out
the fact that if the City Council and the Housing & Redevelopment Commission did not approve the street
“vacation”, there would be no reason for them to take action on the Redevelopment Permit because the
project would have to be redesigned and then come back to the Design Review Board.
Ms. Fountain asked Board Members if they had any question at this time and informed the Board that the
applicant and the architect were also present to answer questions.
Chairperson queried the Board for questions for staff.
Member Savary expressed her concern about the noise factor of workshops below residential units and
asked if there would be any time (specific hours) restrictions placed on the workshops behind the retail
shops.
Analyst Fountain responded by saying that, the City has not placed any restrictions but that the Board may
want to check with the applicant to see if he has any plans to place any noise restrictions. She went on to
say that if the Board wishes to do so, they can make noise restrictions a condition of the project.
Member Savary also asked if the residents would be notified of the possibility of ambient noise.
Ms. Fountain stated that a requirement can be added to assure that-all tenants wot&Lb&ven such notice.
She also added that the design of those units, through the requirements of the building codes, already takes
into consideration the noises of the area, such as railroad noise.
Member Savary made mention of the undesirability of having an iron sculptor working, at all hours of the
night, in a workshop immediately below a residential unit.
MINUTES
133
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - September 18, 1996 Page 4
Ms. Fountain pointed out that anyone intending to move into that complex should certainly be aware of what
the mixed use is. She gave an example of a mixed use project in La Jolla and some of the issues that can
. arise.
Member Compas inquired as to when the “parking in-lieu” fee program will be approved.
Ms. Fountain responded by explaining that the study will probably be completed within the next week or two
and will then go to the Council to set the fee. Additionally, she expressed her departments desire that the
parking program will be before the Council within the next month.
Member Compas also asked, Ms. Fountain, if she feels comfortable with this hybrid parking system.
Ms. Fountain responded in the affirmative by saying, in her opinion, the 50-50 split between warehouse and
commercial/retail is reasonable.
Member Compas also expressed his concern about traffic circulation and asked for some input regarding
same. \
Ken Quon, Associate Engineer, assured Member Compas that adequate precautions have been taken to
assure a smooth & safe flow of traffic both in and out of the site. He also pointed out that his department _
feels very comfortable with the one-way circulation because they are trying to reduce the number of cars
coming out on to Roosevelt Street.
Member Marquez inquired about what controls the City has regarding the wall separatino the retail sgas;e
from the workshop-space. Specifically, what would happen if a tenant leased both a retail space and an
awG%op space and then wanted to expand it all into one big retail space by removing the dividing
wall?
Ms. Fountain explained that it is a basic code enforcement issue that must be dealt with on every project as it
occurs. She cited the fact that anytime an individual wishes to make any interior improvements, they must
have a building permit for those changes. She also pointed out that there is always someone who will try to
avoid the permit issue and make the changes without a permit. In those cases, as soon as Code
Enforcement becomes aware of the changes, they will immediately take action to stop the work that is being
done. It all boils down to the fact that Code Enforcement would have to monitor the activities of the complex
and deal with any infractions as they occur. c
Member Marquez also voiced her concern over the location of the trash enclosure as it is so close to the
qPJ street and appears to be adjacent to the house next’door to the project property. She pointed out that the
$,!L P house has a window, right there, and when a trash collection truck comes to pick up the trash there is going
V-J
to be a lot of noise. Because of the noise, she asked whether or not the trash enclosure could be traded with
;a/( ( li’zi..~ f the Handicapped parking space in the parking lot layout.
‘TA ‘b Mr. Quon answered by explaining that the original design had placed the trash enclosure on Tyler Street, but
a-&
that the visibility of a vehicle exiting onto Tyler Street would be blocked by the trash enclosure. Several
locations were discussed and the current location was considered to be the best.
Member Marquez repeated her concern for the residents of the adjoining property. She pointed out that
since the neighboring residential unit has been there for quite some time (prior to this project) that, in her
opinion, the City should have some consideration for them and make adjustments for their benefit. Ms.
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARL September 18, 1996 Page 5
Marquez went on to raise the question of lighting, specifically the lighting in the parking area.
Ms. Fountain advised that the applicant will have to submit a lighting plan, which is part of their “plan check”
’ process.
With respect to the trash enclosure issue, Ms. Fountain pointed out that conditions regarding when the trash
can be collected can be placed on the project if it becomes a real concern. Additionally, the terms of those
conditions can be worked o- me applicant and the trash collection company.
Member Marquez recommended that the lighting be shielded to eliminate and glare or visual intrusion into the
residential units or the neighboring home.c
Chairperson Welshons recommended that the Board obtain some more information regarding some of the
above issues, before there are any final determinations.
Member Marquez made known her displeasure with the exterior design of the-@1 UD r the project as
related to the workshop space. It is her feeling that the doors make the project have a very “industrial look”
and inquired about the possibility of changing the “look”. She also asked if the doors were garage doors or
roll-up doors.
Ms. Fountain suggested that the applicant answer that particular question but also offered the fact that it is
quite possible that the taller doors will be a necessity especially if the tenant(s) are artist, sculptors, etc., and
the products they create or manufacture are considerably taller and/or larger than the average door.
Member Marquez suggested that there be conditions, in place, totgovern deliveries to the site and asked for
appropriate recommendations. She also inquired about provisions for loadin & un /g on the property.
Ms. Fountain agreed that there could be conditions placed on deliveries and deferred to Ken Quon to answer
the question regarding the loading/unloading area.
Mr. Quon pointed out that they had made a provision for an extra wide lane, in the parking lot, that would
allow unrestricted passage of vehicles regardless of the loading or unloading activities.
Chairperson Welshons, referring to two of the retail shops that do not appear to have access to the back,
asked where and how their goods would be loaded or unloaded.
Mr. Quon assured Ms. Welshons, that although those two shops “front” on the street, they indeed have
access to the back through the center section of the building.
Chairman Welshons questioned how (mathematically) as well as by Municipal Code, the density bonus &
incentives were determined.
Ms. Fountain replied the Density Bonus ordinance specifically states that it applies to a project with 5 or more
units. However, staff did not interpret this to mean that a smaller project could not benefit from the Density
Bonus Ordinance. The Village Master Plan indicates that a residential project cannot exceed the Growth
Management Control Point unless a Density Bonus or Density Increase is granted for the project per Chapter
21.53 and 21.86 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. So, in order for the City to permit the proposed project,
either a density bonus or increase must be approved. Redevelopment staff is recommending the density
bonus and an additional incentive of reduced parking requirement to help the project. Analyst Fountain asked
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - September 18, 1996 Page 6
Senior Planner Brian Hunter to share his thoughts on the matter.
Brian Hunter, Senior Planner, stated that the calculations were correct in terms of the density for the project.
’ The project density is within the range for the RMH designation but it does exceed the Growth Management
Control Point. In terms of the Density Bonus, he was not sure why the Density Bonus Ordinance referred to
projects with 5 units or more. He was not sure if this was part of the State Density Bonus Law.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, advised that in terms of just the application, the City cannot limit the
state law and prohibit a bonus that they would be entitled to and went on to ask if the City is saying that the
ordinance would prohibit another enhancement if its less than 5 units.
Chairman Welshons referred to page 6, paragraph 2, and asked for a clarification, She alleged a “stretch” to
give this project a density bonus when it is only a 4 unit project when the ordinance specifically refers to a
minimum of 5 units. Chairman Welshons expressed concern that staff is trying to make the project fit through
use of the Density Bonus Ordinance.
Mr. Rudolf stated that the Density Bonus discussion was not in the draft of the report he reviewed and that
he did not get a chance to review the final report because he was in the process of moving his office due to
renovations. He apologized for not being able to advise the Board in the manner that he normally does.
Chairperson Welshons questioned how the math calculations, that begin on page 5 of the staff report, the
subsequent calculations on page 6, and the density bonus all somehow (miraculously) make everything O.K.
She summed up her question to ask, “is this a stretch to make it all fit?”
Mr. Becker, in answer, stated that the density is within the General Plan range for RMH. It is within the 8 to
15 dwelling units per acre that is allowed. With the density bonus added to it, the project can be approved. It
is above the growth control point but the general plan allows a project to exceed it through granting of a
density increase.
Chairperson Welshons then questioned the legality of the way in which the density bonus, etc., has been
calculated. Mr. Becker indicated that he would discuss with Chris DeCerbo who was in the back room and
worked on the Density Bonus Ordinance.
Chairperson Welshons asked if the incentive was to reduce the parking standard and was assured, by Ms.
Fountain, that it was the additional incentive. Ms, Welshons also asked that if in reducing the parking
standards, what is the distance to the closest parking lot and what is the in-lieu fee, when that fee is
determined, and does that go toward a parking garage or a parking lot? Also, what is the distance from this
site to the nearest parking lot available for use.
Ms. Fountain explained that the in-lieu fee program is set up so that if the project is within 600 feet of an
existing public parking lot (or one that is planned within a 2 year period), you can pay up to 50% of the
parking requirement and a fee. Conversely, if you are not within 600 feet, the maximum you can pay is 25%.
This project is not within the 600 feet of an existing parking lot, but the program says that regardless of
whether or not you are close to a public parking lot, you can still pay a fee. In this case, the nearest public
parking is beyond 600 feet.
Chairperson Welshons remarked that, while driving around the site, she had observed that there were
absolutely no parking spaces available on the street, and in light of that fact that there are no residents
currently at that site, where are all the cars coming from?
MINUTES
\35
DESIGN REVIEW BOARL September 18, 1996 Page 7
Ms. Fountain answered by explaining that the in-lieu fee was originally set up to help people develop their
property, so it was understood that there may potentially be a parking lot in that area. The program was not
’ set up with that assumption that a parking lot is already provided or would be provided- it was set up to allow
fees to be paid in lieu of public parking.
Chairperson Welshons asked if there will be any landscaping between the sidewalk and the street and was
informed, by Ms. Fountain, that since the sidewalk goes right to the street, there is none planned at this time.
Ms. Welshons also asked if there would be landscaping in the triangular spaces in the parking lot and was
answered in the affirmative. Regarding the bench, Ms. Welshons asked if it was planned to take the design
of the bench to the Arts Manager.
Ms. Fountain referred to the Roosevelt Street Improvement and how they will incorporate art components into
the whole project and to possibly create some benches that serve as art work, as has been done in some
other areas. This is why staff is recommending that the applicant be required to work with the Arts Manager
as well as the Housing and Redevelopment Director in the final design of the improvements.
Chairperson Welshons asked if there would be signage to indicate that there is parking in the rear of the
building.
Ms. Fountain stated that signage has not been discussed but that signage can be made a condition of the
permit.
Chairperson Welshons addressed Mr. Becker and Mr. Rudolf in an effort to obtain the answers to the many
questions regarding the density bonus, etc., as discussed earlier.
Mr. Becker stated that the State Density Bonus law does contain the 5 unit threshold and that was the origin
of what was put into the City Ordinance. That 5 units is the “base” density not what is achieved after the
application of a density increase. That may eliminate the use of the State Density Bonus law, here, which
would not only eliminate the increase in the density but would also eliminate the second incentive regarding
parking. He went on to say that, as far as the density increase, it is his belief that the General Plan Density
provision per the 1994 amendment, is in effect with the exception of the Coastal area. Since this project is
not in the Coastal area, the density could be applied to achieve any density desired through the General
Plan. However, that still leaves the parking matter and whether or not the Board wishes to grant a reduced
parking requirement.
Ms. Fountain offered that an option is that the project is reduced to three residential units and the applicant
can restrict one of the units for “affordable housing” purposes to meet their
Chairperson Welshons stated that with the foregoing revelations, it
back to the drawing board”.
Member Compas admitted his confusion and asked if Ms. Fountain’s write-up was correct or not.
Ms. Fountain replied that when she wrote this report, she did not believe that the density increase ordinance
was in effect and that the Density Bonus Ordinance was the most appropriate for application to the project. If,
in fact, none of our ordinances apply to this project, or if we cannot grant the additional unit, then we will need
to go back and look at the project again. If it turns out that the additional unit cannot be granted, then the
applicant will have to go with just three residential units.
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - September 18, 1996 Page 8
Member Compas then asked Ms. Fountain to tell the Board that she would look into the confusion and she
promptly agreed to do so.
Chairperson Welshons outlined the subjects drawing the Board’s concerns, including Member Savary’s
request for an explanation of the justification for vacating the city street, and suggested that the discussion of
this project be continued.
Chairperson Welshons invited the applicant, or his representative, to speak.
Robert Richardson, KARNAK ARCHITECTURAL AND PLANNING, 2802 State Street, Suite C, Carlsbad, CA
92008 (across from Bauer Lumber Co.), speaking on behalf of his client & applicant, John Schilling, agreed
to a continuance. Before leaving the podium, Mr. Richardson briefly addressed the Board and Staff by
reminding all those present that he and his client were very pleased to have the opportunity to design and
build this project and the important fact that they had each worked very closely with Staff to develop the
concept and design now before the Board. He also pointed out that the applicant has, perhaps, already
spent more on this project than he should have, in an effort to make it work. He made it quite clear that if the
number of residential units is cut from four to three, that cut will quite possibly kill the entire project. Mr.
Richardson also spoke of how much time and effort has been put into trying to build a model project for the
community and how upset they are to think that all of their efforts and expenditures may have been for
nothing. He asked, both the Board and Staff, to be very careful in their further study of the project.
Chairperson Welshons assured Mr. Richardson that Staff would be doing additional research, in an effort to
allow this project to come to fruition. She also addressed the audience, asking if there was anyone who
wished to speak but who could not return at a later date when this item will be presented again.
Seeing no one, Chairperson Welshons closed public testimony.
Debbie Fountain, Senior Management Analyst, recommended a continuance of this item to the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Design Review Board on October 2, 1996.
Chairperson Welshons asked for a motion to continue.
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion made by Member Compas, and duly seconded, to accept the
recommendation to continue this item to October 2, 1996. Due to a
scheduling conflict, the recommended date for continuance was changed to
October 16, 1996. Member Compas amended his earlier motion, and was
duly seconded, to accept the recommendation to continue this item to
October 16, 1996.
5-O
Compas, Savary, Marquez, Scheer and Welshons.
None
None
No announcements from Housing and Redevelopment Director Becker.
No announcements from Assistant City Attorney Rudolf.
No announcements from Senior Management Analyst Fountain.
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOAR -
.- - i
September 18, 19% Page 9
Chairperson Welshons noted that the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Design Review Board will be
on October 2, 1996, at 5:00 pm.
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of September 18, 1996 was adjourned at 6:10 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
EVAN BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
CAROL CRUISE
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
MINUTES
PROOF OF PUBLK :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:
Nov. 28, 1998
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Calif%%ia~? ?A> 1, ,“Cll day
of Nov. 1998
------
+%
__---_------- ------- Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
I
This space ik Jr the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Public Hearing
I ____-_-------_-__-_-------
! _I 1.‘. ‘$
copieaolnlealanrspMIwilba~&and~ -4,1888.wywhuveany queetiOrisq~hismMer,~contsaOebbie~tahinihe~and
~~st(780)49czB15. .+ Aaatiot+s .
undertheCaliiov& l?t%wsz
CommiinonFebnrary4,lQOi’.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RP 95-05 - SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of
Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, California at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, to consider a request for an
eighteen (18) month extension of Major Redevelopment Permit 95-05 which will allow the
applicant additional time to pull building permits for construction of a new mixed use complex
which will include 1537 square feet of retail, 185 1 square feet of workshop space and four (4)
one bedroom residential units (apartments) on property located at 507 Pine Street, more
particularly described as:
Lots 17, 18 and 19, in Block 31, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to the map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
May 2, 1888.
The new expiration date for the subject permit shall be February 5, 2000 (18 months from the
date of original permit expiration.)
Copies of the staff report will be available on and after December 4, 1998. If you have any
questions regarding this matter, please contact Debbie Fountain in the Housing and
Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-28 15.
As a result of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
Planning Department has determined that the proposed project is in Prior Compliance with the
previous Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director on August 6, 1996 and approved
by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on February 4, 1’997.
If you challenge the extension of the Major Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, City Clerk’s Office at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: John Schilling
PUBLISH: November 28, 1998
CARLSBAD HOUSING 81 REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
II II
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
OAKAVENUE
PINE STREET
+-- Project Site
CITY OF CARLSBAD
SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT RP 95-05
-II $F
Family Atkin
3565 Trieste Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008
,
Bobby Robinson
3081 Madison St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Lloyd & Barbara McCarthy
549 S 3rd Ave
La Puente, CA 91746
Nesta Caroline
2040 Lincoln St
Oceanside, CA 92054
Anne Parker
14088 Rue Monaco
De1 Mar, CA 92014
Nesta Caroline
2040 Lincoln St
Oceanside, CA 92054
Nesta Caroline
2040 Lincoln St
Oceanside, CA 92054
Caroline Nesta
2040 Lincoln St
Oceanside, CA 92054
Gerald Bowers & Richard Bowers
3 199 Falcon Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Edmund Janicki & Frederick Janicki
8903 E Devonshire Ave
Scottsdale, AZ 8525 1
John Nobel
PO Box 99550
San Diego, CA 92 169
Bertha <a@ Magana Berth Pacheco
Martha Pacheco Rico
910 Woodlake Dr
CartWf, CA 92007
Lewis & Pauline Chase
4045 Baldwin Ln
Carlsbad, CA 92008
William Hendrick
228 S Hill St
Oceanside, CA 92054
Lewis 62 Pauline Chase
4045 Baldwin Ln
Carlsbad, CA 92008
John Schilling
POBox417
Carlsbad, CA 92018
Kenneth & Pamela Crisman
PO Box 723 Carlsbad, CA 92018
CARLSBAD COMMUNITY CHURCH
3 175 Harding St
Carlsbad, CA 92008 I
Peter Lopez
1343 Tower Dr
Vista, CA 92083
David McChesney
3235 Roosevelt St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
JOIN HANDS-SAVE A LIFE
3528 Madison St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
JOIN HANDSSAVE A LIFE
3528 Mad&fi St
Carlsbac?l, CA 92008
JOIN HANDS-SAVE A LIFE
3528 Madison St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ernest & Nancy Reyes
3243 Roosevelt St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Mark & Edee Luper
m hx 2084
Carlsbad, CA 92018
E M Johnston & Jess Johnston
1025 112 Irving Rd
Eugene, OR 97404
Eleuteria Campa
3234 Roosevelt St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Gentry Terhune
3279 Madison St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
John & Julie Harland
2932 Gaviota Cir
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Hyung & Young Yang
29 15 Cacatua St
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Monica Mier
2820 Hutchison St
Vista, CA 92084
Reynaldo Barrera & Regina Cruz
3221 Madison St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
M Guadalupe Munoz Marie Davies
3250 Roosevelt St 3095 Monroe St
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Family Pacheco
9 10 Woodlake Dr
Cardiff, CA 92007
Felipe Hemandez & Tony Hemandez 3230 Madison St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF S D
PO Box 85728
San Diego, CA 92 186
pbillip & Mary Rodriguez
4304 W La Madre Way
North Las Vegas, NV 8903 1
Florencio Rodriguez
675 Oak Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Hilario Flores
3 145 Madison St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Family Santana
3 183 Madison St Carlsbad, CA 92008
Sheldon Brockett
4522 %ias St
San Biego, CA 92103
Richard & Ellen Farquhar 43 10 La Portalada Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Zia Mohammedi
838 Lincoln Blvd #2
Santa Monica, CA 90403
A Miguel & Francisca Gonzalez
3 119 Madison St #B
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Stephen & Gina Ruggles
PO Box 1352
Carlsbad, CA 92018’ -
Mack Stout
2914 Luana Dr
Oceanside, CA 92086
Thomas & Magdalena Almanza
Consuelo Gomez
1905 S Ditmar St
Oceanside, CA 92054
Stanley & Sandra Katz
4906 Neblina Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Daniel Pei
8 10 Coldstream Ct
Diamond Bar, CA 9 1765
Steve Rodriguez
3207 Madison St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Celia Ramirez
735 Pine Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Gerard0 & Abigail Gomez
Alfonso & Eleano Gomez
4765 Gateshead Rd
Carlsbad, &l;h 92008
Kathleen M Y Palmer
PO&u% 117
Oceanside, CA 92049
Mauro & Ramona Flores
PO Box 80
Carlsbad, CA 920 18
Victor & Marie Montanez
PO Box 874
Carlsbad, CA 920 18
Family Valdez
2506 San Clemente Ave
Vista, CA 92084
Richard & Ellen Farquhar
43 10 La Portalada Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Les Monthei
PO Box 2392
Fallbrook, CA 92088
Tanya Stemberg
3 156 Harding St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
.I
Robert & Turner-Rosin Marks
3 166 Harding St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Harold & Estherlee Gustafson
906 Pine Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Alex Young
926 Pine Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Luan M Schick PINECONE APARTMENTS PARTNERSH
938 Pine Ave 580 Beech Ave #A
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Jimmy Dyche
2566 S Central Ave
Flagler Beach, FL 32136
CARLSBAD COMMUNITY CHURCH
3 175 Harding St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Joseph Kratcoski Jr.
1302 Pine Ave
Cartsbad, CA 92008
Kenneth Sprinkle & Patricia Bama
1215 Oak&e
Carlsbad; CA 92008
Eric Murphy Bradley & Blayne Harvey Phong Ngoc Nguyen
396 N Coast Highway 10 1 1420 Pine Ave 514 W 10th Ave
Encinitas, CA 92024 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Escondido, CA 92025
Howard Burton
9000 Belk St
El Paso, TX 79904
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SCHILLING MIXED USE - COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of
Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, California at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, +%@/9F to consider a request for / an eighteen (18) month extension of Major Redevelopment Permit 95-05 which will allow the
applicant additional time to pull building permits for construction of a new mixed use complex
which will include 1537 square feet of retail, 1851 square feet of workshop space and four (4)
one bedroom residential units (apartments) on property located at 507 Pine Street, more
particularly described as:
Lots 17, 18 and 19, in Block 31, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to the map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
May 2, 1888.
The new expiration date for the subject permit shall be February 5, 2000 (18 months from the
date of original permit expiration.)
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after . have any questions C
Fountain in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (&!$434-28; 5.
As a result of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
Planning Department has determined that the proposed project is in Prior Compliance with the
previous Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director on August 6, 1996 and approved
by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on February 4, 1997.
If you challenge the extension of the Major Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public
hearing.
Case File: RP 95-05
Case Name: Schilling Mixed Use Project
November 3, 1998
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice EXTENSION OF MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT 95-05 - SCHILLING PROJECT for a public hearing
before the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
Please notice the item for the regular Housing and Redevelopment Commission
meeting on as directed by Citv Manaqer’s Office.
--tih
Community Develop DATE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SCHILLING MIXED USE - COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of
Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, California at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, to consider a request for
an eighteen (18) month extension of Major Redevelopment Permit 95-05 which will allow the
construction of a new mixed use complex which will include 1537 square feet of retail, 1851
square feet of workshop space and four (4) one bedroom residential units (apartments) on
property located at 507 Pine Street, more particularly described as:
Lots 17, 18 and 19, in Block 31, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to the map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
May 2, 1888.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after . If you
have any questions or would like a copy of the staff report for the project, please contact Debbie
Fountain in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (619) 434-2815.
As a result of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
Planning Department has determined that the proposed project is in Prior Compliance with the
previous Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director on August 6, 1996 and approved
by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on February 4, 1997.
If you challenge the extension of the Major Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public
hearing.
Case File: RP 95-05
Case Name: Schilling Mixed Use Project
City of Carlsbad
December 14,1998
William & John Schilling
PO Box 417
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: EXTENSION FOR RP-95-05 - 507 PINE STREET
Enclosed for your records are copies of the Housing & Redevelopment
Commission Agenda Bill No. 304 and Resolution No. 304. These documents
went before the Commission on December 8, 1998, when the extension you
requested was granted.
If you have any questions regarding this action, please call the Carlsbad Housing
and Redevelopment Department, Ms. Debbie Fountain, at (760) 434-2811.
Kathleen D. Shoup
Sr. Office Specialist
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, CA 92008-l 989 l (760) 434-2808 43