HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-07; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 315; Escrow Transfers - Parking In-Lieu Fee Program(&CPtA - (7 f? y q.rJ ‘1 I \ . HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 0
AB# 315
MTG. 12/07/99
DEPT. H/RED
AGENDA BILL
TITLE- --
ESCROW TRANSFERS
RP 99-04
DEPT. HD.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 317 , APPROVING Major
Redevelopment Permit No. RP99-04, with variances and participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee
Program, for Escrow Transfers commercial office building, as recommended by the Design Review
Board.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On October 25, 1999, the Design Review Board conducted a public hearing to consider a major
redevelopment permit for a new development project known as Escrow Transfers. The proposed
project includes a three-story, 7,200 square foot commercial office building, with two levels of office
space above enclosed parking on property located at 2928 Jefferson Street. The property is located
on the east side of Jefferson Street between Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive.
At the public hearing, the Design Review Board members voted unanimously to recommend approval
of the project as proposed with the following variances:
1. Front yard setback which exceeds the maximum range.
2. Rear yard setback which exceeds the maximum range.
3. Side yard setback, from the north property line for the first floor only, which is below the minimum
range.
The vote of the Design Review Board also indicated their support of the applicant’s proposal to
provide 50% of the required parking off-site through participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program.
During the public hearing, a concern was raised by the adjacent property owner to the north regarding
the potential impact the proposed development may have on public parking in close proximity to the
project. In response to this concern and subsequent discussion, the Design Review Board voted 3-2
(Heineman and Lawson - no) to add the following condition:
“The number of employee parking spaces on-site shall be restricted to a number
mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the Director of Housing and
Redevelopment.”
The intent of the above condition, as expressed by the Board members supporting the motion, was to
limit the amount of employee parking on-site and leave an adequate number of parking spaces
available to accommodate customers of the escrow company. This would in turn reduce the amount
of customers seeking to park on the street and reduce impacts to adjacent businesses. The additional
condition requested by a majority of the Board has been incorporated into DRB Resolution No. 270,
which has been attached for review by the Commission. The Design Review Board Staff Report, as
well as the minutes of the October 25, 1999 meeting have also been attached for the Commission’s
review.
.
I PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 315
Following the Design Review Board meeting, the City Attorney’s office expressed concern over the
legal standing of the above referenced condition as it currently reads. The recommendation from the
City Attorney’s office is that the condition be eliminated entirely or modified to include a specific
number of employee parking spaces permitted on-site. Staff understands the concerns expressed by
the Design Review Board regarding the potential impacts to public parking in the immediate vicinity of
businesses participating in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. This issue was also brought up as a
point of discussion during the public workshops and hearings which took place prior to the adoption of
the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. The success of the program depends largely upon each business
owner’s commitment to require their employees to park in the public parking lots and leave on-site
parking and street parking available to customers. Since it is also in the business owners best interest
to have the closest parking available for customers, it is inferred that the business owners will conduct
their own self enforcement. As a condition of project approval however, a stipulation on where one
can park is diffjcult for staff to enforce. Therefore, staff recommends removing the condition
recommended by the Design Review Board due to the difficulties associated with enforcement. The
attached Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution reflects staffs recommendation, As
an alternative, if the Commission supports keeping the condition, establishing a maximum number of
employee parking spaces on-site is recommended. Staff will then return with the appropriately
worded resolution.
The attached resolution also includes the addition of the following condition:
“Prior to building occupancy, the applicants contractor of work shall obtain a City right-
of-way permit to add sidewalk around the east side of the street light standard fronting
the property. A clear path of 48 inches in width shall be provided.”
While this condition would be required of the applicant as part of the normal building permit process, it
is the recommendation of the Engineering Department that it be added to the conditions of project
approval for clarification purposes.
MORATORIUM RELEASE
On November 2, 1999, the City Council took action to adopt an urgency ordinance (NS-516)
establishing a moratorium on the issuance of grading and/or building permits for all projects
processed under Title 20 or 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and located within the area known
as “Olde Carlsbad”. The action included a process whereby a project applicant may be granted a
waiver from the moratorium if the proposed street improvements are compatible with surrounding
properties and the area, and the applicant agrees to install the improvements. Staff is
recommending that the proposed project be granted a waiver from the subject moratorium for the
following reasons:
1. The project is located in an area where all public improvements, including curb, gutter, and
sidewalk, have been previously constructed.
2. The applicant is required to reconstruct existing public improvements.
3. The applicant agrees to reconstruct the subject improvements.
Approval of the attached Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution will grant the
recommended waiver from the subject urgency ordinance and allow building permits to be issued
for RP 99-04.
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 315
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the above referenced project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Quality Act and the Environmental
Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Statement of Prior
Compliance was issued for the subject project by the Planning Director on October 1, 1999 and made
available for public review. No comments were received on the environmental document. The Design
Review Board recommended approval of the findings of prior compliance for this project through
adoption of Design Review Board Resolution No. 270. Adoption of the attached Housing and
Redevelopment Commission Resolution approves the findings of prior environmental compliance for
the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the
Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of what was previously an under-utilized lot will
result in increased property taxes. The current assessed value of the project site is $112,628. With
the new construction, it is estimated that the assessed value will increase to approximately $1.4
million. The increase in value would result in additional tax increment revenue for the Carlsbad
Redevelopment Agency of approximately $12,900 per year. Second, the project may serve as a
catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing
buildings, through the elimination of a blighting influence within the area. Third, through participation
in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, it is estimated that $134,880 in revenue will be deposited into the
established parking fund to be used for maintenance or enhancement of existing public parking
facilities and/or development of new public parking facilities.
EXHIBITS
A. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 317 , APPROVING RP 99-04
B. Design Review Board Resolution No. 270
C. Design Review Board Staff Report, dated October 25, 1999 w/attachments
D. Draft Design Review Board Minutes, dated October 25, 1999
3
1
2
3
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 317
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT (RP 99-04),
INCLUDING VARIANCES FOR FRONT AND REAR YARD
SETBACKS WHICH EXCEED THE MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE
AND A SIDE YARD SETBACK WHICH IS BELOW THE MINIMUM
STANDARD RANGE, FOR A 7,200 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE
BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2928 JEFFERSON STREET,
IN LAND USE DISTRICT 2 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT
AREA.
APPLICANT: LYNDIE MEISSNER
CASE NO: RP99-04
9 WHEREAS, on October 25, 1999, the Carlsbad Design Review Board held a duly noticed
10 public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-04) for construction of a new
11 commercial office building on property located at 2928 Jefferson Street, and adopted Design Review
12 Board Resolution No. 270 recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission that
Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-04) be approved; and
13 WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, on the
14 date of this resolution held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendations and heard
15 all persons interested in or opposed to Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-04); and
16 WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting variances for the front
17 and rear yard setbacks which exceed the standard range and a side yard setback that is below the
standard range; and
ia
19
20
21
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting authorization to provide
50% of the project’s required parking off-site through participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee
Program; and
WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project conducted pursuant
22
23
to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, a Statement of Prior Compliance was
issued for the subject project by the Planning Department on October 1, 1999 and recommended for
24
25
26
27
28
approval by Design Review Board Resolution No. 270 on October 25, 1999.
11
"
I/
/I
/I
HRC RESO NO. 317
PAGE 1
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
20
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-04) is APPROVED and that the findings and
conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 270, on file in the City Clerk’s
Office and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission with the following changes and additions:
a. General and Planning Condition No. 21 is deleted.
b. Engineering Condition No. 7 is added to read as follows:
“Prior to building occupancy, the applicant’s contractor of work shall obtain a City right-
of-way permit to add sidewalk around the east side of the street light standard fronting
the property. A clear path of 48 inches in width shall be provided. ”
3. That the City Council, acting as the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, hereby
grants a waiver from the moratorium on the issuance of building permits per NS-516 for the subject
project based on the following findings:
a. The subject project is located in an area where all public improvements, including
curb, gutter, and sidewalk have been previously constructed;
b. The project is required to reconstruct existing public improvements and the required
improvements will not be incompatible with the neighborhood; and
c. The applicant agrees to reconstruct the subject improvements.
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:
II
/I
/I
/I
/I
HRC RESO NO. 317
PAGE 2
1
2
c
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1:
11
l!
If
1;
II
1E
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r
NOTICE TO APPLICANT:
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought, or other exactions
hereafter collectively referred to, is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6,
which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the
appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision
becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the
record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to
cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition
may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on
which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his/her attorney of
record, if he/she has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the
proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, California, 92008.”
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of
DECEMBER, 1999 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Hall, Pinnila, Nygaard, Kulchin
NOES: Commissioner Lewis
ABSENT: None
HRC RESO NO. 317
PAGE 3
-. EXHIBIT B -
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 270
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF 2 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
INCLUDING 3 REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP99-04,
VARIANCES FOR FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS WHICH
EXCEED THE MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE AND A SIDE YARD 4
WHEREAS, Lyndie Meissner (a.k.a. Linda Meissner), “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property
SETBACK WHICH IS BELOW THE MINIMUM STANDARD RANGE,
5 FOR A 7,200 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2928 JEFFERSON STREET, IN LAND USE DISTRICT 2
6 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES ZONE 1.
7 CASE NAME: ESCROW TRANSFERS
APN: 203-354-05
8 CASE NO: RP 99-04
9
10
11
12 owned by Linda Meissner, “Owner”, described as Lots 12 and 13, in Block 56 of Carlsbad, in the City
13 of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No 775, filed in the
14 Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, February 15, 1894 (“the Property”); and
15 WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit and
16 variances for the front and rear yard setbacks which exceed the maximum of the standard range, and a
17 side yard setback that is below the standard range, as shown on-Exhibits A-I, dated October 25, 1999,
18 on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department as “Escrow Transfers RP 99-04”, as provided
19 by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
1
20 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 25* day of October, 1999, hold a duly
21 ,--?loticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;
22 WHEREAS, at said public hearing on the 25& day of October, 1999, upon hearing and
23 considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered
24 all factors relating to Major Redevelopment Permit 99-04.
25
26
27
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as follows:
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
28
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 1
r
1
2
c
4
c w
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Escrow Transfers RP 99-04, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The Planning Director has determined that:
a. the project is a subsequent activity of a project for which a program EIR was
prepared, and a notice for the activity has been given, which includes
statements that this activity is within the scope of the program approved
earlier, and that the program EIR adequately describes the activity for the
purposes of CEQA, and the project is one for which a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was previously adopted;
b.
c.
this project is consistent with the plans cited above;
The Master Environmental Impact Report for the City’s 1994 General
Plan Update (MEIR 93-01) was certified and the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the City of Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area (SS 92-
01) was approved in connection with the prior project or plan;
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as
significant in the prior EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration;
e. none of the circumstances requiring a Subsequent Negative Declaration or a
Supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 162 or 15 163 exist;
The Design Review Boards finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the MEIR (MEIR 93-01) which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have
been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
The Design Review Board finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (SS 92-01) which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project
have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
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, or addition to an
existing building, with a building permit valuation which exceeds $150,000. . .
The Project is not located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, no Coastal Development Permit
is required,
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 required findings to allow for variances for front and rear yard setbacks that
exceed the standard range, and a side yard setback on the north side of the property that is
below the minimum standard range.
a) The application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent with the general
DRB RESO NO. 270
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
b)
4
DRB RESO I
PAGE 3
purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan. The project is utilizing, in
its design, parking located below the building to allow more development and landscaped
area in compliance with the functional component of the office support area. Due to the
project site being only 50 feet in width and the required side yard setback of 5 feet on each
side, the site is reduced to only 40 feet of buildable width. Taking into consideration the
parking standards within the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the site cannot accommodate the
required drive-aisle width and parking space depth without encroaching into the side yard
setback. The adjoining lots to the north and south are built out and fully utilized leaving
limited development opportunities for the subject property. In addition, prior to its recent
demolition, the subject property contained a deteriorated single family residence and
detached single car garage. The prior use was nonconforming because it is one of the goals
for District 2 to phase out existing residential uses over time. The applicant has purchased
the property with the intent to redevelop the property with a conforming use that is
attractive and compatible with surrounding development in terms of size and scale. The
width of the subject property coupled with the setback standards and City’s requirements
for parking space size and drive-aisle width make it difficult to provide a significant
number of parking spaces on-site. The limitation on the amount of parking that can be
provided on-site makes it difficult to develop a project of significant size, which will meet
the Village Master Plan goal of increasing the intensity of development within the Village.
The increased setback on the front of the property for a portion of the building allows for
greater architectural interest and serves to break up the mass of the building. The
increased setback on the rear of the property allows for the provision of four open parking
spaces adjacent to the alley. This reduces the mass of the building immediately adjacent
to the alley and provides direct vehicular access off the adjacent alley, which is a
functional goal of the office support district.
There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the proposed
developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls. The build-out of
the property to the north and south and the narrow width of the subject property leave very
few options for the redevelopment of the site, resulting in exceptional circumstances
unique to the property. Based on their age and condition, it is anticipated that the
buildings to the north and south of the subject property will remain for a very long time.
The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the public
welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area. The reduced side yard
setback will not be detrimental to the adjacent property because the building will comply
with all building code requirements for fire safety. Additionally, the portion of the
building that requires the side yard reduction is a single story element and does not run the
entire length of the proposed structure. The area of the encroachment is adjacent to a
three-story office building with semi-subterranean parking. The area of the encroachment
on the first floor will be located adjacent to the parking lot wall of the adjacent office
building and will have no detrimental impact. The setbacks above the maximum will not
have a detrimental impact on neighboring properties because other properties along
Jefferson Street have setbacks which exceed 15 feet. The applicant has designed the entire
project in a manner which is visually appealing and architecturally interesting. Therefore,
the increased setback in the front actually assists in the effort to create a more visually
appealing building within the front elevation. The increased setback in the rear enables
more on-site parking without expanding the mass of the building, therefore reducing the
impact on neighboring properties to the east.
The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual, because those standards were intended to be somewhat
‘JO. 270
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
flexible in order to encourage diversity and variety of development. The portions of the
project which exceed the standard range, do not create a situation which contradicts the
intent of the standards established in the subject document. In addition, prior to its recent
demolition, the subject property contained a deteriorated single family residence and
detached single car garage. The prior use was nonconforming because it is one of the
goals for District 2 to phase out existing residential uses over time. The applicant has
purchased the property with the intent to redevelop the property with a conforming use
that is attractive and compatible with surrounding development in terms of size and scale.
e) The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are setback further than the permitted
standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain, and setting the structure back to
the desired standard will maintain and reinforce the Village character of the area. The
subject project is in a location which has varying setbacks. The property abuts an existing
three-story office building to the north that is setback 15 feet from the front property line
and 20 feet from the rear property line. An open parking lot exists to the south that
provides parking to the existing bank building fronting on Carlsbad Village Drive. Across
Jefferson Street, buildings have setbacks in excess of 20 feet. Across the alley to the rear
of the property structures are setback from 5 to 20 feet from the rear property line. It is
expected that these existing structures will remain for many more years. Therefore, staff
believes that the increased setback is consistent with the area. The varied setbacks on the
front and rear of the building allow for greater architectural articulation, resulting in a
building that is more visually interesting and appealing. The increased setback on the rear
of the property allows for parking adjacent to the alley, which is a desired project design
standard for the Village.
f) The project is in a location which is in a transition area to residential development and
where increased setbacks would soften the visual transition between commercial and
residential development. While the subject property is not directly adjacent to any
residential uses on Jefferson Street, it is in close proximity to some residential uses to the
north and the increased setback helps to soften the transition between the commercial area
to the south and the residential area to the north. Therefore, the increased setback is
consistent with the area and will reinforce the Village character.
7. The Project has been determined to be 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 noted above to grant the requested variances. The following required findings will
allow for the reduced front and side yard setbacks to the minimum of five (5) feet (of the
acceptable range):
.-
a) The reduced standards will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. The
proposed project is in a location which has varying setbacks. The commercial office
building to the north has a similar 5 foot setback from the adjoining side property line and
the subject property abuts an open parking lot to the south. In neither case will the five (5)
foot setback adversely impact these adjacent properties. Twenty-three linear feet of the
building’s front elevation located within 5 to 15 feet of the front property line. The
variations in the front elevation makes for a project that is more aesthetically pleasing and
reduces the mass of the building, thus mitigating any adverse impacts a reduced front yard
setback may have on surrounding properties.
b) The reduced standard will result 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 to be located. The subject property is 50 feet wide, therefore the
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8)
reduced setback standards are necessary in order to allow the applicant to provide as much
on-site parking as possible with adequate screening from public view, which is in keeping
with the objectives for land use district 2.
c) The reduced standard will assist in creating a project which is interesting and visually
appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area. The proposed design is
consistent with the design guidelines for the Village Redevelopment Area and the
variations in the front and side elevations make for a project that is more interesting and
visually appealing.
The Design Review Board finds that the Developer/Property Owner qualifies to participate in
the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and participation in the program will satisfy the parking
requirements for the project. Justification for participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee
Program is contained in the following findings:
a) The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Master Plan
and Design Manual. With the approval of the above referenced variances, the proposed
project is consistent with the development standards and design guidelines of the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual. The project further meets the objectives of the Village
Master Plan by electing to provide 50% of the parking off-site through participation in the
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. This increases the amount of useable area on-site and
results in a project with a strong street frontage and subordinate parking.
b) The proposed use is consistent with the land use district in which the property is located.
The proposed commercial office building is a permitted use within land use distict 2.
c) Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project’s parking
demands. The last utilization counts of the Village public parking lots, conducted in
August of 1998, indicate a 61% average utilization rate, which is less than the 85%
threshold for maximum utilization set by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
d) The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
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 a permitted use
(commercial office) in an appropriate location within Land Use District 2 of the Village
Redevelopment Area.
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, and hardscape. Public facilities have been or will be
DRB RI30 NO. 270
PAGE 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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) 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 a commercial office facility. The project is also consistent with the Open Space
requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area.
d) 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 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) All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
The project has been conditioned to pay any 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, which
are applicable to the project. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any applicable 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. If any of the following conditions fail 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.
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 6 \
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
. . .
. . .
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all necessary
corrections and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit 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
for the project. Any proposed development different from this approval shall require an
amendment to this approval.
Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local ordinances in
effect at the time of building permit issuance.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body members,
officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities,
losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred
by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency’s approval and issuance of this
Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency’s approval or issuance of any permit or action,
whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein,
and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of
electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and
sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water
service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the
application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will
continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
The Developer shall provide the Agency with a reproducible 24” X 36”, mylar copy of the Site
Plan for the project 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 Housing
and Redevelopment Director and approved prior to building or grading permit approval,
whichever occurs first.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced, legible version of the approving resolution in a 24” X 36” blueline drawing format.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the District
Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer
permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as
part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan
prior to the issuance of building permits, including but not limited to, the Developer shall pay
his/her fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Camino Real/Palomar Airport
Road intersection prior to the issuance of a building permit. The amount shall be determined
by the methodology ultimately selected by the City Council, including but not limited to, an
increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone 1 Local Facilities
Management Plan fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a
Mello-Roos taxing district.
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 7
1
2
': b
4
c Y
E
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.
1.5.
16.
17.
18.
Prior to the issuance of the Redevelopment Permit, Developer shall submit to the Agency 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 Major
Redevelopment Permit by Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No.- 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 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.
The Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas enclosed by a six-foot high
masonry wall with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Housing and
Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project
to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Housing and
Redevelopment Director approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 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 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 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.
Prior to the installation of any signs on the subject property, the Developer shall submit
and obtain approval of a separate sign permit application from the Housing and
Redevelopment Director. All signs shall be consistent with the sign regulations set forth
within the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual.
Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the Developer shall enter into a Parking In-
Lieu Fee Participation Agreement and pay the established Parking In-Lieu Fee for
twelve (12) parking spaces. The fee shall be the sum total of the fee per parking space in
effect at the time of building permit issuance times the number of parking spaces needed
to satisfy the project’s parking requirements (12).
The Developer is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact fee
(linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The applicant is further
aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential projects may have to pay a
linkage fee, in order to be found consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan. If a
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 8 ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19.
20.
21.
linkage fee is established by City Council ordinance and/or resolution and this project
becomes subject to a linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance and/or resolution, then the
Developer, or his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall pay the linkage fee. The linkage fee
shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits, except for projects involving a
request for a non-residential planned development for an existing development, in which case,
the fee shall be paid on approval of the final map, parcel map or certificate of compliance,
required to process the non-residential PUD, whichever pertains. If linkage fees are required
for this project, and they are not paid, this project will not be consistent with the General Plan
and approval for this project will become null and void.
Compact parking spaces shall be located in large groups, and in locations clearly marked to
the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 12 parking spaces, as shown on
Exhibits “C” and “D”.
The number of employee parking spaces on-site shall be restricted to a number mutually
agreed upon by the applicant and the Director of Housing and Redevelopment.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formally
established by the City.
Rain gutters must be provided to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or
street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The owner of subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless regarding
drainage across the adjacent property.
The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide 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.
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
WATER, SEWER AND FIRE CONDITIONS
1. 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 any meter
installation.
2. Water, Sewer and Irrigation laterals shall be located in accordance with City and District
Standards to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities.
3. Developer shall install a sewer lateral cleanout to be equipped with a traffic rated cap
adjacent to the pubic right-of-way at the front property line substantially as shown on
Exhibit “B” to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities.
4. Developer shall install and maintain automatic fire sprinklers throughout the entire
building in accordance with Uniform Fire and Building Code requirements.
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
20.08050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
2.
.-
Developer shall pay the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), and the Citywide Public
Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local
Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees
shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees and not paid, this approval will
not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void,
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements pursuant
to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 10 L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6.
7.
8.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
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
Community Development and Planning.
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.
Addresses, approved by the Building Official, shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification
and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color, as required by Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 11
1
2
c
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
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Board Members: Vice-Chairperson Marquez,
Marois, Heineman and Lawson. *
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN . . None.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you
protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a),
and tile the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in
accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure
will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES
NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading
or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT
APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or
as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 25ti day of October, 1999 by the following vote to wit:
BILL COMPAS, CHA@PERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
.- DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
*Note: Board Members Heineman and Lawson voted “NO” on the addition of General and Planning
Condition No. 21.
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 12 I0
EXHIBIT C
City of CmlsbAd Housirq md REd!cvElopnwm DEPARTMENT
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
AppbCATiON COMD~TE DATE:
05/06/99
ENViRONMENTAl REVIEW:
PRiOR COMPbANCE
OcTobER 1.1999
STAff: LORi ROSENSTEiN
GREG FiSkER
DAvid Rick
DATE: October 25, 1999
ITEM NO. 1
SUBJECT: RP 99-04 - “ESCROW TRANSFERS”: Request for a Major Redevelopment
Permit to allow the construction of a 3-story, 7,200 square fqot office building on
property located at 2928 Jefferson Street in Land Use District 2 of the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Area.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No.270
recommending APPROVAL of RP 99-04 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant, Escrow Transfers, has requested a major redevelopment permit to allow the
construction of a 7,200 square foot office building property located at 2928 Jefferson Street.
The property is located on the east side of Jefferson Street between Grand Avenue and
Carlsbad Village Drive. The subject property is currently vacant following the recent demolition
of a 700 square foot single family residence and detached garage. The proposed project
consists of construction of a three story building totaling 7,200 square feet with two stories of
office space above enclosed parking. Escrow Transfers owns the property and intends to
occupy the building as the sole tenant.
ill. VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AND
.- REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
As set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, escrow offices are a permitted use
within Land Use District 2. Permitted uses are defined as those uses which are permitted by
right because they are considered to be consistent with the vision and goals established for the
district. Although these land uses may be permitted by right, satisfactory completion of the
Design Review Process and compliance with all other requirements of the Redevelopment
Permit Process is still required for the permitted use.
The site is not located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, consistency with the Village Local
Coastal Program is not applicable to this project.
ESCROW TRANSFERS - RP 99-04
OCTOBER 251999
PAGE 2
IV. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION, GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
The proposed project will be able to address a variety of objectives as outlined within the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual as follows:
Goal I: Establish Carlsbad Villaqe as a Quality Shoropinq, Workinq and Livinq Environment.
The proposed project will result in development of a new office facility which will have a positive
visual impact on the area. The positive visual appeal assists in the effort to create a quality
shopping, working and living environment. In addition, the project will increase the amount of
new office space in the area which will improve the overall working environment.
Goal 2: /mDrove the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Villaqe Area. The project has
been designed to minimize the pedestrian/vehicular conflicts along Jefferson Street. The
project will provide for a single curb cut for ingress only on Jefferson Street and egress onto the
alley along the east side of the property. One way vehicular traffic allows for a reduced 14 foot
wide driveway on Jefferson Street, further minimizing pedestrian/vehicular conflicts along the
street.
Goal 3: Stimulate ProrDerfy /mDrovements and New Develoroment in the Villaqe. The Master
Plan and Design Manual was developed in an effort to stimulate new development and/or
improvements to existing buildings in the Village. The intent is that new development or
rehabilitation of existing facilities will then stimulate other property improvements and additional
new development. One of the objectives of this goal is to increase the intensity of development
within the Village. The proposed project will assist in the continued effort to improve the Village
Redevelopment Area, specifically in the Office Support District (Land Use District 2). In
addition, the proposed project increases the intensity of development on the site, resulting in a
higher degree of compatibility with adjacent development.
Goal 4: /mDrove the Physical ADDearance of the Vi//acre Area. The applicant has made a very
good effort to design a project which will convert an underutilized, blighted site into a physically
attractive project. The proposed project promotes the following objectives:
l It creates a sense of design unity and character while also encouraging..design
-- diversity;
l It establishes a commercial building whose scale and character are compatible with
surrounding residential neighborhoods;
l It minimizes the land area required to accommodate additional parking in ‘the Village
by participating in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program; and
l It results in a design which is sensitive to surrounding development within the area.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN
The site of the proposed project is located within Land Use District 2 of the Village
Redevelopment Area. Escrow offices are a permitted use within this district.
ESCROW TRANSFERS - RP 99-04
OCTOBER 2551999
PAGE 3
The goal of Land Use District 2 is to provide a mixture of commercial uses in an area that is
strongly pedestrian-oriented and serve as a continuation of the Village Center (District 1) in
terms of building scale and character. Existing residential uses are intended to be phased out
of the district over time. The land use standards for this district promote buildings set back
from the sidewalk in a landscaped lawn setting and alley-oriented parking to minimize curb cuts,
reduce pedestrian/vehicular conflicts and limit views of parking areas from the street. Partial
parking in public lots is also encouraged for office infill projects. Staff believes that the
proposed office building provides for highly desirable office space which: 1) supports the
pedestrian-oriented character of the area by minimizing curb cuts and screening the view of on-
site parking; 2) utilizes alley-oriented parking; 3) proposes to provide a portion of the required
parking in public lots through participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program; and 4) maintains
compatibility with the surrounding Village character and scale.
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 & Redevelopment Plan
Consistency, Residential Density, lnclusionary Housing; and 2) special instructions regarding
the application of individual standards related to parking, building coverage, building height and
setbacks. The following information is provided to indicate how the proposed project meets the
“Universal Standards”.
General and Redevelopment Plan: The General Plan includes the following goals for
the Village: 1) a City which preserves, enhances and maintains the Village as a place for living,
working, shopping, recreation, civic and cultural functions while retaining the village atmosphere
and pedestrian scale; 2) a City which creates a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging
activities that traditionally locate in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, including offices,
restaurants, and specialty shops; 3) a City which encourages new economic development in the
Village and near transportation corridors to retain and increase resident-serving uses; and 4) a
City that encourages a variety of complementary uses to generate pedestrian activity and
create a lively, interesting social environment and a profitable business setting. The General
Plan objective is to implement the Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive Village
Master Plan and Design Manual.
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined
within the General Plan, because it provides for a commercial office use in an appropriate
location within the Village. This in turn serves to enhance and maintain the office support
opportunities in the Village. Additionally, the project provides new economic development by
providing a permanent location for a growing Village business. Also, the project design
reinforces the pedestrian-orientation desired for the downtown area and assists with the effort
to create a distinct identity for the Village as an area which provides a wide variety of uses.
ESCROW TRANSFERS - RP 99-04
OCTOBER 25,1999
PAGE 4
In summary, the proposed project supports the Village character for the area. The project is
located within easy walking distance of mass transit, residential, retail and other commercial
uses. The project is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and has also
been determined to be consistent with the General Plan, as related to the Village
Redevelopment Area.
Residential Density and lnclusionarv Housinq Requirements: There is no residential
component proposed within this project. Therefore, residential density and inclusionary housing
requirements are not applicable to this project.
Parkinq: The parking requirement for a professional business office is 1 parking space
per 300 square feet of gross floor space. The requirement for a 7,200 square foot office
building is 24 spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide 12 spaces on-site and 12 spaces
off-site through participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. The 12 on-site parking
spaces will be surface level in an enclosed parking structure. On-site parking will be accessed
from Jefferson Street with a one-way drive aisle providing vehicular egress on the back (east)
side of the lot which abuts an alley. Except for ingress and egress, all parking will be screened
from public view.
The applicant is proposing to provide 50% of the required parking off-site through participation
in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. The fees collected from the program will be deposited into
an earmarked, interest bearing fund to be used for construction of new, or maintenance of
existing, public parking facilities within the Village Redevelopment Area. For the purposes of
determining participation in the program, the Village has been divided into two parking zones -
Zone 1 and Zone 2. A property/business owner is eligible to participate in the in-lieu fee
program according to the parking zone in which a given property is located and its proximity to
an existing or future public parking lot.
The subject property is located within Zone 2. In accordance with the standards set forth in the
Village Master Plan, developers/property owners within this zone may be allowed to make an
In-Lieu Fee payment for up to fifty percent (50%) of the on-site parking requirement for the
proposed new development if the property is located within 600 feet of an existing, public
parki,ng facility or located immediately adjacent to a public street where the centerline of the
street is within the 600 foot radius of an existing public parking facility. The portion of the
standard shown in italics was added by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on
August 17, 1999. The subject property is located immediately adjacent to a public street where
the centerline of the street is within a 600-foot radius of the public parking lot located mid-block
on Roosevelt Street between Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue. Therefore, the
proposed project qualifies to make an in-lieu fee payment for up to fifty percent (50%) of the on-
site parking requirement. As a condition of project approval, the applicant shall be required to
enter into an agreement to pay the Parking In-Lieu Fee prior to the issuance of building permits
for the project. The current fee is $11,240 per required parking space to be provided off-site.
In order to participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program the following findings must be made:
1) The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Master Plan
and Design Manual.
ESCROW TRANSFERS - RP 99-04
OCTOBER 25,1999
PAGE 5
2) The proposed use is consistent with the land use district in which the property is located.
3) Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project’s parking
demands.
4) The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
’ Justification for the above referenced findings are as follows: 1) With the approval of the
requested variances, the proposed project is consistent with the development standards and
design guidelines of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The project further meets the
objectives of the Village Master Plan by electing to provide 50% of the parking off-site through
participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. This increases the amount of useable area
on-site and results in a project with a strong street frontage and subordinate parking. 2) The
proposed use is consistent with the land use district in which the property is located, because
the proposed commercial office building is a permitted use within Land Use District 2. 3)
Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project’s parking demands.
The last utilization counts of the Village public parking lots, conducted in August of 1998,
indicate a 61% average utilization rate, which is less than the 85% threshold for maximum
utilization set by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. 4) The In-Lieu Fee Program
has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
Buildina Coveraqe, Heiqht 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 2 are as follows:
Buildinu Setbacks: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual establishes the front,
rear ‘&d side yard setbacks for the property. In Land Use District 2, the front setback is 5-15
feet and the side and rear setbacks are 5-10 feet. The project has been designed with a front
yard setback ranging from 5 to 19.5 feet; a rear setback ranging from 23 to 27.5 feet; and a
side yard setback of 5 feet on the south side of the property and 2.5 feet to 5 feet on the north
side of the property.
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 Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission. To allow for
a minimum 5-foot setback from the front and side property lines, the following findings must be
made:
ESCROW TRANSFERS - RP 99-04
OCTOBER 25,1999
PAGE 6
1. The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
2. The reduced standard 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.
3. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and
visually appealing and reinforces the Village Character of the area.
The findings noted above for allowing a reduction of the front and side yard setbacks to the
minimum of the range are justified as follows: 1) The proposed project is in a location which
has varying setbacks and will, therefore, not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
2) The subject property is only 50 feet wide, therefore the reduced setback standards are
necessary in order to allow the applicant to provide as much on-site parking as possible with
adequate screening from public view. 3) The proposed design is consistent with the design
guidelines for the Village Redevelopment Area and the reduced setback will assist in the effort
to make the building visually interesting and more appealing.
In addition to the above findings to allow for the reduced front and side setbacks to the 5 foot
minimum, the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission will also be
required to make appropriate findings to grant the following variances:
1. Front yard setback which exceeds the maximum range of 5-15 feet;
2. Rear yard setback which exceeds the maximum range of 5-10 feet; and
3. Side yard setback from the north property line for the first floor only, which is below the
minimum range of 5-l 0 feet.
A variance for a setback standard which exceeds the top of the range shall only be granted if
the projects meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are set back further than the permitted
standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain, and setting the structure back to
the desired standard will maintain and reinforce the Village character of the area. ,,
.-
2. The project is in a location that is in a transition area to residential development and where
increased setbacks would soften the visual transition between commercial and residential
development or would protect the livability of the residential development.
3. Restaurant uses where a larger front setback will be utilized for outdoor dining space
subject to approval by the Design Review Board and/or Housing and Redevelopment
Commission, whichever is the appropriate approving body. (This finding is not applicable to
the subject project.)
The first two criteria noted above for allowing a front and rear setback which exceeds the
maximum standard (range) are justified as follows: 1) The subject project is in a location which
has varying setbacks. The property abuts an existing three-story office building to the north that
is setback 15 feet from the front property line and 20 feet from the rear property line. An open
ESCROW TRANSFERS - RP 99-04
OCTOBER 25,1999
PAGE 7
parking lot exists to the south that provides parking to the existing bank building fronting on
Carlsbad Village Drive. Across Jefferson Street, buildings have setbacks in excess of 20 feet.
Across the alley to the rear of the property structures are setback from 5 to 20 feet from the
rear property line. It is expected that these existing structures will remain for many more years.
Therefore, staff believes that the increased setback is consistent with the area. The varied
setbacks on the front and rear of the building allow for greater architectural articulation,
resulting in a building that is more visually interesting and appealing. The increased setback on
the rear of the property allows for parking adjacent to the alley, which is a desired project
design standard for the Village. 2) While the subject property is not directly adjacent to any
residential uses, it is in close proximity to some residential uses and the increased setback
helps to soften the transition between the commercial area to the south and the residential area
to the north.
Therefore, staff believes that the increased setback is consistent with the area and will reinforce
the Village character.
In addition to the criteria noted above for granting a variance for setback standards that exceed
the top of the range, Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35 sets forth the required findings to
grant a variance which is below the minimum standard. In order to approve the requested
variances to exceed the maximum setbacks on the front and rear of the property and to reduce
the side yard setback along the north property line from 5 feet to 2.5 feet, the Design Review
Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission must be able to make the following
findings:
1. The application of certain provisions of this chapter [Municipal Code Chapter 21.351 will
result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development
inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan;
2. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the proposed
development which do not generally apply to other properties or developments which have
the same standard, restrictions, and controls;
3. TQe granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the public welfare,
other properties or improvements in the project area; and
4. The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual.
The following justifications for granting a variance to allow a 2.5-foot encroachment into the
minimum 5-foot side yard setback from the north property line have been provided by the
applicant for review and consideration by the Board:
1. The project is utilizing, in its design, parking located below the building to allow more
development and landscaped area in compliance with the functional component of the
office support area. Due to the project site being only 50 feet in width and the required side
yard setback of 5 feet on each side, the site is reduced to only 40 feet of buildable width.
ESCROW TRANSFERS - RP 99-04
OCTOBER 25,1999
PAGE 8
2.
Taking into consideration the parking standards within the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the
site cannot accommodate the aisle width and depth of the parking space. Therefore the
variance being requested is for a two and a half (2.5) foot encroachment into the side yard
setback to accommodate the overhang of an automobile.
There are circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally
to the other properties in the same vicinity. The property contains the last non-conforming
use in the immediate vicinity. Development has occurred to the north and south of the
subject site. This condition coupled with the narrow width of the site creates a situation not
confronted by other nearby properties. The narrow width of the property and the standards
applicable to setbacks and parking causes the design of the parking to go into the side yard
setback to the north. Therefore, the requested variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same
vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question.
3. The granting of this variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is
located. The side yard setback reduction would not violate any building code regulations
nor would it impact visibility for pedestrians or motorists traveling along the street frontage.
The neighboring office building to the north, having a side yard setback of 5 feet from the
adjacent property line, effectively shields the subject area for which the variance is sought.
The portion of the building that requires the side yard reduction is only a single story
element and does not run the entire length of the proposed structure. In addition, the
integrity and comfort of the neighborhood would not be jeopardized but enhanced due to
the elimination of the non-conforming deteriorated single family residence. The proposed
structure will provide relief and transition architecturally from the neighboring medical
offices to the north and the banking facility to the south. The requested interior side yard
encroachment will be surrounded by a decorative stucco wall and lush landscaping in order
not to deter from the aesthetic value of the proposed office building or the neighboring office
building. In addition, since the proposed structure would not require the complete utilization
of the reduced setback area, any possible impacts would not reach their full potential.
4. The granting of this variance will not contradict the intent and purpose of the stand.ards in
the Village Master Plan because the circumstances associated with this variance are unlike
the lots in the same vicinity. The project is eliminating the non-conforming, deteriorating
single family residence previously on site. In addition, the encroachment will occur in an
area that will be inaccessible to the public and will be landscaped to enhance the aesthetic
value of the proposed office building. Therefore, the proposed project would eliminate the
last blighted, non-conforming structure from an otherwise attractive block and enhance the
aesthetic appeal of the Village Area.
The applicant provided the above listed justifications to support the granting of the side yard
setback variance. Staff agrees with the information provided by the applicant. The site is
narrow with a limited amount of buildable area. The adjoining lots to the north and south are
built out and fully utilized leaving limited development opportunities for the subject property. In
addition, prior to its recent demolition, the subject property contained a deteriorated single
family residence and detached single car garage. The prior use was nonconforming, because it
is one of the goals for District 2 to phase out existing residential uses over time. The applicant
has purchased the property with the intent to redevelop the property with a conforming use that
is attractive and compatible with surrounding development in terms of size and scale.
ESCROW TRANSFERS - RP 99-04
OCTOBER 25,1999
PAGE 9
In addition to the justifications provided above, staff offers the following additional support for
granting the requested variances:
Variance Findins #I: The width of the subject property coupled with the setback standards and
City’s requirements for parking space size and drive aisle width make it difficult to provide a
significant number of parking spaces on-site. The limitation on the amount of parking that can
be provided on-site makes it difficult to develop a project of significant size, which will meet the
Village Master Plan goal of increasing the intensity of development within the Village. The
increased setback on the front of the property for a portion of the building allows for greater
architectural interest and serves to break up the mass of the building. The increased setback
on the rear of the property allows for the provision of four open parking spaces adjacent the
alley. This reduces the mass of the building immediately adjacent to the alley and provides
direct vehicular access off the adjacent alley, which is a functional goal of the office support
district.
Variance Findina #2: The build-out of the property to the north and south and the narrow width
of the subject property leave very few options for the redevelopment of the site, resulting in
exceptional circumstances unique to the property. Based on their age and condition, it is
anticipated that the buildings to the north and south of the subject property will remain for a very
long time.
Variance Findina #3: The granting of the variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental
to the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the area. The reduced side yard
setback will not be detrimental to the adjacent property because the building will comply with all
building code requirements for fire safety. Additionally, the portion of the building that requires
the side yard reduction is a single story element and does not run the entire length of the
proposed structure. The area of the encroachment is adjacent to a three-story office building
with semi-subterranean parking. The area of the encroachment on the first floor will be located
adjacent to the parking lot wall of the adjacent office building and will have no detrimental
impact. The setbacks above the maximum will not have a detrimental impact on neighboring
properties because other properties along Jefferson Street have setbacks which exceed 15
feet. The applicant has designed the entire project in a manner which is visually appealing and
architecturally interesting. Therefore, the increased setback in the front actually assists in the
effort-to create a more visually appealing building within the front elevation. The increased
setback in the rear enables more on-site parking without expanding the mass of the building,
therefore reducing the impact on neighboring properties to the east.
Variance Findina W: The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, because those standards were intended to be
somewhat flexible in order to encourage diversity and variety of development. The portions of
the project which exceed the standard range, do not create a situation which contradicts the
intent of the standards established in the subject document. In addition, prior to its recent
demolition, the subject property contained a deteriorated single family residence and detached
single car garage. The prior use was nonconforming because it is one of the goals for District 2
to phase out existing residential uses over time. The applicant has purchased the property with
the intent to redevelop the property with a conforming use that is attractive and compatible with
surrounding development in terms of size and scale.
ESCROW TRANSFERS - RF’ 99-04
OCTOBER 25,1999
PAGE 10
Ooen &ace: 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. The project, as proposed,
provides for a total of 1,498 square feet of open space/landscape area, which represents 21.4%
of the site; this exceeds the 20% requirement.
Buildina Coverase: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for all projects in
Land Use District 2 is 60% to 80%. For the proposed project, the building coverage is 54.3%.
The bottom of the range is considered the desired standard. However unlike the setback
requirements above, a decrease in the standard to below the minimum does not require a
variance. Therefore, the building coverage is determined to be consistent with the desired
standard.
Buildina Heiqht: The height limit for Land Use District 2 is 45 feet with a 5:12 roof pitch,
where the commercial/office space is located over a parking structure. The project proposes a
maximum roof height of 40 feet 2 inches with two levels of office space above a lobby and fully
enclosed parking structure. The building has a varying roof line with pitched roof features
(5.12) at the front, rear and sides of the building. Therefore, the building height and roof pitches
are determined to be consistent with the desired standards.
Parkinu: As stated above, the parking requirement for a professional business office is
1 parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor space. The requirement for a 7,200 square
foot office building is 24 spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide 12 spaces on-site and
12 spaces off-site through participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. With the approval
to participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, the proposed project is consistent with the
parking standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES
All new projects within the Village Redevelopment Area must make a good faith effort to,,design
a pro&t that 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.
IO. Signage shall be appropriate to a village character.
ESCROW TRANSFERS - RP 99-04
OCTOBER 25,1999
PAGE 11
The proposed project is consistent with the design principles outlined above. The project has
provided for an overall informal character in design. The architectural design provides for
variety and diversity through varying roof features, arched and paned windows, building
articulation on all elevations, arched entry ways, balcony areas and varied building setbacks.
There are also landscaped areas that add to the variety and diversity of the design. The
building has a very strong relationship to the street in that it is physically located in close
proximity to the public sidewalk area and encourages pedestrian access. The building provides
for a variety of architectural features and details as previously described. The parking is
visually subordinate in that is located within a fully enclosed parking structure with the exception
of the open parking along the back which is located off the public alley and is not visible from
Jefferson Street. A summary of the design features related to the project is provided as an
exhibit to this report (Exhibit 4).
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH SIGN STANDARDS
Building signage is not proposed as part of this Major Redevelopment Permit. The applicant
shall be required to process and receive approval of a separate sign permit application prior to
installation of any signs on the subject property. The sign permit shall be subject to the
approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Director. This shall be added as a condition of
project approval.
IX. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
The proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new
construction of a building that has a building permit valuation which is greater than $150,000.
The project must have a recommendation from the Design Review Board and final approval by
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The Design Review Board is asked to hold a public hearing on the permit 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 with the requested setback
variances.
The p_roposed project is not located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, a Coastal Development
Permit is not required for the subject project.
X. TRAFFIC. CIRCULATION. SEWER. WATER, RECLAIMED WATER AND OTHER
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The project, as conditioned, shall comply with the City’s requirements for the following:
Traffic: The total projected average daily traffic for the project is 100 ADTs, based on the most
recent SANDAG Trip Generation calculations.
Circulation: Circulation for the project is designed as one-way vehicular ingress off Jefferson
Street and vehicular egress onto the public alley along the rear of the property.
ESCROW TRANSFERS - RP 99-04
OCTOBER 25,1999
PAGE 12
Sewec Sewer service to the project will be provided by an existing sewer collector pipeline in
Jefferson Street. The total number of sewer Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU’s) required for the
project is calculated to be 4.
Water: Water service will be provided by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. The site will be
served by an existing 6-inch water main located in Jefferson Street.
Reclaimed Water: The use of reclaimed water will be incorporated where feasible as
determined appropriate by the Water District Engineer.
Gradha: Grading for this project will be very minimal. It will consist primarily of building pad
compaction and establishing the desired drainage pattern for the site. There are no slopes or
retaining walls on this project.
Drainacre and Erosion Control: The project has been adequately conditioned to ensure that the
property will provide for adequate drainage into the City’s storm drain system.
Imcrovements: Curb, gutters and sidewalks have already been installed on the west side of the
project along Jefferson Street. The applicant will need to obtain right-of-way permits to remove
and install driveway aprons in the public right of way.
XI. 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. Earlier analysis of this
proposed project has been completed through the General Plan Update (GPA94-01) and
related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) that reviewed the potential impacts
of build out of the City’s General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts. In
addition, earlier analysis of this proposed project has been completed through the Mitigated
Negative Declaration adopted for the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual (SS92-
01) dated 10/l/95, which analyzed the build out of the Village Redevelopment Area pursuant to
the amended Village Redevelopment Master Plan. Without exception, development, of the
proposed project has no additional impacts not previously analyzed in the earlier environmental
review and no additional environmental review or mitigation measures are necessary.
As a result of staffs review, a Statement of Prior Compliance was issued for the subject project
by the Planning Director on October 1, 1999 and made available for public review. No
comments were received on the environmental document.
XII. ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the
Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of what was previously an under-utilized lot
will result in increased property taxes. This increase in property tax will further result in
increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, the project may serve as a
ESCROW TRANSFERS - RP 99-04
OCTOBER 25,1999
PAGE 13
catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing
buildings, through the elimination of a blighting influence within the area. Third, through
participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, it is estimated that $134,880 in revenue will be
deposited into the established parking fund to be used for maintenance or enhancement of
existing public parking facilities and/or development of new public parking facilities.
XIII. CONCLUSION
Staff is recommending approval of the project with the following:
1. Findings to grant the variances for the front and rear setbacks which exceed the maximum
of the range.
2. Findings to allow the front and side setbacks to be reduced to the minimum of the
acceptable range at 5 feet.
3. Findings to grant the variance to allow a 2.5-foot encroachment into the side yard setback
along the north property line for a portion of the first floor only.
EXHIBITS:
1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 270, recommending approval of RP99-04.
2. Location Map
3. Project Description with Disclosure Statement
4. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines
5. Exhibits “A” - “I”, dated October 25, 1999, including reduced exhibits.
1
E
2
4
c u
c
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 1 -
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 270
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP99-04, INCLUDING
VARIANCES FOR FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS WHICH
EXCEED THE MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE AND A SIDE YARD
SETBACK WHICH IS BELOW THE MINIMUM STANDARD RANGE,
FOR A 7,200 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2928 JEFFERSON STREET, IN LAND USE DISTRICT 2
OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: ESCROW TRANSFERS
AI’N: 203-354-05
CASE NO: RP 99-04 .
WHEREAS, Lyndie Meissner (a.k.a. Linda Meissner), “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property
owned by Linda Meissner, “Owner”, described as Lots 12 and 13, in Block 56 of Carlsbad, in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No 775, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, February 15, 1894 (“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit and
variances for the front and rear yard setbacks which exceed the maximum of the standard range, and a
side yard setback that is below the standard range, as shown on Exhibits A-I, dated October 25, 1999,
on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department as “Escrow Transfers RP 99-04”, as provided
by Chapter 2 1.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 25” day of October, 1999, hold a duly
%oticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing on the 25* day of October, 1999, 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 99-04.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as follows:
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 1
1
t
s
1C
11
14
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Escrow Transfers RP 99-04, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The Planning Director has determined that:
a. the project is a subsequent activity of a project for which a program EIR was
prepared, and a notice for the activity has been given, which includes
statements that this activity is within the scope of the program approved
earlier, and that the program EIR adequately describes the activity for the
purposes of CEQA, and the project is one for which a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was previously adopted;
b.
C.
this project is consistent with the plans cited above;
The Master Environmental Impact Report for the City’s 1994 General
Plan Update (MEIR 93-01) was certified and the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the City of Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area (SS 92-
01) was approved in connection with the prior project or plan;
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as
significant in the prior EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration;
e. none of the circumstances requiring a Subsequent Negative Declaration or a
Supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 162 or 15 163 exist;
The Design Review Boards finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the MEIR (MEIR 93-01) which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have
been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
The Design Review Board finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (SS 92-01) which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project
have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
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, or addition to an
existing building, with a building permit valuation which exceeds $150,000. . .
The Project is not located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, no Coastal Development Permit
is required.
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 required findings to allow for variances for front and rear yard setbacks that
exceed the standard range, and a side yard setback on the north side of the property that is
below the minimum standard range.
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 2
:
:
1
c .
t
7
t
E
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a>
b)
c>
The application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent with the general
purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan. The project is utilizing, in
its design, parking located below the building to allow more development and landscaped
area in compliance with the functional component of the office support area. Due to the
project site being only 50 feet in width and the required side yard setback of 5 feet on each
side, the site is reduced to only 40 feet of buildable width. Taking into consideration the
parking standards within the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the site cannot accommodate the
required drive-aisle width and parking space depth without encroaching into the side yard
setback. The adjoining lots to the north and south are built out and fully utilized leaving
limited development opportunities for the subject property. In addition, prior to its recent
demolition, the subject property contained a deteriorated single family residence and
detached single car garage. The prior use was nonconforming because it is one of the goals
for District 2 to phase out existing residential uses over time. The applicant has purchased
the property with the intent to redevelop the property with a conforming use that is
attractive and compatible with surrounding development in terms of size and scale. The
width of the subject property coupled with the setback standards and City’s requirements
for parking space size and drive-aisle width make it difficult to provide a significant
number of parking spaces on-site. The limitation on the amount of parking that can be
provided on-site makes it difficult to develop a project of significant size, which will meet
the Village Master Plan goal of increasing the intensity of development within the Village.
The increased setback on the front of the property for a portion of the building allows for
greater architectural interest and serves to break up the mass of the building. The
increased setback on the rear of the property allows for the provision of four open parking
spaces adjacent to the alley. This reduces the mass of the building immediately adjacent
to the alley and provides direct vehicular access off the adjacent alley, which is a
functional goal of the office support district.
There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the proposed
developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls. The build-out of
the property to the north and south and the narrow width of the subject property leave very
few options for the redevelopment of the site, resulting in exceptional circumstances
unique to the property. Based on their age and condition, it is anticipated that the
buildings to the north and south of the subject property will remain for a very long time.
The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the public
welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area. The reduced side yard
setback will not be detrimental to the adjacent property because the building ,will comply
with all building code requirements for tire safety. Additionally, the portion of the
building that requires the side yard reduction is a single story element and does not run the
entire length of the proposed structure. The area of the encroachment is adjacent to a
three-story office building with semi-subterranean parking. The area of the encroachment
on the first floor will be located adjacent to the parking lot wall of the adjacent office
building and will have no detrimental impact. The setbacks above the maximum will not
have a detrimental impact on neighboring properties because other properties along
Jefferson Street have setbacks which exceed 15 feet. The applicant has designed the entire
project in a manner which is visually appealing and architecturally interesting. Therefore,
the increased setback in the front actually assists in the effort to create a more visually
appealing building within the front elevation. The increased setback in the rear enables
more on-site parking without expanding the mass of the building, therefore reducing the
impact on neighboring properties to the east.
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7.
-.
d) The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual, because those standards were intended to be somewhat
flexible in order to encourage diversity and variety of development. The portions of the
project which exceed the standard range, do not create a situation which contradicts the
intent of the standards established in the subject document. In addition, prior to its recent
demolition, the subject property contained a deteriorated single family residence and
detached single car garage. The prior use was nonconforming because it is one of the
goals for District 2 to phase out existing residential uses over time. The applicant has
purchased the property with the intent to redevelop the property with a conforming use
that is attractive and compatible with surrounding development in terms of size and scale.
e) The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are setback further than the permitted
standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain, and setting the structure back to
the desired standard will maintain and reinforce the Village character of the area. The
subject project is in a location which has varying setbacks. The property abuts an existing
three-story office building to the north that is setback 15 feet from the front property line
and 20 feet from the rear property line. An open parking lot exists to the south that
provides parking to the existing bank building fronting on Carlsbad Village Drive. Across
Jefferson Street, buildings have setbacks in excess of 20 feet. Across the alley to the rear
of the property structures are setback from 5 to 20 feet from the rear property line. It is
expected that these existing structures will remain for many more years. Therefore, staff
believes that the increased setback is consistent with the area. The varied setbacks on the
front and rear of the building allow for greater architectural articulation, resulting in a
building that is more visually interesting and appealing. The increased setback on the rear
of the property allows for parking adjacent to the alley, which is a desired project design
standard for the Village.
f) The project is in a location which is in a transition area to residential development and
where increased setbacks would soften the visual transition between commercial and
residential development. While the subject property is not directly adjacent to any
residential uses on Jefferson Street, it is in close proximity to some residential uses to the
north and the increased setback helps to soften the transition between the commercial area
to the south and the residential area to the north. Therefore, the increased setback is
consistent with the area and will reinforce the Village character.
The Project has been determined to be 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 noted above to grant the requested variances. The following required findings will
allow for the reduced front and side yard setbacks to the minimum of five (5) feet (of the
acceptable range):
a) The reduced standards will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. The
proposed project is in a location which has varying setbacks. The commercial office
building to the north has a similar 5 foot setback from the adjoining side property line and
the subject property abuts an open parking lot to the south. In neither case will the five (5)
foot setback adversely impact these adjacent properties. Twenty-three linear feet of the
building’s front elevation located within 5 to 15 feet of the front property line. The
variations in the front elevation makes for a project that is more aesthetically pleasing and
reduces the mass of the building, thus mitigating any adverse impacts a reduced front yard
setback may have on surrounding properties.
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 4
1
z
:
4
c u
c
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8)
b) The reduced standard will result 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 to be located. The subject property is 50 feet wide, therefore the
reduced setback standards are necessary in order to allow the applicant to provide as much
on-site parking as possible with adequate screening from public view, which is in keeping
with the objectives for land use district 2.
c) The reduced standard will assist in creating a project which is interesting and visually
appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area. The proposed design is
consistent with the design guidelines for the Village Redevelopment Area and the
variations in the front and side elevations make for a project that is more interesting and
visually appealing.
The Design Review Board finds that the Developer/Property Owner qualifies to participate in
the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and participation in the program will satisfy the parking
requirements for the project. Justification for participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee
Program is contained in the following findings:
a>
b)
c>
4
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Master Plan
and Design Manual. With the approval of the above referenced variances, the proposed
project is consistent with the development standards and design guidelines of the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual. The project further meets the objectives of the Village
Master Plan by electing to provide 50% of the parking off-site through participation in the
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. This increases the amount of useable area on-site and
results in a project with a strong street frontage and subordinate parking.
The proposed use is consistent with the land use district in which the property is located.
The proposed commercial office building is a permitted use within land use district 2.
Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project’s parking
demands. The last utilization counts of the Village public parking lots, conducted in
August of 1998, indicate a 61% average utilization rate, which is less than the 85%
threshold for maximum utilization set by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
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 identities 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 a permitted use
(commercial office) in an appropriate location within Land Use District 2 of the Village
Redevelopment Area.
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 5
:
:
L
c b
f
7
E
s
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
. . .
. . .
b)
c>
4
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, and hardscape. 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.
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 a commercial office facility. 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 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) All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
The project has been conditioned to pay any 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 2 1.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, which
are applicable to the project. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any applicable 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.
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GENERAL AND PLANNING CONDITIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
If any of the following conditions fail 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.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all necessary
corrections and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit 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
for the project. Any proposed development different from this approval shall require an
amendment to this approval.
Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local ordinances in
effect at the time of building permit issuance.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body members,
officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities,
losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred
by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency’s approval and issuance of this
Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency’s approval or issuance of any permit or action,
whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein,
and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of
electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and
sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water
service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the
application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will
continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
The Developer shall provide the Agency with a reproducible 24” X 36”, mylar copy of the Site
Plan for the project 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 Housing
and Redevelopment Director and approved prior to building or grading permit approval,
whichever occurs first.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced, legible version of the approving resolution in a 24” X 36” blueline drawing format.
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.
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 7
1
2
c
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
9.
10.
11
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
. ’ The Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas enclosed by a six-foot high
masonry wall with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Housing and
Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project
to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Housing and
Redevelopment Director approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 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 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 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.
Prior to the installation of any signs on the subject property, the Developer shall submit
and obtain approval of a separate sign permit application from the Housing and
Redevelopment Director. All signs shall be consistent with the sign regulations set forth
within the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual.
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 8
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as
part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan
prior to the issuance of building permits, including but not limited to, the Developer shall pay
his/her fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Camino Real/Palomar Airport
Road intersection prior to the issuance of a building permit. The amount shall be determined
by the methodology ultimately selected by the City Council, including but not limited to, an
increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone 1 Local Facilities
Management Plan fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a
Mello-Roos taxing district.
Prior to the issuance of the Redevelopment Permit, Developer shall submit to the Agency 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 Major
Redevelopment Permit by Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No.- 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 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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17.
18.
19.
20.
,-.
Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the Developer shall enter into a Parking In-
Lieu Fee Participation Agreement and pay the established Parking In-Lieu Fee for
twelve (12) parking spaces. The fee shall be the sum total of the fee per parking space in
effect at the time of building permit issuance times the number of parking spaces needed
to satisfy the project’s parking requirements (12).
The Developer is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact fee
(linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The applicant is further
aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential projects may have to pay a
linkage fee, in order to be found consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan. If a
linkage fee is established by City Council ordinance and/or resolution and this project
becomes subject to a linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance and/or resolution, then the
Developer, or his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall pay the linkage fee. The linkage fee
shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits, except for projects involving a
request for a non-residential planned development for an existing development, in which case,
the fee shall be paid on approval of the final map, parcel map or certificate of compliance,
required to process the non-residential PI-ID, whichever pertains. If linkage fees are required
for this project, and they are not paid, this project will not be consistent with the General Plan
and approval for this project will become null and void.
Compact parking spaces shall be located in large groups, and in locations clearly marked to
the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 12 parking spaces, as shown on
Exhibits “C” and “D”.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formally
established by the City.
Rain gutters must be provided to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or
street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The owner of subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless
regarding drainage across the adjacent property.
The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide 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:
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 9
1
2
2
4
c Y
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
WATER. SEWER AND FIRE CONDITIONS
1. 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 any meter
installation.
2.
3.
4.
Water, Sewer and Irrigation laterals shall be located in accordance with City and District
Standards to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities.
Developer shall install a sewer lateral cleanout to be equipped with a traffic rated cap
adjacent to the pubic right-of-way at the front property line substantially as shown on
Exhibit “B” to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities.
Developer shall install and maintain automatic fire sprinklers throughout the entire
building in accordance with Uniform Fire and Building Code requirements.
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.
3. Developer shall pay the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), and the Citywide Public
Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local
Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees
shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees and not paid, this approval will
not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
3. 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.
4. 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.
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
. 24
25
26
27
28
5.
6.
7.
8.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
..*
The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements pursuant
to Title 24 of the 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
Community Development and Planning.
All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Manual
and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on tile in the Planning Director.
Addresses, approved by the Building Official, shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification
and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color, as required by Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
DRB RESO NO. 270
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
NOTICE
-.
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you
protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a),
and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in
accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure
will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES
NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading
or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT
APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or
as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 25” day of October, 1999 by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BILL COMPAS, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
-r DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 12
c
EXHIBIT 2
Grand Avenue
\ \ \ \ \ \ %I \ \ \ \ \ ‘\ \ ‘\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ v \ \ \ \ 4 \ \
Carlsbad Village Drive
-.
EXHIBIT 3 ’
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION
PROJECT NAME: Escrow Transfers
APPLICANT NAME: Lvndie Meissner
Please describe fully the proposed project. include any details necessary to
adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may also
include any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons
for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary.
Description/Explanation.
The proposed Escrow Transfer project is a 7,200 square foot office building. The site is located
at 2928 Jefferson Street within the City of Carlsbad Redevelopment Area #2. The proposal
includes a Major Redevelopment Permit and Environmental Impact Assessment application to
allow the 7,200 sq. A. office building.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as “Any individual, fm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.”
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
‘provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a cornoration or partnership, include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned cornoration, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Person Lvndie Meissner Carp/Part Individual
Title Owner Title
Address 785 Grand Atie., Suite 101 Address Carlsbad, CA 92008
2. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e,
partnership. tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
corporation or uartnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
‘than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a pubiiclv-
owned corporation, include the names. titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person Lvndie Meissner Carp/Part Individual
Title Owner Title
Address 785 Grand Ave., Suite 101 Address Carlsbad, CA 92008
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Cartsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-1161 l FAX (760) 438-0894 @
d
3.
-_
NON-PROFIT OF -- I-IZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (I) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust. lisr the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non ProWTrust Non Profit/Trust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff.
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
cl IXP Yes If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify tha he above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of applicant/date
Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant’s agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 4 -.
VILLAGE MASTER PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
CHECKLIST
Provide variety of setbacks along any single commercial The are a variety of setbacks along Jefferson
block front. Street. The proposed project has front setbacks
on which range from 5 to 19.5 feet. The adjacent
commercial properties also provide for varying
Minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential uses. There are no residential uses located to either side
of the proposed project. There is significant
separation between the project and the residential
use to the east of the alley. The project is setback
23 feet from the rear property and the alley is 20
pedestrian walkways
landscaping planted to
the property does not
Treat structures as individual buildings set within a Landscaping will be provided along all sides of the
Provide landscaping within surface parking lots Landscaping is provided within the surface parking
lot area along the rear of the building.
Provide access to parking areas from alleys wherever
possible.
All parking along the rear of the property takes
access from the alley. The one-way parking under
the building requires all vehicles to exit the site
through the alley.
Locate parking at the rear of lots. Parking is located at the rear of the lot and
underneath the building.
Devote all parking lot areas not specifically required for
parking spaces or circulation to landscaping.
All areas not required for parking spaces, driveway
aisles, or the trash enclosure have been
landscaped.
Avoid curb cuts along major pedestrian areas. There will be one curb cut of minimal width along
Jefferson Street to provide ingress to the parking
Provide setbacks and landscaping between any parking A majority of the parking is completely screened
lot and adjacent sidewalks, alleys or other paved from public view by being integrated into the
pedestrian areas.
the rear of the prope
designed with the lobby and front entrance having
a strong presence in the front of the building along
Jefferson St. with the parking structure located
below grade the applicant has chosen to
Enhance parking lot surfaces. There is a minimal amount of surface parking
visible to the public to warrant the use of
Provide for variety and diversity. Each building should The proposed design of the building provides for
express its uniqueness of structure, location or tenant articulation in the building, varying roof forms, and
and should be designed especially for their sites and not other architectural features which provide for a
mere copies of generic building types. unique character. -a
Step taller buildings back at upper levels. At its peak, the proposed project is 40’2 in
height. The second and third story levels are
stepped back from the first floor on all sides. A
balcony is provided on the second floor of the front
of the building.
Break large buildings into smaller units. Varying roof peaks and tower like elements break
up the mass of the building.
Maintain a relatively consistent building height along The height of the building is fairly consistent with
block faces. other commercial buildings in the area.
2
design solutions are strongly discouraged.
Encourage the use of dormers in gable roofs.
Emphasize wood and composition shingle roofs, with the The project provides a clay tile roof whi
elements into all building facades, thereby creating
visual interest in the building. The project makes
ood use of arched windows and entryways,
Utilize small individual windows except on commercial
storefronts.
Provide facade projections and recesses. The building design provides for recesses and
projections which will create shadows and
contrast.
Give special attention to upper levels of commercial
structures.
The upper levels of this commercial building do
provide for balconies, columns, and attractive
window features that reflect special attention in
design.
3
Provide special treatment to entries for upper level uses. The upper levels of this building will be accessed
through internal stairways. Therefore, no special
treatment of upper level use entries is necessary.
elements for visual interest and scale. entire project by design. The window and entrance
designs all provide for detail which adds visual
interest. The balcony area and front entryway
were also designed to provide for detail in
Utilize wood dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated
Provide significant storefront glazing. mercial facility, this design
o restaurant proposed within the
Encourage the use of dutch doors. Dutch doors are not proposed.
4
Provide frequent entries.
Limit the extent of entry openings. The extent of the entry openings has been limited
e prolect does not rnc
visual importance to the house itself.
Provide quality designed fences and walls. Not applicable.
Visually separate multi-family developments into smaller Not applicable.
components.
5
LlJ
s ?
I I
--- L i ---I----- -- J -A--
--- _-_--- ---
-.
---_- _ -____ i __ ___- - ___- .- ___ - ---
1 c -I f . . _ -... _. . __ _-_---------- --A
z**.i . I . ,, d D e i. ,c ir d e=ef' k3'i.t i :iii I// T
I j
I I I I I I I I I I 1 I
r---------7
I I
I f
I , ‘-7 L,
;,i j ‘-
’ : 5 ;- -! ’ ii z-& _ _ L iJ[---- j --7-----1
1
; i=.<:4-t+a
I c++cE
I DJLDM c___ ----rL------------^--------
--2-G-i 1 :
I -- --
- 1 .-----
Ii0 r: !Ii !I
l-r j&g I = v I I9 II& If T@ I 1;: I d !
6 :
--
- --_ - -I- ---.- - ---.. - -_-._‘__- - -- - ----- -i-- - ----
I ‘i
IYP”I..l.. ...M.a.-Im.
I I I
;; I’ a’;
P: II- R
‘. 1
Tb
\
? 1 ‘e ._ “. , ” ;, 1’ *+ I I 9 “\
I
?, 1 11 ij I aX .
- r vsaomv9 WN-lmv~ Amaw.= woeYm~dxr ezaz ili II! : f SM~OISWWML LimU388
00 0 P -P P
0 ! I OZ
Yj”i’
-. 0s
II I
ii -------Q -
!I
&
i! “i it!2
-0 E
t a-- .f -_-- 0
i-i- I_i,
s”
0 .-
. -q
11 --+a
iI
-I -_ ..o
jj
-4 0
!k
- .b .
?1. 3,
0
-4
00 i b
n-w .# - -.mz n e: r~,.porsv 8 ,oa,gonl ‘IPmfl mJPJ-9 v -3 IDDYI8 0@088m4dmP 8ZB8 SEM3RWUd &NOM333
I
1 .L,, -. I.. n-v.--. a:: ID,*po1rv I ,=c+,?pv .,,.,.!8‘o‘oa;bj v IZE%O*-S; SM1d$WWbod rnOU3SP 1 - r --
m”,#.“-- ..-1
I
I /
I
i & ; 1;:
!.J /
i I UJ!
I i I
/ L A I / -----------
1 I I
I I
!
i 2
ii P
1
I
I
I I I
I
/
t
I
‘2 ‘I :‘:
;Y
1 -5 ..I - 4 -* 3
m~cb-mC. coat3 n um amas WNUO~ll”S’d~IaYVO ‘.A” NONNW3VlrY PL.S ;u N~BI~BWVP
,
.r i I ---_
j .:: L.,; j .A-(
/ : i :
i I
1 I
i ’ i ;
I
1 :
I !- ; '..
I
1
8
I
I I
I
I
i
&
i
i. -;‘j
L-iii 1
*.’ /
---_-- ~--------- - .---.-- -.’ , i 1’
,? , I
-we -.------------.-- I’ :
_A i
_-’ -_--._-... .- .______ ~ -----___- ___- ----p-e !
I
1
- -_.- - .---- - .A--- a”-w’B -- _- --.- _ .--.-1 - ..--._-._ - ----i.. 1
. -0 -; -’ 2 1 I % -1 . a 3
I ; . k PI -_ u $
. I
E
35 &L P4
s
d z=
2 I
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD EXHIBIT D October 25, 1999
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
6:00 P.M.
October 25, 1999
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
_-
Page 1
DRAFT
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Compas called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:OOpm
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Board Member Lawson led the Pledge of Allegiance
ROLL CALL:
Present:
Absent:
Staff Present:
Chairperson Compas, Members Marquez, Heineman, Marois, Lawson
None
Deborah K. Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director
Lori Rosenstein, Management Analyst
Dave Rick, Assistant Engineer (Out of Class Assignment)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
July 26, 1999
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN :
September 27, 1999
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN :
Motion by Board Member Heineman, and duly seconded, to approve the
minutes of the meeting of July 26, 1999 as presented.
3-O-2
Compas, Heineman, Marois
None
Marquez, Lawson
Motion by Board Member Marquez, and duly seconded, to approve the
minutes of the meeting of September 27, 1999 as presented.
3-O-2
Compas, Marquez, Lawson
None
Heineman, Marois
Chairperson Compas reviewed the procedures that would be followed for this public hearing.
‘DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 25, 1999 Page 2
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
There were no comments from the audience.
1. RP 94-04 - ESCROW TRANSFERS: Request for a major redevelopment permit with a
variance to allow the construction of a 3-story, 7,200 square foot office building on
property located at 2928 Jefferson Street in Land Use District No. 2 of the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Area.
Management Analyst, Lori Rosenstein presented the staff report as follows: The item before you
is a major redevelopment permit application by Escrow Transfers for a new commercial office
building. The site is located on the east side of Jefferson street at 2928 Jefferson Street between
Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue. The site is 50 feet in width by 140 feet in depth. There
is a public alley along the rear of the property.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that the proposed project is for a 7,200 square foot commercial office
building. It includes three stories with a maximum height of 40 feet 2 inches. The three stories
include two levels of office space above an enclosed surface parking structure. There are a total
of 24 parking spaces required for this project. The proposal includes 50% of the required parking
to be provided off site through participation in the Parking in Lieu Fee Program.
In reviewing a redevelopment project, Ms. Rosenstein stated, that the Design Review Board must
find that the project is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Part of the
consistency deals with the goals and objective for the redevelopment area. The goals are as
follows:
1. Establish Carlsbad Villarre as a Qualitv Shopoina. Workina and Livinn Environment
The proposed project provides for commercial office use in a permitted location,
therefore it is consistent with goal # 1.
2. ImDrove the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Villaae Area.
The proposed project reduces the amount of curb cuts on Jefferson Street, therefore
reducing the conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. The curb cut is reduced to the
minimum, which would be required for one way parking. The access into the property is
one way from Jefferson Street into the enclosed parking structure with one way egress
onto the alley along the east side of the property. In addition, there are 4 open parking
spaces along the alley to the rear. This is consistent with goal #2.
3. Stimulate ProDertv Imorovements and New Develooment in the Villaae.
There was a previously existing single family residence with a detached garage in a very
dilapidated condition. The applicant received a demolition permit to remove the structure
and the structure has been removed. The applicant is now proposing a new commercial
office building to replace what was a non-conforming structure. The commercial office
building will include a Permitted Use. This is consistent with goal #3 of the
Redevelopment Area.
‘DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 25, 1999 Page 3
Ms. Rosenstein stated that, the replacement of an older dilapidated structure with a new
commercial office building, which will be more consistent and compatible with the surrounding
area is what is being proposed, therefore the proposed project does improve the physical
appearance of the Village Area.
In addition, Ms. Rosenstein explained that staff looks at the Land Use Plan consistency, which
must be consistent with the Land Use District in which the project is located. This project is
located is Land Use District 2, which is the Office Support District. In accordance with the Village
Master Plan, Escrow Offices are permitted use. The goal of District 2 is to provide a mixture of
commercial uses in a strongly pedestrian orientated area and serve as a continuation of District 1.
District 1 is the Village Center and is also the primary retail area for the Village.
The intent of District 2 is to phase out older residential uses over time and replace them with
permitted office uses. The Master Plan suggest that projects should support a pedestrian
orientated character of the area and in doing so would utilize alley orientated parking. Projects
should limit views of parking areas from the street. This project calls for the majority of the onsite
parking to be in an enclosed parking structure. Curb cuts to minimize the vehicle-pedestrian
conflict is being adopted in this project. Partial parking in public lots is strongly encouraged in
office projects.
The Master Plan requires consistent compatibility with the surrounding Village character and
scale. In reviewing the project staff believes this project is consistent with the scale existing in the
area and will be very compatible.
The project related issues in the staff report in which specific findings must be made include:
1. request to allow front and side yard set backs to be reduced to the
minimum permitted
2. request for variances to permit portions of the front and rear building
setbacks to exceed the minimum
3. request to provide 50% of the required parking offsite through participation
in the Parking In Lieu Fee Program
One of the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Area is to get buildings as close to the
street as possible with a strong street frontage with parking as a subordinate use in the rear. To
have a front or rear yard setback that exceeds the minimum requires a variance in accordance
with the Master Plan.
The Master Plan allows a front yard setback of 5 to 15 feet from the front property line, a rear and
side yard setback of 5 to 10 feet from the side and rear property lines. The Escrow Transfer
project is proposing a front yard setback that varies from 5 to 19 l/2 feet, a rear yard setback that
is 23 to 27 l/2 feet, side yard setback on the north side of the property that is below the minimum
at 2 l/2 to 5 feet from the side property line and a side yard set back on the south side of the
property line is 5 feet, which is in keeping with the Master Plan. The reduced set back assist in
creating an interesting and visually appealing project. The reduced set back will not adversely
impact surrounding properties. The varied setbacks on the front and rear of the building allow for
greater architectural articulation, resulting in a building that is more visually interesting and
appealing.
In addition, stated Ms. Rosenstein, to the criteria noted above for granting a variance for setback
standards that exceed the top of the range, Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35 sets forth the
required findings to grant a variance which is below the minimum standard: 1. The application of
certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships,
‘DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 25, 1999 Page 4
which would make development inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad
Village Area Redevelopment. The project site is 50 feet in width and the required side yard
setbacks of 5 feet on each side allow a build able area 40 feet in width. Taking the parking
standard of the Carlsbad Municipal Code into consideration, the site can not accommodate the
required drive aisle and parking space depths without encroaching into the side yards setback.
The adjoining lots to the north and south are completely built out. The lot to the south serves as
an open parking lot to a bank located on Carlsbad Village Drive.
The limitation on the amount of parking that can be provided on the site makes it difficult to
develop a project of significant size, which will meet the Village Master Plan goal of intensifying
development in the Redevelopment Area. The increased setback on the front of the property for a
portion of the building allows for greater architectural interest and serves to break up the front
building as can be noted in the front elevation. The increased setback, which a variance is
required on the rear of the property, allows 4 open parking in spaces to back up onto the alley and
acquire ingress and egress off of the alley. In addition the setback reduces the mass of the
building adjacent to the properties across the alley.
The second finding is that there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the
property or the proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or
developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls. On this project the
property to the north and to the south are built out and there is no discussion of redevelopment of
these properties.
The third finding is that the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to
the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area. The reduced side yard
setback, staff feels will not be detrimental to the adjacent property to the north because the
structure of the proposed project will comply with all building code requirements. The portion of
the building requiring the side yard variance is on the first floor, which butts a three story
commercial office building to the north that has semi subterranean parking.
Staff feels that the setbacks above the maximum will not have a detrimental impact on
neighboring properties. There are several properties along Jefferson Street that have setbacks,
which exceed the 15 feet on the front. The increased setback on the front of the property on the
proposed project assists in creating a more visually appealing building. The increased setback in
the rear of the property enables more onsite parking without expanding the mass of the building.
The fourth finding to grant the variance is that the variance will not contradict the standards
established in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Staff feels this finding can be made
because the standards were intended to be somewhat flexible in order to encourage diversity and
variety in development. The portion of the project that exceeds the standard range will not create
a situation, which contradicts the intent of the standards established in the Village Master Plan.
Prior to its demolition the subject property was occupied by a non-conforming dilapidated
structure. The new structure, which is being proposed, is consistent with the Master Plan.
Ms. Rosenstein explained that there are required findings to participate in the Parking In Lieu Fee
Program. The first finding is that the proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. There is a permitted use in District 2. In granting
the findings the project would be consistent with all other development standards for Land Use
District 2.
The second finding is that proposed use is consistent with the Land Use District in which the
property is located and adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the
projects parking demands. This is the first project requesting participation in the Parking In Lieu
-
‘DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 25, 1999 Page 5
Fee Program. There is 61% utilization rate in the public parking lots, therefore this finding can be
made. The Parking In Lieu Fee Program has not be suspended or terminated by the Housing and
Development Commission.
Ms. Rosenstein clarified the following on page 11 of the Staff report refers to 100 ADT’s (Average
Daily Trips), the correct number is 144 ADT’s.
In summary, Staff is recommending approval of the major Redevelopment Permit RP99-04 with
the following: the findings to grant the requested variances and also the findings to grant
participation in the Parking In Lieu Fee Program.
Board Member Marquez raised concerns relating to the reduction in curb cuts and wanted to know
to the amount of square footage that was calculated for this proposed new structure as related to
required parking.
Ms. Rosenstein explained that two curb cuts was not unusual for a commercial project. This
project is providing one curb cut along the main street, it is also a reduced size curb cut.
Mr. Wojcik interjected that a standard width of a driveway at the approach is 24 feet wide when
there is traffic going in both directions. This project will be one way with 14 feet in width.
Ms Rosenstein advised the Board that in keeping with the Village Master Plan all commercial
office space is at 1 parking space for every 300 square feet of gross floor area.
Chairperson Compas asked the applicant to make a presentation.
Jack Henthorn, 5375 Avenda Encinis- Suite D, Carlsbad, representing Lyndie Meissner who is the
owner of Escrow Transfers and the applicant in this matter. He stated that the staff report and
recommendations made by staff had been reviewed and the applicant accepted the conditions of
approval as they were presented.
Board member Lawson wanted to know the plans for signage.
Mr. Henthorn stated that aspect of the project dealing with signage had not been addressed. He
stated that the applicant would comply with the design manual requirements, restrictions and
regulations relating to signage.
Board member Lawson asked if the eaves were eliminated on the north and south sides and
requested clarification on the height clearance requirements through the driveway and under
through the garage.
Gordon Bizieff, 2380 Camino Vida Roble, Carlsbad responded that on the side yards of the
building on the north and south, the eaves are clipped back to 8 inches because of building code
requirements for the fire protection required at the side yards. He explained that the requirement
for the height clearance is a new ADA requirement for the handicap accessible vans, which is 8
feet 2 inches. There project will comply with the ADA requirements.
Mr. Lawson referred to the plan view and stated that the front door swings outside of the front
wall. He wanted to know if an awning over cover would be provided.
Mr. Bizieff, stated that the front door had to swing out for exiting requirements, which is an building
code requirement. The door has been recessed within the front to provide as much coverage as
possible. The door in a fully opened position will be approximately 6 inches past the covered
portion of the entry. There will be a head placed on the door to prevent deterioration.
-
‘DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 25, 1999
Mr. Lawson referred to the elevations and noted that there appeared to be a useable second floor
deck, but the plans did not indicate access to the deck.
Mr. Bizieff, stated that it was a useable deck, with French doors exiting off of the reception area.
Mr. Lawson wanted to know if the concrete swhale that was proposed on the north side would still
allow the Liquid Amber Trees to survive. He was also voiced concern about a needed drain on
the south side of the proposed project.
Mr. Bizieff, stated that the trees needed to be pruned because they were five feet over the
property line and no study had been conducted to access there survivability with the building of
the concrete swhale. He stated the root barriers who be looked at for the south side of the
project.
Mr. Lawson commended the Architect on the project,
Board Member Marios wanted to know how many people would be working in the building on a
daily basis and if they would be using the on site parking.
Mr. Henthorn stated that 12 to 15 people would be working in the building daily. He explained that
the onsite parking for employees would be restricted to 4 spaces. The bulk of the employees
parking will be offsite, thereby making onsite parking available to customers.
Ms. Marquez did not notice a roof plan detail. She wanted to know if the roof was a hip-plan or a
mans hard roof.
Mr. Bizieff, explained that the roof was a Spanish tile standard hip-roof. There is one area in the
rear for a mechanical platform that will be facing the north toward the adjacent three story building
and will be visible from the south. He stated that it would be screened by the fact that the
adjacent roof surfaces will be higher that it is.
Board member Marquez wanted to know the tonnage of the air conditioners that would be placed
on the mechanical portion.
, stated that four air conditioners units would be placed there, approximately 4 or 5 ton units.
Board member Heineman asked how many parking spaces Escrow Transfer had in their present
building, which is across the street from the proposed project.
Mr. Henthorn stated that they did not have assigned parking at there current location.
Mr. Heineman summarized that 12 parking spaces were more than adequate.
Chairperson Compas questioned if there was adequate room for a tow truck to enter and exit the
parking structure.
Mr. Henthorn explained that there was adequate distance to allow for the removal of a disabled
vehicle by a tow truck.
Chairperson Compas questioned the method of entry into the 4 parking spaces in the rear.
-
‘DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 25, 1999 Pag OR44Q Mr. Henthorn stated that access to the parking spaces would have to be gained by entering via
the alley. These parking spaces because they are not covered will undoubtedly be designated as
employee parking spaces.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Jim Besaw, 34382 Starboard Lantern, Dana Point owns the building (2910 Jefferson) directly
north of the proposed project. Because the former building was dilapidated and a fire hazard, he
is quite happy about the project, but is very concerned about the parking situation. He has been
unable to lease additional parking. He stated that public parking is available 3 blocks away on
Roosevelt, but voiced his doubt as to whether controlling where employees parked could be
enforced.
Mr. Besaw, stated that he did not believe there was anyway to prevent the public from making a
left turn to entry the buildings parking structure. He suggested that if the Village Master Plan
mandated the purchase of property in the neighborhood of Jefferson and Grand it would help to
relieve the parking problem.
Mr. Lawson wanted to know how many different businesses were in Mr. Besaw’s building.
Mr. Besaw stated that he had 8 tenants in his building.
Chairperson Compas asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on the
agenda item, seeing none he recalled the applicant.
Mr. Henthorn stated that the parking issue is not a new one. The solution to the parking problem
is not fee. There needs to be a funding vehicle to provide additional parking. Ms. Meissner will be
paying $11,200 into fund that the City will be utilizing to help resolve the parking problem. He
reiterated that Ms. Meissner fully intended to implement the employee parking plan, restricting
employee parking onsite to 4 spaces, thereby making the remaining parking spaces available to
Escrow Transfers customers.
Chairperson Compas asked the applicant if she would be amenable to the condition of restricting
the employee parking spaces.
The applicant stated that she would be amenable to restricting the employee parking spaces to 4
onsite.
Mr. Lawson stated that the project was presented as a single occupant/tenant plan, but noted that
the plan showed a kitchen designated for the second and third floors. He wanted an assurance
that the property would not be used for multiple tenants, which would compound the parking
problem.
Mr. Henthorn replied that if tenancy did change, and a split off of a portion of the building were
desired, the applicant would be required to go through the City’s normal process of obtaining
business license and building permits for tenant improvements, The uses would then be reviewed
for parking compliance.
Mr. C, revealed there was an computer error in the floor plans. There is no kitchen planned for
the third floor.
Chairperson Compas closed public testimony.
-DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 25, 1999
David Rick, Project Engineer, explained that the project was designed to allow a left turn into the
project. There are no plans for any median work on the street that will prevent left turns. There
have been no documented reasons to prevent left turns into the property.
Ms Rosenstein stated that she was not specifically aware of any parking problems in the area, but
assumed that Mr. Besaw as the property owner was more aware of the specifics associated with
the parking. She did not see any impacts to on street parking which would suggest a parking
problem. Council did determine that as long as the project was adjacent to a public right away
that was within 600 feet of a public parking lot, it qualified for a participation in the Parking in Lieu
Fee Program. The project does comply with parameters of the Parking in Lieu Fee Program.
Compas wanted to know what would happen if the project were approved and the concerns of Mr.
Besaw were proved to be true.
Ms. Rosenstein, didn’t believe that staff would have the ability to do anything about the concerns,
except if conditions relating to employee parking restrictions were not being enforced. Once the
project is approved the applicant will be required to enter into an agreement to participate in the
Parking in Lieu Fee Program, and pay a fee of $11,240 per parking space. This will guarantee
that the required parking for that site is provided, unless there is a change in use or intensification
of the use that would require more parking.
Board Member Marois, wanted to know if 12 to 15 employees would be in competition for the
street parking once the Escrow Transfers moved into the new site. She also wanted to know if
there was a stipulation that could be included to ensure that employees parked in the public
parking lots.
Ms. Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director stated that staff was analyzing the possibility
of implementing parking time limits on the street. If employers and employees use the street in
front of their office buildings, then parking spaces will be eliminated for the customers. The
Parking Program asserts that business and property owners need to take responsibility for making
sure that their employees are not taking up customer parking.
Ms. Fountain recounted that the applicant did said that her intent is to require her employees to
park in the public parking lot.
Board Member Heineman wanted to know when the funds would be contributed to the Parking in
Lieu Fee and when would it provide more parking.
Ms. Rosenstein said it depended on how quickly participation began and the number of
participates. The Parking in Lieu Fee is only a portion of the total fees required to provide
additional parking. The remaining cost of additional parking will be offsite by the Redevelopment
Agency funds.
Mr. Lawson wanted an overview of the residential linkage fee.
Ms. Fountain explained that currently there is not one in place and the condition has been placed
on all projects in case there is a residential linkage fee in the future. It relates to applying a
residential linkage fee to commercial properties to help pay for affordable housing. That linkage
fee has not been approved by the City Council at this time.
Ms. Marquez wanted to know if there was a difference between medical office space and
business office space in terms of parking requirements.
Ms. Rosenstein explain that there was no difference is requirements of the current Master Plan.
‘DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 25, 1999 Page 9
Ms. Marquez asked if a condition could be placed on the project that could restrict the property
from being used as medical office space.
Ms. Rosenstein explained if the applicant vacated the building and elected to lease or sell to a
medical office use, that would be looked at as a change in use. If the use is permitted by right and
there are no additional parking requirements for medical office use, it could be approved with a
business license.
Mr. Heineman asked the staff where the employees of Escrow Transfer parked now.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that Escrow Transfer is located in a multi tenant office building across the
street on Grand and they have 12 existing employees who park somewhere. The employees
already exist and park somewhere in the area and have not impacted the area.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Lawson expressed his concern with adding the condition relating to the employees’ onsite
parking spaces. He felt some items must work themselVes out and that the condition was
unnecessary and would be difficult to enforce.
Chairperson Compas, asked if Mr. Lawson would expect the amendment if the wording were
slightly changed, indicating that the applicant had to limited the onsite parking for employees to
fours spaces and all other employees were directed to park in public parking lots.
Mr. Lawson did not feel that the Board was in a position to regulate the number of parking spaces
needed by the applicant for employee parking and customer parking.
Mr. Heineman suggested 6 onsite-parking spaces would be acceptable to him.
Ms. Marois did understand that the applicant was willing to accept a condition relating to the
parking of employee’s onsite.
Mr. Heineman stated that it was a desirable project and all of the parking problems should not be
loaded on this one project.
Ms. Marois voiced that given the space the applicant was working with and the other limitations
the project was a very well designed. Her concern was that the parking issue should be
addressed at this time.
AMMENDMENT: Motion by Board Member Marois, and duly seconded, that the following
amendment be made to the main motion: that the approval of the
recommendation contain the condition that the parking on the property
by employees be restricted to an extent to be determined by the owner
and the Director of the Housing and Redevelopment.
VOTE:
AYES:
3-2-O
Compas, Marquez, Marois
‘DESIGN REVIEW BOARD October 25, 1999
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Lawson, Heineman
None
Page 10
MAIN MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Marquez, and duly seconded, that the Design
Review Board adopt Design Review Board Resolution No. 270
recommending approval of RP 99-04 to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
5-o
Compas, Marquez, Lawson, Heineman, Marois
None
None
Chairperson Compas Closed public hearing.
Ms. Fountain announced that the there would be a November 22, 1999 Design Review Board
Meeting. Board Member Lawson indicated that he would not be present for that meeting. The
December 27, 1999 meeting will be rescheduled for another day in December if it is ascertained
that a meeting is needed.
CHAIRPERSON REPORT:
None
DIRECTOR REPORT:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of October 25, 1999 was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Director of Housing and Redevelopment
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ESCROW TRANSFERS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the
City of Carlsbad will hold a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, , 1999, to consider
approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP99-04) to allow the construction of a 3-
story, 7,200 square foot office building with twelve (12) parking spaces provided off-site
through participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. The requested permit includes
requests for the following variances: 1) a front yard setback that exceeds the maximum
standard for a portion of the building; 2) a rear yard setback that exceeds the maximum
standard; and 3) a side yard setback, from the north property line for the first floor only,
which is below the minimum standard. The project is proposed for property located at
2928 Jefferson Street in Land Use District No. 2 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment
Area. The subject property is located on the east side of Jefferson Street between Grand
Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. If you have any questions or would like a copy of the staff report, please contact
Lori Rosenstein in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2813. You
may also provide your comments in writing to the Housing and Redevelopment
Department at 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
As a result of the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Planning
Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project have already
been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and,
therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of
determination will be filed. Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009. Comments from the public
are invited.
If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice
or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public
hearing.
CASE FILE NO.: RP 99-04
CASE NAME: ESCROW TRANSFERS
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B l Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 l (760) 434-2810/2811 l FAX (760) 720-2037
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RP 99-04 - ESCROW TRANSFERS
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 7, 1999, to consider approval of a
Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-04) to allow the construction of a 3-story, 7,200 square
foot office building with twelve (12) parking spaces provided off-site through participation in the
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. The requested permit includes requests for the following
variances: 1.) a front yard setback that exceeds the maximum standard for a portion of the
building; 2.) a rear yard setback that exceeds the maximum standard; and 3.) a side yard setback,
from the north property line for the first floor only, which is below the minimum standard. The
project is proposed for property located at 2928 Jefferson Street in Land Use District No. 2 of the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The subject property is located on the east side of
Jefferson Street between Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. If you have any questions or would like a copy of the staff report, please contact Lori
Rosenstein in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-28 13. You may also
provide your comments in writing to the Housing and Redevelopment Department at 2965
Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carlsbad, CA 92008
As a result of the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Planning Department
has determined that the environmental effects of the project have already been considered in
conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and, therefore, no additional
environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed. Justification
for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad,
CA 92009. Comments from the public are invited.
If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: November 27,1999
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
PROJECT LOCATION
3 I-i I d!!) t-1
GRAND AV \ GRAND AV
E
.I . --.- 5 s z 0 2
~
-.,-
--
1
Y r; m
2 3
3
.~ --
I
CARtSBAD VILLAGE L
OAK A’1 OAK AV -___I-----__ -- .-
JACK PHILLIPS
2667 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238
JERRY LAWRENCE
2785 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008- 17 18
THE SCANLON FAMILY
7306 BORLA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7802
STEVEN & RENEE TAGUE
2801 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008i720
S I FINANCIAL CORP
PO BOX 825
FALLBROOK CA 92088-0825
THE TUCKER FAMILY
2810 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1733
PETER & GEORGE-ME ROCK
242 1 S EL CAMINO REAL
SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672-335 1
THE GOLL FAMILY
860 MORNINGSIDE DR C222
FULLERTON CA 92835-3552
JEANENE ENTERPRISES
2879 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008- 1720
PETER & GEORGETIE ROCK
242 1 S EL CAMINO REAL
SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672-335 1
MARY JOHNSON
988GRANDAVE ’
CARLSBAD CA 92008- 18 11
WILLIAM DONOVAN
PO BOX 877
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0877
LINDA DELFRANCIA
2886 HOPE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008- 1832
RICHARD DUQUETTE
2860 HOPE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008- 1832
LOIS BLACKSTONE
2854 HOPE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008- 1832
RAYMOND GAUTHIER
2810 HOPE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1832
STEPHANIE BROTZMAN
5242 SAPPHIRE ST
ALTA LOMA CA 91701-1348
HELEN & HASTINGS MARKS
4 1743 ENTERPRISE CIR N 207
TEMECULA CA 92590-5625
DAVID & SHARON DAFFERN
27 15 JUNIPER ST
FOREST GROVE OR 97 116-l 545
GILBERT & VIRGINIA PRANGE
2820 HOPE AVE D
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1867
ALEX & GLORIA BANUELOS
2820 HOPE AVE B
CARLSBAD CA 92008-l 867
RICHARD ASHTON
2820 HOPE AVE E
CARLSBAD CA 92008-l 866
TERRY & FRANCES MCFATE
5810EHARCOST
LONG BEACH CA 90808-2 109
JONATHAN CAMPNBELL
327 N VALENCIA ST
GLENDORA CA 91741-2416
ROOSEVELT TAMARACK I
6VENTURE215
IRVINE CA 92618-7364
DONALD & LAEL DEWHURST
3425 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2038
MARCIA HANKAMMER
PO BOX 633090
SAN DIEGO CA 92163-3090 _,
CALVIN & MALINDA PERKETT
812 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-l 821
G P CARLSBAD L P
1120 SILVERADO ST
LA JOLLA CA 92037-4524
DANIEL & IRENE LOPEZ
928 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-I 826
i
JOHN & NINA GORDON GREAT WESTERN BANK
PO BOX 1055 9200 OAKDALE N112 1 AVE M/S
CARDIFF BY THE SEA CA 92007-7055 CHATSWORTH CA 91311-6519
MARK & MARY GOMBAR
PO BOX 1667
CARLSBAD CA 92018- 1667
PAUL & TERI RAPPAPORT
29 10 LANCASTER RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6568
SECURITY PACIFIC NAT STEVEN & GAIL RYAN
PO BOX 230926 955 GRAND AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92023-0926 CARLSBAD CA 92008- 18 12
ROBERT & ANN FARRELL
5 130 GREENBROOK ST
OCEANSIDE CA 92057-3634
6 OPERATING MOTEL
14651 DALLAS PKY 500
DALLAS TX 75240-8807
JANETTE GRIMM
129 CALIFORNIA CT
MISSION VIEJO CA 92692-4079
DAVID & BARBARA BOUTELLE
1485 CREST DR
ENCINITAS CA 92024
HAROLD & DARCY MCSHERRY
3995 ALDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3602
THE FITZPATRICK FAMILY
991 LOMAS SANTA FE DR C432
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075-2125
PHYLLIS NORMAN
PO BOX 1395
CARLSBAD CA 920 18- 1395
THE PARKER FAMILY
32 15 MAEZEL LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008- 113 1
THE PARKER FAMILY
3215 MAEZEL LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008- 113 1
6 OPERATING MOTEL
14651 DALLAS PKY 500
DALLAS TX 75240-8807
G STANLEY & GLORiA CARROLL
302 E MANCHESTER BLVD
INGLEWOOD CA 90301-1815
GREGORY LOSA
PO BOX 96
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0096
NORTH COUNTY HEALTH
150 VALPREDA RD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
MARTHABARKER
2435 MARK CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-28 16
E H S INVESTMENTS CO
5553 TRINITY WAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92 120-4503
THE CAVALEA FAMILY
3640 FELIZ CREEK RD
HOPLAND CA 95449-9701
KFC NATIONAL MANAGEM
PO BOX 970
WICHITA KS 67201-0970
THE GASTELUM FAMILY
323 HILL DR
VISTA CA 92083-6211
SHEPHERD ASSEMBLY OF GOD GO0
PO BOX 1035
CARLSBAD CA 92018-1035
P G P CARLSBAD SENIO
1120 SILVERADO ST
LA JOLLA CA 92037-4524
FOODMAKER INC LLOYD & RAE DAVIES
17207 N PERIMETER DR 1067 SANDALWOOD DR
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255-5401 EL CENTRO CA 92243-3825
THE SCANLON FAMILY
7306 BORLA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7802
JAMES 8~ LANA BESAW
PO BOX 3928
DANA POINT CA 92629-8928
GEORGE & RJTA WINDRUM
4230 CLEARVIEW DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-363 1
MARK KISSINGER
880 HOME AVE C
CARLSBAD CA 92008- 1863
JOSEPH & SUSAN TRUEBE
880 HOME AVE F
CARLSBAD CA 92008- 1800
EVA TARDY
882 HOME AVE B
CARLSBAD CA 92008- 1862
THE SOOHOO FAMILY
2905 NATIONAL AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92113-2419
EDMOND SHEHAB
632 1 ESPLANADE
PLAYA DEL REY CA 90293-758 1
MICHAEL MURPHY
400 N LA COSTA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5002
JOSEPHINE KINGSTON
PO BOX 884
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0884
DAVID ZULICK
2943 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2333
HOME SAVINGS&LOAN AS
4900 RIVERGRADE RD 550
IRWINDALE CA 91706-1404
JOHN GIROUX
2X\% Koo5rv~LT ST.
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ARLENE BERMAN
880 HOME AVE D
CARLSBAD CA 92008-l 863
BRIAN BARTOLOMEI
880 HOME AVE G
CARLSBAD CA 92008-l 800
EDMOND & SANDRA SHEHAB
6321 ESDLAWADE
PLAYA DEL REY CA 90293-758 1
JAMES TRENTALANGE
880 HOME AVE B
CARLSBAD CA 92008- 1863
THOMAS VETLESEN
880 HOME AVE E E
CARLSBAD CA 9200X- 1861
MICHAEL JONES
882 HOME AVE A
CARLSBAD CA 92008-l 862
ROBERT & BERNADE TOMKINSON
2892 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008- 17 19
DANIEL & ERNESTINE CERDA SWYS CORP
1743 LOTUS AVE 8787 COMPLEX DR 100
EL CENTRO CA 92243-9505 SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1419
PGP CARLSBAD SENIORS MICHAEL & HOWARD MURPHY
1120 SILVERADO ST 400 N LA COSTA DR
LA JOLLA CA 92037-4524 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5002
JEANENE ENTERPRISES STUART & MARILYN WILSON
2879 JEFFERSON ST J 4920 COLLINGWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-l 720 SAN DIEGO CA 92 109-2243
MOJTABA ESFAHANI GENE & MARGARET RAY
1952 CREST DR 2959 JEFFERSON ST
ENCINITAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2333
PACKARD BUILDING PAR
725 GRAND AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-233 1
CHIN 8z YU TSAI
2958 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2359
BANK OF COMMERCE
1381 E VISTA WAY
VISTA CA 92084-4041
GRAND CARLSBAD
PO BOX 8193
RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92067-8193
JOHN & MARY GRANT
2945 HARDING ST 111
CARLSBAD CA 92008- 18 18
BANK OF CALIFORNIA
1 CIVIC PLZ 290
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-5922
DOROTHY METROS NICHOLAS & JEAN BANCHE
919NPECKAVE 3464 RIDGECREST DR
MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266-6132 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2032
WILLIAM & KAY THOMPSON
PO BOX 1601
OXNARD CA 93032-1601
CHARLOTTE THATCHER
PO BOX 52085
PHOENIX AZ 85072-2085
NEAL 8z CAROL BAKER
1875 BUSINESS CENTER DR
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408-3416